From: lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: same old same old
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:11:57 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.


In article <13OCT199217031279@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <Bw111q.Ity@csn.org>, lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson) writes...
>>casper@vxcern.cern.ch (Dave Casper) writes:
>>>lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson) writes:
>> 
>>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.
>
>That it has been replicated 4 times by skeptics groups was not so clear
>after reading the other material you posted after this.

You're right; only 3 skeptics' groups have replicated the study.
The total number of studies showing the Mars effect is now eight:
4 studies by Gauquelin, one my Muller, and 3 by skeptics' groups.
(For a review, see Suitbert Ertel, "Update on the `Mars Effect'",
Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 16, Winter 1992, pp. 150-160.)

I was thinking of the work of the Danish skeptics' group, but I now
realise that they did not collect new data; they simply reanalysed
the Gauquelins' data, to test an hypothesis about seasonal and
diurnal variation. (Their hypothesis proved incorrect.)

>>I will also forward a recent posting from sci.skeptic which
>>presents a new data analysis by Ertel.
>
>The business of shifting all the birthdates and still seeing a Mars effect
>tells me something fishy is going on.

As a Pisces, fishy is my specialty. By "Mars effect," I assume you mean
that some of the proportions found by shifting the birthdates an integer
number of years were quite close to the highest proportion, that found
in the actual sample (i.e., with the actual birth data). Note first that
none was as high as the proportion for the real sample. But it is
natural to find variation in proportions across samples, and by chance
one might even get a significant effect once in any twenty samples
(using an alpha level of .05 for significance). That is precisely
why replication is so important. But note also that the shifts in
birth dates are not random. The dates were shifted by years, keeping
the date and time constant (to control for seasonal and diurnal
variation, which was a concern of the Danish skeptics' group).
Recall the nature of the Mars effect: the appearance of Mars in
the 12th, 9th, 6th or 3rd house. Let us assume that the angles are
roughly square to one another (although in reality they are
probably not quite square because of the relatively high latitude
of European births). Then if the birth dates are shifted by years,
with the time of day and thus the point in the diurnal cycle kept
constant, then Mars will appear with certainty in the 9th, 3rd, 6th or
12th house if (1) it was in one of those positions in the natal chart, 
and (2) the shift in years is equal to one half or one complete orbit of 
Mars around the Sun. I am speaking roughly here, because the movement
of Mars is not uniform (e.g., because of periods of retrogradation),
but my statement is true in some approximate way. If the horizon
is assumed to be square to the MC-IC axis, then Mars will also
appear in one of the houses containing "key sectors"
after a shift of years equivalent to one-quarter or three-quarters
of Mars' cycle. So what is Mars' orbital period? About 23 months, or
approximately 2 years. Now since the certainty of Mars appearing
in a "key sector" is greatest for shifts in years that are integer
multiples of Mars' orbital period or half-way between those values
(because the horizon may or may not be square the MC-IC axis,
depending on the latitude of the place of birth for a given person),
then shifts that are multiples of one year should bring Mars back
to key sectors in the optimum way. Actually, not quite optimum
because the orbital period of Mars is not 2 years, but 23 months.
But shifting by an integer number of years is about as close to
an optimum way of keeping Mars in key sectors as you can achieve.
So it is not surprising that many of the values computed by Ertel
are very close to the highest value, that found for the actual
birth data.

>>>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?
>
>Is it not the case that at least some of the criteria involved subjective
>judgement of the shapes of patterns?

Yes, and those measures correlated very highly with the objective measures.
So one would have a hard time making the case that the subjective 
measures were unreliable. Even if they were, one could base one's
conclusions on the objective measures alone, if one preferred. So
I cannot see that the phenomenon is accurately described as
"extremely subjective" and as one that might "appear or disappear
according to the state of mind of the experimenter."

>>>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.
>
>It is entirely possible that the results were selected after the fact (through
>willful fraud on the part of the experimenters or not).  Repeating a flawed
>procedure hundreds of times does not necessarily insure a better result.

I see, so all of the researchers were committing fraud. To what end?
Think of Kolisko, spending her whole adult life conducting tens of
thousands of experiments, being rewarded for none of them, and having
her work all but lost to obscurity. Where is the motive for fraud?
Your conclusion strikes me as patently illogical. Although I suppose
you have to find some way to account to yourself for hundreds of 
replications of a phenomenon you cannot stomach. Bit of a stretch, though.

The Mars-Saturn aspects occur so infrequently, one would have to wait
a lifetime to get the effects observed just by chance (e.g., by 
levels of humidity and temperature that just happened to covary with
the presence and absence of the aspect).

>>>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?
>
>Considerably more than $1000...

Really? Seems like nothing but empty rhetoric if no such experiment
is to be conducted. Okay, if the study is not to be done, then I
will bet $10 billion that the effect will be replicated in the
non-existent study. Are we on?

I suggested a $1000 bet (because I could hardly afford more) on
a real study that I asked you to conduct. I do not consider any
sum of money a good measure of one's credence if the experiment
is never to be carried out. So I am not yet convinced that you
really believe the effect is an artifact of faulty procedures.
So far, all I see is a lot of talk.
 
>>I will
>>put aside my distaste for betting on scientific studies and make you
>>an offer.
>
>Well, I wasn't suggesting a real bet, just trying to measure the level of
>confidence you place in these strange results.  I see it is quite high.

