No, but I have nothing against it in principle.

People who dismiss the idea of astrology out-of-hand are just afflicted by scientistic thinking. There is a certain worldview that a large proportion of the population takes nowadays, and it's characterized by thinking that everything is fundamentally material/physical (a totally gratuitous assumption) and, more subtly, that things are separate from each other and don't affect each other or aren't otherwise correlated with each other by default/until proven otherwise.

Actually, come to think of it, the problem is much more general than the assumptions of materialism, mechanism and separatism. The problem is the assumption that anything that seems to signify something in any way "magical" or mysterious about the world is automatically denied. People call this skepticism, but real skepticism is discernment, not closed-minded rejection of everything but the most mundane of possible worlds.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against science per se, even though the worldview described above *is* an (unfortunate) outcome of the scientific revolution. Science is fascinating and immensely useful, and I don't doubt most scientific claims, but the materialistic, separatistic, mechanistic worldview that goes along with it is completely unproven and unwarranted. Scientists are only human after all.

I'm not saying astrology is necessarily legitimate, I haven't studied it enough to know either way. But I am saying that the *only* valid way of determining whether it's legitimate or not is to really get into it.

Btw, I can see how a lot of people are turned off of astrology because of horoscopes. I don't particular "believe in" horoscopes. While I think it's entirely possible that the emotional energies of the planets affect our everyday lives, I think that horoscope writers interpret this information as probable events waaay too specifically, probably because that's what sells.

I think another thing that turns people off of astrology is the misconception that astrological events *determine* the future. Even if astrology is legitimate, that's not what they do exactly; they *influence* events, just like a million other things that influence events, such as the daily weather or the media.

Another thing that people tend to rationalistically hold against astrology is the fact that the Zodiac signs can't possibly mean the same things as they did thousands of years ago, because of precession, or because the constellations are completely man-made interpretations of a random scattering of stars. The problem with both of these objections is the assumption that, for the Zodiac to be correct, the assumed mythological reasons for it--the stars and the constellations--must hold up to scrutiny. On the contrary, astrology was scientifically developed over many generations, and the relationships that it lays out (such as those between the position of the Earth in its rotation and revolution at a person's time of birth and their personality) could easily have been based on those scientific observations themselves, while the *explanations* for those relationships (such as the inference that it's related to the stars) could have been ad hoc and spurious. There are other things that change as the earth travels around the sun, for example, such as the weather.

(when I say that it was "scientifically devoloped, I don't mean in the strictest sense of the word, where it can be measured by instrumenst and proven, but I mean in it in a more essential sense in that it its theories/hypotheses were honed in on and refined through observation in a kind of feedback loop--or at least, they could have been.)

I've written more about the subject here https://retrospring.net/ColorStorm/a/616117 and here https://retrospring.net/Wasserpistole/a/725925 . You can read more about the pitfalls of so-called skepticism here http://megasociety.org/noesis/197.pdf in the article "Doubting Doubt." (*Noesis* is written by some of the sharpest people in the world.)