From: lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: same old same old
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:01:00 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

casper@vxcern.cern.ch (Dave Casper) writes:
>lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson) writes:
>> 
>>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).
>
>You may find this hard to believe, but I don't read sci.skeptic. 
>Could you either post here or e-mail me (you need not include
>Gauquelin as I am familiar with his work and we have discussed it on
>numerous occasions). 

In rn, type "g rec.org.mensa"; once in the group, type 
/Astrology: Scientific Research/h

That will bring you to the article. But I have pointed you towards
all of this research in the past, both in postings and in private
mail. It never seemed to interest you in the past, so I doubt you
would find it any more interesting now. So much more fun to shout,
"There's no proof!"

You used to post in sci.skeptic, but I can understand if you have
stopped reading it. Such a terribly dull group, populated chiefly by
nitwits who would love to get their heads even further up their bums
except that their arseholes are just too tight. The signal-to-noise
ratio is about .00001 in that group, IMHO.

>I was interested to hear recently how many
>players of a Basque game a bit like Lacrosse (played nowhere outside
>the Basque region of Spain) and Italian sports pilots were considered
>"extremely eminent international athletes" in this study though. 
>Whereas according to Gauquelin, American football and basketball
>players were not sufficiently well known outside their own niche to
>meet his eminence criteria (he determined after the study failed).

There may well have been some problems with the way Gauquelin
conducted that study, but they could not have been too serious
since the effect in question (the "Mars effect") has been
replicated at least five times since then, once by Gauquelin
on an American sample, and four times by skeptics' groups.

I will post separately articles by Jim Lippard and Suitbert Ertel
that appeared some time ago on sci.skeptic. I think these will 
address adequately your worries about the Gauquelin Mars-athletes
data. I will also forward a recent posting from sci.skeptic which
presents a new data analysis by Ertel.

>I deferred comment on most of the metallurgical material you posted
>some weeks ago.  It seemed to me that, despite all the graphs, this
>was referring to an extremely subjective phenomenon which might well
>appear or disappear according to the state of mind of the
>experimenter.

So what exactly did you find subjective about the measurement of
concentrations of precipitate in the filterpapers performed by Dr.
Benbow of the City University and by a scientific officer at the
Government Chemist of England using the spectrophotometry method?

Astrologers' Glossary: In the skeptics' lingo, "subjective" means that
it does not jive with their world view, and "objective" means that it
does.

>In addition, crystal formation is affected by a large
>number of conditions like temperature and air pressure, motion in the
>container, etc., which were not controlled during the experiment.

If we were discussing "the experiment," this would be a problem.
I think it unlikely that these variables, by some odd series of
coincidences, varied systematically with planetary aspects in each of
the hundreds of repetitions of the experiment by various researchers.

>Despite these shortcomings, I would like to see these experiments
>repeated, since they are more amenable to confirmation or rejection
>than most claims put forward by astrology.
>
>I often find the level of a person's credence in a statement
>proportional to the amount of money they are will to stake on it. If
>these metallurgical experiments were repeated under controlled
>conditions so that the influence of the planets was the only
>variable,
>how much money would you be willing to bet that the effect would be
>seen? 

How much would you be willing to bet that the effect would not be
seen?

The idea of betting on the outcome of a scientific experiment is
distasteful to me. I have only encountered such a thing once.
A young academic, a graduate student, convinced by the conclusions of
one poorly-designed study, disagreed with the theory and predictions
of one of my studies. He was so convinced that my results would be
negative that he offered to buy me and my supervisor a beer if the
study worked the way I thought it would. When I obtained stunningly
clear results in favour of my hypothesis, he couldn't find it in his
heart to believe that the data were valid, and he refused to buy
us the beers. So it is not just skeptics of astrology or the
paranormal that behave this way!

But because I am quite fond of you, Dave (note to astrologers: he has
Jupiter conjunct my Moon, Pluto/Sun/Venus on my IC, and his Uranus
and Pluto form a close Grand Trine with my Venus and Mars), I will
put aside my distaste for betting on scientific studies and make you
an offer.

Given that you work at a large research facility that must surely have
rooms in which temperature and humidity can be controlled (and since
few people would have access to such facilities; I am not even at a
university at the moment myself), you are in a rare position to carry
out these experiments. If you will carry out a series of carefully
controlled experiments, following Kollerstrom's methodology or
supplementing his procedures with more sophisticated measures of the
amount of precipitate in the filterpapers, then I will bet you $1000
that the experiments will replicate the effects obtained by
Kollerstrom and others. I say *series* of experiments because these
metal-planet effects vary in size from experiment to experiment, as
most effects in nature do.

