It seems that astrological predictions are trials and error method? Can someone please give some examples that make sense? I have seen many people who are trained to read patris make mistakes which are very basic.

  • But there are some cases where they do predict the correct answer to certain questions, so that means there is some basis to it. I am just wondering if it the absence of skill to read astrological signs that makes wrong predictions or the method itself is wrong. Apr 11 '19 at 21:12
  • 6
    Astrology is perfectly true but I don't know about astrologers who don't know calculations. Entirr cosmos is reflection of Pancha bootha, and same with humans too. He has 5 bodies, 5 koshas etc.. each planet is associated with 1 of pancha bootha and their join separation gives effect based on that. Through Astrology chart a true astrologer can easily get all infos about person's bootha, destiny etc .. at least few % of spiritual evolution one should have to understand and do this. There are so much hidden knowledge. So don't write off anything just based on outer view Apr 12 '19 at 1:26
  • 1
    There's Sukshma beyond physical. And it is in communication with outside universe, the 9 vayus -Prana Apana vyana udana dhananjeya etc. .. circulate based on how much energy they get from universe. This is deeper subject which science cannot prove simply because they haven't touched subtle currents and without that they will not know! Apr 12 '19 at 1:31
  • THIRD, Scientific discussions are off topic for the site.! Apr 12 '19 at 1:32
  • 1
    "But there are some cases where they do predict the correct answer to certain questions, so that means there is some basis to it." Sorry I disagree. If a flatearther makes 10 incorrect statements and the 11th is true that doesn't mean the other 10 are correct.
    – Wikash_
    Apr 12 '19 at 5:25

No, astrology would not be considered scientific. For something to be considered scientific, it would have to be based on the methods and principles of science which astrology is not.

In particular:

  1. astrological hypotheses are non-falsifiable.
  2. astrological experiments, interpretations, and conclusions do not follow the scientific method.

Note: I am not passing judgement on whether or not astrology or specific astrologers are right or wrong. I am just saying that it doesn't pass the criteria to be called scientific.


No, astrology, Indian or Western, especially the part that deals with predictions, has no scientific basis. The scientific community considers it as pseudoscience i.e., it resembles science but is based on fallacious assumptions.

From An Indian Test of Indian Astrology by Jayant V. Narlikar:

Our Experiment

Our experiment was performed in the university city of Pune (formerly Poona) about 160 km (100 miles) southeast of Mumbai (formerly Bom­bay) in the state of Maharashtra, which is the second-largest in population and third-largest in area of India’s twenty-five states. Pune itself has a population of about 3.5 million.

For the experiment I was assisted by Professor Sudhakar Kunte from the Department of Statistics at Pune Uni­versity, Narendra Dabholkar from the Committee for the Eradication of Super­stitions, and Prakash Ghatpande a former professional astrologer who has subsequently turned into a critic of astrology.

Indian astrologers claim that they are able to tell intelligence from a person’s horoscope. So volunteers from the Committee for the Eradication of Superstitions went to different schools and collected the names of teenage school children rated by their teachers as mentally bright. They also collected names from special schools for the mentally handicapped. The destinies of these cases could hardly be more different, so they were ideal for testing the above claim. From the collected data we selected 100 bright and 100 mentally handicapped cases whose age distribution is shown on the next page.

Birth details were obtained from their parents because birth certificates are rare in India. Professional Indian astrologers routinely assume that birth details provided by parents are correct, so our procedure followed the norm. Each horoscope (birth chart) was calculated by one of us (PG) using commercial astrological software. All horoscopes were coded and stored in safe custody by Professor Kunte at Pune University, so that neither the experimenters (our group of four) nor the astrologers could know the identities of the individuals.


Our experiment with twenty-seven Indian astrologers judging forty horoscopes each, and a team of astrologers judging 200 horoscopes, showed that none were able to tell bright children from mentally handicapped children better than chance. Our results contradict the claims of Indian astrologers and are consistent with the many tests of Western astrologers. In summary, our results are firmly against Indian astrology being considered as a science.

From Shawn Carlson's A double-blind test of astrology:



We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to insure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the CPI, despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by the advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50% as the "minimum" effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance. Tested using double-blind methods, the astrologers' predictions proved to be wrong. Their predicted connection between the positions of the planets and other astronomical objects at the time of birth and the personalities of test subjects did not exist. The experiment clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis.

  • 2
    the question asked for astrology, not astrologers. "Birth details were obtained from their parents because birth certificates are rare in India." In other words, a possibly flawed experiment leads you to CONCLUDE that astrology has NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS. Sounds like you didn't follow the scientific method yourself.
    – mar
    Apr 12 '19 at 2:02
  • 'the question asked for astrology, not astrologers' - if you didn't notice, the title of both papers has 'astrology' in it. It is not the experimenters' fault that a majority of Indians even today don't have birth certificates. The very next line says "Professional Indian astrologers routinely assume that birth details provided by parents are correct, so our procedure followed the norm" @ram Apr 12 '19 at 2:49
  • The other paper says: "Although we preferred birth certificates, hospital or county records, or other 'official' documentation, we also accepted baby books, as long as the birth time was recorded when the child was born. 'Mother's memory' or having the time read over the telephone from a 'documented' source was not acceptable." @ram Apr 12 '19 at 2:49
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Pandya
    Apr 16 '19 at 7:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .