Is astrology really a science that can be proven? Can the alignment of the planets of when and where someone was born make them who they are?

The "profound human impulse" mentioned by Richard Heck in his response is worth characterizing further: it is the impulse to believe that there are correlations between dimensions of which we have direct experience (the earthly, the present) and those which lie beyond the realm of experience (the cosmos, the future) . But the believer forgets that these correlations only work in virtue of the other-worldly, cosmic dimensions being and of course remaining other-worldly. Astrologers establish a correlation between the movements of the astrological form (itself a mere collection of unrelated astral bodies connected by lines) and the earthly, biological dimension. But it is only because the form is an intangible construct that it can be meaningfully correlated to life on earth in the first place. By drawing a celestial form one draws a human one. Astrology may thus seem true (but about what?) because the very possibility of attributing meaning to what is intrinsically meaningless confers on it...