>> Another way to approach astrology is subjectively. How can an astrologer 'know' so much about a person simply by examining his or her horoscope? To take myself as an example, I have not met most of my clients. I do not have personal knowledge of their lives. Yet over and over again most of them report back to me how 'accurate' are their chart and forecast.
Given the complexity of most lives, with their subtlety and nuance, how can a stranger such as myself know so much, just by examining a relevant horoscope?
The personal experiences of so many people - not just astrologers but their clients and others - tell us that astrology has validity, even if we cannot explain rationally or scientifically why this should be.
Certain sceptics will claim that astrologers have access to vast public records of people, especially with the advent of the internet and Google. What's to stop a stargazer researching clients' lives?
All I can say is that everything I report back to a client is based on astrology. An individual is perfectly capable of deciding what's known about them and what's not. Not even a Wikipedia entry is going to explore the finer detail of, say, someone's emotional life or unspoken fears or concerns.
In my experience, people can decide for themselves whether a horoscope analysis 'works' - and what is the likely source of information.