On My Astrology Records and Preliminary Statistics: Several Questions I Want to Face Honestly

Through several recent discussions, I have become increasingly aware that different people have very different ideas about what astrology is and what it is supposed to do.

Some people see astrology as a predictive technique and believe that it should be able to make concrete judgments about future events before the outcome is known. Others see it as a symbolic language used to organize experience, express feelings, and understand life situations. Some place greater emphasis on its role in consultation, emotional support, and self-understanding. Others regard it as a traditional system of techniques, a spiritual practice, or a model for interpreting the world.

As a result, many debates that appear to be about whether astrology is “accurate” are not actually discussing the same question.

Before discussing whether astrology works, perhaps we first need to ask:

What exactly do we mean by “astrology”? What do we expect it to accomplish? What kind of result would count as successfully accomplishing that task?

An astrological method may be valuable on one level without necessarily being equally valid on another.

For example, astrology may be a rich and expressive symbolic language, but that does not automatically prove that it has predictive power. It may help people organize their emotions during consultations, but it may not necessarily provide information beyond ordinary psychological support. It may also produce correct judgments in certain cases, while still leaving us with further questions: Are those judgments consistently correct? Can they be repeated? Do they genuinely provide information beyond common sense?

1. What I Am Actually Trying to Investigate

For this reason, I no longer find it very useful to ask the broad question:

“Does astrology work?”

The question is too large, and it allows everyone to answer according to their own definition of what “working” means.

I would rather break it down into smaller questions:

Within a particular astrological method, and for a particular type of question, what does the method claim to accomplish? What is the standard of success? Is its value expressive, interpretive, consultative, or predictive? If it claims to have predictive value, can it make specific and testable judgments before the outcome is known? Does it provide additional information beyond common sense, base rates, or ordinary experience?

What I am trying to do may not simply be a study of how “accurate” astrology is. I may also be gradually constructing a map of astrology’s functions and boundaries: which functions appear relatively clear, which claims still require testing, and where subjective interpretation, memory bias, and retrospective rationalization may affect our conclusions.

2. What Data I Have Included So Far

I have recently reorganized part of my past astrology records.

It is important to clarify that my current statistical results come from only one limited batch within a much larger body of material. They do not represent all of my astrological cases.

At present, this batch includes only material that meets the following conditions.

2.1 Only My Own Records

The current analysis concerns astrological judgments that I personally made in the past. It does not include cases from other astrologers.

Therefore, these results can at most reflect my own recording habits, judgment methods, and practice. They cannot be directly generalized to other astrologers, and they certainly cannot represent astrology as a whole.

2.2 Only “Astrology-Only” Judgments

As far as possible, I have retained only material that can be clearly identified as an astrological judgment. I have tried to exclude conclusions that mainly came from background information, common-sense reasoning, other methods, or explanations added only after the outcome became known.

However, defining “astrology-only” in operational terms still requires further refinement.

In real consultations, it is often difficult to separate astrology completely from common sense, communication experience, and knowledge of the client’s circumstances. This is one of the problems that future statistical work will need to address.

2.3 Clustering Was Reduced

Within a single question, there may be several closely related judgments. The same event may also be recorded repeatedly or discussed across several messages.

If all of these highly correlated statements are treated as independent predictions, the same underlying event may be counted multiple times, making the sample size appear larger than it really is.

For that reason, I carried out an initial process of reducing clusters, or “declustering,” in order to avoid repeatedly counting the same event or the same group of closely related judgments.

However, deciding what counts as one independent case, and determining whether two predictions belong to the same cluster, still involves some judgment. Clearer and more consistent rules will be needed in the future.

2.4 Only Astrological Judgments Explicitly Written in the Text

I included only judgments that were actually written down at the time. I did not rely on retrospective memory, and I did not count thoughts that I merely remember having had but did not record.

This is because memory is easily influenced by later outcomes. After an event occurs, we may remember the parts that resembled the result more clearly, while forgetting what was incorrect, unclear, or never actually stated.

For me, only written records created before the outcome occurred are reasonably suitable for later analysis.

3. Why I Have Not Yet Included Client Cases

The current batch does not include astrology cases involving clients.

The main reason is privacy.

