|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Astrologie
en wetenschap |
| Korte
samenvattingen (abstracts) van artikels ivm astrologie,
vrij overgenomen uit de Journal
of Scientific Exploration. |
- Is there a Mars Effect? by
Michel Gauquelin. Michel Gauquelin, Laboratoire d'Etude
des Relations Entre Rythmes Cosmiques et Psychophysiologiques,
8, Rue Amyot, Paris, France 75005 The so-called "Mars Effect"
is discussed in a larger context. The phenomenon refers
to a significant tendency for champion athletes to have
been born at the time of either the rise or the upper culmination
of the planet Mars. The populations and sample, methodology
and its development are described along with earlier and
more recent findings. Control studies and replications by
others are reported in some detail. Particular attention
is paid to certain basic and procedural criticisms and the
problem of bias or artifacts. The current scientific status
of the issue is reviewed in light of several kinds of empirical
evidence that has accumulated over the past three decades.
The question raised in the title of the paper is answered
in the affirmative.
- Raising the Hurdle for the
Athletes' Mars Effect: Association co-varies with Eminence
by Suitbert Ertel. Suitbert Ertel, Institute of Psychology,
Georg-August-University, Goesslerstrasse 14, 3400 Goettingen,
Germany By 1955, Michel Gauquelin had begun to publicize
the claim that famous athletes are born with frequencies
far beyond change at times when Mars is rising over the
Earth's horizon ("key sector I") or when the planet crosses
the meridian ("key sector II"). Critics did not succeed
in refuting this claim empirically: The "Mars effect" survived
three such attempts. It was largely doubts over the impeccability
of M. and F. Gauquelin's data base, however, which kept
researchers from pursuing the problem further. The present
study incorporates the entire repertoire of birth data of
athletes available to date (N = 4391). The objective is
to test the alleged planetary correlation as a function
of degree of sportive eminence, the latter being determined
by citation counts. It is contended that this procedure
is superior to Gauquelin's own; and that the predicted eminence
function could hardly be expected to materialize in case
his former results were due to biased data treatment. Findings
corroborate the eminence prediction: The proportion of athletes
born at Mars key sector hours increases from the lowest
to highest of five ranks of sporting eminence; the trend
is highly significant (p < .005) by several criteria. It
is concluded that Gauquelin's hypothesis, after having passed
this crucial examination, deserves the most thorough attention.
- Planetary Influences on Human
Behavior ("Gauquelin Effect"):To absurd for a Scientific
Explanation? by Arno Mueller. Arno Mueller, Universitaets-Kliniken,
D-6650 Homburg/Saar, Germany Starting points are the investigations
of the Gauquelins into planetary influences on human beings
and the attempt at a scientific explanation by Michel Gauquelin.
Aside from the fact that so far no physical link connecting
planets and human behavior has been discovered, there are
six other facts that resist integration into Gauquelin's
explanatory model. In the model put up for discussion here,
which includes not only physical and hereditary, but also
cultural-historical, psychological, and evolutionary aspects,
these critical points are reconciled with reality and at
the same time the physical problems are simplified.
- The Gauquelin Effect Explained?
Comments on Arno Mueller's Hypothesis of Planetary Correlations
by Suitbert Ertel. Suitbert Ertel, Institute for Psychology,
Georg-August-University, Goesslerstrasse 14, 3400 Goettingen,
Germany Arno Mueller's "hypothesis of the planetary elite"
amended Gauquelin's "midwife hypothesis," which suffered
from weaknesses. The approach is a welcome contribution
to the persistent problem of how to explain planetary correlations
with human births (the Gauquelin effect). However, it is
inconsistent with empirical observations: (1) Gauquelin
effects are unrelated to character traits. Mueller's hypothesis
explains a correlation that does not exist. (2) Sometimes
planetary effects decrease with eminence. This is inconsistent
with Mueller's idea that more eminent as compared to less
eminent people should have cultural and biological advantages.
(3) Birth frequencies can be infrequent instead of abundant
when the planet is rising or culminating. This is inconsistent
with Mueller's assumption that in prehistorical times the
births of children were desired, not avoided, when the divine
planet was so placed. (4) The doctrine of planetary heredity
— the basic precondition of Mueller's hypothesis — is probably
invalid. (5) The Gauquelin effect is weakest for Venus.
Mueller's claim of an impact of planetary appearances on
the evolution of the Gauquelin effect would predict the
opposite. (6) Mueller's model covers only the evolution
of conditioning between planetary sensitivity and character
traits. It does not explain the evolution of planetary sensitivity
to such conditioning. Gauquelin's original midwife hypothesis
as well as Mueller's new version of it could be refuted
straight forwardly if further tests showed that the Gauquelin
effect occurred undiminished in eminent births induced by
obstetric drugs.
