Research methodology in astrology and the problem of cherry-picking

I've been thinking about how we approach research in astrology and although there's a lot of sound research out there I believe the way some studies or claims are presented sometimes falls short of good research standards.

The common approach (and why it's problematic)

One frequent method I see goes like this:

1. Choose a topic (e.g., major scientific discoveries)

2. Pick a specific planetary aspect or configuration (e.g., Jupiter conjunct Uranus) and note all the time periods this aspect happened

3. Go through Wikipedia, find notable examples that match the time periods when the aspect happened and present them as evidence

This looks convincing at first glance but in my view, it's a form of cherry-picking. You're starting with the desired astrological pattern and selectively highlighting events that fit, without checking whether those events occur more often during such aspects than at other times.

Without a proper comparison (control group), it's impossible to know if the matches are meaningful or just what we'd expect by chance.

A better way

In my opinion, a more objective approach would be:

1. First, compile a comprehensive, unbiased list of all relevant events in the category we're studying (e.g. major scientific discoveries in the 18th-21st century)

2. For each event, check if the chosen planetary position or aspects (eg. Jupiter conjunct Uranus) exist at that time using consistent, pre-defined orbs

3. Analyze the data: How often does the event appear during aspect periods versus non-aspect periods? (While using proper statistics to test for significance.)

This way, we're letting the data speak instead of hunting for confirming examples and it makes the research much stronger.

A simple way to check this statistically

I don't have enough knowledge to suggest advanced statistics but here's a straightforward method that's doable:

Decide on the orb in advance. Say we're studying Jupiter -Uranus conjunctions and taking 5° on each side of the exact aspect). That means the aspect is "active" for about 10° out of the full 360° circle = roughly 1/36 of the time (or about 2.8%).

Then, with the complete list of events, we simply count how many fell inside those aspect windows. If significantly more than 1/36 of the events happened during the aspect (compared to what you'd expect by random chance), it suggests a possible correlation worth exploring further.

This isn't perfect, but it's transparent and a considerable improvement over cherry-picking.

Disclaimer: I'm not an advanced astrologer and will gladly stand corrected if there are any mistakes in my reasoning.