Astrology Debunked?

Surely there are people out there that have actually understood the basic tenets of astrology before they decide to debunk it - one would think. Surprisingly instead, most people who do debunk astrology are the ones who have made some random observations about the subject. Being a student of astrology I’m yet to find arguments that intelligibly attack the basic tenets of Vedic astrology.

Dr. Jayaram's article cites a research conducted in 1985 in Berkley where a group of astrologers were tasked with matching horoscopes to character profiles. The outcome of that experiment indicated that the astrologers’ accuracy was only as good as the probability of random selection. While at first this may seem like an experiement most would consider valid proof to denounce astrology, does the experiment really put the accuracy of astrology in question? To me, it definitely casts a shadow over the astrologers’ capability. However, extrapolating that to mean that astrology itself is non-sensical is a stretch. Some of the other folks who argue against astrology seem to jump on the generic quality of "newspaper astrology" and how predictions therein apply to any individual regardless of whether they are Taurean, Piscean or anything else. Yes, something like – “Get a clearance from superiors before embarking on a new project “does sound very profound, and is easy to debunk. However, is that the astrology we are debunking?

What most people fail to understand is that Vedic astrology is much more than just some basic character analysis or prediction. Vedic Astrology is connected to the very fabric of Vedic thought. To denounce Indian/Vedic astrology is to gut ancient Vedic thought and philosophy. So I stand opposed to another swelling public notion that teaching vedic astrology, the knowledge of the Vedic seers, in Indian universities is somehow setting India backwards. If anything the people who learn it will at least have a foundation to bring much needed scientific temperament into the ancient subject of astrology.

Additionally, there is a strong bias among non-astrologers on the process of delineation that astrologers allegedly use to determine a subject’s nature/character, his/her future, etc. Most non-astrologers who are out to refute astrology’s validity think that the so-called astrologers gauge a person’s psyche and/or try to fish for information that the astrologer would then in turn use to make some what accurate predictions. Although, I don’t doubt there are so-called astrologers that do that, my experiences with astrology and astrologers have proved otherwise. As an astrologer myself, fishing for information is very counter productive to accurate predictions. For me, a clean slate with just a person’s date of birth, time of birth and place of birth is what is most effective from a prediction standpoint. I do very poorly when I know the person or when I’m reading my own horoscope for that matter – so the lesser I know my subject the better my prediction.

Although, I’m not advocating that everyone should follow astrology or live their lives by it, it is still valuable to give it a fair chance to see what may come of it. Given that chance, like yoga once shunned but now accepted widely, astrology will become more accessible and more helpful than it currently is.