In his article The Evidence Accumulates but Proof is Never Possible, Robert Currey (Editor of Correlation, The Astrological Association Journal of Research in Astrology) illuminates the conundrum astrological researchers face when trying to fit into the scientific world. Astrology’s most skeptical critics want ‘irrefutable proof’ of cause and effect however Currey elegantly clarifies how for any scientific hypothesis it is an accumulation of supporting evidence that is the goal. “Beyond the austere objective world of mathematics, one cannot prove a hypothesis.” Currey explains, “with each replication of the evidence a theory becomes more widely accepted. Since new evidence could show a theory to be false or to require modification it remains a theory and can never become an eternal proof or universal law. That is why Darwin’s theory of evolution is not his law of evolution.”

Scientific laws are descriptions (often mathematical) of natural phenomenon. They describe an observation, not how or why it works. In general a scientific law does not change when new information relevant to the phenomenon is found. For example, Newton’s law of gravity is still useful when building a skyscraper, but it doesn’t explain how gravity works. It wasn’t until Albert Einstein developed his theory of relativity that we started to really understand how gravity works; Newton’s law of gravity remains unchanged however and is still useful for many purposes.

A hypothesis is like an educated guess as to why something happened. When we question why something happens we then formulate a hypothesis, this hypothesis can then be tested with research which will either support or reject the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is re-tested by other scientists who get the same results then the hypothesis becomes a theory. This is called the ‘scientific method.’

As the radical pace of technology sweeps us all along with it, this millenium is increasingly becoming a time when an astrologer’s technological or statistical skill will be the limiting factor in their ability to do research. And, it does not take an astrologer (he he) to forecast a steep rise in the amount of evidence that will accumulate in scientific support of astrology given the direction it has been going or the recent developments. The publication Correlation, The Astrological Association Journal of Research in Astrology seems like a good place to start for those astrologers who are serious in joining the astrologers convoy to the Academy of Sciences. Specifically in volume 32 (2) of the journal there is an ‘Evidence List’ of 63 studies that have over the past fifty years passed through a very rigorous filtration system set to weed out all but the highest level of objective evidence of correlations between celestial positions and terrestial life.