Client cases may contain sensitive information about personal experiences, family relationships, health, work, romantic relationships, or finances. Even if names are removed, deleting names alone may not be enough to protect identity. A combination of life details may still make a person identifiable to themselves or to people who know them.

Therefore, if I analyze this material in the future, I will first need to carry out a more complete anonymization process. This would include removing or modifying identifiable details, rewriting event descriptions, and carefully considering the boundary between what is statistically necessary and what is private.

Compared with organizing my own public or private records, this would be a much larger project.

For that reason, I have not yet begun this batch, and I do not intend to lower my privacy standards simply in order to obtain more data more quickly.

4. My Preliminary Observation So Far

Based on the limited material I have currently organized, together with my reading of related discussions and statistics provided by others, my present view is that:

Astrology may have a stronger function in interpretation, organizing experience, and providing companionship than it does in prediction.

However, I want to emphasize that this is only a preliminary observation, not a final conclusion.

First, my earlier recording habits were not designed for rigorous statistical analysis. Many statements were not written in a falsifiable form. In other words, they may not have been specific enough to allow a clear distinction between “correct,” “incorrect,” and “vaguely consistent” afterward.

For example, if a judgment is very broad, uses highly abstract language, or permits many different retrospective interpretations, then even if it later feels as though it “came true,” it remains difficult to determine how much genuine predictive information it actually contained.

Second, after reading more of the existing research on astrology, I found that several influential experiments did employ relatively rigorous research designs. These included double-blind procedures, criteria and methods of analysis established in advance, and, in some cases, the participation or approval of astrologers in determining the testing conditions. Some studies also provided sufficiently detailed descriptions of their procedures to allow later examination, discussion, and reanalysis.

I therefore do not want to question the rigor or fairness of this research simply because I have not personally reviewed every original dataset in full. A substantial body of controlled research already exists, and its overall findings have generally not shown that astrologers can perform consistently, replicably, and above chance under blinded conditions. These results deserve to be taken seriously and form an important part of the background against which I consider claims about astrological prediction.

At the same time, I do not want to overextend these findings into a complete rejection of every form of astrology, every astrological technique, or every claim associated with it. Each study examines particular methods, tasks, samples, and definitions of success. The design and statistical interpretation of some well-known experiments have also remained subjects of later discussion.

My current understanding can therefore be stated cautiously as follows:

Taken as a whole, the more rigorous empirical research conducted so far has not provided sufficient evidence that astrology possesses a stable, reliable, and replicable objective predictive ability beyond chance, common sense, or information already available.

This does not mean that every related question is no longer worth investigating. It means that any claim that astrology has objective predictive ability must engage seriously with the existing findings and be supported by evidence that is clear, testable, and reproducible.

My analysis of my own records is not intended to overturn or dismiss the research that already exists. I am asking a more personal and limited question: when I examine my own practice using stricter and more falsifiable methods, will I obtain similar results? - How many apparently accurate judgments actually fail to provide information beyond common sense or base rates? And might astrology’s more consistent value lie primarily in interpretation, the organization of experience, and companionship rather than in objective prediction?

5. Does Prediction Provide Information Beyond Common Sense?

Building on the previous point, another question must be considered: even when an astrological prediction appears to be correct, does it provide information beyond common sense, base rates, or what was already known?

In addition to asking whether a prediction eventually turned out to be correct, I believe there is another question that must be addressed:

Does the astrological judgment provide incremental value beyond common sense, base rates, and information already available?

Some events already have a high probability of occurring.

If something was very likely to happen even without astrology, then predicting that it would happen does not automatically demonstrate that astrology contributed additional information.

Conversely, a judgment with genuine predictive value would ideally meet several conditions:

• It is stated before the outcome is known.

• It is specific enough to be judged correct or incorrect.

• It does not depend on changing the interpretation afterward.

• It does not merely predict something that was already highly probable.

• It genuinely adds useful information beyond common sense or the base rate.

For this reason, in the future I do not want to record only how many predictions were right or wrong. I also hope to compare astrological judgments with common-sense expectations or estimated base rates.

This will not be easy, because “what common sense would predict” also needs a reasonably stable standard. It cannot simply be decided retrospectively, after the outcome is already known.