- Behavior ("Gauquelin Effect"): Too
Absurd for a Scientific Explanation? Arno
Mueller, Universitaets-Kliniken, D-6650 Homburg/Saar, Germany
Starting points are the investigations of the Gauquelins
into planetary influences on human beings and the attempt
at a scientific explanation by Michel Gauquelin. Aside from
the fact that so far no physical link connecting planets
and human behavior has been discovered, there are six other
facts that resist integration into Gauquelin's explanatory
model. In the model put up for discussion here, which includes
not only physical and hereditary, but also cultural-historical,
psychological, and evolutionary aspects, these critical
points are reconciled with reality and at the same time
the physical problems are simplified.
- Scientific Inquiry into the
Validity of Astrology? John H. McGrew and Richard M.
McFall, Psychology Department, Indiana University, Bloomington,
IN 47401 Six expert astrologers independently attempted
to match 23 astrological birth charts to the corresponding
case files of 4 male and 19 female volunteers. Case files
contained information on the volunteers' life histories,
full-face and profile photographs, and test profiles from
the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Blank and the Cattell
16-P.F. Personality Inventory. Astrologers did no better
at matching the birth charts to the personal data; this
result was independent of astrologers' confidence rating
for the predicted matches. Astrologers also failed to agree
with one another's predictions.
- Dutch Investigations of the Gauquelian
Mars Effect J. W. Nienhuys, Department of Mathematics
and Computing Science, Eindhoven University of Technology,
P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands A team
of Dutch skeptics investigated a new explanation for the
Mars effect with sports champions of Michel Gauquelin. They
conjectured that outstanding sports people might have diurnal
and seasonal birth rhythms different from average people
and that moreover the short time base of Gauquelin's observations
might further enhance the effects. Essentially their findings
were negative. Simulations were either not possible because
of lack of data or showed that along these lines an explanation
only is possible if very implausible extra assumptions are
made. However, it is argued that the Gauquelin data suffer
from a bias, namely some artifact of the exploratory phase.
The eminence effect of Ertel is shown be too weak to draw
firm conclusions about its existence. It seems plausible
that the Gauquelins did not realize that said artifact had
to be tightly controlled for.
- Biased Data Selection in Mars
Effect Research by Suitbert Ertel, Institut für Psychologie,
Gosslerstr. 14, 37073 Göttingen, Germany Kenneth Irving,
596 Villa Ave., Staten Island, NY 10302, U.S.A. An earlier
study (Ertel, 1988) showed that original evidence for Gauquelin's
Mars effect with eminent athletes (Gauquelin and Gauqelin
1970) was based on an incomplete data sample. When athletes
initially discarded by Gauquelin were included the Mars
effe ct declined. The present study bears on a more subtle
effect of the same bias. Gauquelin's original definition
of planetary effects was based on birth frequences obtained
in a "narrow" zone of the planet's daily circle (G-sector
zone). After accumulating results over decades of research,
he found that the area just preceding his narrow zone indicated
initial planetary effects; he therefore proposed to include
initial sectors in an "extended" G-sector zone definition.
Assuming that these initial G-sectors had been ignored prior
to 1984, the authors suspected that an unbiased proportion
of births for these sectors in Gauquelin's exempted data
should contrast with the biased proportion known to exist
in the "narrow-zone" sectors. This idea gave rise to a new
bias detector (IMQ, initial vs. main sector quotient), whose
validity was confirmed with the biased Gauquelin data. Selection
bias for Gauquelin turned up in his athletes study only;
the IMQ did not indicate like anomalies for six other professional
inve stigations conducted by Gauquelin. The IMQ was also
applied to three athlete samples collected by skeptic organizations.
Among them, the CSICOP data for U.S. athletes revealed an
anomalous IMQ similar to Gauquelin's unpublished athletes.
The results therefore suggest that a certain proport ion
of U.S. athletes with unwelcome positions might have been
exempted from analysis (p = 0.01). Support for this suspicion
is provided by complementary evidence indicating biased
admissions of less eminent athletes to the U.S. sample while
the preference for most eminent athletes was required. Thus
an avoidance of G-sector cases, consistent with this bent,
cannot be disavowed. Nevertheless the authors refrain from
firm conclusions as this case is circumstantial. It is suggested
to merely disregard the CSICOP's negative result of their
study in future discussions of the Mars effect as long as
appropriate steps to convincingly resolve remaining ambiguities
have not been not made.
- Is the "Mars Effect" Genuine?
by Paul Kurtz, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Ranjit Sandhu. Michel
Gauquelin, Laboratoire d'Etude des Relations Entre Rythmes
Cosmiques et Psychophysiologiques, 8, Rue Amyot, Paris,
France 75005 The so-called "Mars Effect" is discussed in
a larger context. The phenomenon refers to a significant
tendency for champion athletes to have been born at the
time of either the rise or the upper culmination of the
planet Mars. The populations and sample, methodology and
its development are described along with earlier and more
recent findings. Control studies and replications by others
are reported in some detail. Particular attention is paid
to certain basic and procedural criticisms and the problem
of bias or artifacts. The current scientific status of the
issue is reviewed in light of several kinds of empirical
evidence that has accumulated over the past three decades.
