Astrology looks at correlations between planetary movements and events on earth. It’s as simple or as complicated as you’d like to make it with that, but at its core, it is a system of correlations.
Though this is contested, I argue strongly that astrology is neither a science nor an art. It is not using empirical methods to disprove theory, nor is it based on creating something of pleasant aesthetics. I explain in this video here how I see it as a system of pattern synthesis, or, in other words, a correlational study.
Of course, upon studying it, you can find this correlation invalid. One has a right to admit to not being convinced of something that others are. I myself often take substantial evidence, especially within the field, before adopting a theory or practice.
However, if you haven’t looked at astrology beyond the often surface-level personality attributions in sun sign astrology, a pop culture equivalent, I find it humorously comparable to looking at a Fisher Price toy and thinking that constitutes the technology of a Tesla. One is not better or worse, but accessible, fun entry is different than innovative machinery.
I find the correlation of larger historical cycles absolutely astounding. I recommend Cosmos & Psyche by Richard Tarnas for those more historically inclined rather than psychologically interested in astrology, such as myself.
Astrology can be likened to technical analysis of reality.
Just like how market trends can be studied to better identify them as they repeat, astrology does the same with history on both a personal and collective level. In technical analysis, we’re all playing by this agreed-upon set of rules of what things mean and responding accordingly. And in astrology, the apparent significations of certain planetary alignments give us the chance to live accordingly.
I often find the conflation between correlation and causation to be the underlying catalyst for its absurd reception.
Personally, I am fairly adamant that without any evidence to support theories that planets are causing events (through gravitational rays or the like), that astrology is a system of signs correlating with events. Until proven otherwise, I view it as a mirror for reality, much like how ways of charting the market are a mirror for that financial reality.
Mars is not shooting down a ray to make anything happen. I am not saying that, at least, so trying to make it seem as if I am describing a causal mechanism is simply invalid. It’s literally a strawman of cosmic proportions and implications.
However, where Mars is in the zodiac and its aspectual relationship to other planets might convey something. And in understanding the financial implications of this alignment, I might just make a lot of money.
So, it isn’t invalid to be be skeptical.
I love skepticism, as it invites in rigor and thorough consideration. I’d rather discuss astrology with a grounded skeptic than an ooh-ahh magic outright believer.
However, it is distorted to attribute much more than is necessary to what we’re doing here. Furthermore, I might look the part to fit the “woo” accusation even further, but in practice, I really just look at charts all day and note patterns I see. Both with planetary charts and candlestick charts.