Kelly’s and Saklofske’ crilticism of Smithers’ 1981 study are examined and it is suggeseted that they have not fully appreciated the argument presented: that astrology may be an unwitting source of self knowledge. Since people vary in their knoweldge of astrology and of themselves, it is not surpprising that the apparent sun sign correlations should not emerge in all studies. Further data are presented to show that it is extremely unlikely that the patterns described in Smithers’ study were produced by some weakness or artefact in the measuring technique. lt is important to establish whether the apparent astrological effects on self image are transient or nt. This is currently being investigated.

According to Geoffrey Dean’s tampering hypothesis, superstitious parents of just-born babies who later would become eminent professionals tended to report wrong birth dates at registration offices so as to make the births fall on auspicious days, including Christian feast days. I scrutinized the validity of this claim by counting births on Christian feast days for a sample of French priests (Gauquelin data, N=884) and Belgian Benedictine monks (Verhulst data, N=1506). Dean’s sample of non-clerical Gauquelin professionals (N=15,942) served as a mundane reference sample. Since Christian families bringing up future priests and monks are generally more religious than families bringing up children of mundane professions, their motivation to shift their children’s births on Christian feast days should be stronger than among families with mundane offspring – provided that such motivation exists at all. Consequently, birth counts on Christian feasts of future priests and monks should be more numerous compared to birth counts on Christian feast days of future actors, journalists, military leaders etc. However, the results show that births of future clergy on Christian feast days are not significantly more numerous than birth counts of mundane offspring. Birth counts differ between fixed and movable feasts, with births on fixed feasts alone perhaps slightly supporting Dean’s stance, but births on movable feasts entirely disconfirm his hypothesis. The fixed versus movable feast difference is unexpected and escapes any interpretation in terms of tampering. It is concluded that birth counts on Christian feasts cannot responsibly be used as indicators of superstition.

Wunder takes issue with my study of rural-urban differences of popular belief whose results showed that Geoffrey Dean’s eight indicators of superstition are not valid. He doubts that country people from Gauquelin samples were more superstitious than townspeople. A review of past studies on rural-urban differences, however, provides abundant evidence that country people, even still of late decades, do tend to be more superstitious and more conservative in general than townspeople. Seeming counter evidence from studies of recent changes in urban and rural beliefs, provided by Wunder, makes sense only in particular contexts (such as revivals in urban settings of esoteric practices) which have no bearing on widely acknowledged differences between rural and urban belief systems. The critic thus fails to save Dean’s explanation of Gauquelin planetary effects, which is based on a theory of parental tampering.

The importance of harmonics in describing the diurnal distributions of natal planetary positions for groups of professionals in data collected by the Gauquelins is discussed. The hypothesis of “parental tampering” is is explored although it is considered unlikely because the distributions are, in some respects, contrary to traditional astrological expectations.

It is suggested that conventional statistical significance tests are inappropriate for research in astrology and that Bayesian methods are better. Bayes’ theorem is explained using probability tree notation and examples from everyday life. It is argued that Michel Gauquelin could have inadvertently biased his work on planets and character traits – but still have been right. Examples are offered from the history of science to show that prominent scientists have often embellished results to make them more convincing. Finally, a Bayesian analysis of the Astro-Questionnaire results taken in conjunction with Gauquelin’s character trait work indicates that a prior probability of 1/5 develops to a post probability of nearly 2/3. It is proposed that this analysis gives support to the contention that further experimental work on the character trait hypothesis is needed.

Previouisly unpublished data has aided the analysis of Bradley’s Jupiter-rainfall study. It is shown that Bradley’s results are spurious, due to the astronomical artifact of the Moon’s sidereal period being nearly commensurable with the Earth’s rotation.

Data provided by 3,480 respondents were used to test various hypotheses relating personality to date and time of birth. As predicted by astroogy, an alternating pattern with sun sign was found for extraversion. The water signs were found to be more emotional than the other elements but the distribution of neuroticism scores throughout the year was not random. It is suggested that if self-descriptions are influenced by knowledge of astrology this effect is not trivial. In the present study the sun sign connection could not have been picked up from hints given by the circumstance of testing. Gauquelin’s finding that associations between personality and planetary positions do not appear among ordinary people is supported, and presents something of a puzzle.

Sir Isaac Newton seems to have been the first person to have applied the precession of the equinoxes to history. His concern was not so much the dating of the astrological ages, but rather to use the location of the vernal point in the sidereal zodiac as a chronological indicator to historical events.

In this study I tested the astrological claim that synastry aspects between two natal charts play a role in human relationships. The sample used contained the birth data of 5648 parents who were non-celebrities born in France around the turn of the century. These birth data had originally been collected and published by M & F Gauquelin. To test this synastry claim I counted and analysed the mutual major aspects between partners (angular separation along the ecliptic) of 0, 60, 90 120 and 180 degrees (orb 5 degrees) of nine natal horoscope factors (Sun, Moon, Mercury,Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Asc. And MC). I derived the theoretically expected aspect frequencies from the sample by comining all male subjects with all female subjects, each gender belonging to specific age groups. To test the significance of the deviation between observed and expected aspect frequencies, I used the synasstry aspects in 500 samples of each 2824 randomly composed couples, and fitted probability-density functions to the frequency histograms of these data. The frequency of the grand total of aspects appeared to be significantly large. A genuinely significant high aspect frequency to the Sun in the charts of the wives took a heavy share in the surplus of the grand total. Hwever, the number of significant aspects as well as the magnitude of the overall deviation from chance level were not genuinely significant. Nevertheless, a significant majority of factor pairing showed a surplus of aspect frequency. In addtion, several combinations of aspects as well as their frequency orb dependencies did not falfify astrological doctrines on synastry. But since th effect sizes were very small the conclusion was that synastry aspects may play only a trivial role in partner selection.

I conducted a refinement of the synastry control experiment (1) in which the birth dates of married partners were shifted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 days The surplus of aspect frequency gradually decreased with increasing shift magnitude. The maximum frequency appears at the zero shift. These findings reinforce the conclusion that the previously reported synastry effect is not due to methodological errors.