How credible is astrology?

Geoffrey Dean, a scientist and former astrologer based in Perth, Australia, and Ivan Kelly, a psychologist at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada; worked on a conclusive article near a decade ago which reverted to in the direst fashion, a common depreciation in the trust of society, in the validation of communion through empirical standards. Without this there can be no trust and thus value in terms as so defined, and the common agreement in understanding of quality. For several decades, these two controlled researchers who tracked more than 2,000 people – most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, they made the claim, the subjects should have had very similar traits. The babies were originally recruited as part of a medical study begun in London in 1958 into how the circumstances of birth can affect future health. More than 2,000 babies born in early March that year were registered and their development monitored at regular intervals. The researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading – all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts. The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the ‘time twins’, however they reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: “The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success . . . but the results are uniformly negative.” In stark contrast to the common perceptions of individuals, the two professed to discredit astrology. The case is addressed in point because the ill-fated mistake is common when a scientist challenges by address - a common solution - from uncommon situations. The data formed, irregardless of scrutiny is valuable in its own right and the appreciation of this data is formulated by just determination with deeper intrinsic value. By this such premise astrology is credible, despite this scientific study.
As a non-conformist appreciation of individual situations within greater context, the insinuations are non-reversible in magnification as scientific enquiry!
Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic : they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument.
Communion: the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, esp. when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level i.e. in this churchyard communion with the dead was almost palpable.

What is detailed by these two core concepts is the very foundation of the literary art, and essence of this very modality of communication. Note: articles includes excerpts from the following link http://stupidevilbastard.com/2003/08/researchers_prove_astrology_is_complete_rubbish_piss_off_astrologers_world_/