The subject chosen is on astrology. It is an attractive subjectbecause it is difficult to determine whether astrology works as thearticle “The Astrotest” demonstrates. The article demonstratesthat astrologers are incapable of substantiated how stars relate tobirth dates (Nanninga 14-20). As a result, astrologers and scientistsare in conflict over the authenticity of astrology. Scientistsbelieve that astrology is not real. Astrologers, on the other hand,assert that their predictions concerning matching date of births andpersonality are real. Many people are interested in knowing whattheir birth dates says about their personality characteristics.Hence, they tend to believe what astrologers say concerning theirpersonality depending on the star sign that matches their month ofbirth. However, scientists have come up with tests that demonstratewhy astrologers’ claims are invalid.
What appeals to many people about astrology is that they areinterested in learning more about their individuality. Most peoplesubscribe to horoscope reading by astrologers because they thinkastrologers have the capability to predict their behaviors. It isalso interesting that there could be a connection between date ofbirth and personality. Since astrologers claim to show theconnection, most people are highly likely to be attracted and findsatisfaction in the connection. Astrologers seek client satisfaction,by informing why “we are the way we are, it can clarify ourproblems and help us to find solutions”, which is highly appealing,the fact that someone could link their hobbies to their birth month(Nanninga 14-20).
does not work in the manner that practitioners claim itdoes. According to astrologers, it is possible to tell thepersonality of people by using horoscopes to relate the birth datewith personality, which possibly explains why some people may beclassified as introverts while others are extroverts (Nanninga14-20). However, unlike in other claims where the practitioners areable to explain and proof their assertions, it is not possible withastrology. Astrologers in defense, claim that astrological study isvery intricate, which makes astrological impacts understated anddifficult to identify. Hence, this results in doubt in how astrologyworks because if astrologers are incapable of identifying how theireffects work, then how are their claims identifiable (Nanninga14-20). This results in the conclusion that astrology could only bepresumptions that are made by astrologers. Considering that evenafter being presented with tests to proof their impacts, none of theastrologers scored right and neither did the scores match amid theastrologers, then astrology seems like a trial and error, where ifone is able to guess the correct personality for their clients, thenthey claim that astrology is real.
In “The Astrotest”, the author provides a test to astrologerswith the objective of determining the authenticity of theirpredictions. The test is founded on a questionnaire, which wasformulated from the submissions made by astrologers. The astrologerswere to match the correct birth charts of volunteer subjects to thequestionnaire results. Surprisingly the astrologers choices were notconsistent, depicting to agreement amidst them concerning what chartneeds to match with questionnaire outcome (Nanninga 14-20). The testdemonstrates that any effective test able to explain that astrologyis real, is one where the astrologers are able to match correctly theappropriate birth charts, in addition to astrologers havingconsistent choices. Such a test has a placebo because when theastrologers’ choices become consistent, it implies that theirpredictions are indeed true, thus making astrology believable.
Nanninga, Rob. The Astrotest: A tough match for astrologers.Correlation, 15.2 (1996/97): 14- 20.