6. How I Changed My Recording Method This Year

Beginning this year, I have tried to record astrological judgments in a more rigorous and falsifiable form.

For me, “falsifiable” means at least the following:

The judgment is written down before the outcome occurs. The subject, content, conditions, and time range are stated as clearly as possible. The criteria for what would count as correct or incorrect are specified in advance. After the outcome is known, the original interpretation is not casually widened or altered.

At present, I do not yet have enough new records to produce a formal statistical result.

I also do not believe that simply using the word “falsifiable” automatically makes a record rigorous. Questions such as how to treat partial accuracy, timing errors, multiple simultaneous judgments, correlated events, and cases whose outcomes cannot be confirmed all require relatively stable rules established in advance.

Those rules may continue to change as the work develops, but any changes should be clearly documented rather than introduced in order to make earlier results look better.

7. I Am Not Publishing This to Prove Anything

I want to state this especially clearly.

I am not publishing this material in order to prove that astrology definitely has predictive power. Nor am I trying to prove that I personally am an accurate astrologer.

The current data are not sufficient to support either conclusion, and I do not want to present an ongoing process of self-examination as though it were already a proof.

The main subject of this experiment is not the public. It is myself.

Above all, I need to be honest with myself.

If a judgment was vague, I want to acknowledge that it was vague. If it did not provide anything beyond common sense, I want to take that into account. If it was wrong, I want to preserve the failure rather than display only successful cases. If future statistics do not support some of the claims I previously believed, I hope I will be willing to narrow, revise, or even abandon those claims.

Likewise, if future data genuinely indicate that some astrological methods have stable predictive value under particular conditions and provide information beyond common sense, I hope to examine that carefully and transparently rather than relying only on a few impressive cases.

For me, facing the results honestly is more important than defending a predetermined position.

8. I Am Looking for People With Similar Recording Practices

There is also a practical reason why I am publishing this article.

I would like to know whether anyone else is carrying out similar forms of recording and testing.

For example:

• Does anyone write down specific astrological judgments before the outcome is known, in a form that can later be judged correct or incorrect?

• Does anyone preserve failed, vague, and unverifiable cases rather than collecting only successful examples?

• Has anyone attempted to deal with duplicate counting, case clustering, and sample selection?

• Has anyone compared astrological judgments with common sense, base rates, or non-astrological judgments?

• Has anyone developed a relatively complete anonymization process for protecting consultation clients?

• Is anyone willing to discuss their criteria, failed cases, and methodological limitations openly?

I am not necessarily looking for people who share exactly the same position as I do.

We may disagree about what astrology is, whether it has predictive ability, and how it should be studied statistically. What matters more is whether we are willing to state our standards clearly, preserve records that can be tested, and face results that do not match our expectations.

If anyone is doing similar work, I would be very interested in exchanging methods, difficulties, experiences, and reflections in the future.

We do not need to work together in order to prove a particular conclusion. We may instead help one another identify methodological blind spots, compare different classification systems, and discuss which questions remain unresolved.

9. Disclosure Regarding AI Assistance

Because I am frequently asked about the textual source of this article, I would also like to disclose the following openly.

The central ideas, viewpoints, research direction, statistical scope, and personal position expressed in this article are my own.

AI assisted me in reorganizing the structure, refining the language, and translating parts of my Chinese writing into English, especially when converting my original Chinese thoughts into clearer English expression.

Afterward, I personally reviewed and revised the article.

AI participated in the organization of the text, but it does not take responsibility for my views, nor is it the subject of the research or judgment presented here.

I take full responsibility for the statements, methodology, interpretations, and any possible errors in this article.

In my view, using AI to assist with language does not reduce the author’s responsibility. Regardless of what tools are used in the writing process, the person who decides what to publish, what to claim, and what to stand behind remains the author.

Conclusion

After these recent discussions, I increasingly feel that astrology may not be a question that can be answered only by choosing between “belief” and “disbelief.”

Different people may be using the same word while engaging in very different activities.

Some seek prediction. Some seek understanding. Some seek companionship. Some study traditional techniques. Others treat astrology as a symbolic language.

