Commentary on Geoffrey Dean and Ivan Kelly’s article
“Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi?”
“Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi?”
This material has been published in Journal of Consciousness Studies, (2016) 23, No. 9-10, pp. 153-79, the only definitive repository of the content that has been certified and accepted after peer review. Copyright © 2016 and
all rights therein are retained by Imprint Academic. This material may
not be copied or re-posted without explicit permission.
The following content
is the author’s final manuscript. For details and citations, please refer to
the peer-reviewed Imprint Academic source.
by Kenneth McRitchie
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.
Despite the title of their article "Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi?" (herein
referred to as “the article” or “D&K”) Geoffrey Dean and Ivan Kelly deliver
a general critique of astrology without much regard for consciousness or parapsychology
(psi). I agree that astrology needs expert criticism
and that astrological research demands continual improvement. Yet Dean and Kelly’s
arguments do not regard astrological concepts and theories with any seriousness.
My reply to their article aims to point out weaknesses and errors that the
authors should have avoided.
A critical reply is desirable considering that since it first
appeared in 2003 in the Journal of
Consciousness Studies the article has become a standard reference. It now returns
more than 50,000 results for a Google search of the title as an exact phrase.
Google Scholar lists 42 citations. The current Wikipedia articles on
“Astrology” and on “Astrology and Science” reference the article six times.
Because Dean is a former professional astrologer and carries influence as an
authority on the subject, critical review of his widely available views and
arguments should not be neglected if objections are warranted.
Dean and Kelly’s article is divided into two halves. The
first half appears to be mainly Kelly’s contribution while Dean’s style is
dominant in the second half.
1.
Kelly’s Arguments
1.1 Shamanism, Psi, and Fantasy
Finding relevance between astrology and parapsychology is a
challenge. Kelly remarks that, “Astrology has one sure thing in common with
parapsychology—a highly visible outpouring of market-driven nonsense” (D&K,
p. 175). Yet compared to our daily exposure to advertising influences of all
descriptions, this guilt by association barely registers at all. Kelly intends
to be fair and says he will favor “serious astrology.” By this we might expect
Kelly to refer to the astrological corpus and draw upon the most reputable
authors. Astrology is a discipline with notable authorities, courses of study,
and diplomas. By comparison psi does not have a similar corpus or accreditation
and unlike astrology it relies upon native gifts. Yet psi is an acknowledged
field of scientific interest and researchers devote considerable time and effort
to its study. Kelly attacks astrology’s relevance to ordinary consciousness,
including scientific method, and suggests its relevance instead to altered
consciousness.
Kelly quotes renowned British astrologer Charles Carter who stated
in his book The Principles of Astrology
(1925) that “Practical experiment will soon convince the most sceptical that the
bodies of the solar system indicate, if they do not actually produce, changes
in: 1. Our minds. 2. Our feelings and emotions. 3. Our physical bodies. 4. Our
external affairs” (p. 14). Kelly shifts from “practical experiment” to
“practice” and a different meaning, “But after twenty centuries of practice, astrologers
still cannot agree on what a birth chart should contain, how it should be
interpreted, or what it should reveal” (D&K, p. 176). Yet, as readers of
astrological textbooks can confirm, astrological content and interpretations
are much more often in agreement with each other than contradictory. Kelly has
not made a proper assessment of the practice and his claim is unwarranted.
Carter’s optimism requires understanding and cooperation among
all researchers. Environmental and lifestyle factors, such as those described
in astrology are easily underrated yet can shape an individual’s personality and
habits in ways that are difficult to assess in other disciplines. An
experimental evaluation of astrologically conceived environmental influences should
more realistically be regarded as no less challenging than psychologically
conceived evaluations of innate personality.
We should expect Kelly to draw upon the corpus of astrological
counseling and best practices, but Kelly is interested only in astrologers who claim
to use, or who appear to him to use, psychic abilities. Kelly ignores Carter’s view
on this issue, which appears on the same page as the practical experiment statement,
“Astrology does not involve any form of psychism, and is founded upon
mathematical and astronomical data, interpreted according to general
principles.”
Kelly thinks that astrological divination as described more
recently by British astrologer Geoffrey Cornelius in his influential book The Moment of Astrology (1994, 2003) suggests
a connection to psi. Kelly suggests that psychic processes work even where astrologers
do not claim psychic ability yet demonstrate remarkable insights while interpreting
natal charts by the written literature. Kelly’s argument covers four stages: 1)
Trace the consciousness responsible for the astrological experience; 2) Determine
whether the experience is “something unusual happening” (paranormal); 3) Compare
the experience with “best hits” familiar in psi research; and 4) Identify factors
that could explain the experience.
To argue Stage 1, Kelly uses the example of horary astrology,
described by Cornelius as an example of divination. In horary practice, the
astrologer sets up a chart for the moment and place when the client (querent) poses
a question to be astrologically judged. That moment could be when the
astrologer understands the question, for example by reading it in a letter. From
this example of a letter, Kelly argues that the “horary birth (sic) chart does not exist until the
astrologer becomes consciously involved by receiving the question” (D&K, p.
176) and the querent has no conscious connection to the moment used for the chart.
Kelly fails to consider the antecedent of the horary moment. The
involvement of the astrologer does not, as Kelly implies, divorce the chart
from the querent’s urge of posing the question and allowing a judgment to be
made. In much the same way, the judgment of a bank clerk does not divorce the
clearing of a check from the person who wrote it. As Cornelius explains, the
querent’s conscious “will-to-inquire” establishes the root basis, which he
calls the “radical intent,” that associates with the chart and makes it valid (Cornelius,
p. 107). Because there is an intended interaction with the astrologer, the
consciousness of the querent necessarily includes the astrologer’s involvement in
the timing of the chart.
Kelly seizes onto Cornelius’s description of chart reading as
a “ritual” and a “divination” to suggest that the astrologer’s judgment is
neither an interpretation of astrological theory nor a psychic “gift of nature”
but is a product of the astrologer’s mental state.
“The actual involvement of the astrologer, as opposed to being a mere
interpreter, suggests that astrological ‘connections’ are less a gift of nature
and more a product of the astrologer’s mind… In this ‘all in the mind’ view of
astrology there is nothing actually ‘out there’ that involves planets… The
technique used for reading the chart is then merely a ritual that leads to the
right mental state” (D&K, p. 177).
This rationalization begs a question. If the mental state
that produces the astrological experience is neither conscious (arising from
the interpretation of theory) nor unconscious (arising from the gift of psi),
then what mental state is Kelly referring to? Arguing that the astrological connections
are “all in the mind” does not resolve this quandary.
Kelly ignores the distinction that Cornelius makes between
the significance of human radical intent and the “unbidden” significance of
traditional theory. These two essential components of significance “overlay”
each other during consultation to bring theoretical particulars into focus
(Cornelius, pp. 132-4). What Cornelius seems to describe is a process whereby
astrologers deliberately inject astrological theory into client interactions as
an organizational and capacity building process that is helpful to the clients.
Instead of this fairly normal process, Kelly suggests a
paranormal resolution to his quandary, which he supports in Stage 2 of his
argument by making vivid associations. He suggests that some astrologers routinely
enter into altered states of consciousness and this makes the experience of reading
a natal chart quite unlike reading any other type of map. Kelly makes an
analogy to the “frenzied dancing, drumming, and mushroom-eating used to attain
shamanistic consciousness.” To Kelly, the symbolic complexity of the chart is
“almost without limit,” and may require “the aid of psi to sort out the
confusion” (D&K, p. 177).
