I, for one, am glad to see this headline. Ever since newspapers began printing “horoscopes” to sell more papers, real astrologers have been complaining about it. Clarke Fountain says sun sign “horoscopes” are like “trying to funnel the ocean into a ketchup bottle.” There are some good astrologers out there writing these columns, and there’s no doubt that sun sign columns bring increased exposure, but they are just not accurate.
A “horoscope” is so much more than a sun sign, it is no less than an actual map of the sky at the time an individual was born. It includes an ascendant, Sun, Moon, planets, Chiron, asteroids, midpoints, angles, and that’s only the beginning. It then analyzes the relationships between each of those factors, and then studies their evolution. Although the Sun sign is the most important single piece of the chart, it is only one piece and strongly affected by the other factors. For example, someone with Sun in fiery Aries whose Sun is conjunct Neptune will take on characteristics of Neptune as well with a more watery personality. To make a determination from only the Sun sign is just impossible.
So I was glad to see that a recent analysis by Dr. Peter Hartmann, a researcher in psychology in Denmark, proved that
“When considering the current scientific standing with respect to Sun signs, it becomes clear that there is little or no truth in [them],” says Dr Peter Hartmann, who led the study in the May issue of the journal .”This does not necessarily mean that all astrology is without truth, but only that the independent effect of Sun signs is most likely to be irrelevant,” he said.
Dane Rudhyar, the grandfather […]