Has any study ever been done that found any validity in astrology?!

Has any study ever been done that found any validity in astrology?

I'm aware of one published study, in the journal Nature I think it was, that concluded that astrological predictions made by participating astrologers were no better than random. It was done double-blind, and the astrologers involved chose the method of testing themselves. So, is there *any* *scientific* study that's ever shown that astrology's not a total fiction?

In the link below features the test you mentioned and over 30 others and where they are published. No passing grades.


Add on: Michel Gauquelin created a long running affair, starting in the late 60s, called the Mars effect with some research that looked very promising for astrology.

He collected enormous amounts of data from catalogues of famous people ending up with data for thousands of sporting champions, scientists, actors and writers. He found statistically significant correlations between the birth of sports champions and the position of Mars, between actors and Jupiter, between scientists and Saturn and between journalists and Moon. This shouldn't have been too much encouragement because it was only four planets, only four professions, and only for the top couple of percent of those professions. He found no correlations at all for any planet with random samples.

Because of the enormous amount of data it was difficult to reproduce and one attempt at refuting it boiled into a scandal where doubt was cast on the credibility of the refuters. Eventually, a French group, with Gauquelin's cooperation, set up another test of over a thousand sports champions and found a negative result. Gauquelin then argued that some of the champions weren't champions at all and that several other champions had been missed and should have been included. Needless to say these changes produced a positive result but are clearly post-hoc data manipulation introducing bias.

Since none of these tests are positive for a random sample of people it depended exclusively on how you define champion. Gauquelin wasn't cheating or insincere but he was giving himself permission to select his data by focusing on champions and it was just too much work to find nothing.