Dr Seymour fulfils the words of his title beautifully. He takes us through a fascinating history of our use of calendars, and our improvements in timekeeping and the establishment of the Greenwich Meridian and the international dateline. He describes our use of the stars to navigate, and the sixth senses of animals to use both day and night indicators to navigate. He describes the "resonance" factor in the tides, whereby the force exerted (the gravity of Sun Moon and Earth) seem to be much smaller than the effect (the tides).
All this leads us into the final chapters where he takes head on the relationship between current scientists and current astrology, particularly as seen in the work of Michel Gauquelin. As Seymour said, "Debate and controversy is essential to scientific progress". But alas, he is one of a small minority who actually practice this as true Scientific Method allows that it should, and actually extends a truly scientific attitude towards issues usually described by scientists these days as "pseudoscience".
Seymour describes how CSICOP, the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal", actually distorted and refused to publish their findings - which, it appears, support the claim that there is validity in the notion that the planets influence our abilities. He explores in depth the true scientific attitude, and the failure of scientists like those in CSICOP to practice it.
This for me is the strongest point of the book - the intelligent exploration of openness, and in particular openness to the hidden dimensions of science as manifest in astrology, while keeping a scientific attitude, and the status of a competent and well-qualified scientist. Many scientists would fear to lose their jobs and reputations if they spoke up as Seymour has done. One could go further - but he has laid good foundations.
In all, hats off to Seymour for speaking up so well.
I believe the story of Gauquelin has an unhappy end, but a happier more recent sequel. I seem to remember that Gauquelin eventually lost heart and destroyed a lot of his life's work - but more recently, others have taken it up again, and showed that, unlike what CSICOP claimed, his work does hold up to scrutiny. That is "hearsay" since it's only what I remember - but I remember well.