So that makes astrology invalid does it? What a bizarre statement. Any use by someone who thinks that it works validates it. Maybe not to you. There is no point in trying to validate astrology to you because your mind is already made up about it. Was Ghandi any less of a person because he drank his own urine? Are you asking me to dismiss all of his great works because of that? So are we to declare then that:
"Ghandi, the man, who by peaceful protest, bought independance to the great country of India from the British will be stripped of his legendary status because it was found that he had a habit of drinking his own urine!"
And people, you should boycott Arthur Conan Doyles books because he once believed that alleged fairy pix were real. Should we also shun anyyone else who uses astrology just becaue some think it's a joke?
It must really irk you that people use astrology and other divination methods. You seem to want to denigrate them and attack them for it. There's no need for you to do that.
Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean others don't or shouldn't. To do so smacks of arrogance and ignorance. You have obviously never studied the subject in any comprehensive way yet you feel the need to make pronouncements about it.
But of course they are your opinions and you or more than welcome to share them with us. They don't make you correct though
I think it is better to say "to each their own!"
The fact that kings and queens used astrologers is an undisbuted fact. And of course they used them to make decisions and policy. Some of the quotes attributed may be in question, i agree, but not all.::
The Shermer experiment which i presented showed that he could not prove that astrology was bunk because his results showed a 77% accuracy rate (a better than chance result) which meant that he actually helped validate it not discredit it. The people who received the readings gave more than a reasonable credence to it. Of course it may be that his experiment was a sloppy attempt at debunking which may or may not have been a true reflection of his abilities as a scientist in which case he should be slammed for being unscientific and inept and largely condemmed as a pseudosceptic.