Therefore, before evaluating astrology, perhaps we first need to clarify:

What do we believe astrology is? What do we believe it can do? What standards do we use to judge whether it has succeeded? What kind of result would cause us to reduce our confidence in a particular astrological claim?

My own position remains open.

Astrology can be a meaningful symbolic language, but meaning at the level of language does not automatically demonstrate predictive ability.

Whether astrology can predict, what it may be able to predict, and under what conditions it might outperform common sense must all be tested separately.

Future results may support some claims. They may also force me to narrow, revise, or abandon others.

Whatever the outcome, I hope I can at least do one thing:

Not try to prove astrology, and not try to disprove astrology, but observe as honestly as possible what I actually see.

What Control Theory and Algorithms Have Taught Me About Everyday Life

I have been learning from the work of Qian Xuesen, the Chinese scientist known for his contributions to engineering cybernetics and control theory, as well as from a Harvard course in advanced algorithms.

Combined with my own life experience, these studies have led me to a few practical principles for dealing with uncertainty.

This is not a finished theory, and I do not consider these ideas final. They will continue to change as I gain more experience, encounter new evidence, and learn from other people.

Control theory taught me that we usually cannot control an entire system. We can only observe part of it, choose certain actions, receive feedback, and adjust.

Algorithms taught me something similar: we often have to make decisions with limited time, limited information, and limited resources. We may not find the perfect answer, but we can still look for actions that are reasonable, testable, and open to correction.

I have summarized these ideas into three principles:

**In an uncontrollable world, manage your exposure.

This may mean limiting financial risk, protecting personal information, managing commitments, and not placing everything on a single decision.

**In an unknowable future, take actions that can be revised.

When possible, begin with small steps, preserve an exit option, observe the results, and adjust rather than making an irreversible commitment too early.

**In a world of complex information, remain humble without giving up practice.

We do not need complete certainty before acting, but we should remain willing to admit mistakes and update our models.

!!There are also important dangers in this way of thinking.

Not everything valuable can be measured. Love, meaning, dignity, creativity, and spiritual experience cannot be reduced entirely to numbers.

Too much control can damage spontaneity and vitality. A feeling of control can also become arrogance—the belief that enough data or intelligence will allow us to master everything.

Methods can even become a sophisticated form of procrastination. Sometimes we keep improving the model because we are afraid to make a real choice.

So the goal is not to completely control life or predict the future.

The goal is to control what can reasonably be controlled, limit irreversible losses, leave room for correction, remain open to feedback, and continue acting with both courage and humility.

These ideas are still developing. I would genuinely appreciate other perspectives.

What blind spots do you see? What would you challenge, improve, or add?

Recently, I started taking a course on advanced algorithms, and I was surprised to discover that it shares something very interesting with the study of astrology.

The real world contains far more information than we can fully process.

Time is limited. Memory is limited. The future is unknown. Variables influence one another, and many problems are simply too complex to solve with perfect accuracy.

Faced with that kind of complexity, human beings create models.

Astrology transforms the complexity of human experience and the movement of time into a symbolic system of planets, houses, aspects, and cycles.

Algorithms also compress reality into variables, probabilities, graphs, constraints, and objective functions.

In that sense, they are both doing something similar:

Complex reality

→ simplified model

→ interpretation, prediction, or decision-making

But there is also an important difference between them.

Astrology tends to transform uncertainty into meaning.

It asks:

What does this period mean?

What themes are being activated by this aspect?

What kind of growth, conflict, or transformation is a person going through?

Algorithms, on the other hand, tend to transform uncertainty into probabilities, costs, and error bounds.

They continue by asking:

What is this judgment based on?

How wrong could it be in the worst case?

How many resources does it require on average?

How far is it from the optimal solution?

Can the result be tested and repeated?

In other words, astrology is more concerned with the question:

“What does this mean?”

Algorithms are more concerned with:

“What can I guarantee?”

This made me realize that what mathematics offers is not necessarily the power to predict the future. It offers a system of control.

Not control over the future itself, but control over:

how large our errors might be,

how much the method costs,

how much information it uses,

how much detail it leaves out,

and how reliable its conclusions really are.

I think this has a lot to offer the study of astrology.

