Axiom: a rule or principle that is generally considered to be true (Longman)
Given the definition, Astrology is axiomatic because it is based on the pure intuition of a reality in which objective vision – the celestial sphere as it appears from the terrestrial observatory – and subjective perception combined with mental processes contribute to building the foundations of our experience. Based on this unitary formulation, we can affirm that the sky (what is above) is nothing but our inner structure (what is below) outwardly given because we live in a dualistic environment. That does not mean that there is no reality, but that the observer’s awareness is integral to the whole existence.
However, there is also experimental astrology, which arises from an attempt to justify astrology towards modern science. Given this scenario, the statistical data relating to astrological configurations – which are undoubtedly legitimate when used to support the refinement of symbolic understanding – do not consider that we are dealing with single individuals. These are subject to events not attributable to a statistical model. For example, Mars (the god of war) is found in the horoscopes of career soldiers as the dominant planet with a significant statistical frequency; but that does not mean that those with dominant Mars will all end up in the army.
To conclude, experimental astrology (properly called scientific astrology) cannot help but assume a causal link between planets and human beings, thus contradicting the above holistic view.
The problem with this view is that it either makes predictions or doesn’t make sense. If an astrological configuration is associated with some characteristic, I have to see it, even if only statistically. If I don’t see it, the astrological predictions don’t tell me anything. To say that something “cannot be traced back to a statistical model” is like saying that it cannot tell me absolutely anything. For example, “in the horoscopes of career soldiers, we find Mars.” The “Mars effect” is the only example in which there seemed to be a correspondence between astrological predictions and statistical data, among the dozens examined by the Gauquelins in their studies. That proved to be a statistical artefact, but the authors themselves found no other astrological correspondences.
Reply to comment
It is not true that astrology cannot make predictions because it cannot be associated with a statistical datum. Astrology makes predictions primarily focused on the uniqueness of each individual. Suppose we decide, as Gauquelin did, to examine a statistical sample of individuals to verify the deviation of a configuration relative to the mean distribution. In this case, there is a significant peak in the presence of some aspects. However, even if there is no one-to-one match, I can still use the stats to highlight a trend.
Astrology is like an organism whose parts are strictly interconnected and function only in the whole organism itself; consequently, I cannot isolate an element and make it an investigative tool without invalidating the overall result. Furthermore, the horoscope highlights potentials and not the events themselves. So, to get a realistic prediction, I also need to know the hereditary and cultural context in which the person is born and grown up and has the opportunity to express themselves. For example, Mars at the meridian in the horoscope of a born whose family or culture of reference has banished the “predatory” instincts is unlikely to give rise to a career soldier. Instead, an individual will be born whose initiative is at the service of social and professional elevation if other horoscope elements allow for this interpretation.
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. That is, it provides a well-determined, almost instinctive reaction to external stimuli; consequently, its spectrum of manifestation is narrower than those originating from other planetary symbolism and is more easily isolated. Sure, this is a guess, but it seems plausible.