If $1000 is too rich for your blood, then feel free to choose some
smaller amount that you can afford to lose (and lose you will, 
dear sir; these effects have been repeated hundreds of times).

As this is no small sum of money I offer, I feel entitled to specify
certain conditions on the methodology. The experiment should be
carried out for the next seven Moon-Mars conjunctions using a mixture
of equal volumes of 1% solutions of ferrous sulphate and silver
nitrate, and for the next Mars-Saturn opposition (June 23, 1993) using
equal volumes of 1% solutions of ferrous sulphate, silver nitrate, and
lead nitrate. Three filterpapers must be set in solution at the same
time before, during, and after the aspect, as follows: For the Mars-
Saturn opposition, readings should be taken at the time of day at
which the aspect will occur for five days preceding the aspect; on the
day of the aspect, readings hourly starting 3 hours before the aspect
and continuing for 3 hours after the aspect becomes exact, followed by
readings every two hours for the next 10 hours; then, readings twice
daily for the 10 days following the aspect. For the Moon-Mars
conjunctions, fewer readings are necessary because the effect is far
more short-lived, but timing is more important because the effect
occurs so close to the exact aspect. For these aspects, readings
should be taken for 3 days prior to the aspect, at the time of day at
which the aspect will occur. On the day of the aspect, readings should
be taken at least every half hour beginning 3 hours before the aspect,
and these half-hourly readings should continue for 3 hours after the
aspect occurs. Twice-daily readings should then be taken for the 3
days after the aspect. All of the solutions should be prepared before
any experiments begin and frozen in glass ampoules of the right size
to hold a bit more than the volume that will be used in a single
experiment; these ampoules can be thawed several hours prior to each
experiment and allowed to reach room temperature. This procedure will
ensure that the concentration of each metal salt is the same in each
experiment. Freezing is necessary because a ferrous sulphate solution
decays over time. Care must be taken to ensure that the glass
containers in which the solution and filterpaper sit are clean at the
beginning of each experiment. The same amount of solution and the same
type of filterpaper should be used in each experiment.

Because you are a highly biased observer, certain precautions will be
necessary. The date and time of each experiment should be written in
ink on the top of each filterpaper used. I also ask you to videotape
the experiments, with the date and time appearing on every frame (and
no fiddling with the clock allowed!), so that an objective record will
be available of the rate of reaction (one of the dependent measures)
for each experiment, and so that each such record will be inextricably
attached to a record of the date and time. Also record with the
videocamera the temperature and humidity of the area where the
experiment is conducted, as shown on the instruments used to measure
these variables. To ensure that the same volume of each solution was
used in each experiment, videotape each solution being poured from a
labelled ampoule into a graduated cylinder, and show it being mixed
with the other solution(s) and poured into the glass dish in which the
filterpaper will sit. Without turning the camera off, show the
filterpaper being placed in that dish. Leave the camera on until the
precipitation process is complete.

It would be preferable to have an independent person (perhaps a
chemist) measure the amount of precipitate in the filterpapers, and
he/she should be blind to the purpose of the study. The videotaped
records, along with all records of the amount of precipitate in the
filterpapers, should be sent directly from the lab to a third party,
who can verify whether the predicted effect did or did not occur, and
whose decision will determine who wins the bet. I suggest Mark Urban-
Lurain, if he should choose to accept this mission. The third party
can arrange to have two people who are blind to the nature of the
study independently measure the time to onset of precipitation from
the videotapes. Finally, the forms on the filterpapers should be
evaluated using Kollerstrom's rating procedure, in which the papers
are sorted into five piles according to the amount and size of forms,
and the ratings should be done independently by two raters blind to
the nature of the study.

Now do not tell me you don't have *time* to conduct this study. You
could easily carry out these experiments in the time it takes you to
read and respond to articles in alt.astrology. They are only time-
consuming on the day of the aspect.

You may not be keen to conduct the experiments because you might have
to get up in the middle of the night if that is when the aspect
occurs, but many researchers have to run studies at odd hours (e.g.,
physiological psychologists running rats in experiments), so this
complaint would not seem justified, especially given your publically
stated interest in seeing evidence in the domain of astrology. Perhaps
you will find it impossible to convince your superiors at CERN to let
you enter the premises at any time of night, or to let you use the
facilities for this research. That would at least be a reasonable
excuse. But even then, for $1000 or less you might be able to hire a
technician to carry out the experiments for you, or to rent a facility
in which to carry them out yourself. So if you are convinced that the
results will be negative, then it would be worth your while to spend
some money on this research.

