From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:15:00 GMT
 <1992Oct8.174014.7047@rhrk.uni-kl.de> <1992Oct11.171752.2384@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona

I forwarded the recent exchange between Jan Willem Nienhuys and York Dobyns
to Suitbert Ertel.  He posted the following on the BITNET SKEPTIC list in
response:

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:33:52 MEZ
From: Suitbert Ertel <SERTEL@DGOGWDG1.BITNET>
Subject: JWN and MARS effect
To: "James J. Lippard" <LIPPARD@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>

JWN's contribution to the MARS effect debate is meticulous,
but long.

My reply is short.

The main question to be kept in mind is this:

            IS THERE A MARS EFFECT?

The Belgian skeptics (Comite Para) tried to refute Gauquelin's claim
by collecting N=535 new athletes data (published in 1976).

Apparently, they couldn't refute G's claim. Otherwise U.S.
skepticts (Paul Kurtz et al.) would hardly have tried the
laborious Zelen test consisting of collecting birth data of
N=16,000  French ordinary people (control group) (1977).

The results of the Zelen test apparently did not shake
Gauquelin's claim either, otherwise the same researchers would
hardly have tried another test consisting of collecting birth
data of N=408  U.S. athletes (1979/80).

Again, the U.S. athletes test was apparently unconvincing.
Otherwise the Dutch skeptics would hardly have dived into that
matter again, they did it twice. First their idea was: Birth
excess of Gauquelin athletes with Mars in G-zones exists, but it
can be explained by diurnal and/or seasonal association (published
in 1991). On closer look (and computation) they abandoned this
idea. Next they explained Mars birth excess for Gauquelin
athletes by Gauquelin's selection bias (in print) - they had
become aware of my detailed account of the Gauquelin bias effect
in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (1988).

There is another skeptics group, the French CFEPP, which
apparently remained unconvinced by the Belgian and the two
American approaches. They started collecting new French athletes
birth data in 1983 and gave a report (unpublished) about their
procedure in 1990 adding an appendix providing birth data of
1076 athletes  (Dr. Benski).  Results of an analysis of CFEPP's
data have not been published until today. Therefore, Arno
Mueller and myself did an analysis of CFEPP's data (we informed
Dr. Benski in advance). We computed, first, the main indicator:
G percentage, i.e., the percentage of French athletes born with
Mars in key sectors), the result is 25.19%.

Then we shifted the birth dates by one year. An athlete born on,
say, Jan 25 1938, at 3 a.m., was attributed the birth date and
time Jan 25 1939, at 3 a.m. We calculated G% for shifted birth
data. Then we shifted by two years and calculated G% again. The
same procedure was repeated by stepwise yearly shifts up to 25 years.
The same shifts were applied in the opposite direction (-1, -2
.. -25 years).

(Stepwise yearly shifts are applied here for the
first time as an improved test for a planetary
effect. The improvement consists of relating the experimental
group of genuine individuals to control groups of dummy
individuals whose "births" occurred under exactly the
same diurnal and seasonal conditions as those present at
the births of the experimental individuals.)

What might Dr. Benski and Dr. Nienhuis (JWN) hypothesize here?
I guess they might expect both that the genuine
G% value of 25.19% does not deviate significantly from the
distribution of 50 G% values obtained from the dummy controls.

The result, however, does not confirm this hypothesis. I am
appending a table showing 51 G% values in descending rank order.
The value on top is G% obtained from the genuine birth data. The
error probability of finding the genuine value on top is p=.01
which is generally regarded as very significant (allowing for a
one-tailed test which is here called for).

Now I would like to ask JWN how confident he is, on inspecting
these results, that the Mars effect does not exist.

Second - assuming he is not yet confident enough about
the nonexistence of a Mars effect - how many additional yearly
shifts he wants us to calculate in order to improve his
confidence that the Mars effect actually does not exist. Or
else, what he would suggest should be done now to put his
conclusion and that of other critics of the Mars effect on firmer
ground.

Suitbert Ertel

---------- APPENDIX ----------------------------------------------

    Results of testing
    for a Mars effect
    using the stepwise yearly
    shift procedure

      Data: CFEPP
French athletes (N=1,076)
-------------------------
    rank      shift
     by       by
    size      years  G%
-------------------------
      1      0     25.19   genuine
-------------------------
      2    -10     25.00   dummyes
      3    -25     24.54   dummy
      4    -14     24.54    ...
      5     -6     24.54
      6      6     24.54
      7      8     24.54
      8     17     24.44
      9    -12     24.35
     10    -11     24.35
     11     21     24.35
     12     22     24.26
     13     11     24.07
     14     20     24.07
     15     -9     24.07
     16     -8     23.98
     17    -13     23.88
     18      2     23.88
     19      4     23.88
     20    -20     23.88
     21     -3     23.79
     22      3     23.79
     23     18     23.70
     24      5     23.70
     25     23     23.70
     26    -23     23.61
     27    -21     23.42
     28     24     23.23
     29     25     22.86
     30     -4     22.86
     31    -18     22.77
     32     14     22.68
     33     10     22.58
     34     -7     22.40
     35    -17     22.30
     36    -22     22.30
     37    -19     22.30
     38    -24     22.30
     39     15     22.21
     40     12     22.12
     41     -5     22.03
     42      7     21.93
     43      1     21.93
     44     13     21.84
     45    -15     21.75
     46     19     21.56
     47     16     21.47
     48      9     21.47
     49     -2     21.38
     50    -16     21.28
     51     -1     21.10
------------------------------------------