From: lmpm@teal.csn.org (L. M. P. McPherson)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: same old same old (and I mean it)
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:16:23 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.


In article <1992Oct14.194749.17749@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de
(Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>I can't let this stand as it is.
>
>L. M. P. McPherson in alt.astrology,...:
>
>>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?

The skeptics have considered seriously that one finding -- but only that
one, as if it were the *only* one. They have picked that one Gauquelin
study apart endlessly, and because it may contain some flaws, they 
can comfort themselves by pointing them out. They have not picked 
apart the studies done by other researchers which replicated the effect.
If they had applied the same effort to the CSICOP study, for example, 
they would have discovered its flaws long before Ertel. But because 
the original presentation of that study showed no Mars effect (or rather 
a reverse Mars effect -- a level far lower than chance expectancy),
the skeptics accepted its methodology without question. Interesting, no?

>>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.

Having read sci.skeptic for some time, and having seen many postings
by JWN regarding astrology, I concluded he had not read any other
research because he has never even mentioned any of it. Do you have
evidence that he *has* in fact read the research I summarised?
 
>>(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.

Your guesses are rather poor. I have read CRYBABY. Of course
your choice to believe every word that Klass said and none of
what Rawlins said could not possibly have anything to do with
any bias on your part, right?

Anyway, both you and JWN misunderstood what I was saying. I was
not referring to the controversy surrounding the Zelen test
(in which data for a sample of French non-athletes were collected to 
see whether Michel Gauquelin's computation of chance expectancy was
correct). I was referring to another issue altogether. CSICOP
originally ran an analysis on a relatively small American sample, 
and found a significant Mars effect. They subsequently added in
many more athletes of lower eminence, and this washed out the
effect. In fact, the proportion of subjects showing the Mars
effect among the subjects they added to the sample was 
significantly *lower* than expected by chance. Seems a little fishy.

Here is how Hans Eysenck describes this problem:

From _Astrology, Science or Superstition_, by Eysenck & Nias,
St. Martin's Press, 1982.

"In spite of this apparent confirmation, _The Humanist_, like the 
Committee Para, decided to conduct yet another study. They 
wanted to see if the Mars effect could be replicated with US sports
champions. The study, which was conducted by the US
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal, ran into difficulties when most states refused to 
provide the required information on account of the 1974 US
privacy Act. It had been intended to obtain a sample of 605 US
champions, but it was possible to obtain birth times for only
128. For what it is worth, 20.3 per cent of this group displayed
the Mars effect. Although just significant, this sample was
considered too small, so it was enlarged by adding more cases.
Unfortunately these extra cases included many sportsmen who
were well below international class. For the total group (now 
408) there was no significant Mars effect and the Committee
reached a negative conclusion."

"The Gauquelins have pointed out that this test of their
work was unfair because the required standards of sporting
achievement were lowered too much in order to increase the sample
size (Gauquelin & Gauquelin, 1979, Personality and Position
of the Planets at Birth: An Empirical Study. British Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 71-75). For the extra
280 cases, the Mars effect applied to only 11 percent, which is
significantly below chance level."

....

"The Gauquelins have also pointed out that no real attempt
was made to select natural births; it will be remembered that
only in such cases is there a planetary effect. Since it is only in
the last quarter century that inducement of birth has become a 
routine practice, the researchers could have avoided this
problem by selecting earlier births. Consistent with this it was
noted in the first stage of the Committee's research, that the
Mars effect was stronger for pre-1930 births (27 per cent) than
it was for the whole group (20.3 per cent)."


>>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.

So when you told Eric that his comments about the positive research
findings were "irrelevant," you did not mean to imply that all of
the research had been discounted by JWN?

Here is exactly what you said, and what prompted it:

>Eric C. S. Dynamic in sci.skeptic and rec.org.mensa:
(Eric was responding to my article summarising astrological research)
>>The Zuni Indians, I think, do not like, or do not believe, in electronics,
>>because they can't see the electrons themselves. Modern-day Zunis probably
>>accept the devices because they see them to work, even if their cultural
>>attitude hasn't changed.
>>
>>Derek Bok and four others issued a joint statement saying that there was
>>no scientific basis for the claims of astrology. I doubt that Derek Bok
>>has read a book about astrology in all his life.

>Thomas Kettenring replied:
>>Jan Willem Nienhuys has already corrected the rumors spread by McPherson,
>>so this is irrelevant.  Astrology still has neither a theory nor evidence.

I don't think I distorted your intent.

>>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.

If you had read my posting carefully, it would have been obvious that
I was *not* describing the events surrounding the Zelen test; I was
discussing the CSICOP study on a sample of American athletes. Rawlins
was accusing CSICOP of dishonesty for its treatment of the data
collected for the Zelen test. My posting had nothing to do with
sTARBABY. If you feel that Eysenck's book contains "unsure data"
and has an anti-skeptic slant, then your accusation stands.

I am sorry to hear that your reactions to this subject are so
knee-jerk that you could not see I was discussing something other
than the issue that had been discussed to death in sci.skeptic.
And I am sorry that you are so easily put off from reading about
research findings in astrology.
 
>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,

In my experience in science, virtually all good researchers make some
effort to replicate their own findings, to ensure that the effect was
not due to chance. Are you suggesting that this practice is bad
science? It is wonderful if researchers in other labs can also
replicate the effects, but it is also quite rare that they should
try. In today's scientific world, fields of specialisation have
grown so small that the overlap of serious interest that might
lead to replication by other researchers is quite rare.

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

What's your quibble here? Have you read their articles and found that
the work is not promising? Did you find flaws in the methodology?

>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?

The FAQ points interested readers to summaries of research at
the ftp site, and one of these describes the studies of Furze-
Morrish. I guess you were not very interested in research when
you read the FAQ, or perhaps you can't use ftp at your site?

I may add something about the Metal-Planet research to the FAQ,
although the original intention of the FAQ answer was to direct
people to sources, not to describe specific studies. Thanks for
the suggestion.


Maggie
Newsgroups: alt.astrology