Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Astrology research

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Edwollmann

unread,

Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98

RESEARCH & STATISTICS-SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ASTROLOGY

Statistically significant results have been
achieved in scientifically conducted
studies of astrological factors in the
fields of biology, psychology, and chemistry.
The most consistent studies of various types
done to date have conclusively shown that
both the positions of the planets in the sky
and the planets themselves affect life on earth
in scientifically significant ways. The studies
do not support every popular theory of astrol-
ogy, but enough irrefutable scientific evi-
dence now exists that a case for the validity
of cosmic relationship with human behavior
cannot be ignored by science without invok-
ing a double standard for what is and is not
acceptable to science.
The statistical studies of Michael and
Francoise Gauquelin with the birth data of
many thousands of famous people have been
a key element in attempts to validate the
claims of astrology. The Gauquelins suc-
ceeded in proving a relationship between
personality and planetary positions at birth
that defied normal explanation. These studies
have now been replicated by scientists, and
the positive results are still accumulating.
In 1949, Michael Gauquelin started investi-
gating astrology and discovered real scientific
results, the most well-known called the "Mars
effect." Assisted by his wife Francoise, he col-
lected information on over 40,000 timed
births of professional persons. This data in-
cluded 16,336 timed births of people who
were judged by their peers to be eminent in
their occupations, and timed births of over
24,000 persons who were judged simply to be
professionals in these same occupations. The
occupations included science, arts (writers,
sculptors, and painters), medicine, athletics,
journalism, politics, and the military.
The Gauquelin data showed statisti-
cally that the positions of certain planets
traditionally associated with particular occu-
pations appeared in an astrologically signifi-
cant portion of the sky at the birthtimes of the
people in the respective occupations.
The results of the Gauquelin tests were
repeated on group after group of people, and
the scientifically significant results support-
ing astrological hypotheses were the same.
The tests consistently found that plan-
ets in certain sectors of the sky do indeed
appear more frequently than can be accounted
for by chance in the birth placements of people
prominent in their fields of endeavor.
For example, astrological theory states that
the planet Jupiter should be prominent in the
birth placement of politicians, and the planet
Mars in the placements of sports champions.
The initial and subsequent results of the tests
performed with the Gauquelin data con-
firmed these observations.
These test results are important to as-
trologers as rebuttal to many scientists who
claim that no significant test of astrological
theory has ever been made that has stood up
to the rigors of scientific investigation. These
results are evidence that a scientific basis for
astrology does indeed exist.
Serious research is the trademark of
science. To be accepted into the scientific
community, any discipline must embrace
experiments conducted in an accepted man-
ner. Astrologers a re using sophisticated tech-
nology and methods to establish astrology's
tenets as valid for the human condition and
important to the scientific establishment. They
are eager for science as a discipline to live up
in its definition of embracing all knowledge,
and know that astrological tenets do bear
further serious scientific study.

Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Astrological Consulting
Altair Publications

Greg Lynn

unread,

Jan 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/30/98

In article <19980129064...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
edwol...@aol.com says...

>
>RESEARCH & STATISTICS-SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ASTROLOGY
>
>Statistically significant results have been
>achieved in scientifically conducted
>studies of astrological factors in the
>fields of biology, psychology, and chemistry

This from a man who consistently denounces empirical science and its
concept of proof...Oh well, I'll take the bait. Please show where
astrology is proven to effect biology, psychology and chemistry.

.
>The most consistent studies of various types
>done to date have conclusively shown that
>both the positions of the planets in the sky
>and the planets themselves affect life on earth
>in scientifically significant ways.

By what underlying physical mechanism?

>The studies
>do not support every popular theory of astrol-

>ogy, but enough irrefutable scientific evidence

Whatever happened to 'nothing is proven?'

>now exists that a case for the validity
>of cosmic relationship with human behavior
>cannot be ignored by science

It is my feeling that astrology has been empirically tested before and
failed-yet some of its advocates continued to argue its validity behind
a veil of secrecy and deception, and have deflected attempts at
scientific investigation by various means (just look at Peat's insane
rants when skeptics attack his theories-IMO, HE is the KOTM award
winner, and is much worse than Ed)

>without invok-
>ing a double standard for what is and is not
>acceptable to science.

