You are quite incorrect. If the astrologers can choose people’s birthdates from two options, or if ‘clients’ pick one description of themselves over the other this would mean that specific information is being gleaned through the charts.
. You don’t know much about astrology, which is common and fine. But this is just ridiculous.
Actually all you demonstrated was that your criteria are not useful and that you didn’t understand my descriptions of the testing protocols. Perhaps I did not explain clearly.
But here’s the issue in a nutshell. If the astrologers can look at two different birth info sets and decide which one fits people’s self-descriptions significantly above chance, then astrology works to some degree and where and when one is born given the positions of the planets, the Sun and moon and horizon, does indicate qualities of the person. If not, not.
The testing protocols I outlines remove any issues around the vagueness of words. If astrologers, in the first can determine which birth info fits the correct self-description (rather than the other self-description they receive) then information is conveyed by that birth info and somehow, by means unknown, by th positions of various heavenly bodies.
I should have added that everyone should come from the same city. That eliminates any possible cultural clues.
If you still don’t get it, imagine yourself in the astrologers shoes. You get two self-descriptions in answers to a questionaire. You have the birth info. Do you have anyway of increasing the likelihood of choosing the right self-description over chance. No, you do not. You have a fifty percent chance. If expert astrologers could pick the right one significantly over change with regularlity, then information is being conveyed based on something no scientist currently acknowledges.
It can be tested and those are both good tests.