Personality, Compatibility, and Personal Timing Are Measurable With Comprehensive Handwriting Analysis, Astrology, and Numerology

Home  |  Blog
Sign up for your free 17 Tips to Help You Reduce Business and Personal Related Risk
  • Reduce Wasted Time and Monetary Loss
  • Minimize Squandered Opportunities
  • Avoid Unsafe and Unreliable People
These 17 tips involving background checks, security investigations, personality assessment, forecasting, and cyclical timing analysis will help you greatly reduce your overall risk, save time and money, and gain more peace of mind in your business, career, or personal life.
You may easily unsubscribe at any time and we
don't share or sell e-mail lists

Astrology Skeptic Demands Proof

Share Button

Some people believe in astrology, and some don’t. Recently I had the experience of interacting on-line with a skeptic who demanded proof of the validity of astrology.

Below I outline the interaction with an astrology skeptic.


“Many studies, such as these on Wikipedia, involve full natal chart analysis, and virtually all have found astrology to be pseudo-science. You do not offer real scientific evidence of astrology’s authenticity. Show me peer-reviewed studies. Show me proof.”

My response:

Thanks for offering your viewpoint.

First, “full natal chart analysis” is a misnomer.

Mistaking that form of astrology for in-depth astrology shows you know almost nothing about the science of astrology, which peaked in the Middle Ages and spans back to about 300 B.C.

Today’s psychological-based astrology involving paltry transits and progressions and almost exclusive usage of Ptolemaic aspects and other superficial indicators is the “full natal chart analysis” you reference. It’s frivolous “for entertainment purposes only” astrology.

Additionally, a “this (one or only a few indicators) equals that (a distinct personality characteristic) astrology” has nothing to do with the authentic science of astrology.

One-sided studies on Wikipedia attacking low-hanging fruit are inconsequential. Any cynic wanting to invalidate a hypothesis can rig the study to yield his desired outcome. Those individuals are committed to advancing a position, not finding the truth. Wikipedia is an unreliable source for truth.

Time and time again, the skeptics refuse to investigate astrology (and other esoteric subjects) beyond trivialities. They never consider the complex methods of the ancient seers such as Vettius Valens, Julius Firmicus Maternus, Guido Bonatti, Ibn Ezra, Abu Ali Al-Khayyat, and many others. The works of these geniuses are still available for purchase. What are the skeptics waiting for?

It’s very unscientific to draw conclusions based on the limits of your understanding and reject a field of study without thoroughly investigating it. What’s next, offering an uninformed opinion on particle physics?

You can’t prove a theory valid. You can only prove it invalid. You fail to invalidate my theories.

Long-term, objective empirical research involving multiple layers of checks and balances yields my premise: personality, compatibility, and personal timing are absolutely measurable with comprehensive handwriting analysis, astrology, and numerology.

The people I do work for don’t care about proving the validity of the science of astrology. They only care about results.

Scientists today work on technological advances including those in nanotechnology and computer science, send spacecraft to Mars, and concentrate on other mundane, physical world concerns. That is their territory. Erroneously asserting that pedantic, conventional scientific method applies to everything, including concerns beyond the material world, is not scientific.

Regarding peer review, it has been shown to be futile over and over again, as Michael Crichton outlines below:

“Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn’t work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, ‘This paper was peer-reviewed,’ or ‘this paper was not peer-reviewed,’ as if that meant something. It doesn’t.”

To those who still refuse to accept that much of today’s science is flawed and downright fraudulent, you better sit down before you read this: It can be proven that most claimed conventional science research findings are false.

“Whether or not the present-day practitioners of astrology are using scientific methods has no direct bearing on whether the body of knowledge they employ is true and valid.”
Dr. Kary Banks Mullis, Nobel-Prize winning scientist

I’ve debated with astrology skeptics before. There will always be those who embrace astrology and those who refuse to. The cynics and mainstream science enthusiasts would be wise to get their own house in order before attacking the science of astrology.

Copyright © 2015 Scott Petullo

Tags: , ,

One Response to “Astrology Skeptic Demands Proof”

  1. Kathy Says:

    Hello, Scott —

    I think we all know the truth, when we hear it. I also think the nay-sayer’s are terrified that if their birth data “got out,” they would be shamed by the judgment of their peers. I have seen, and heard the most un-founded arguments against Astrology. One day, I was reading for a young woman, in her thirties. She brought her “partner” with her. He was rather aggressive about how full of bull, he believed it all was. So I said, “Tell you what, if, when I have finished reading, the information has no validity, she won’t owe me anything. I spent about two hours, with them. At several points in the conversation, I saw her look to her companion, and nod her head. I was asked, “How can you ‘know’ that?” more than once. My simple reply, “I’m not guessing.” By the end of the reading, they were both nodding. Not only did they pay me, they tipped me. What many folks don’t seem to understand is that we were skeptical, once, too. Then, we read our own charts, and the information contained therein. Isabelle Hickey wrote that Astrologers are not made. She said that we are chosen. She said the reason for this was that the body of astrological knowledge is so vast, given only one lifetime, we could never understand it all. Thus, we hone our art, and our interpretive skills, over many lifetimes.

    In Love and Light,

Leave a Comment