Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
It is inevitable, statistically speaking, that one will discover "statistically significant" correlations where no genuine relationship exists if one looks hard enough. If you want objective evidence for the value of astrology, you should formulate 10 or so hard hypothesis that astrology would suggest should be true and test all 10 of them. If you achieve statistical significance for the majority of the postulated premises, you are sitting on real evidence. If you achieve statistical significance for only one or two of them, chances are that's just chance.

Did you and Hitta discover this correlation independently, or is this from an outside source? If it is from an outside, pro-astrology source, you are sampling from a biased pool of information. Only those correlations that are supportive of astrology end up being posted on pro-astrology sites--and like I was saying, it's inevitable there are significant correlations to be found purely by chance. If one looks hard enough he will necessarily find a few.
This is one random study conducted by Hitta. He examined the entire list of victoria secret models on the wiki, 1 by 1 without discrimination. He was looking for venus correlations (that was the expectation - that venus would be in exchange and in exaltation signs), and that's exactly what he got. He got double the expected overall correlation over a sample of 205 people. I havent calculated the odds of these statistics occurring randomly, but seeing as how the expected statistic is at 45 percent and the results are 85 percent; and the sample is a decent size (205), I'll venture a random ass guess the confidence ratio is at least 1 in 10,000 and probably alot higher. Nice wall of bullshit, though.