Conditionalist astrology :D

peppergirl- What mechanisms do they attribute the influence of the planets to? In other words, have any credible theories been proposed to explain what they have observed? Did they consider the influence of the more mundane timing of birth? Children born in different months will have either an advantage or a disadvantage in many disciplines, depending on the country's cut-off date for schooling as older children will be more mature and better developed, particularly early on. Sorry for the somewhat newb-ish questions, but I don't know much about the subject.

And there are many, many more biases in science than there should be, which is why part of improving research procedures involves identifying and compensating for them, so that result doesn't surprise me at all. xD Thank you for sharing your interest with us. I've never actually met anyone who studied astrology before and I am curious to hear more about it.

I'm not at my university right now, so my access to journals is somewhat limited, but if you come up with some specific studies you'd like to get your hands on, I could probably either get you a copy or read it and post a summary, as I can still get into some databases and use the Cambridge libraries. I may, once I have a bit more time, see if I can find anything by Takana, as the links between solar storms etc and hormones sounds intriguing. Perhaps some of the responses tie to the radiation or fluctuating magnetic fields (in organisms such as birds, which have adapted to sense them)? Or perhaps fluctuating electric fields could slightly tweak the equilibrium for reactions that rely on charge? (This seems unlikely, but I'm trying to think of what aspects would be most likely to disrupt cellular chemical reactions) I'm not sure how an eclipse would effect a biological system, but maybe some sort of interference with Circadian rhythms (for a solar eclipse, at least). Seems like a weak link, as there are other reasons for light to fluctuate during the day, but I suspect his actual papers probably have more complete explanations as this is just me speculating. Is Franck Brown discussing just daily circadian rhythms or has he looked into larger scale more seasonal changes? (I could buy that, many animals do change their behavior over the course of the year, to adapt to changes in climate and resource, and there might be some left over behaviors in humans. I don't think any of this part has much to do with astrology, but I'd still be interested in reading more, as biology adapts to environmental changes in interesting ways.) I'd have to look more into the methodology of all these things, as correlation doesn't equal causation and all that jazz, but I'd be happy to give my opinion on some of the studies as well (or shut up, if you'd prefer to leave me and my stuck-up science major mind out of this. That's cool too. I just sort of like dissecting papers, probably more than I should.)

And I'll admit the explanation doesn't convince me, although you explained it quite well, very poetically, actually. It sounds more like philosophy or spiritualism than science to me, which may be a better way of classifying it, and, in which case, I'm probably not the best one to critique the methodologies and beliefs, as I'm an atheist and have never formally studied philosophy (I know, I know, I have no soul. ). I'd be happy to hear more about the history, however, and am certainly willing to learn more, as I'm not familiar with this sort of thing and looking to see if there is any scientific basis certainly isn't going to hurt anyone. Popular opinion's been wrong before, and well-thought out, carefully executed experiments could introduce a more scientific methodology and wider acceptance, or astrology may be best standing on its own. I don't know enough to say. But there are university labs trying to determine whether there's any scientific basis for telepathy, so who am I to judge? 

And don't worry about writing on your iPhone.  We'll take information as you have time to post it, there's no rush and you're not under any obligations.  I'll read it when you get around to posting it.

Interesting.  I have to wonder if part of it has to do with ambient light levels, which play a role in circadian rhythms (in both humans and animals).  I'll see if I can find the original article, I think there was a link.  The sample size seems a bit small to draw any firm conclusions, but a positive result could motivate larger studies.  Sorry for the nitpicking, and it's likely the full article addresses my concerns, but wanted to offer my reservations.  I do think it seems like a good potential find, as sleep is complicated and poorly understood, but would not necessarily consider these results conclusive.  Perhaps instead of conducting another study devoted just to the full moon, which might be a bit of strain financially as large scale studies are tough, they could do a survey of old results, try and reconstruct trends from other databases on sleep, perhaps find some larger observational studies (of which I'm sure there are plenty).  It's not my field, so I haven't read enough of the literature to know how feasible this would be, but I would think there'd be at least a few other studies they could examine to try and confirm their results.  Once again, not my field and I'm still a student, so this could be entirely off-base, but those were my first thoughts and that's what I would do next were I to be involved in the study.  Thanks for sharing, as that's really cool.

ayoungspirit- Thanks, that makes sense to control for the placebo effect. (I don't know the precise methodology they used, so I don't know if the extra light would have made any difference but that was my first thought) I've thought of a few other possible complications, but I'd have to see the official results to know if any are valid. It's entirely possible they controlled for all factors, but I'm just playing Devil's advocate and thinking of what they'd need to check for and I don't like drawing firm conclusions off of such a small sample size.

peppergirl- I know. And I am trying to keep an open mind, and see what the findings say. I guess to me it doesn't seem as natural, saying man evolved with the cosmos, as I can't see a causality to it, and I like being able to explain things or at least see some hint of an answer to "Why?". Very narrow-minded and literal of me, I know, but I don't fully understand why there would be an influence, which may very well be a flaw in my own understanding rather than astrology. As I said, I'm not committing myself either way yet, just learning before forming an opinion. And I am skeptical of much of soft science, I just enjoy suspending my disbelief enough to learn, and, in the case of Jung, hold it more as a model than an objective truth. It's not a criticism towards either astrology or soft science, more of a cognitive shift away from the hard sciences and having to look through a different perspective. I'm learning.

And I'm well aware of that. I read and write fantasy novels for fun, and many science majors I know are fantasy or sci fi nerds. I think astrology's a bit out of vogue at the moment, but it could come back. I do think if there's good data it's worth investigating, and that it shouldn't be discarded because of the subject matter, but that alternate explanations should also be considered, as with all of science. Don't worry, I just spent a month in a class picking apart parts of neuroscience that seemed sort of fishy. It's not just this. And it doesn't surprise me that Newton et al were interested. It was a theory of understanding the world, and there was nothing to say what was right or wrong, and it is an appealing concept, I'm just not sure if I believe it. I'm interested and curious, but skeptical, if that makes any sense. I want to learn, but am not yet sure if I agree.

I think you mean crazy

This is very, very true.  Theory vs. experimentalism.  Unfortunately, I think I may be better at the theory bits...but think the empiricism is more reliable so I'm trying to become better at developing that type of critical thinking.  Hence why I may be overanalyzing it.  It's something I've practicing and think (hope) I'm getting better at.  My natural inclination is to play around with formulas all day and see what comes out, but that's more like philosophy or mathematics and not what I'm looking to do.  I do want to become skilled at both, but it's a process.  But a lot of the founders of science were sort of crazy, which is part of why they're so awesome.  Newton was nuts, a genius, but nuts.  And I say this with the utmost respect, as I highly admire Newton and think it takes a certain type of genius to embrace both.