[eggsby]

One reason I often hear astrology is not taken seriously by the scientific community, as in findings like 'athletes often have aries rising on their birth chart' are ignored and not evaluated further, is because there is no empirical foundation for the communication of the effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

[wizzwizz4]

There actually is empirical foundation for the communication of the effects![0] But the model is strictly simpler if you remove the astrology from it; astrology has no additional explanatory power, and its novel claims (claims not predicted by any other model) are wrong.

> Such children are more likely to be picked for school teams. Once they are picked, players benefit from more practice, coaching and game time — advantages denied to those not selected, who are disproportionately likely to be younger for their selection year. Once accounting for their biological age, the older players might not have been any better than later-born children when they are first picked. But after becoming part of a team, and being exposed to training and matches, they really do become better than later-born children who might be equally talented.

[0]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-athletes-birthdays-...

[eggsby]

Sorry if my language was unclear, I meant to highlight this line from the wiki article:

"There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth in the way astrologers say they do that does not contradict well-understood, basic aspects of biology and physics."

Relevant here because it essentially says "there is no empirical basis for spooky action at a distance" which has been grounds for dismissal of such action-at-a-distance claims like 'the relative positions of celestial bodies influence events on the earth'.

This kind of empiricism has been used as grounds to not critically evaluate these claims. Everyone is certainly free to have their own reasons around why they do not want to evaluate such claims. For example some people only want to consider things that are easily falsifiable and subject to particular scientific practices. The wiki article goes on to mention how Carl Sagan refused to disavow astrology on these grounds (i.e. gravity is weak so stellar influence writ large ought to weak) while still leaving room for a disavowal if it were on firmer grounds. I do think your point about simplicity is salient here.

[wizzwizz4]

> 'the relative positions of celestial bodies influence events on the earth'.

Who's claiming that‽ The relative positions of celestial bodies have influenced all sorts of events. For instance, the horoscopes in the newspaper, or photographs of the night sky.

No, what's in doubt is astrology, which is a much more specific set of (wrong) claims.