But I sincerely doubt you will take me up on my offer, even if you are
in a position to do so. The fear of obtaining results that would punch
a hole in your world view will almost surely prevent you from taking
me on. But perhaps you will surprise me and turn out to be more of a
man (and less of a simpering sophist) than you appear to be. More
likely, you will suggest that *I* carry out the experiments, in spite
of my lack of access to adequate facilities. Recall, though, that it
is *you* who is not satisfied with the many studies that have already
been done; I am quite content with the evidence already available. So
I have no motive to replicate the experiments myself. I am only
suggesting that you carry out a replication out of greed for your
money -- and, of course, to test your mettle.

>And of course, in the unlikely event there were some influence of the
>planets on crystal formation, that is still a long way from showing
>that it affects human behavior in the way postulated by Western
>astrology.

True, but it does show that the planets have different natures as
indicated by their observed associations with different metals, that
aspects between planets have effects, and that planets can influence
activity on Earth from a great distance (or at least that there is a
harmony between planetary activity and mundane activity). There are
other studies that show a link between planetary activity and human
behaviour, as I have pointed out ad nauseum.

>>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...)
>
>You know very well that the larger your sample size, the smaller the
>systematic error which can mimick an effect.  Statistical
>significance
>itself is no guarantee that systematic effects or biases are not
>present.

Not even when the effect is replicated on independent samples by
independent researchers? I think you are grabbing at straws. Or can
you name the systematic error that appears in all of these studies?
All six of them?

>>But the demands for scientific proof are just rhetoric. No amount of
>>evidence would sway them. 
>
>How much evidence contrary to the claims of astrology would sway you?

>That argument cuts both ways.  There are plenty of studies, many done
>by your friend Gauquelin or astrologers like Geoffrey Dean which show
>quite convincingly that most if not all of astrological theory just
>doesn't bear out with the facts.

Quite convincingly to whom? If you have read Geoffrey Dean's
compilation of astrological research ("Recent Advances in Natal
Astrology"), then you know that most research in this field is very
poorly designed, including the studies that do not get a positive
result. What about the studies that do show a positive effect and that
do not appear to have any serious weaknesses, and what about the
effects that have been replicated?

Same old tactic: Ignore the studies with positive results. What many
people fail to realise is that the area of science where subjectivity
enters in with the greatest ease is library research. If you want to
"prove" that astrology does not work, you can restrict your library
search to prestigious academic journals, all of which are, no doubt,
edited by people highly skeptical of astrology. If they publish an
article on astrology, it is for and by non-astrologers, its hypotheses
are typically not ones any serious astrologer would make, and its
experimental design guarantees that no evidence for astrology will be
found. Better still, you can read only articles appearing in the
journals of skeptics' organisations. The converse does not work so
well, though. Even journals edited by astrologers publish negative
results, making such journals highly unusual among scholarly journals
(at least in the non-physical sciences). In psychology, for example,
it is virtually impossible to get an article published if it describes
results that did not support the hypothesis.

(By the way, I don't think Geoffrey Dean would call himself an
astrologer. He is an analytical chemist with considerable knowledge of
astrology. And Dean has done very little research himself in
astrology; he is primarily a reviewer of such research.)

>>(Ever notice how few *women* are die-hard "skeptics"? It is a man's
>>need to identify with a father image.)
>
>Probably this is because there are fewer women in the hard sciences
>in general.

Numbers are of little import; what proportion of women (versus men) in
the hard sciences are die-hard skeptics? And why restrict the count to
the hard sciences? Are those of us in the social sciences all a bunch
of fluff-heads in your opinion, just like astrologers and occultists?
In any case, where on earth did you get the idea that most die-hard
skeptics are scientists (and physical scientists in particular)? Many
of them that post to the net are computer programmers and engineers,
to name just two of their fields. You seem to think your world view is
a result of practicing science. Are you not aware that a huge chunk of
the population shares this view? It is the view of "the establishment"
(associated with the archetype of the Great Father and ruled by
Saturn). It dominates the culture. That is why so many skeptics feel
that they are behaving in a socially-acceptable way when they insult,
belittle, condemn and patronise practitioners in occult fields.

