- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Those statements are laughably general. If you were to seriously study all the complex variables and relationships between planets, signs and houses for a particular individual, things would get a lot more interesting than your examples.
As for those supposedly foolproof blind tests, once again I'd bet the chart data was too general. Deep astrology has elements of the scientific, but to me, it's more of a skillful art, like good psychotherapy.
I'm not one who insists that astrology be considered a science, because I don't think modern science has all the answers, especially since its practioners are immersed in the same culture we all are, with its blind spots and biases. What science knows how to do, it does beautifully. But until it develops further, its capacity for having the last word is limited.
