Axiom: a rule or principle that is generally considered to be true (Longman)

Italian version

Astrology is axiomatic because it is based on a combination of objective observation and subjective perception, which, combined with mental processes, contribute to building the foundations of our experience. This unity suggests that what we see in the sky reflects our inner selves and that our consciousness is an integral part of the universe. While this does not negate the existence of objective reality, it emphasises the importance of the observer’s awareness in shaping our experience.

There is also experimental astrology, which attempts to validate the practice using modern science. Still, it is essential to consider that statistical data based on astrological configurations may not consider individual circumstances. While such data can support the interpretation of symbols, it cannot account for events that are unique to an individual. For instance, Mars (the god of war) may frequently appear as the dominant planet in the horoscopes of career soldiers. However, this does not necessarily mean all individuals with a dominant Mars will join the army.

To conclude, experimental astrology (properly called scientific astrology) cannot help but hypothesise a causal link between the planets and human beings. This contradicts the holistic view mentioned earlier.


This perspective presents a problem as it either provides unsupported predictions or lacks coherence. I must observe statistical evidence to determine if an astrological configuration is linked to a specific trait. Astrological predictions are meaningless unless I see this evidence. To state that something “cannot be traced back to a statistical model” renders it entirely useless. For instance, we might observe that “Mars appears in the horoscopes of career soldiers.” The “Mars effect” is the only example of a correlation between astrological predictions and statistical data among the numerous studies conducted by the Gauquelins. However, this correlation proved to be a statistical artefact, and the authors did not identify any other astrological correspondences.

Reply to comment

It is a misconception that astrology cannot make predictions based on statistical data. It just places greater emphasis on each person’s individuality when making predictions. For instance, by studying a statistical sample of people like Gauquelin did, we can observe specific configurations that deviate from the average distribution. While there may not be a perfect match for every individual, statistical trends can still be identified and utilised.

Astrology is like a complex organism where every part is interconnected and only works as a whole. It’s impossible to isolate a single element and make it an investigative tool without affecting the overall outcome. Additionally, horoscopes reveal potential rather than actual events. To provide an accurate prediction, it’s essential to consider the hereditary and cultural context in which the person is born and raised and how they can express themselves. For instance, if Mars is at the meridian in a horoscope of someone whose family or culture rejects “predatory” instincts, it’s improbable that this person would become a soldier. Instead, if other elements in the horoscope allow it, such an individual may become someone whose drive contributes to social or professional success.

Regarding the statistical inadequacy of configurations other than the Martian one, I would like to emphasise that the symbolism of Mars is, in most cases, strictly one-way. Mars symbolism usually triggers a specific and easily recognisable response to external factors. This makes it less diverse than other planetary symbols and easier to distinguish. Although this is just an assumption, it seems reasonable.