For example, astrologers often say:

“A Saturn transit may bring pressure.”

But if we continue asking questions in a more rigorous way, we might ask:

What exactly do we mean by “pressure”?

Does it mean increased workload, relationship restrictions, low mood, physical exhaustion, or something else?

Is the relevant time window a few days, a few weeks, or several months?

How often do similar events happen even without this transit?

If many transits are happening at the same time, how should we assign weight to each one?

When a prediction does not happen, do we record that honestly, or do we reinterpret it afterward?

These questions are not necessarily meant to dismiss astrology.

On the contrary, they can help us distinguish between:

observation,

symbolic interpretation,

prediction,

and meaning assigned after the fact.

There are several ideas from algorithm theory that I think could be especially useful for astrology.

The first is the idea of an approximation algorithm.

Some problems are too difficult to solve perfectly within a reasonable amount of time. Instead of insisting on an exact answer, an approximation algorithm aims for an answer that is good enough, with a known and controlled margin of error.

Perhaps astrology does not always need to claim:

“This specific event will definitely happen.”

It may be more accurate to say:

“During this period, a certain category of themes may be more likely to emerge.”

That does not reduce the value of astrology. It simply makes the claim more precise.

The second idea is the online algorithm.

An online algorithm operates in a world where the future is unknown.

Information arrives one piece at a time, but decisions still have to be made in the present.

That is very similar to life.

We never get to see the complete outcome in advance. We can only make judgments based on the information available now, and revise them as new information appears.

Perhaps astrological interpretation should also be updated dynamically, rather than treating one reading as a fixed description of the entire future.

The third idea is competitive analysis.

An algorithm is not evaluated simply by asking:

“Does it work sometimes?”

Instead, we ask:

“Does it perform better than a simple baseline?”

If astrology wants to make claims about predictive ability, it could be compared with basic alternatives:

Is it more accurate than random guessing?

Is it more accurate than assuming tomorrow will be roughly similar to today?

Is it more accurate than using only age, occupation, season, or social circumstances?

Does adding astrological information provide any extra insight that can actually be tested?

A method occasionally being correct does not necessarily mean that it is effective.

The more important question is whether it consistently performs better than simpler methods.

The fourth idea is information compression.

A natal chart is also a highly compressed model.

It transforms an enormous amount of astronomical information from a specific moment into a limited set of symbols:

planets, signs, houses, and aspects.

Compression allows us to work with complexity, but compression always loses some detail.

Different lives may be compressed into similar symbolic patterns. The same symbol may also correspond to many different real-world events.

This is somewhat like a hash collision in computer science:

different things may be mapped to the same location.

So symbolic similarity does not necessarily mean that the underlying realities are identical.

The fifth idea is probabilistic updating.

When we see a transit, we can begin with a possible interpretation without immediately treating it as certain.

As real events unfold, we can gradually increase or decrease our confidence in that interpretation.

If reality repeatedly fails to match the prediction, then the model should be revised.

We should not endlessly expand the interpretation until every possible outcome can be explained as something astrology had predicted all along.

I am beginning to think that the deepest difference between astrology and algorithms may be this:

Astrology tends to turn uncertainty into meaning.

Algorithms tend to turn uncertainty into probabilities, costs, and error bounds.

The first can help us understand life.

The second can help us place limits on our own judgments.

Perhaps the two do not have to be completely opposed.

We can preserve astrology as a symbolic, narrative, reflective, and time-based practice, while also introducing the discipline of algorithmic thinking:

Which statements are facts?

Which are interpretations?

Which can be tested?

Which are only suggestive?

Are errors recorded?

Under what conditions should a model be revised, or even abandoned?

For me, the most valuable part of combining these perspectives is not using mathematics to “prove that astrology is correct.”

It is using mathematics to help us distinguish more honestly between:

the symbolic value of astrology,

its predictive ability,

the role of cognitive bias,

and the limits created by uncertainty.

Perhaps mature research is not about becoming more confident in saying:

“I know the future.”

Perhaps it is about becoming clearer about saying:

“I know how much I know, and how much I do not.”

Today, I’d like to discuss the following question:

Many people say that astrology is a language.