After this stunning impression, Kelly retreats, “For many
astrologers a chart reading involves no more than ordinary concentration, so
‘shamanistic consciousness’ hardly applies to them” (ibid., p. 177). Yet Kelly persists with a more subdued argument to
look for exceptions, “But for others it is different.” He speculates that some
chart reading skills might arise “merely from a fantasy-prone personality (one
that fantasizes vividly during much of waking life)… But proneness to fantasy
seems to be an essential ingredient of shamanism” (ibid., p. 178).
Although Kelly admits that psi and altered consciousness are
not prominent concerns for ordinary astrologers, he builds his case in Stage 3 by
finding exceptions and comparing them to psychic abilities and psychic research.
Kelly quotes psychic researcher Alan Vaughn, “My own small
experience with astrologers has given me the impression that their best hits
are psychic rather than astrological, though in truth it is very difficult to
separate the one from the other” (D&K, p. 180). Assessing the accuracy of psychic
“hits” plays a dominant role in psi research. Kelly quotes some astrological
authors, mediums, and psychics who say that some form of psychic ability or ESP
is useful or even necessary to provide specific details in astrological
readings (ibid., p. 180). Kelly does
not quote any authors from the astrological corpus who have written
specifically on counseling and practice and would be the most reliable sources
of information. Notable authors whose work was available to Kelly are
psychiatrist Bernard Rosenblum (1983), psychologists Maritha Pottenger (1982),
or Noel Tyl (1977), and astrologers Christina Rose (1982), Donna Cunningham
(1994) or Stephen Arroyo (1984). None of these reputable authors mentions
anything about making impressive hits or about the use of psi in working with
clients.
1.2. Hidden Persuaders
Kelly finds some examples of perfect hits in Garry
Phillipson’s book of interviews with astrologers and skeptics Astrology in the Year Zero (2000). The examples
Kelly uses are by Robert Zoller, who described abuse at age thirteen from a
natal chart, and by John Frawley, who described the location of a shawl lost in
a French restaurant by using a horary chart (Philipson, p. 71). These examples prompt
Kelly to remark that, “Such hits lead to the claim that astrologers proudly and
repeatedly make, that astrology is unassailable because it is based on
experience” (D&K, p. 180).
Firstly, on the same page, Phillipson refutes Kelly’s remark
as if he anticipates it, “As an aside, reeling off a list of successes in such
fashion may create the impression of boastfulness on the part of an astrologer,
but such an assessment would be unfair. Getting this kind of detail from John
Frawley and other astrologers was a bit like drawing teeth” (Phillipson, p.
71).
Secondly, Kelly’s remark implies that reading what the chart says with impressive hits
in oracular fashion to passive clients is the essence of the astrologer-client relationship
and provides what clients want. Yet the leading authors on astrological
counseling speak against this. Tyl warns astrologers against the “original sin”
of pressures from their own egos that result in “one-sided performances” that
“prevent sharing, corroboration, learning and profitable counsel” (Tyl, p. 4).
Rosenblum warns against the “persistent difficulty inherent in the
astrologer-client relationship” where client “expectations of magic” can lead
to excessive dependency on “apparently mysterious sources and without effort on
the part of the client” (Rosenblum, p. 20). Rose warns that “people do not want
to be merely interpreted, classified and disassembled… There is an individual
behind every birth chart who wants to be understood and reach new realizations
and awarenesses” (Rose, p. 17).
Thirdly, Kelly’s remark alleges that astrologers claim
“astrology is unassailable because it is based on experience [of perfect hits].”
Kelly says this sentiment “echoes” his opening quote from Charles Carter
(D&K, p. 180). On the contrary, the quote says that “practical experiment [not
experience] will soon convince the most sceptical.” Nor is it a statement of
unassailability. Carter does not say that astrology is based on experience, but
rather that it is “founded upon mathematical and astronomical data, interpreted
according to general principles” (Carter, p. 14). Like any discipline with a
corpus of theory and practice, astrology would have no basis without the corpus
and the astrological experience would not exist. When an astrologer says that in
their “experience” astrology works, they only mean that it is useful as a tool and
not that the reliability of astrology is based on their experience of using it.
Later, Dean makes the same allegation calling it “personal validation.”
By making unsupported allegations, by generalizing from
exceptions, by exaggerating claims, and by ignoring the corpus, Kelly characterizes
the astrological experience as being nothing more than a variation of psi and thus
is subject to the same arguments that he would use against psi. He argues that
the astrological experience is actually based on non-psychic influences that he
calls “hidden persuaders” (Stage 4).
“But the claim [of unassailability that Kelly alleges astrologers make]
is untenable because astrologers are generally unaware of the many hidden
persuaders that can make them see hits where none exist. Examples are the
Barnum effect (reading specifics into generalities), cognitive dissonance
(seeing what you believe), cold reading (let body language be your guide),
nonfalsifiability (nothing can count against your ideas) and operant
conditioning (heads you win, tails is irrelevant). There are many more.
Technically these hidden persuaders can be described as ‘statistical artifacts
and inferential biases.’” (D&K, p. 180)
All of these “hidden persuaders” are quite familiar to
experienced astrologers and could more properly be called “counseling alerts.” Distressed
clients in consultation often jump to hasty conclusions. They rationalize to avoid
discomforting realities. They unwittingly leak revealing clues about themselves.
They trap themselves in always/never absolutes. They persist in bad habits
despite obvious signs of trouble. All of these alerts are to be expected and
none of them make astrological theory untenable as Kelly claims.
Kelly provides no justification for his claim that
astrologers are “generally unaware” of these “hidden persuaders,” which should also
include the placebo effect and confirmation bias. Indeed, it would be negligent
for anyone in the helping professions, including astrologers, to ignore
breaking the ice with generalities leading to specifics or to ignore “cold
reading” a client’s body language. Pottenger explains the usefulness of gaining
“deeper forms of empathy” through the “universal process of counseling,” such
as mirroring body language and establishing non-verbal rapport (Pottenger,
1982, p. 91).
To clench
his claim of hidden persuaders, Kelly argues that it is “not uncommon” for
astrologers to make an apparently successful chart reading only to discover
that they had mistakenly used the wrong chart. Such occurrences have been documented
and they raise valid questions about a potential placebo effect, as sometimes
happens for example in medicine and in court proceedings. However, simply
pointing to anecdotal reports of successful wrong chart readings does not justify
Kelly’s claim that astrologers “ignore the logical conclusion … that astrology
is dominated by hidden persuaders, so any chart will do” (D&K, p. 181n). A more reliable conclusion can be made by testing whether
respondents would rate wrong chart readings as accurately as a genuine chart
reading where the respondents can compare the two. A famous double-blind study
of this type by researcher Shawn Carlson was published in Nature in 1985, but neither Kelly nor Dean mentions it. We’ll look into
this later.
2.
Dean’s contribution
2.1. Correspondences
Since Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather’s publication of their
book Recent Advances in Natal Astrology
(1977), Dean has been the preeminent investigator of statistical research in
astrology. Dean’s early acceptance of statistical methods contrasts with the
oft-repeated but faulty argument that astrological evidence cannot exist
because no sufficient causal mechanism explains it. Although mechanisms are
good to have, science does not require them. For more than a century, the
methods of statistical inference have led the way in science and have provided highly
reliable, highly practical information. Geoffrey Dean has been instrumental in
establishing a much needed common ground of discourse between science and
astrology.
In the article, Dean begins his arguments by claiming that astrology
cannot be true because it is based on the Principle of Correspondences. As an
example of correspondences, Dean says that because Mars is visibly red, this is
how it originally became associated with blood and war. Dean says this
superficial connection makes astrology “untenable” and “like believing in
fairies” (D&K, p. 183). Dean seems unaware of critics who have already refuted
this argument. Attacks on the supposed genetic origins of astrology do not demonstrate
whether the claims themselves are valid or invalid.[1] The
ridicule Dean seems to add is unwarranted.
