From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: same old same old (and I mean it)
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:47:49 GMT

I can't let this stand as it is.
Here is a bit of history for those who don't read other groups:
-------------------------------
David O Hunt in sci.skeptic:
DOH>Anyone want to comment?
[about L. M. P. McPherson's article in rec.org.mensa)

Jan Willem Nienhuys in sci.skeptic:
JWN>Yes but only to parts. The whole piece is too long.

L. M. P. McPherson in rec.org.mensa:
[..]
LMP>This Mars effect has been replicated now by two skeptics'
LMP>organisations, one in Belgium (Belgian Committee for the
LMP>Scientific Study of Paranormal Phenomena) and one in America. In
LMP>the latter case, the group providing the replication was CSICOP
LMP>(Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
LMP>Paranormal). They originally published tainted results which

JWN>A lie.

LMP>seemed to represent a failure to replicate, but after years of
LMP>controversy they admitted to adding into the sample non-champion

JWN>A lie.

LMP>athletes to dilute the originally positive result that they had
LMP>obtained. In a recent issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (their
LMP>mouthpiece), they published an article by Suitbert Ertel which
LMP>showed that the American sample used in the CSICOP study does
LMP>indeed show the Mars effect. As a result of the controversy

JWN>A lie.

LMP>resulting from their cover-up of the originally positive finding
LMP>in the Mars/athlete study, CSICOP has ceased conducting
LMP>scientific investigations (and so their name is no longer
LMP>appropriate).

JWN>Not a lie, at least when you equate "scientific" with "astrological".

Eric C. S. Dynamic in sci.skeptic:
ECSD>The Zuni Indians, I think, do not like, or do not believe, in electronics,
ECSD>because they can't see the electrons themselves. Modern-day Zunis probably
ECSD>accept the devices because they see them to work, even if their cultural
ECSD>attitude hasn't changed.

Me (Thomas Kettenring) in sci.skeptic:
TK>Jan Willem Nienhuys has already corrected the rumors spread by McPherson,
TK>so this is irrelevant.  Astrology still has neither a theory nor evidence.

-------------------------------
L. M. P. McPherson in alt.astrology, referring to the above:

>I'm afraid you're wasting your time if you think that scientific
>evidence can dissuade an anti-astrologer from his views. So-
>called "skeptics" simply ignore data that does not fit their
>world view. I have seen this time and again. Take, for example,
>my recently posted summary of some research findings in astrology
>(posted to rec.org.mensa, and then forwarded by someone to
>sci.skeptic). A member of sci.skeptic (JWN) posted a reply in
>which he ignored every single finding I mentioned but one: the
>famous Gauquelin "Mars effect."

You say
>"skeptics" simply ignore data that does not fit their world view.
and then
>(JWN) posted a reply in which he ignored every single finding I
>mentioned but one

So when you make your judgement about skeptics you just ignore those
data that don't fit into your view of skeptics, namely the fact that
he *did not* ignore that one finding.
Or do you agree that the Mars effect findings *do* fit a worldview
without astrology?

>His excuse was that he could not
>reply to the entire posting because it was *too long*! (To admit
>that he had never read any of the other research studies would
>have been more truthful.)

You don't perhaps want to put a "probably" into that last sentence?
Must be one of your omniscient days again...You know for sure what
JWN has read and what not, and you know for sure that he has all the
time in the world to answer everything.
 
> He listed several possible weaknesses
>in the Gauquelin's original study of Mars and sports champions,
>and made some dubious claims about weaknesses in Ertel's analysis
>of the CSICOP sample (e.g., that if you take small subsamples
>such as just the French athletes or just the extremely eminent
>athletes in a particular sample, you don't always get a
>significant effect! Someone should explain the statistical
>concepts of power and variance to him...). He also tried to
>devalue the effect by pointing out that it occurs only among the
>most eminent athletes (which makes perfect sense according to
>astrological theory), and that it is not an overwhelming effect
>in terms of size, despite its statistical significance. (There
>goes all of social science...) And he accused me of lying for
>describing Ertel's results, which were published in CSICOP's own
>journal.

And he says why he does so (though I think "lie" is a bit strong for
your looking at the data through your glasses, as we are using ours):

JWN>The results of Ertel clearly show that the Gauquelins biased their data.
JWN>(I don't think the bias was deliberate, because probably both of the
JWN>Gauquelins did not understand the difference between exploratory research
JWN>and testing.  Otherwise they would have been  ashamed  to commit their
JWN>post-hoc data selection after the American test).
JWN>
JWN>Ertel's position is that the Gauquelin data still show a Mars effect, in
JWN>the sense that the effect is stronger in groups of more excellent
JWN>athletes.  However, Ertel's analysis is poor.  I have reanalysed it,
JWN>and (a) the effect is absent if one only looks at the French champions
JWN>(b) the effect is present if one does not distinguish between champions
JWN>whose result were and weren't published by the Gauquelins.  As Ertel's
JWN>sources were partly used by the Gauqelins themselves to establish who
JWN>was good and who was not (which gave a bias in their results) the
JWN>Ertel eminence effect is very dubious. (c) Moreover, Ertel himself has since
JWN>"discovered" that this eminence effect is "reversed" among the very high
JWN>top (after some more results I expect him to find a sinusoidal behavior...).
JWN>And even though Ertel knows the Gauquelin data are biased, he keeps
JWN>forgetting the importance of the fact that the Gauquelins never bothered
JWN>to formulate what was a champion.  All along the Gauquelin's idea has
JWN>been that the effect only shows up if you take your champions good enough.

>(He also accused me of lying for repeating one CSICOP
>member's version of the events surrounding the Mars study done by
>that group; he prefers another version of the events.)

Repeating it as if it were the gospel truth instead of marking it as
Rawlins' version.
Again "lie" is a bit strong for your spreading the rumor Rawlins
started in sTARBABY about "tainted results".  After all you couldn't
possibly have seen the CRYBABY article by Philip Klass which has been
on the net at least since last November.  Nah...
Perhaps you just ignored it for it would destroy a piece of evidence
for your cherished beliefs about skeptics... I can only guess.


>So then
>another "skeptic" (TK) picked up the thread on rec.org.mensa, and
>advised *you* to forget about the evidence I presented because, he
>claimed, JWN had "corrected the rumors spread by McPherson," and,
>he added, "Astrology still has neither a theory nor evidence."

I don't read rec.org.mensa (it was crossposted to sci.skeptic), and
I advised nobody to do anything.  The rest you managed not to distort.

>Recall that JWN dealt only with one of the many findings I had
>described! If that isn't an interesting study in human nature, I
>don't know what is!

I admit that your bringing up that old Rawlins chestnut dropped your
credibility in my eyes so much that I didn't bother to read the rest
of your posting.  Perhaps JWN felt the same way?  Perhaps you should
in future omit the unsure data and anti-skeptic slants and just use
the real evidence.
Now look at what you showed us other than the Gauquelins' work:

LMP>One example is the work of Furze-Morrish on compatibility.
LMP>He showed that [..]
LMP>He later replicated this effect and extended it [..]

People who replicate their own effects,

LMP>Some recent work by Nick Kollerstrom and Mike O'Neill looks very
LMP>promising.

work that "looks very promising",

LMP>One effect that has been replicated numerous times

and something that could be interesting.  Thank you for the info.
I'll try to look that up.
BTW, why don't you add Furze-Morrish and the "Metals and Planets"
thing to the FAQ, Question 9?  Would it get too long then?

[more anti-skeptic prejudices deleted]

--
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)