It is true science is sometimes prejudiced-even Steven.S.Zumdahl, a
professor of Chemistry, admits this. But scientific studies of
astrology have been carried out nontheless. It justs seems that
editors of journals seem unwilling to devote space when more important
and revelant science exists-ie thin film deposition, semiconductor
research, quantum computing, Carbon nanotubes, cloning, quantum
systems, AIDS vaccines, Lasers, superconductors, remote sensing,
high-energy physics, alloy research-the list of scientific research
more important than astrology goes on and on.

> The statistical studies of Michael and
>Francoise Gauquelin with the birth data of
>many thousands of famous people have been
>a key element in attempts to validate the
>claims of astrology. The Gauquelins suc-
>ceeded in proving a relationship between
>personality and planetary positions at birth
>that defied normal explanation.

Any mathamatical formula/proofs/experimental evidence (modern from
double blind experiments based on statisitcal methods of data
collection)

>These studies
>have now been replicated by scientists, and
>the positive results are still accumulating.

Any published works I can view with relevance to this claim?

It seems odd that two theories that don't make sense-QM and astrology
have all been tested. Whilst QM fits experimental data very well (ie
the spectra of a hydrogen atom) Gaqulin's research or his supposed case
for astrological validity has never been accepted by either the common
public (with the exception of the scientifically and mathamatically
weak) or by the scientific community, yet QM has been widely accepted
on its experimental success. Why then, has Gacqulin's hypothesis been
rejected, whilst QM, which has so many bizarre postulates, been
accepted?

>These
>results are evidence that a scientific basis for
>astrology does indeed exist.

At least someone seems to have knocked some scientific reasoning into
your head.

> Serious research is the trademark of
>science. To be accepted into the scientific
>community, any discipline must embrace
>experiments conducted in an accepted man-
>ner. Astrologers a re using sophisticated tech-
>nology and methods to establish astrology's
>tenets as valid for the human condition and
>important to the scientific establishment. They
>are eager for science as a discipline to live up
>in its definition of embracing all knowledge,

Science does accept all knowledge-so long as it passes its methodology.

>and know that astrological tenets do bear
>further serious scientific study.

Good. At least now our the theory might get some fact.

-Greg

lff...@ceibo.entelnet.bo

unread,

Jan 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/31/98

In <19980129064...@ladder03.news.aol.com>edwol...@aol.com
(Edwollmann) writes:

>RESEARCH & STATISTICS-SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ASTROLOGY

>Statistically significant results have been
>achieved in scientifically conducted
>studies of astrological factors in the

>fields of biology, psychology, and chemistry.

Most unreplicated and all in serious doubt and/or
contradicted by studies attempting to replicate
their results.

>The most consistent studies of various types
>done to date have conclusively shown that
>both the positions of the planets in the sky
>and the planets themselves affect life on earth

>in scientifically significant ways. The studies

>do not support every popular theory of astrol-

>ogy, but enough irrefutable scientific evi-
>dence now exists that a case for the validity

>of cosmic relationship with human behavior

>cannot be ignored by science without invok-

>ing a double standard for what is and is not
>acceptable to science.

References please. The Guaquelin studies do
not support any popular theory of astrology.

The proved nothing they showed a high probablity
for a correlative relationship, however, the
validity of their sample is still in dispute.

> These studies
>have now been replicated by scientists, and
>the positive results are still accumulating.

The replications were done with the same suspect
database. The only study I know of that used a
separate database showed no relationship.

> These test results are important to as-
>trologers as rebuttal to many scientists who
>claim that no significant test of astrological
>theory has ever been made that has stood up
>to the rigors of scientific investigation.

This was not a test of astrological theory. No
astrolgical system was used as a basis for
the studies. The studies tested correlations
but not those used by astrologers. Michel
Gauquelin tested astrological correlations in
other studies, which you somehow fail to
mention. Quoting him from a 1982 discussion of
a study he conducted to test traditional
zodiacal influences on personality claimed by
astrologers.

"The results of our study are clear-cut and
need few comments. There is no correlation
between character traits of the subjects and
the signs under which they were born. In our
previous studies, we have already found that
there was no correlation between professional
success and zodiac and no zodiacal-sign "heredity"
between parents and child's horoscopes. All this
presents a large body of experimental evidence
against the alleged influences of the twelve
signs."

>These
>results are evidence that a scientific basis for
>astrology does indeed exist.

They are evidence, not proof, of a relationship
between planetary positions and human characteristics.
However, they say nothing about the validity of
astrology as it is currently practiced.