The planets are like vocabulary, while signs, houses, and aspects function like grammar. A birth chart organizes these symbols into a system that can describe personality, relationships, circumstances, conflicts, and recurring themes in life.

I generally agree with this view. Astrology does possess a rich interpretive language.

But this raises another question:

If astrology is a language, where does its predictive power come from?

Language itself does not predict.

Literature can offer profound interpretations of the human condition. Myth can reveal recurring patterns in human nature. Psychoanalysis can give meaning to personal experience. But the ability to interpret does not automatically amount to the ability to know the future in advance.

Mathematics is also a language. Yet mathematics can predict planetary motion not because mathematical symbols themselves possess prophetic power, but because those symbols describe relatively stable physical laws, measurable data, and models that have been repeatedly tested.

For this reason, I think we need to distinguish at least three different levels:

1. Astrology as a language

2. Astrology as a system of interpretation

3. Astrology as a system of prediction

For example, when Saturn is connected to the house of relationships, an astrologer might interpret it as:

Responsibility, limitation, distance, delay, commitment, loneliness, structure, or a long-term test.

That is symbolic language and interpretation.

But if the astrologer goes further and says:

“This relationship will end within three months,”

that is no longer merely interpretation. It is a specific statement about the future.

There is a major leap between saying “Saturn symbolizes certain themes” and saying “a particular event will happen in the future.”

That leap cannot be made through symbolism alone. It also requires some stable rule about events and timing.

In other words, if astrology truly has predictive power, that power must come from something behind the language itself, such as:

Celestial bodies exerting a real causal influence on human affairs;

Celestial and earthly events following the same deeper order;

Similar planetary cycles consistently corresponding to similar historical or personal patterns;

Or the idea that the moment in which a question arises already contains information about how the matter will unfold.

These are all possible theoretical explanations. But they still need to be demonstrated.

A language does not become predictive simply because it is elegant, coherent, or psychologically insightful.

So why are other disciplines able to predict?

Psychology also uses language, concepts, and interpretive models. But its predictive ability does not come from words such as “personality,” “need,” or “trauma” themselves.

It comes from observable patterns in human behavior that can be repeatedly studied.

For example:

Sleep deprivation tends to increase attentional errors;

Behaviors that have been rewarded in the past are more likely to be repeated;

Long-term stress increases the risk of certain psychological difficulties;

People are more likely to conform under group pressure;

Past relevant behavior can often help predict future behavior to some degree.

Psychology cannot usually predict exactly what a specific person will decide tomorrow afternoon.

But it can say:

Under a particular combination of physiological state, personality traits, learning history, and social environment, the probability of a certain behavior increases.

Psychological prediction is therefore usually not deterministic. It is probabilistic and conditional.

Medicine works in a similar way.

A doctor cannot normally guarantee that a particular patient will recover, but can estimate treatment effectiveness and risk based on symptoms, age, physical indicators, and previous research.

Weather forecasting is not absolute either. It relies on atmospheric physics, real-time observation, and computational models to estimate the probability of rain or the likely path of a typhoon.

Economics, sociology, political science, and history can also make predictions. But the closer we move toward complex human societies, the greater the uncertainty usually becomes.

Different fields therefore possess different levels of predictive power.

Celestial mechanics can predict an eclipse with great precision because the objects are relatively stable, the laws are clear, and the relevant variables can be measured.

Meteorology can make only limited probabilistic forecasts because the atmosphere is complex, contains many interacting variables, and becomes increasingly sensitive to error over time.

Psychology can predict group tendencies and behavioral probabilities, but it struggles to predict a particular individual’s exact decision.

History is better at identifying structural risks—for example, the conditions under which a state becomes vulnerable to unrest—than at predicting the exact event that will occur on a particular date.

So “the ability to predict” is not a simple yes-or-no matter.

There are different kinds of prediction:

Some are deterministic;

Some are probabilistic;

Some are conditional;

And some merely describe several possible future scenarios.

So what should count as a genuine prediction?

I believe a prediction should meet at least several basic conditions.

First, it must be made before the event occurs.

Finding symbolic correspondences in a chart after an event has already happened is interpretation or retrospective analysis. It is not the same as prediction.

Second, the prediction must be sufficiently clear.

