Abstract: Two of the staunchest critics of astrology presented their case in an article published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies (2003) that has since become a standard reference. The authors argue that the astrological experience is more likely to work by “hidden persuaders” than by either objective or psychic criteria, yet their argument provides no evidence of this. The authors demand careful testing yet their own examples and claims against astrology are not careful. The meta-analysis claim mixes studies with widely disparate data types. The parental tampering argument against Michel Gauquelin’s planetary eminence findings lacks supportive evidence. The “definitive” time twins test fails to define the criteria of resemblance. The test of predicting psychological test profiles does not discriminate between permanent personality dimensions and psychological states as astrology requires. The blind chart matching studies evaluated skills on the wrong parties where they would not be expected by either astrology or psychology. The authors fail to mention the most interesting and promising peer-reviewed astrological research studies that were available to them. Improved discourse with astrological subject matter experts is recommended.
McRitchie, Kenneth. (2016). Clearing the logjam in astrological research. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 32(9-10), pp. 153-179.
[Link to article]
Copyright © 2016 by Imprint Academic.