>>Change comes through the emotions, through the drive to survive, not
>>through the intellect. This fact has been brought home to me by
>>my years of experience in science. It is painfully common to see
>>academics cling to a theory for years or even decades long after
>>substantial evidence against the theory has been accumulated.
>
>I don't suppose astrology could possibly qualify as one of those
>theories people cling to for years or even decades (or millenia) long
>after substantial evidence against the theory has been accumulated,
>could it?  Nah...

No it couldn't, since there is considerable evidence for various
theories within the discipline -- which you and other skeptics
routinely ignore. (Those cognitive filters on consciousness are truly
amazing to see in action!) 

You think "substantial evidence against" astrology has been around for
millenia? Let's be conservative and say one millenium. Please provide
references for scientific studies conducted in or around the year 8
B.C.

>>It's human nature. Some of them would only give up the theory if
>>clinging to it caused the end of their career and the consequent
>>turmoil -- but tenure prevents such an occurrence. If they
>>invented the theory and it once achieved some popularity, they
>>are rewarded with endless attention for maintaining it. If they
>>are simply a follower, they are rewarded for continuing to follow
>>the theory with the positive approval of other loyal followers. 
>
>This is simply, utterly, and demonstrably false.  In the case of
>physics, theories are discarded almost overnight when compelling
>evidence arrives. These occasions are waited for expectantly, and
>when
>a new experiment confirms the theory in some area that hasn't been
>tested, there is vast disappointment! Now, when an experiment appears
>to conflict with a theory which has already been tested and found
>valid in a particular domain, then the system is more complicated -
>someone's experiment may have erred, and the work must be repeated
>until the discrepancy is understood.  But what you say is basically
>not true in my experience.

I should have restricted my claim to psychology, or perhaps to social
science in general. Perhaps things are different in physics, which has
been called the queen of the sciences. The reason for such status
among the sciences is that physics has been far more successful than
other sciences, for obvious reasons. Measurement is vastly more simple
in physics than in the biological or social sciences (which is not to
say that measurement in physics is not without difficulty -- just that
it is much less difficult), and the phenomena under investigation are
far less complex. So the results of experiments tend to be much
clearer, and much more difficult to argue with. So perhaps data *can*
change theories fairly quickly in physics, but I do not believe this
to be true of other sciences. It is certainly not true of mine.

>>I would never have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own
>>eyes! There is this wonderful myth out there that scientists are
>>cool, disinterested, and perfectly rational -- that data are
>>their only teachers. Nice myth. As the Gauquelins showed,
>>scientists are typically Saturnian, not Uranian (that is, they
>>are more likely to have Saturn angular; no such effect was found
>>for Uranus). They are *conformist* and *conventional*, cautious
>>and conservative. They seek to maintain the status quo, not to
>>overturn it with new findings. 
>
>You have neatly begged the question here.  First, Gauquelin found
that
>about 3-5% more than expected by chance of the *most eminent*
>(supposedly) scientists had an angular Mars - what about the 80% 
>or so
>who do not have that feature, what about people like me who are not
>eminent?  Second, he then went on to demostrate that since scientists
>are depicted in various articles, etc as rational, conformist, etc
>THAT implies that Saturn denotes this feature. You cannot now turn
>around and argue that since a few more scientists than expected have
>angular Saturn, that all scientists have these attributes.  It is
>circular reasoning. 
>
>Another fine example of astrology lending itself to stereotyping and
>depersonalization.

My conclusion has more to do with personal experience than the
Gauquelin data. However, recall that the Gauquelins (there were two of
them) looked just at the angularity of Saturn. There are any number of
other factors that could lend a Saturnian character to a person (e.g.,
Saturn dignified by sign and/or house, Saturn receiving close aspects
from the lights, Saturn conjunct the Vertex, Capricorn rising, planets
in Capricorn...). For your second experimental project, you could run
a multivariate analysis of such variables on samples of scientists and
non-scientists...

>Disclaimer:  The above represent my opinions stated openly in a
>public
>forum. They may disagree with your opinions.  No disparagement of
>persons holding different views is implied.  If the above discussion
>disturbs you to the point of anger, please disregard it. 

And if any of *my* comments disturb you to the point of anger, please
examine your feelings and try to determine why they bother you so.
Please do not repress or otherwise filter from consciousness any
information I provide that does not fit neatly into your system of
beliefs about the universe.


Maggie