> So it doesn't matter a whit that the moon *could* have an effect on us, the same way it doesn't matter a whit that the stars *could* have a similar effect on us. We don't have to test that to test the validity of astrology. All we have to do is do double-blind tests to see if people can reliably be matched up with their star charts. And, in test after test, it's been shown that you can't match a person up with "their" star chart at a rate any better than chance would dictate.
>
> Too many people confuse possibility with probability, or a hypothesis with fact. You can sit all day and come up with ways the stars *might* effect our lives in the way astrology predicts, but in the end, your work is all for naught if astrology can't be show to be reliable. You can show how a pleistocene dinosaur *might* have survived into the modern age in Loch Ness, but without finding hard evidence for its existence (or the bloody creature itself) you have accomplished nothing.

Except that you've confused testing the "science" of astrology with testing an individual application of it. If you check a horoscope and match somebody up with it and test its validity, all you're checking is whether or not that particular horoscope is true. It is still possible that astrology itself has some merit and is simply not being used properly. I maintain that this holds doubly true if we accept my assertion that at least the vast majority of astologers are fakes anyhow.