Pluto and astrology

[Cathy]

As Pluto is no longer classed as a planet what are the astrologers going to do? Surely they can't say that Pluto now has no significance, so will they be adding other Kuiper belt objects, or asteroids? Or are they just going to ignore another argument that shows what rubbish they are talking?

[fo3nix]

An object's name or definition is insignificant. What matters is the object itself, because that's what's interesting. Nothing has changed in this respect.

[nightmare]

Why have you contaminated the Science section with mention of astrology... (ugh!!)

[fo3nix]

After nightmare's answer, I've just re-read the question.

Cathy: astrology is not a science. It's just made-up rubbish. I suspect they can do whatever they want. Their charts are already way out of line anyway, as they don't take into account small changes in the way the solar system works (or objects inside it, like the Earth's precession).

[Teddio]

Astrology is not a science. For instance compare your "star sign" with your date of birth. This should coincide with the apparent position of the Sun in front of the constellation ("star sign"). It probably doesn't! A baby born today (24th May) will come under Gemini according to the astrologers. However the Sun is in front of the constellation Taurus. They can't even get the basics correct!

[Cathy]

I realise that Astrology is not a science. There wasn't a catergory for superstition, and as my question involved the declassification of Pluto as a planet I thought this was the next best catergory. As Astrologers seem to try to justify their beliefs (saying it's to do with gravity even though the midwife at the birth has a greater gravitational affect on the baby, for example) I wondered what they would say to explain themselves in this regard.