>and know that astrological tenets do bear
>further serious scientific study.

I don't hear anyone saying it should not be
studied. However, astrologers must accept that
reliable studies must include serious consideration
of alternative explanations for presumed astrological
phenomena. If studies demonstrate that presumed
effects of planetary influences can be more completely
and accurately explained as illusions, then astrolgers
should be as ready to accept the results as they
expect scientists to be ready to accept other results.

Mr. Wollmann expects us to accept the Gauquelin
results for the "Mars Effect" but reject the results
that show no zodiacal influence. He also is unable
to dispute the results of numerous other studies (see
my references at bottom) yet does not accept them
either. He spouts off about "statistically significant
results" yet provides not a single reference. With
all these contradictory positions, not to mention his
well won reputation for dishonesty, why should anyone
take his proposals seriously?

lff

References:

Studies showing subjects to be unable to differentiate between
correct, incorrect or randomly generated charts.

Cummings, M.,Smith, m., Lovick, K., and Crosbie, P. 1978. Astrological
Chart Interpretation: Exploring an alternative strategy for counseling.
"Kosmos", 8(2):5-26(Winter 1978-79).

Neher, A. 1980. "The Psychology of Transcendence." Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, pp. 239-242

Lackey, D.P. 1981 A controlled test of perceived horoscope accuracy.
"Skeptical Inquirer", 6(1):26-31(Fall)

Tyson, G. A. 1984. An empirical test of the astrological theory of
personality. "Personality and Individual Differences", 5:247:250.

Carlson, S. 1985. A double-blind test of astrology. "Nature", 318:419-423
(5 December 1985).

Tests of agreement on chart meanings between astrologers.

Vernon Clark study from 1961. World's best astrologers (Charles
Carter, Marc Edmund Jones, et al) 20 astrologers matching 10
pair of charts to case histories, 30 astrologers judging 10 pairs
of charts for intelligence.

Outcome: No agreement between astrologers. (mean correlation
0.13 and 0.12)

S. J. Marcharg study from 1975. 10 astrologers judging 30 charts
for alcoholism .

Outcome: No agreement between astrologers. (mean correlation
0.17)

L.H. Ross study from 1975. 2 astrologers, both with similar training,
both astrology teachers from the same college, both using Rudhyar's
person centered approach, rating 102 charts on 5 point scales of
the Psychological Screening Inventory.

Outcome: No agreement between astrologers. (mean correlation
0.23)

J.E. Vidmar study 1979. 28 astrologers matching 5 pairs of charts
to case histories.

Outcome: No agreement between astrologers. (mean correlation
0.10)

D.P.Fourie, C. Coetzee, anf D. Costello study from 1980. 2 astrologers
rating 48 charts on eighteen 9 point scales of the 16PF Inventory.

Outcome: No agreement between astrologers. (mean correlation
0.16).

B. Steffert study from 1983. 27 astrologers judging charts of 20 married
couples for marital happiness.

Outcome: No agreement between astrologers. (mean correlation
0.03)

Geoffrey Dean study from 1985

He has studied astrology for many years and in 1985 did
the very interesting study outlined below. The results
of the study were published in "Correlation" the Research
Journal of the Astrological Association of Great Britain.
(reported in Correlation 5(2):2-24 (November) [Correlation
is available from Correlation Distribution, 396 Caledonian
Road, London N1 1DN, England, Tel. 081-469-2828).

To answer the question "Are the judgements of astrologers
using birth charts more accurate than the judgements of
astrologers not using birth charts?

Birthcharts from a sample of 1198 subjects were given to 45
astrologers ranging from beginners to internationally renowned
experts, the subjects had all taken the Eysenck Personality
Inventory(EPI). Sixty of the most introverted, most extroverted,
most stable and most unstable were selected from the sample.
The astrologers were to use the charts to rate each subject
according to which extreme he thought applied and how confident
he was in the judgement. Another group of 45 astrologers were
asked to rate the same subjects but without charts (i.e. simply
guessing).

The birth charts proved to be of no use whatsoever. Charts or
no charts subjects were put into the right groups only at chance
levels.

Level of confidence had no effect - no better than chance.
Technique had no effect - no better than chance.
Experience of astrologer had no effect - no better than chance.
Agreement among astrologers had no effect - no better than chance.

The astrologers agreed that the test was fair.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

0 new messages