A further problem is that Dean confuses dissimilar concepts
that require clarification. Dean gives no astrological source for the Principle
of Correspondences. The Kybalion
(1908), an anonymously written yet influential book on Hermetic Philosophy,
describes this principle as what is more commonly known among astrologers as
the Hermetic Maxim, “As above, so below,” which dates from at least the Emerald
Tablet (c. 600-800 CE). The Hermetic Maxim is a mathematical and holistic
concept that is widely regarded as a true organizing principle of astrology. It
refers to process symmetries believed to naturally occur between microcosms and
the macrocosms that contain them (McRitchie, 2004).
However, the Hermetic Maxim is not the target of Dean’s argument. What Dean appears to refer to is the non-astrological Doctrine of
Signatures used in early herbal medicine that holds that every plant has a
pattern that resembles a body organ or physiological function that signifies its
medical benefit. For example: kidney beans associate to kidneys, walnuts [high
in fatty acids] to the brain, liverwort to the liver, eyebright to the eyes, and
sweet potato [known to improve blood sugar levels] to the pancreas (Grieve,
1971; Stori, 2012).[2]
The associations of planetary properties to their
astrological properties that Dean mistakenly calls the Principle of
Correspondences are generally used only to teach astrology. They are simply
heuristic or mnemonic devices that may have nothing to do with the origins of
the astrological properties themselves. The same idea was likely also the
intent of the herbal Doctrine of Signatures, which is consistent with leaning
in preliterate societies. Typically, astrologers claim that astrological
properties are based on centuries of documented observation and practice, as suggested
earlier in the quoted statements by Carter.
2.2. Neglect by psi researchers
Because of the article’s title, Dean needs to say something
about consciousness and psi and he asks, “Why has astrology been neglected by
psi researchers?” He asks psi researcher Carl Sargent, but oddly enough Sargent
does not describe a psi research program, which would normally test the ESP performance
of individuals. Instead, Sargent describes how astrological theory could be
tested by using standard regression techniques.
“For a sound research programme which does justice to the complex and
dynamic interplay of horoscope factors which traditional astrologers emphasise,
it would be necessary… to poll astrologers on which predictor variables would
best predict a limited range of criterion variables (e.g., extraversion,
aggressiveness, manifest anxiety)… and use multiple regression techniques … At
present such a research programme has not been implemented” (D&K, 184).
Based on this quote and a quote disparaging astrology from
another psi researcher, Dean concludes, “…the neglect of astrology by psi
researchers might or might not be justified” (ibid., p. 184). This conclusion does not answer or even clarify Dean’s
question, or the reason for the article. Dean simply evades the entire issue of
consciousness and psi and follows his own agenda.
Evidently, Sargent’s quote lets Dean introduce his view that
such a full-blown research program is not necessary. He says, “Thanks to
advances in research, that situation no longer applies” (ibid., p. 184). Although Dean supports statistical research in
astrology, his claim is extraordinary because it departs from the normal methods
of research that Sargent recommends.
2.3. Meta-analysis
Dean claims
to have assessed the results of over 500 astrological experiments, although he
admits that 80% of these studies are “generally unknown.” He claims his
findings, which are all negative against astrology, have “revolutionized our
understanding of astrology.” He is quite dismayed that his assessment has had “little
effect” on astrologers. He says the reason for this is “simply because
astrologers rely solely on experience, or what psychologists call ‘personal
validation.’” He is equally dismayed that interviews with thirty leading
astrologers (Phillipson, 2000) found that, “Many (not all) regarded scientific
studies to be misguided” (D&K, p. 184).
Dean’s research
method is to take the 500+ results of
astrological experimentation as a whole, whether flawed or not, and use
meta-analysis to evaluate statistical effect sizes. Dean says this method can
“subtract the sampling and measurement variability (something not possible with
an individual effect size) to see if there is a genuine residual effect” (ibid., p. 185).
Meta-analysis is an important data research tool. It can
graphically plot and evaluate the effect sizes of multiple related tests. For
example, on a numerical scale 0 could represent the null hypothesis value (no
experimental effect) and effect size could vary from -1 (strongest negative) to
+1 (strongest positive). This can help to identify interesting patterns in the
effect size of data compared to its theoretical probability distribution. A
weighted average for the observed effects can be compared to the null effect to
see if there is a significant difference.
However, like any research technique, meta-analysis works
better in some applications than others. It works well in large scale mature
research programs that are based on robust regression testing such as clinical
drug trials. In contrast, current astrological experimentation is still hampered
by the delicate process of identifying and rejecting artifacts and errors.
These can range from ignorant blunders and misunderstanding of theory to
seemingly intentional and highly deceptive sampling errors.
The discovery and resolution of methodological issues is
critically important in the early stages of any research program and
statistical research in astrology is still in its infancy. As Dean himself emphasizes,
“Artifacts in astrology, just as in parapsychology, can be surprisingly subtle
and resistant to detection, compared to which the everyday hidden persuaders
are child’s play” (ibid., p. 185). The
use of meta-analysis to remove sampling and measurement variability does not
cause major artifacts and errors to magically disappear or become irrelevant.
The majority of Dean’s sample of 500+ experiments may not even be within the
ballpark.
Although Dean does not show any examples of meta-analysis in
the article, his recent co-edited book Astrology
under Scrutiny (2013), herein
referred to as AuS, shows
some of the experiments and some of the data (Heukelom, Dean and Terpstra, 2013,
pp. 354-5).[3]
British astrologer Robert Currey has made a detailed review, exposing textbook
examples of problems that demonstrate the unreliability of Dean’s analysis. For
example, a meta-analysis must correspond to the claims associated with it. For
example, if the claim is about Western astrology, then Dean should not include
non-Western studies, such as Chinese astrology (Currey, p. 56). If the claim is
about astrological theory then Dean should not include studies for which there
is no theory, such as the New York Suicide Study (Press, 1977; Currey, p. 58;
Hand, p. 44).[4]
In one striking example in AuS, Dean arbitrarily copies the largest astrological effect sizes
from one side of a distribution to the opposite side to remove what he
estimates to be a “publication bias” (Heukelom, Dean and terpstra, 2013, p.
223). The inference is that high effect sizes are automatically artifacts. In Dean’s
view, astrology demonstrates little or no effect, and when a significant effect
is evident, he discounts it as publication bias, thereby suppressing the most
relevant evidence.
As a whole, astrological research has very few examples of
excellence but they do exist and they can serve as models to improve the
research methodology. Instead of relying on meta-analysis, the better technique
is to use regression testing to remove artifacts and improve significance, as
Sargent (D&K, p. 184) suggested. This method is more likely than
meta-analysis to lead to better observations and ways to ramp up effect sizes. Such
work is extremely valuable and Dean himself gives several examples in the
article of where he claims to have found artifacts. He did not identify these
claimed artifacts by using meta-analysis, although he claims to have later
confirmed one of them by meta-analysis (ibid.,
p. 186).
2.4 Gauquelin’s Neo-Astrology
Of the examples of artifacts that Dean claims to have found,
one stands out. This is his claim regarding French psychologist Michel Gauquelin’s
famous findings that support astrology (Gauquelin, 1983, 1988a, 1988b ; Eysenck
& Nias, 1982; Ertel and Irving, 1996; Ertel, 1988; Dean, 2002). If any
study has “revolutionized our understanding of
astrology,” it is not Dean’s meta-analysis claims but the “Gauquelin
Revolution” of statistical discoveries, which Gauquelin called “Neo-Astrology.”