It should specify:

Who or what is being predicted?

What is expected to happen?

Within what approximate time frame?

What outcome would count as success?

What outcome would count as failure?

If a prediction only says, “There will be change,” “The relationship will be tested,” or “An important development will occur in your career,” then it may be broad enough to fit too many different outcomes.

That makes it difficult to determine whether anything was truly predicted.

Third, a prediction must be capable of failing.

If a relationship ends, Saturn can be interpreted as separation.

If the relationship continues but becomes burdensome, Saturn can be interpreted as pressure.

If the relationship becomes stable, Saturn can be interpreted as commitment.

When every possible outcome can be explained as an expression of the same symbol, the system may have great interpretive flexibility, but its predictive ability becomes difficult to test.

A genuine prediction must take the risk of being wrong.

Fourth, the rules should be established in advance.

We should not wait until the outcome is known and only then choose which planet, house, or technique best matches what happened.

If different techniques produce conflicting indications, there should also be some prior rule about which technique takes priority.

Otherwise, the interpretation can simply be adjusted after the fact.

Fifth, the prediction should perform better than the base rate.

For example, predicting that a company already facing severe financial problems may enter a crisis does not necessarily require astrology. It may already be a reasonable conclusion based on ordinary information.

To show that a method adds predictive value, we need to ask:

How well could we have predicted the outcome without this method?

Does using astrology actually improve accuracy?

Sixth, the results should ideally be reproducible.

If different astrologers interpret the same chart and arrive at completely different conclusions, then we need to ask:

Are the astrological rules themselves unstable?

Or does astrology depend heavily on the astrologer’s personal intuition, experience, and narrative ability?

If the effectiveness comes mainly from the interpreter, astrology may still have value in consultation, reflection, and meaning-making.

But that is not the same as objective predictive power.

None of this means that astrology has no value.

On the contrary, I believe astrology, as a symbolic language, may help people organize experience, observe cycles, understand inner conflicts, and view life from different perspectives.

But perhaps we need to distinguish more honestly between different functions:

When is astrology interpreting?

When is it describing possibilities?

When is it making a probabilistic judgment?

And when is it making a specific, testable prediction?

A knowledge system can possess profound interpretive power while having only limited predictive ability.

Psychology is a good example. It offers rich explanations of human needs, cognition, emotion, and behavior. It can also make certain probabilistic predictions, but it rarely claims to predict a person’s exact destiny.

Should astrology be understood in a similar way?

Perhaps astrology is better at describing tendencies, themes, and possible directions than at guaranteeing that specific events will occur.

Or perhaps astrology really does have stronger predictive power, but we still need more rigorous methods to test it.

At this point, I am increasingly inclined to think that the most useful question is not:

“Is astrology accurate or inaccurate?”

But rather:

Which parts of astrology are interpretive, and which parts are genuinely predictive?

What exactly is astrology predicting—specific events, psychological tendencies, environmental themes, or changes in probability?

When a prediction fails, are we willing to acknowledge the failure rather than reinterpret the symbolism afterward?

The predictive power of a system does not depend on how rich its language is, nor on whether it can produce a convincing story after the event.

It depends on whether, before the event occurs, it can make a clear claim;

whether that claim can be confirmed or disproved by reality;

and whether, after repeated testing, it performs better than chance, common sense, and ordinary background knowledge.

Perhaps only after clarifying these questions can we have a more serious discussion about the value of astrology—and a clearer understanding of what the word “prediction” actually means.

This is intended as an open-ended discussion rather than a definitive conclusion.

Free PDF: William Lilly's Merlini Anglici 1663 (A Modern Typeset Edition)

Hello everyone,

I am incredibly excited to share a beautifully remastered, modern typeset edition of William Lilly's Merlini Anglici Ephemeris 1663.

I have carefully transcribed and re-typeset the entire original almanac to make it clean, highly readable, and aesthetically pleasing.

I hope you all enjoy reading it and find it a valuable resource for your astrological studies! You can download the free PDF here: [https://archive.org/details/william-lilly-merlini-anglici-1663-modern-edition_20260605]

P.S. The next almanac in the works is Merlinus Anglicus Junior 1644. Stay tuned!