As I said, without a real study in the planning, these "bets" measure
nothing.

>>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.
>
>I'm afraid CERN is not that kind of lab - most all the experiments are done
>with electronics, and any medium university chem lab would probably be better
>equipped.  I have not seen a test tube in over a year of working here.  So I
>am hardly in a better position than you.  In particular, I doubt I can find a
>room with a controlled environment since few of the buildings here are even
>air-conditioned (most of the buildings at CERN date from the 50's and 60's and
>are rather spartan.)

The experiment is very simple, and the equipment needed could be easily
obtained: flat-bottomed glass dishes, filterpaper, a graduated cylinder
for measuring volumes of solution, and the three solutions. But the
controlled environment is necessary.

You can see why the experiments to date have not been carried out with
very strict controls of temperature and humidity. Who (or perhaps I
should say "Who without grant money...") has access to adequate
facilities?

>>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.
>
>I will look into the possibility of doing this, but there are a lot of
>obstacles.  First of all, to do it right, a real chemist would need to be
>involved.  Despite what you might think, chemistry and physics do not have
>much in common, and this kind of experiment might be affected by trace
>impurities or other details that would escape my untrained eye.  On the other
>hand, this sort of problem should not produce false correlation with the
>planets.  I am certain things cannot be ready for the next moon/mars, but
>if I could get things set up by the winter break then we could have 6 or
>7 moon/mars hits before the mars-saturn event.

I agree that a chemist experimenter would be ideal, but I doubt we could
find one with sufficient interest. As you say, whatever remaining
variables cannot be controlled should not vary systematically with
the formation and separation of aspects between planets. I think you
could conduct the experiment perfectly well, especially if you could
get a chemist to mix up a large batch of each solution for you. That's
the trickiest part for a non-chemist. The rest is just pouring specific
volumes of solution into a dish, making a cylinder out of filterpaper,
and placing the paper in the dish. Not too complicated.

Six Moon-Mars conjunctions would be fine with me.

>>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).
>
>How many times by people who were not expecting to see them though?

The results were not predicted in advance for any of the given 
aspects, but once they had been observed a few times, then the
results were predictable for the next few hundred experiments.
You know, just like in everyday science.

>>As this is no small sum of money I offer, I feel entitled to specify
>>certain conditions on the methodology.  [...]
>
>No apparent problems, but I am not clear on how the amount of precipitate is
>to be measured - wouldn't drying out the filter paper and weighing it be an
>obvious way?

No; one has to measure the quantity of *each* metal precipitate in the
paper. Weighing would not allow such specificity. The procedures used
by Kollerstrom and his colleagues could be used, and/or more modern
procedures that accomplish the same goal.

>>Because you are a highly biased observer, certain precautions will be
>>necessary. [...]
>
>Despite all your precautions, unless you want to keep a videotape running
>24 hours a day for 7 months, it is obvious the solutions could be changed or
>tampered with while the camera was off.  Or I could re-set the camera clock
>to a different time and perform the experiments off-aspect.  I think there is
>no way to prove there has been no cheating if you will not take my word (or
>possibly a local referee) for it.  Hence the $1000 bet may have to wait until
>I return to the America.

I will trust you not to fool with things off-camera. I just think that an
objective and permanent record of the experiments, timed and dated, is
necessary.

When do you return to America? Mark has agreed to act as the third party,
if you wish to proceed with the study.

>>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. 
>
>The main problems are: 1) do we have the facilities and 2) is there someone who
>has the skills in lab technique to do the experiment right.  Also, I would
>want to be careful about embarrassing the lab or myself by doing experiments
>in fringe science.  If the results in question are published in some journal,
>it would make my life much easier (hell, I might even get a grant...).  I am
>sure that the above caveat will elicit howls of derision, proving how close-
>minded scientists are, but CERN is operated by the governments of Europe to do
>particle physics, which this ain't.  They even get retentive about making local
>phone calls on the office phone around here.  I will ask around, but it would
>be infinitely easier at a university.

You think universities would welcome astrological research on their
premises any more than CERN would? I am afraid you live in a world 
of fantasy...

Perhaps you begin to see why so little research is done in astrology.

>>>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. 
>
>While your tactic is apparently to call the negative results poorly designed
>while the positive ones are above reproach.

I said no such thing. Reread what I wrote. I did not say that *only* the
studies with negative results were poorly designed, but that the poorly-
designed studies *included* most of those that did not get a positive
result. There have been, though, some studies that I judge to be very
well-designed and that also found significant effects in line with
astrological theory. I am a tough critic when it comes to experimental
design. Just ask the editors of journals who send me articles for
peer review.

>>Let's be conservative and say one millenium. Please provide
>>references for scientific studies conducted in or around the year 8
>>B.C.
>
>I dunno.  When was the distance to the moon and sun measured? That in itself
>begins to evidence (i.e. these bodies are extremely far away).

This has nothing to do with astrology; it provides evidence neither
for nor against. Nobody has a theory that *explains* astrological
phenomena, so the distance of the Sun and Moon may not be relevant.
In any case, I do not believe that the distance to the Sun and Moon
had been measured in 8 B.C.!! Really, Dave.


Maggie