In the 1950s through 1970s, Michel and Françoise Gauquelin discovered
correlations with highly significant surpluses (p<.001, where significance
is p<.05) of certain highly successful professionals (i.e. scientists, doctors,
politicians, athletes, business executives, military leaders, and actors) who
were born with specific planets in defined zones near the rising and
culminating parts of the sky, now called Gauquelin Sectors. They also found
highly significant deficits of specific planets in these same sectors that are correlated
to other specific professions (i.e. musicians, writers, and artists).
The Gauquelin discoveries are especially relevant because the
findings are consistent with the traditional properties of the correlated
planets. One finding in particular, the correlation between Mars and famous
athletes, which is the easiest to test, has been replicated with other sets of
independent data gathered in France, Italy, Germany, United States, Belgium,
and Holland. Even skeptical organizations, such as the Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Alleged Paranormal Phenomena, centered in Belgium,
have conducted their own replication tests and have agreed with Gauquelin’s findings
(Comité Para, 1976).
The Gauquelin discoveries are more significant than they are generally
reported to be. A detailed assessment of the collected planetary data by German
psychologist Suitbert Ertel, who was initially skeptical, demonstrated that the
correlations increase in accord with professional eminence as objectively evaluated
by public citations, except at the highest rank of exceptional genius. This “eminence
effect” was generally found across the tested professions (Ertel, 1988, 1989,
1993).
Based on these very striking findings, Ertel has defended
Neo-Astrology against organized skeptics from all over the Western world, through
dozens of peer-reviewed articles and through a book co-authored with Kenneth
Irving, The Tenacious Mars Effect
(Ertel and Irving, 1996). As a whole, these findings provide abundant evidence that
preclude altered consciousness, psi, or astrologers’ hidden persuaders as the basis
of the astrological experience, at least for the very large samples tested. In his
and Kelly’s article and in AuS, Dean
completely ignores his long-running discourse with Ertel in professional
journals regarding the Gauquelin findings.
Contrary to what other critics have alleged, both Ertel and Dean
found that Gauquelin’s large database of birth data is clean and free of
sampling errors. To further insure this, Ertel’s methodology removes sampling
bias by accepting any accurate birth data and subjecting it to objective
ranking criteria based on citation frequencies in standard sources.[5] As a
last ditch effort against the mass of evidence that supports Gauquelin’s
findings, Dean suggests that the positive results are artifacts consistent with
“parents adjusting birth data to suit popular beliefs” (D&K, p. 186).
Dean alleges that it was commonplace for astrology-believing parents
during the period of most of the births (1800-1959) to report false birth times
to registry offices. He argues that parents could have calculated the birth
times to prominently position the appropriate planets in Gauquelin sectors to
be consistent with the desired profession. Presumably, the parents would then
successfully raise their children in the desired professions to fulfill the
prophecies of the falsely documented birth times. For example, a scientific or
medical family would set aside their skepticism of astrology and misreport a birth
time with Saturn in a Gauquelin sector because Saturn is traditionally associated
with scientists, doctors, and skeptics. The argument is a bit farfetched to say
the least.
In response to Dean’s allegation of parental tampering, Ertel
has repeatedly asked Dean to provide evidence, but Dean has evaded the burden
of proof for his own argument (Ertel, 2000, 2001a,b; 2003; 2005; 2006; Dean,
2000; 2002; 2006). The exchange is still (as of summer 2016) not over as both
parties continue to submit manuscripts to publications that seem to have become
weary of the debate. The closest that Dean has come to answering Ertel is to
argue guilt by association to a discreditable practice. Parents would sometimes
misreport birth days to favor Christian feast days and lucky days of the month
and avoid days that were regarded as unlucky. Dean has presented data that
suggests evidence of this practice, although Ertel has challenged it. Dean argues
that if the parents misreported birth dates for social reasons, then they would
likely have also misreported specific birth times for astrological reasons
(Dean, Mather, Nias & Smit, 2016).
Dean suggests that the false birth times could have been calculated
from certain almanacs that contained planetary ephemerides, ignoring that this
would have been a considerable feat of mathematics for most people at the time.
Dean’s argument implies that knowledge of Gauquelin sectors, or something like
them (the historical astrological texts are somewhat unclear), existed before
they were discovered. It suggests that Gauquelin merely rediscovered a practice
of time falsification that is completely absent in the historical record. Because
of its unfalsifiability, there is no way to challenge Dean’s parental tampering
claim with evidence.
2.5 Time twins
Of all the claims presented in Dean
and Kelly’s article, the two that are most frequently cited are Dean’s
meta-analysis study and his self-proclaimed “definitive” study of astrological time
twins. The concept of time twins goes back a long way. Critics as early as
Cicero (circa 50 BCE) have argued that any deterministic interpretation of
astrology implies that everyone born on the same day, at approximately the same
place and moment, would necessarily live identical lives and share an identical
fate. Yet even biologically identical twins do not conform to this prediction.
As Dean describes in the article, astrologers have tried to
develop methods to statistically evaluate time twin characteristics (Roberts &
Greengrass, 1994). One challenge is that it is not easy to find enough close
time twins to make accurate inferences. Another challenge is that astrological
theory is not very deterministic. Even if natal charts are each considered as a
whole, as they generally are in time twin studies, there is no theory on how
much twining of personality or lifestyle to expect. Astrological textbooks
offer options of related interpretations for each natal chart feature and this reflects
the adaptive choices that a native can make throughout life. Just as in
genetics where it is understood that different environments and epigenetic
configurations can contribute to differences in genetically identical twins
(Brogarrd and Marlow, 2012; McKie 2013), it can be similarly argued that different
adaptive choices within identical astrological environments can contribute to differences
in time twins.
In Dean’s forthcoming study of time twins, which he very briefly
describes in the article, Dean takes an extraordinary approach. Instead of a
cross-sectional study as one might expect, in which different individuals with
the same characteristics (i.e. birth time and location) are compared as a large
group, Dean uses the data of a longitudinal study, in which a group of the same
individuals is observed over a long period of time.
The time twins data, as Dean has only recently confirmed in AuS, comes from Britain’s National Child
Development Study (NCDS), unconnected with astrology, of the lives of 2,101
participants born in London during 3-9 March 1958. The participants were born
an average of only 4.8 sequential minutes apart. The participants were measured
at ages 11, 16, and 23 on 110 variables. These included IQ test scores; ratings
of behavior such as anxiety, aggressiveness and sociability; physical data such
as height, weight, vision, and hearing; self-ratings on art, music, and sports;
and other factors such as occupation, accident proneness, and marital status.
Dean says that these are all areas of astrological interest (D&K, p. 188).
Dean claims that testing time twins is a definitive, powerful
test of astrology because the natal charts do not need to be interpreted. “Errors
and uncertainties of birth chart interpretation are avoided” (ibid., p. 188). However, this still
leaves uncertainties in other judgments and begs the question of how the hits
or close resemblances in twin states are defined. What if one time twin is 182
cm tall and the other is 180 cm? If one is an oboe player in an orchestra and
the other is an avid karaoke singer, do they closely resemble each other? Dean hints
that he rates the convergences of twin states according to time separations but
he does not give the necessary details about how he defines the evaluations.
Without providing these crucial details, Dean’s test is not at all definitive.
Based on what little Dean does say in the article and in AuS, his method of testing time twins uses
a questionable design. The method was to divide the longitudinal sample by
using cross-sections of only two subjects, AB, BC, CD, and so on. This gave
Dean 2,100 serial pairs of very close time twins. Dean claims this method
“minimizes the risk of artifacts” (ibid.,
p. 189). But cross-sections of two could also minimize the possibility of
finding any astrological evidence. Dean could have designed the test with
various larger cross-sections without an increased risk of artifacts.
