“Three tests, three hits”. Whose hits? Scrutinies of Geoffrey Dean’s parental tampering claim (5)

Author: Prof. Suitbert Ertel
Abstract: Geoffrey Dean gave an account of three tests of his Parental Tampering Hypothesis (PTH) that I had suggested to him that he conduct. He concluded (Dean 2000): “Three tests, three hits. I rest my case.” I scrutinised Dean’s procedure and found that his first test failed to support PTH (about planetary effects on desired days). He obtained the desired hit by reversing the hypothesis post hoc so as to accommmodate the new “prediction” to his result. The second test also had negative results (about a purported dependence of planetary effects on “seeing conditions” at the time of birth). Again Dean reversed his critic’s hypothesis so as to make a hit out of this failure. The third test failed no less (about combining all informative planetary effects rather than suing the dominant effect only). Dean obscured his actual finding. In sum, the three tests failed to prvide evidence for PTH. The present result is consistent with those of four earlier scrutinies. No further test is necessary to conlcude that Dean’s claim that Gauquelin effects are man-made artificact is utterly mistaken.
Keywords: parental tampering hypothesis, Gauquelin effects (G-effects), artifacts
Notes:
Publication: Correlation Journal of Research in Astrology
Issue: Vol. 21 Number 2
Dated: 2003
Pages: pp 11-21