Geoffrey Dean and his fellow researchers have made various criticisms of astrology which can be found on the Astrology-and-Science website, in various articles published in Correlation, and in Garry Phillipson’s book, Astrology in the Year Zero. Their sceptical arguments are in the public domain and they are severe: that astrological methodology is confused, that human beings are not capable of making the kind of judgements which astrology requires, and that there is no empirical evidence to support the claims that astrologers make. There is, therefore, a need for astrologers to consider these arguments and to provide a response. This paper, written for my MA at Bath Spa University, is an attempt to categorise the various arguments of Dean et al. and to consider their validity and relevance to the actual practice of astrology. It is my contention that their arguments are often incorrect, and largely irrelevant to most forms of astrology currently practised.