A number of observers, including myself, have asked Dean to
provide samples of the experimental data for peer review and replication. Dean
has evaded these requests and has only recently mentioned by way of explanation
in AuS that “[a]ccess to NCDS data
requires official permission and signing an agreement that forbids passing data
to other parties” (H,D&T, p. 237). Dean has not yet published the study,
which since 2003 is still “forthcoming.” Dean’s lengthy procrastination and his
unwillingness to share the methodology or the evidence in any format amounts to
a publication bias, erodes his time twins claims and his credibility as a
serious researcher.
2.6 EPI
predictions
Based on his claims of meta-analysis, parental tampering, and
time twins, all of which contain serious problems, Dean concludes that there is
no purely empirical evidence that supports an astrological world view. Consequently,
he turns his attention to human factors that presumably, although he does not
say so, would cover astrologers’ psi, if it exists. If astrologers fail to
perform tasks in tests that remove hidden persuaders, then it might be
inferred that hidden persuaders are the real cause of the astrological experience
and not psi.
Dean claims to have conducted the “most systematic
investigation of astrologer variables including the reported use of intuition.” In the main part of his ambitious three-part study (Dean, 1985), Dean asked
astrologers (N=45) to report how much they relied on intuition in the
performance of their tasks (i.e. none, hardly any, some, or lots). In Dean’s
evaluation, the astrologers performed poorly in their tasks and the
contribution of intuition (and presumably psi) towards the success of the tasks
is “negligible” (D&K, p. 191).
For the assessment, Dean used the Eysenck Personality
Inventory (EPI), where the E dimension is extraversion (sociability) and N is
neuroticism (emotional stability). These are graphically measured such that E+
is sociable and outgoing, E- is quiet and reserved, N+ is emotional and easily
upset, and N- is calm and not easily upset. The astrologers’ task was to
predict the direction (+ or -) of E and N in the most extreme subjects (N=160)
selected from a larger sample (N=1198). This selection represented only the top
and bottom one-fifteenth of the entire sample, which Dean says “well exceeds”
the normal approach in psychology of using the top and bottom one-third. Of the
160 subjects selected for the test, 40 were extreme E only, 40 were extreme N
only, and 80 were extreme in both E and N.
Dean claims that, as in his test of time twins, his selection
of the E and N test subjects “could hardly have been more conducive to success”
(ibid., p. 191). A complication that
Dean does not appear to notice is that modern astrological practice generally makes
distinctions between what the EPI calls personality
dimensions and another
evaluation that could be called psychological
states. It can be argued that the N+ (emotional
and easily upset) measurement should properly be regarded as a state because it
signals an uncomfortable, stressful psychological disturbance. Its effect is quite
unlike the N-, E+, and E- dimensions that are not associated with stress and
are therefore relatively stable. Calling N+ a “dimension” suggests it is a permanent
feature of personality with stresses that cannot be adapted or resolved. As an
objection, the N+ “personality dimension” can come across as judgmental and potentially
stigmatizing.
Astrology does not evaluate personality traits in the same
rigid way. All standard astrological textbooks describe both the “afflicted” states
and the “growth” or creative states of each astrological configuration as potentials
but do not specify which states are currently in effect because that is presumed
to be mainly under the control of the native. The native, as an astrological
client, needs to be made aware of the details of both the afflicted states and
the growth states and to make their own choices based on the potentials for
stress. As Rosenblum aptly describes, “A particularly good use of astrology is
its capacity to point out difficult aspects of an individual’s personality and
at the same time show the beneficial and constructive possibilities of these very
traits” (Rosenblum, p. 13).
In regard to Dean’s published data, the astrologers scored
consistently better at discerning the two E scores than the two astrologically
ambiguous N scores, one of which astrologically represents a disturbed or
afflicted state (D&K, p. 192). Because the EPI does not discriminate personality dimensions from
psychological states in the same way that astrology does, the comparison
appears to be categorically flawed and Dean’s results, through no fault of his
own, must be considered as inconclusive.[6]
2.7. Chart
matching tests
Dean
concludes his investigation of human factors by describing two studies by other
researchers. He calls this section is “When astrologers receive everything they
ask for.” A more accurate heading would be “When astrologers do everything they
are told.” In the two nearly identical studies,
the astrologers naively and uncritically followed the researchers’ instructions
and suggestions.
One of the studies was by American psychology professors John
McGrew and Richard McFall (1990). The other was by Dutch researcher Rob
Nanninga (1996-7). The researchers in both studies told the participating astrologers
to compile a list of open-ended questions to elicit self-descriptive narratives
from the test subjects. The researchers selected questions from the
astrologers’ lists and administered their questionnaires. The researchers then
asked the astrologers to match the resulting narratives to the subjects’ natal
charts. Both studies contain serious problems that may not be obvious to most
readers.
To begin with, the researchers used an astrologer-created
questionnaire instead of reliable, standardized psychological questionnaires
such as the CPI or the NEO-FFI, which had been used in previous astrological studies
of this type. This substitution presumes that clients can accurately describe
their own personalities and lifestyles, which astrological practice never
assumes and neither does psychological testing. The researchers did not tell
the astrologers of the limitations inherent in open-ended, ad hoc questionnaires compared to regression tested psychological
questionnaires. Nor did the researchers explain the well-known tendency for
people to have overly-positive illusions about themselves (Taylor & Brown,
1988; 1994) and the vulnerability of the ad
hoc questionnaires to these illusions.
The experimental design in both studies contain an identical
twist. McGrew and McFall claim their test design “overcomes the methodological
and ‘astrological’ limitations of previous studies” (McGrew & McFall, 1990,
p. 77). The big problem is that the test design introduced major
inconsistencies with normal astrological practice. The astrologers were not
asked to provide descriptive chart interpretations. Instead, the astrologers
were asked to assess and match natal charts to the subjects’ life narratives. Conversely,
the test subjects were not asked to assess any descriptions of themselves as
they could be expected to do following a chart reading but instead they wrote
their own personality assessments. In effect, the critical assessment skills
were tested and evaluated on the wrong parties where the skills would not be presumed
by either astrology or psychology.
There is more. Both of the studies implemented a Poisson
distribution that is highly sensitive to errors. The researchers did not tell
the astrologers about this feature either. The Poisson distribution creates a
cognitive illusion similar to the well-known “birthday paradox”. It seems
highly unlikely and “paradoxical” that in any group of only 23 people there is
at least a 50% chance that two of the people share the same birthday. In
reverse, where it is known that matches exist, this effect produces an illusion
of likelihood and overconfidence.
In the McGrew and McFall experiment, the astrologers might
have thought they had at least a 50% chance of matching the 23(!) charts that
the researchers gave them. Dean says, “Half expected 100% hits” (D&K, p.
194). But the mathematical probability was less than one in 1030.
Similarly, in the Nanninga experiment, in which astrologers were asked to match
seven charts, the probability was less than one in 109.
In both the McGrew and McFall study and the Nanninga study,
the researchers implemented known artifacts and inferential biases that
adversely influenced the test methodology and rendered their experiments
unreliable. The fact that the astrologers did not stop the researchers from
doing this does not justify the results. That Dean and the peer review process allowed
these experiments as examples of good research reveals either a faulty understanding
of the studies or a deliberate intention to mislead readers.
2.8. Serious
omissions
Although Dean fails to mention it, the McGrew and McFall
study and the Nanninga study were replications of American physicist Shawn
Carlson’s famous double-blind test of astrology, published in Nature (1985). In that study, Carlson
had used both the standardized California Psychological Inventory (CPI)
questionnaire and complete interpretations of student test subjects’ natal
charts written by reputable astrologers who participated.
