Astrology should be recognized as a science.

Thanks for a great debate opponent!My opponent mentioned that if you flip a coin 100 times, there is a 37% chance that you will flip either heads or tails 10% above average. This has to do with the limited amount of data. Flipping a coin 1,000 times will start to correct for the errors and more accurate results will be seen. Also, the higher the variation from chance, the less likely chance is to be the case.So, this is more of an issue of sample scale than irrelevancy of the technique. More samples lead to more accurate results. As you can see, the first chart that I posted in round one has 2,174 astrologers. An even larger sample could be used if Astrology were accepted as a science. More funds and recognition would lead to the most accurate testing. 1. Moon in sector 10 relates to a concept by Michel Gauquelin, a leading researcher in Astrology. He divided the chart into 36 sections, 10 degrees each. [1] Sector one starts at the point in the sky where the eastern horizon rises at time of birth and moves clockwise around the horoscope wheel. And as you mentioned, an accurate testing would be to compare different findings for different professions with the general public. The best way to do this is to take people born in the same year, month, and location as the people in question. This covers the issue of demographic and the issue of whether or not the "average" is happening at expected chance level. You can see this done here: http://www.theoryofastrology.com...In figure 3 you can see that for sports stars, Mars is in "key" sectors consistently 25% + more than other people born up to 3 days before and after the sports star.2. My opponent's point about the results correlating to certain months' danger level is invalid. For one, this test was not exclusive to august born babies. A large enough sample size and evenly distributed data will offset this factor in any observational test. For two, the "0,3,6,9" aspects are set within a limited orb range. There are 360 degrees in a horoscope wheel, 30 for each sign. Those baby’s suns which were born in the beginning of August will be aspecting transiting sun differently (at different times) than those born at the end of August. This is not a month issue, it is a degree issue.Let me show you an example of this. I cast a chart for a hypothetical person on August 1st, 2000 12:00 pm in Washington, DC. The natal sun placement is at 9.41 degrees Leo. We are looking for days where the transiting Sun is making a conjunction (0 degrees), square (90 degrees), or opposition (180 degrees) to the natal Sun. On April 30, 2011 the transiting Sun was at 9.19 degrees Taurus. This is within one degree of a 90 degrees square to the natal position. [2]The second chart is set for August 31st, 2000 12:00 pm in Washington, Dc. The natal sun placement is at 8.32 degrees Virgo. On May 30, 2011 transiting sun is at 8.16 degrees Gemini. This is within one degree of a 90 degree square to the natal position. [3]So we can see here that the time for an increased risk of injury is individual to each person's time of birth (ie the natal position of certain celestial bodies at the time of birth in relation to their placements at the time of the injury.) And in no way has to do with the times in which there is more risk of danger due to demographic and geographic variances. These variances deal with increased injuries on a whole but not individual level. We are looking here at astrological effects in relation to individual events and individual people. Yes, I will admit, there are other variables than astrology that come into place when looking at certain things happening. For someone to know every single variance in relation to any given event is, in the least, highly unlikely. Therefore it is important for astrologers to consider artefacts into to the calculations (for example the time sun is in cancer is a bit longer than the time sun is in capricorn.) With enough data spread out over a range of time and place, and using control groups, the alternating factors are eliminated so that the statistics remain valid. If enough people are getting injured more often than not when their sun is making a harsh aspect to the transiting sun, this is showing that the effect is there regardless of other variables. 3. My opponent says "This is making the assumption that the celestial bodies' movements actually do relate."It is not an assumption when various research, of which i've given a few, has shown that there is a relation between the two. 4. No, dosage is not so important here. I left it in for the continuity with the source that I used to frame my debate. The key word here is "dependence." The dependence of one factor based on another shows that the latter is causing/altering the former. We are clear that dependence is happening because the results showed a significant drop in trend when the aspect was not being made. Let me state now that there are many variables which can affect any given event/action/thought/mood/desire, etc. I do not deny that. I am simply saying that astrology is one of those variables. We have seen the proof in that in the evidence supporting the causality between astrology and human nature. Evidence shows that there is a legitimate claim to causality of Astrology, that works with all other variables, and more research needs to be done to explore that. We know thanks to Hawking that space is curved. [4] He showed evidence of that through calculating the actual coordinates compared to the visually assumed coordinates of celestial bodies near the sun during a solar eclipse. When Hawking proposed this theory, many refuted it because they could not understand how or why curved space fits into our universe. Refuting the theory on the basis that they cannot explain it is not progressive. We do not know how or why astrology fits, but it does. The research shows that it does. More research done on the subject matter is progressive and could lead to the answer. With that being said, I would like to close my debate with the discussion of where astrology is at now, and how mankind will be better off when astrology becomes supported once again as a science. Astrology answers plenty of questions but it raises even more. Some of us astrologers are attempting to answer some of these questions through objective research. Unfortunately, this is very difficult for us. Astrology is a dying science in that its popularity is lower than ever. Not enough people know, or care, about astrology. Because of this, research done is out of our own pockets. There is no funding. There is no support. There is not enough data from a wide range of people.Astrology is also rapidly increasing right now due to the availability of the internet. Astrologers can access online databanks of birth charts. We can make programs that will gather the data for us and shorten our time invested in research. We have the potential right now to study Astrology in a way that has never been done before. We can only keep up the progress and offer more evidence if we have more support to carry out our research. If there is something here with enough evidence to show potential insight into our human nature, why drop the ball on it by keeping it repressed? Only fear and misunderstanding.Thank you for your time. I'd also like to extend an offer to do an astrological reading for him. Because he's skeptical on the issue, it could be a good learning experience for either or both of us. PM me if you are interested, Ore_Ele. 1. http://astrologyexpressed.wordpress.com...2. http://i42.photobucket.com...3. http://i42.photobucket.com...4. http://www.hawking.org.uk...