The question raised in the title of the paper is answered
in the affirmative.
- The Astrology of Time Twins:
a re-analysis by CC. French, G. Dean and A. Leadbetter.
Christopher C. French, Antony Leadbetter, Department of
Psychology, Goldsmiths' College, University of London, New
Cross, London SE14 6NW United Kingdom and Geoffrey Dean,
Analogic, Box 466, Subiaco 6008, Western Australia Roberts
and Greengrass (1994) tested the astrological claim that
persons born close together in time are more alike than
those born far apart. They collected a total of 128 subjects
born on six dates spanning a period of thirty years. Each
subject provided their time of birth and completed the short
form EPQ. After comparing the interval between births with
the difference in EPQ scores the authors concluded that
their data showed no strong support for astrology. However,
they claimed that the proportion of close personalities
increased as the birth interval decreased, which would provide
some support for astrology. We have re-analyzed their data
and find that their results can be explained as an artifact
of data division, sampling errors and age trends. A careful
examination of correlations and serial correlations (which
are more appropriate tests than the ones used by Roberts
and Greengrass) confirmed the absence of astrological effects
in their data. If anything, the results were in the wrong
direction. A new finding not reported by Roberts and Greengrass
was a very small and non-significant difference between
younger and older subjects, consistent with the effect of
prior knowledge, which suggests that their sample may be
slightly contaminated. We conclude that an astrological
interpretation of their results is unwarranted.
- The "Mars Effect" as seen
by the committee PARA by J.Dommanget. J. Dommanget,
Observatoire Royal de Belgique, Avenue Circulaire, 3-B/1180
Bruxelles, Belgique This paper deals primarily with the
research carried out by the Committee PARA (the Belgian
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of
Paranormal Phenomenon)1 on a problem proposed by Michel
Gauquelin in 1960, effectively undertaken in 1967, and of
which conclusions have been published in 1976 in the Committee's
Bulletin: Nouvelles Bréves (N.B., No. 43, September, 1976).
It also contains some comments on newer research, including
those by other authors. The problem concerns correlations
that Gauquelin claims to exist between sports champions
and the positions of the planet Mars in the sky at the time
of their births. The Committee PARA has rejected the belief
in any Mars effect in the case of sports champions. It is
the position of the Committee PARA that, while some of Gauquelin's
astronomical and statistical computations appeared perfectly
correct, the theoretical principles proposed by Gauquelin
to support his research have to be rejected because they
do not correctly take into account the fundamentals of the
problem — the secular and diurnal socio-demographic factors.
The objective of this article is to correct the many mistakes,
misinterpretations, and false inferences which have been
made regarding the research of the Committee PARA. 1 Comité
Belge pour l'Investigation Scientifique des Phénomènes réputés
paranormaux (Belgian Committee for the scientific investigation
of claims of paranormal phenomenon). In short: Committee
PARA (Dommanget, 1993).
- Astrology and Sociability:
a comparative Analysis of the Results of an Psychological
Test by Suzel Fuseau-Braesch. Suzel Fuzeau-Braesch,
Département de Biologie et Physiologie animales, Bâtiment
440-443 Université de Paris-Sud 91405 Orsay, France The
aim of this study is to compare sociability scores with
classic astrological data found in the natal charts of a
population of 524 students (Ss), of an average age of 22.09
years, by using the Eysenck and Wilson psychological test.
The position of the Sun in eleven out of the twelve zodiacal
signs (months) corresponds significantly to alternations
of higher and lower sociability for the odd and even signs
of the zodiac respectively, this being in complete conformity
with astrological tradition. Since other alternations are
also revealed, particularly in the case of the planet of
Mars, it would appear that the argument of self-attribution
by the Ss cannot be used to undermine these results. Moreover,
the division into months of the calendar year eliminates
all alternations, thus fully justifying an astrological,
zodiacal and seasonal division - the Vernal point corresponds
to 0° of Aries - which cancels out any influence of the
precession of the equinoxes phenomenon. On the other hand,
in the two types of annual divisions - zodiacal and calendar
- a significant sinusoidal evolution (COSINOR) in the sociability
scores appears, with a maximum in October/Libra. At present
this cycle cannot be explained. The Moon, Mercury, Venus
and the Ascendant show little or no connection with sociability.
The positions of the planets at the four astrological "angles"
(Ascendant, Midheaven, Descendant and Nadir) correspond
slightly to astrological data, while the "aspects" (angles
in degrees) formed between the Sun and planets partially
confirm the astrological data for Jupiter and Saturn.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Je
gids astrologie 
Samenvattingen
van een aantal artikels 
Je bent hier