More evidence needed from astrologers

Astrologers need more scientific evidence to support the points they are making, suggests a Society member. 

Chris French, a Professor of Psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit and Chartered Psychologist, said that followers of pseudosciences often try and make links between their own beliefs and science that has been well established.

Professor French, writing in The Guardian, said this "argument from spurious similarity" was explained by Daisie and Michael Radner in Science and Unreason.

The Radners argued that pseudoscientists tend to suggest the principles they use are part of researched findings and should be accepted as a result.

While not all astrologers believe this to be the case, some in the field do - claiming science is accepting of the belief that effects on the Earth are exerted by celestial bodies.

Professor French said that although analogies can be beneficial for providing interesting hypotheses, "the final verdict must always depend upon the results of direct, empirical tests of those hypotheses".