It is an interesting phenomenon how astrology is received in public opinion. There is on one hand a widespread interest fed by the columns in papers or magazines, trivial entertainment, tellingly next to the funnies. But when it comes to intellectual public opinion, astrology is outright dismissed. The verdict is absolute. Anybody professing an interest in the subject is open to ridicule and risks being ostracized. And the tone of disregard is telling -  incredulity laced with a sardonic smile.

The hostility of ‘science' towards astrology highlights its own blind spot. They do not even bother to understand the subject, mistaking a hermeneutic topic (like linguistics) one to be judged by natural scientific methods. These are 'Non Overlapping Magisteria'. But it is hard for science not to overreach and play the role of ultimate arbiter. A case in point is the statement ‘Objections to Astrology’, published in 1975 and signed by 186 Leading Scientists. Both the astronomer Carl Sagan and the philosopher Paul Feyerabend took the scientists to task for their inapt attack on astrology. Being men of reason they felt driven to hold science to its own standards. (http://www.astrologer.com/tests/objections.html)

The English mathematician George Spencer-Brown (1923-2016) also took a stand for astrology, admitting to using it himself. "And to any 'scientist' who sneers at the use of astrology, I quote Newton: 'Sir, I have studied it. You have not!'"

(See als 'Astrology - a language?' in the blog ‘On my mind’)