Critiques of Astrology
Statistical Correlations
It is sometimes argued by astrologers that their predictions may not always be accurate for an individual, but nevertheless statistical studies can demonstrate a correlation between certain celestial configurations and certain personality groupings or earthly events. This, they allege, validates astrology in principle, even if not in every instance.
Unfortunately for astrologers, this claim sidesteps the important question of correlation versus causation. Every scientist knows that the correlation of two events does not prove that they are causally related - that is to say, it does not prove that one is, or even is even likely to be, the cause of the other. At the very least, it must be accepted that some other, third event might instead by the cause of both.
This naturally assumes that there is some sort of deterministic relationship between the two correlated events - it is always possible that the relations is simply perceived and coincidental rather than real. In order to determine which is true, controlled experiments need to be performed - a rarity in astrology. And how could truly controlled experiments be possible? Is there anyone on the planet who could be immune from the alleged effects of the sun, moon, planets and stars?
Despite these facts, statistical correlations constitute one of the principle alleged "proofs" that astrology is valid and scientific. In promoting such a view, astrologers simply end up underscoring the fact that they are not scientists, that they do not understand the scientific process and that astrology itself cannot qualify as any kind of science.
