Astrology is not a science.
So people say.
Astrology seems intent on eluding scientific confirmation. There is no measurable influence of Saturn, Mercury or Venus on Earth. Nor is there statistically sufficient significance in correlations between astrological events and actual events.
Once you begin working on a natal chart, you quickly get a different impression. It involves determining the exact positions of planets, celestial bodies and astronomical points at specific moments in time. Precise angles and house systems are calculated using defined methods.
And in the end, you get a statement so vague that – according to science – anyone could identify with it.
Then there was Gunter Sachs' book, in which he tried to produce statistical evidence that did not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
In my view, astrology simply is not a science. It has something profoundly qualitative about it. Something that has much more to do with meaning. With the meaning each individual sees in it for themselves. Just as any Tarot card, at any moment and for any person, can offer a meaning that feels fitting for that moment and that person. And meaning cannot be measured. It is shaped by the person: their biography, their experiences and their psychological disposition.
The patterns we grow up with shape us throughout our lives. Stressful patterns or vibrant ones. Our relationship with our father or mother. The relationship experiences we witnessed in our parents. We seek what is familiar. That is where we feel safe. The partner we stay with for a long time therefore need not conform to astrology’s doctrine of harmony between Sun signs. Even so, links to the natal chart can often be found. Sometimes they are quite obvious. Sometimes they take time to recognise.
Using astrology as the only possible explanation for every phenomenon would be just as disastrous as ignoring physical factors, illnesses, exercise or dietary patterns that have psychological effects. But it does offer an additional perspective.
And everyone I know can produce a kind of personal statistic in which certain zodiac signs cluster with a level of significance that is sufficient for me.
And so my focus is not on astrological technique either. Even though my calculations are exact and based on NASA data and other tables. My Placidus house calculations likewise use the relevant mathematical algorithms. But I do not (yet) offer a choice of house system, every angular aspect, or some other things that a professional astrologer would probably miss.
At the moment I am listening to a lot of Sugababes. A band whose core line-up consists of a Libra and Geminis. John Lennon (Libra) and Paul McCartney (Gemini) – what a magnificent partnership. Paul's beloved Linda (Libra). Genesis, where so many Aquarians gathered. The Rolling Stones with a strong Sagittarius and a strong Leo out front.
There are many such interesting phenomena. In films too. In some films that worked brilliantly, you can see remarkable ‘fits’ between the director and the leading actors.
Public figures in general offer a fascinating field for observations of this kind. What you see is not necessarily always the kind of textbook astrological ‘fit’ described above, as Gunter Sachs tried to prove.
What you see instead is that most people often move within patterns. In the end, that has to do with their psychology and biography: particular zodiac signs keep appearing or play a particular role in their lives.