Briefly described, Carlson used rigorous research protocols to
remove potential errors and artifacts such as giveaway sun sign clues,
including artifacts that McGrew and McFall later introduced and Nanninga replicated.
The study tested volunteer test subjects with the CPI and the written astrological
profiles. The test subjects were asked to rate (on a scale of 1 to 10) each
section and to rank (as 1st, 2nd, or 3rd
choice) the overall fitness of three natal chart descriptions, one of which was
genuine, to themselves. Similarly, they also rated and ranked sets of CPI
results to themselves. The astrologers were given sets of three CPIs (of which
one was genuine) and were asked to rate (1 to 10) each CPI section and to rank (as
1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice) the overall fitness
compared to each natal chart.
Although Carlson had claimed “a surprisingly strong case
against natal astrology,” an assessment by Ertel (2009), published after Dean
and Kelly’s article, found that Carlson had not followed the hypothesis in one
test and had split into three what was properly a single sample in another
test. The published data, as assessed by Ertel, shows that despite sampling
errors and other problems that worked against the astrologers, the astrologers
had successfully matched the CPI profiles to natal charts in both of their tests
at probabilities that were statistically significant (p<.054 marginal, and
p<.037, where significance is p<.05) (Ertel, 2009).
The later of these two results is equivalent to tossing a
coin 12 times and getting heads more than 10 times. Astrologer Robert Currey
attributes the more successful result to the more precise format that allowed
discrimination among 1000 options instead of only three. This enabled the
astrologers to give poor matches lower ratings and the format is recommended
for future tests (Currey, 2011, pp. 20-21).
In contrast to the astrologers’ performance, the results of
the tasks performed by Carlson’s student test subjects (split into a test group
and a control group) were inconclusive and had an unexplained anomaly. The test
group identified neither their own astrological interpretations nor their own
CPI profiles. Surprisingly, the control group successfully ranked the
pre-selected “correct” astrological description at a highly significant probability
(p<.01) although none of the descriptions were genuine. Carlson attributed the anomaly to
statistical fluctuation. Unfortunately, Carlson discarded the data from the
more detailed (1-10 rating scale) variation of this test because of an
unexpected consistency in the results. Apparently, Carlson did not recognize
how the unreported data could nevertheless be evidence to clarify the anomaly
(McRitchie, 2011, p. 35).
On the strength of its sample size (N=100+) and astrological
participants (N=26), the absence of hidden persuaders, its publication in Nature, and
the absence of any serious challenges, Carlson’s study as assessed by Ertel
stands as an example of experimental support for the performance of astrologers.
Besides this human study and besides the more empirical Gauquelin studies
already mentioned, there are some exemplary astrological studies that do not
require any interpretations by astrologers nor any practical concerns of
consciousness and psi. These examples are studies of naturally red hair (Hill
and Thompson, 1988), workplace accidents (Ridgley, 1993), and earthquakes (Hill
and Polit, 1986). Each of these peer-reviewed studies has highly significant
results, were available prior to Dean and Kelly’s article, and are consistent
with astrological theory.[7]
3. Discussion
Astrology needs better critical thinking and better testing
than Dean and Kelly provide. Dean and Kelly ignore the astrological corpus and instead
create a straw man caricature of distorted astrological claims and distorted
testing methodologies that they can easily attack. In their conclusion they
state, “…if astrologers could perform better than chance, this might support
their claim (sic) that reading
specifics from birth charts depends on psychic ability and a transcendent reality
related to consciousness” (D&K, p. 195). The alleged claim of psychic
ability is demonstrably false among reputable astrologers. Even Geoffrey Cornelius,
in his description of divination, does not claim any need for psychic ability.
Charles Carter openly disclaims psychism in favor of the astrological corpus
that is based on observation, principles, and theory.
The many flaws in the arguments and experiments that the
authors use, which are presumably the very best they can find, suggests rather strongly
that there is no reliable evidence whatsoever against astrological theory and
practice. On the other hand, apart from their failure to mention them, Dean and
Kelly do nothing to diminish the most robust of the existing research studies
that have demonstrated support of astrology.
Looking on the positive side, the many problems in Dean and
Kelly’s article can contribute insights into further astrological research. Time
twin studies continue to hold promise. All of the time twins participants in
Dean’s study were born within one week, which qualifies all of them as time
twins. Astrologers would like to evaluate the data for patterns in
cross-sections that are based on astrological themes. What if the participants
were grouped by rising sign or rising degree? What if they were grouped by
planets on the horizon or meridian, or in Gauquelin sectors? What if they were
grouped by astrological aspects? Would the traditional astrological patterns
emerge and would they correlate to twin convergence? If made available to
astrologers, Dean’s time twin data could potentially be a valuable resource for
research.[8]
With
regard to Dean’s test using the EPI, or similar tests using the NEO-FFI, there
now exist newer tests that appear to be better suited for comparison with
astrology. These new tests do not diagnose mental or emotional disturbances nor
do they seek to identify gender specific traits that earlier the psychology tests
had been concerned with. Instead, they test for perceptions of human potential
and for social adaptation. For example, tests for multiple intelligences, emotional
intelligence, and demographic or psychographic values, as well as the ordinary standard
vocational aptitude tests could hold greater promise in joint research programs
with the astrological community (McRitchie, 2004, 2006).
As a final observation, a remark by Dean gives a revealing
insight on how he and many others may think about astrology. By ignoring the
astrological corpus, Dean attributes the astrological experience to hidden
persuaders, “whose hidden nature might explain the apparent absence of any
reason why astrology should work” (D&K, p. 185). The circular logic of this
goes as follows: 1. Astrology can be explained by hidden persuaders. 2. Because
the persuaders are hidden they appear to be absent. 3. If reasons for astrology
appear to be absent, then astrology must be explained by hidden persuaders. The
result of this closed mindedness contributes to evasion of potentially useful
evidence, contempt for the astrological corpus, and distain for peer review
with astrological subject matter experts. A more open-minded attitude would be to
consider that positive astrological findings are simply counter-intuitive, like
the countless intriguing observations encountered throughout science. To
astrologers who study and use the astrological environment, astrology can be
wonderfully counter-intuitive.
Notes
[1] A very similar claim to Dean’s was made by astronomer Lawrence Jerome in his book Astrology Disproved (Jerome, pp. 27, 70). This claim was criticized by psychologists H.J. Eysenck and D.K.B. Nias in their book Astrology: Science or Superstition? (1982), “It is not enough to say that astrology originated as a system of magic and as a result cannot be valid… The primary assumptions of a theory do not automatically prove or disprove its results” (p. 10). In an earlier but similar criticism, Carl Sagan (1976), in his letter to The Humanist on his refusal to endorse “Objections to Astrology—Statement by 186 Leading Scientists” (Bok, Jerome, Kurtz, 1975) argued, “The fundamental point is not that the origins of astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three.”
[2] Historically, indications of medical conditions and diseases were associated with the astrological taxonomy because astrology had the earliest, most clearly defined, and most widely understood classification system available.
[3] Most of the same content of AuS plus updates is available in a more recent book Tests of Astrology (Dean, Mather, Nias & Smit, 2016).
[4] According to a standard textbook on meta-analysis (Wolf, 1986, p.14), building reliable and valid knowledge from meta-analysis requires precaution against the following errors: mixing dissimilar techniques, variable definitions and subjects; mixing “poorly” designed studies (those having sampling errors or artifacts) with “good” studies; bias in favor of significant [or non-significant!] published findings; and using multiple results from the same study instead of independent results. Unfortunately, with no coordinated research program, current astrological research is a wild mix of assorted techniques and data types making it vulnerable to these problems even if the individual studies are presumed to be well designed.
[5] Ertel’s objective ranking protocol is ignored by Benski et al in the 1996 book The ‘Mars Effect’: A French Test of over 1000 Sports Champions. In a commentary section added at the end of the book, researcher J.W. Nienhuys dismisses this method by stating, “Citations have only limited value … often books will mention a person for reasons other than his achievements,” (ibid., p. 143).
[6] Additional criticism of Dean’s EPI prediction test is presented in a forthcoming paper by Robert Currey. In astrology, the scale from E+ to E- is contextual and the EPI does not account for this. For example, for a particular individual, E+ may pertain to work life and E- may pertain to social situations, as assessed by astrological theory. Dean ignores that a person cannot simultaneously be both E+ and E-. Eysenck’s division of traits stem from classical Earth, Air, Fire, and Water characteristics yet they do not unambiguously fit astrological theory. Dean, in common with other astrologers, associates Air to E+ (sociable etc.) but Eysenck associates E- to traits that in astrology also associates to Air (thoughtful, even-tempered, and peaceful).
[7] In a replicated study by American researchers Judith Hill and Jacalyn Thompson (1988), natal charts of people with naturally red hair (n=500) were assessed against control groups. Evidence supported (p<.001) the sealed a priori hypothesis, consistent with astrological theory, that red hair is correlated with Mars within 30 degrees of the natal chart ascendant and not within 30 degrees of the natal chart descendant and the effect increases with the redness of the hair. Replications of the study (n=497, n=373, n=100) that used varying criteria for red hair found significant results, some of which were extremely high. Because red hair is a genetic factor that can be objectively evaluated (Hill, 1996), this research holds promise of further empirical refinements. Also, because the births in the study were relatively recent, it also suggests that Michel Gauquelin’s conclusion that astrological effects apply only to natural births (and hence are less reliable after about 1950) should be reconsidered pending further study.
American psychologist Sara Klein Ridgley (1992) in her PhD research paper found astrological indicators of a sample of people (n=1023) who were disabled by workplace accidents for at least three months and filed Workers’ Compensation claims. Ridgley found that workplace accidents occur far more frequently (p<.00000001) when transiting Sun is in a “hard” aspect (0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees) to the natal Sun. This finding is consistent with astrological theory. Remarkably, this injury event pattern is absent in similar data gathered in Sweden where birthdays are work holidays (Ridgley, c. 2000). This observation suggests that the injury potential can be collapsed by preventive behaviors and it holds promise for further investigation that could potentially save lives, injury, and expense. Unfortunately, U.S. data is no longer obtainable for further replications due to new privacy laws.
Research by Judith Hill and Mark Polit (1986), in a rare example of a funded astrological research program, found evidence of astrological effects within geographic earthquake regions. The program consisted of three separate studies totaling 221 groups of regional earthquakes throughout the world. Strong seismic activity within the regions correlated (p<.001) with planetary positions that are unique to each region compared to over 2000 random dates supplied by an independent seismologist. Consistent with astrological theory, the planetary positions on earthquake dates tend to occur at positions that are 0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees (within 15 degree tolerance or “orb”) to their own positions on the dates of previous earthquakes in the same region. These results suggest that predictive algorithms can be created for each earthquake region based on its astrological and seismic history. Hill and Polit also found that strong planetary correlations might occur within a region for a number of years and then abruptly cease or change. Continued studies of astrology and earthquakes could lead to measures that would potentially avoid widespread devastation.
American psychologist Sara Klein Ridgley (1992) in her PhD research paper found astrological indicators of a sample of people (n=1023) who were disabled by workplace accidents for at least three months and filed Workers’ Compensation claims. Ridgley found that workplace accidents occur far more frequently (p<.00000001) when transiting Sun is in a “hard” aspect (0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees) to the natal Sun. This finding is consistent with astrological theory. Remarkably, this injury event pattern is absent in similar data gathered in Sweden where birthdays are work holidays (Ridgley, c. 2000). This observation suggests that the injury potential can be collapsed by preventive behaviors and it holds promise for further investigation that could potentially save lives, injury, and expense. Unfortunately, U.S. data is no longer obtainable for further replications due to new privacy laws.
Research by Judith Hill and Mark Polit (1986), in a rare example of a funded astrological research program, found evidence of astrological effects within geographic earthquake regions. The program consisted of three separate studies totaling 221 groups of regional earthquakes throughout the world. Strong seismic activity within the regions correlated (p<.001) with planetary positions that are unique to each region compared to over 2000 random dates supplied by an independent seismologist. Consistent with astrological theory, the planetary positions on earthquake dates tend to occur at positions that are 0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees (within 15 degree tolerance or “orb”) to their own positions on the dates of previous earthquakes in the same region. These results suggest that predictive algorithms can be created for each earthquake region based on its astrological and seismic history. Hill and Polit also found that strong planetary correlations might occur within a region for a number of years and then abruptly cease or change. Continued studies of astrology and earthquakes could lead to measures that would potentially avoid widespread devastation.
[8] As an additional thought on Dean’s time twins, could the surviving test subjects find and document interesting twin-like similarities among themselves that could be astrologically and statistically analyzed? This would allow more peculiar results to be captured from the large sample. On an even more ambitious scale, could social media be applied to the task? Would large numbers of people be willing to connect to others and explore time twin convergences compared with psychological test scores or with personal habits culled from digital data? Such a “time twins collider” app would enable participants to interact with their time twins locally and globally. Besides being a potential social phenomenon, such an app could generate unprecedented data that could potentially be analyzed to understand new patterns of personality, relating, and lifestyle.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Professor Emeritus
Suitbert Ertel and Robert Currey for their help and advice.
References
Benski et
al, Commentary by Nienhuys, J.W. (1997). The ‘Mars Effect’: A French Test of over 1000 Sports Champions, Prometheus.
ISBN 0-87975-988-7.
Bok, B. J., Jerome, L. E., & Kurtz, P.
(1975). “Objections to Astrology – Statement by 186 Leading Scientists. The Humanist, 35(5), pp. 4-6.
Brogaard, B. & Marlow, K. (2012). Identical
Twins Are Not Genetically Identical: Potential consequences for the Minnesota
Twin Study. Psychology Today,
November 25.
Carlson, S. (1985). A double-blind test of astrology. Nature,
(318), December, 419-25.
Carter, C.E.O. (1925). The Principles of Astrology, London, Theosophical Publishing House.
Clark, V. (1961). Experimental astrology. In Search, (Winter/Spring), 102-112.
Clark, V. (1970). An investigation of the
validity and reliability of the astrological technique. Aquarian Agent, 1 (October), 2-3.
Comité Para. (1976).
Considérations critiques sur une recherché faite par M.M. Gauquelin dans le
domaine des influences planétaires. Nouvelles Brèves, 43, 327-343.
Cornelius, G. (1994, 2003). The Moment of
Astrology, London, Penguin Arkana. Revised, Bournemouth, The Wessex
Astrologer. ISBN 1-902405-11-0.
Cunningham, D. (1994) The Consulting Astrologer’s
Guidebook, York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser.
Currey, R. (2014). Book Reviews: Astrology under
Scrutiny: Close encounters with science. Correlation, 29(2), 52-68.
Currey, R. (2011). Shawn Carlson’s Double-Blind Astrology Experiment: U-Turn in
Carlson’s Astrology Test? Correlation. 27(2), 7-33.
Dean, G. (2000). Attribution: a pervasive new
artifact in the Gauquelin data. Astrology
under Scrutiny (Astrologie in
Onderzoek) 13, 1-72.
Dean, G. (1985) Can astrology predict E and N? 2:
the whole chart, Correlation, 5 (2),
pp. 2-24.
Dean, G. (2002). Is the Mars effect a social
effect? Skeptical Inquirer.
May/June.
Dean, G. (2006). Comment from Dr. Geoffrey Dean
on Prof. Suitbert Ertel’s Planetary effects brought down to earth. Correlation 23(2), 53-57.
Dean, G & Mather, A. (1977). Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A
Critical Review 1900-1976, Bromley & Kent, UK, Astrological
Association. ISBN 0140223975
Dean, G. & Kelly, I. (2003). Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi? Journal of
Consciousness Studies. 10 (6-7), 175-198.
Dean, G., Mather, A., Nias, D., & Smit, R.
(eds) (2016) Tests of Astrology: A
critical review of hundreds of studies, Amsterdam: AinO Publications.
Ertel, S. (1988). Raising the hurdle for the
athletes’ Mars effect: Association co-varies with eminence. Journal of
Scientific Exploration, 2(1), 53-82.
Ertel, S. (1989). Reversed Eminence
Correlations. NCGR Research Journal, Spring Equinox, 1989,
27-31.
Ertel, S. (1993). Puzzling Eminence Effects Might Make Good Sense. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 7(2), 145-154.
Ertel, S. (2000). Gauquelin’s planetary effects - made up by superstitious parents? On Geoffrey Dean’s erroneous grand notion. Astrology under Scrutiny 13(1/2): 73-84.
Ertel, S. (2002a). Superstition should decline over time. Scrutinies of Geoffrey Dean’s parental tampering claim (3). Correlation 20(2): 39-48.
Ertel, S. (2002b). The Mars effect cannot be pinned on cheating parents. Skeptical Inquirer 27(1): 507-508.
Ertel, S. (2003). Three tests, three hits? Whose hits? Scrutinies of Geoffrey Dean’s parental tampering claim (5). Correlation 21(2): 11-21.
Ertel, S. (2005) Gauquelin planetary effects, brought down to earth? On Geoffrey Dean’s dealing with stubborn facts. Correlation 23(1), 7-33.
Ertel, S. (2009). Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 23(2), 125-137.
Ertel, S, & Irving, K. (1996). The Tenacious Mars effect. London: Urania Trust.
Eysenck, H. & Nias, D. (1982). Astrology: Science or Superstition? London: Temple Smith; New York: St Martin’s.
Gauquelin, M. (1988a). Written in the Stars. Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, UK.
Gauquelin, M. (1988b). Is there a Mars effect? Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2(1),
29-51.Ertel, S. (1993). Puzzling Eminence Effects Might Make Good Sense. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 7(2), 145-154.
Ertel, S. (2000). Gauquelin’s planetary effects - made up by superstitious parents? On Geoffrey Dean’s erroneous grand notion. Astrology under Scrutiny 13(1/2): 73-84.
Ertel, S. (2002a). Superstition should decline over time. Scrutinies of Geoffrey Dean’s parental tampering claim (3). Correlation 20(2): 39-48.
Ertel, S. (2002b). The Mars effect cannot be pinned on cheating parents. Skeptical Inquirer 27(1): 507-508.
Ertel, S. (2003). Three tests, three hits? Whose hits? Scrutinies of Geoffrey Dean’s parental tampering claim (5). Correlation 21(2): 11-21.
Ertel, S. (2005) Gauquelin planetary effects, brought down to earth? On Geoffrey Dean’s dealing with stubborn facts. Correlation 23(1), 7-33.
Ertel, S. (2009). Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 23(2), 125-137.
Ertel, S, & Irving, K. (1996). The Tenacious Mars effect. London: Urania Trust.
Eysenck, H. & Nias, D. (1982). Astrology: Science or Superstition? London: Temple Smith; New York: St Martin’s.
Gauquelin, M. (1988a). Written in the Stars. Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, UK.
Grieve, M. (1931, reprinted 1971). A Modern Herbal Vol. I. Dover ISBN
0-486-22798-6.
Hand, R. (2008). A Conversation with Robert Hand
(interviewed by Tore Lomsdalen), The
Mountain Astrologer, Aug./Sept. pp. 40-48.
Heukelom, W.; Dean, G.; & Terpstra, B. (eds.)
(2013). Astrologer under Scrutiny: Close encounters with science, 15,
July 2013. AINO ISSN 0929-8614.
Hill, J. (1996). Redheads and Mars: A Scientific
Testimony, The Mountain Astrologer, (May), pp 29-40.
Hill, J. & Polit, M. (1986). Correlation of
Earthquakes with Planetary Position: The Regional Factor, NCGR Journal, 5(1), 1987.
Hill, J. & Thompson, J. (1988). The
Mars-Redhead Link: A Scientific Test of Astrology, NCGR Journal,
Winter 1988-89.
Jerome, L. (1977). Astrology Disproved. Buffalo, Prometheus. ISBN 0879750677.
McGrew, J. & McFall, R. (1990). A Scientific Inquiry into the
Validity of Astrology, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4(1),
75-83.
McKie, R. (2013). Why do identical twins end up
having such different lives? The Guardian,
June 2.
McRitchie, K. (2004). Environmental
Cosmology: Principles and Theory of Natal Astrology. Toronto, ON, Cognizance
Books. ISBN 0-9736242-0-5.
McRitchie, K. (2006). Astrology and the Social Sciences:
Looking inside the black box of astrology theory, Correlation, 24(1),
5-20.
McRitchie, K. (2011). Support for astrology from the
Carlson double-blind experiment, ISAR International Astrologer,
40(2), 33-38.
Nanninga, R. (1996). The Astrotest: A tough match for astrologers. Correlation,
Northern Winter, 15(2), 14-20.
Phillipson, G. (2000) Astrology in the Year Zero, London, UK: Flare Publications.
Pottenger, M. (1982). Healing with the Horoscope. Astro Computing Services. ISBN 0-917086-45-7.
Pottenger, M. (1982). Healing with the Horoscope. Astro Computing Services. ISBN 0-917086-45-7.
Press, N. et al (1977) An Astrological Suicide
Study. Journal of Geocosmic Research,
2(2). Also in Recent Advances in Natal
Astrology. (Dean 1977).
Ridgley, S. K. (1993). Astrologically Predictable Patterns in
Work-Related Injuries, Kosmos, 22(3),
1993, pp.21-30.
Ridgley, S. (c. 2000). Letter response to
Feedback for Astrologically Predictable Patterns in Work Related Injuries, Lois
Rodden’s Astrodatabank, Viewed on 2007-8-26.
Roberts, P. & Greengrass, H. (1994). The Astrology of Time Twins. Bishop
Aukland: Pentland Press.
Rose, C. (1982). Astrological Counselling. Wellingborough, UK. The Aquarian Press.
ISBN 0-85030-301-X.
Rosenblum, B. (1983). The Astrologer’s Guide to Counseling. CRCS Publications. ISBN 0-916360-14-8
Rudhyar, D. (1968). The Practice of Astrology. Shambhala. ISBN 0-87773-1225-X.
Sagan, C. (1976). “Reader’s Forum,” The Humanist, January/February, 36(1).
Stori, W. (2012). The Herbal Lore of Wise Women and Wortcunners. North Atlantic Books
ISBN 978-1-58394-358-8.
Taylor, S. & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and
well being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Taylor, S. & Brown, J. (1994). Positive
Illusions and Well-Being Revisited. Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 116(1) (July), 21-27.
Tyl, N. (1977). Astrological Counsel. Llewellyn Publications. ISBN 0-87542-809-6.
Wyss, P. (2014). Inside the Cosmic Mind. Floris Books. ISBN 9781782501411.
Wolf, F. (1986). Meta-Analysis:Quantitative
Methods for Research Synthesis. P.14. Sage University Paper, ISBN
0-8039-2756-8.