The Mars effect discovered by Michel Gauquelin in the charts of sports
champions is discussed and the controversy this engendered from other scientific quarters is briefly summarised. A summary of the work of Ertel in replicating the Gauquelin study is presented and the author asserts that the Mars effect holds good for people at the top of other professions. The Fourier method of analysing the Mars effect is presented as a more effective way of understanding this phenomenon.

The French sceptics’ (CFEPP’s) test of Gauquelin’s Mars hypothesis with 1066 athletes’ birth data conducted from 1982 to 1993 purportedly showed negative results. I re-analysed this data and found positive indications of a Mars effect which were statistically significant. It turned out that the CFEPP’s attempted refutation of Gaquelin’s claim resulted from biased sampling (preponderance of low eminent athletes) and from biased data analysis (wrong chance expectancy, inferior sector definition, neglected eminence subdivision). The author doubts, however, that an ongoing worldwide spread of the sceptics’ message (“The “Mars effect” doesn’t exist”) will be affected by present counter evidence. Resistance to accepting uncomfortable hard facts is considered an urgent problem for sociologists of science.

After 1700, astrology lost the respect it once commanded in medical circles. But the belief that the heavens influenced bodily health persisted – even in learned medicine – until well into the nineteenth century. The continuing vitality of these ideas owed much to the new empirical and mechanical outlook of their proponents. Taking their cue from the work of Robert Boyle and Richard Mead, a number of British practitioners amassed statistical evidence which purported to prove the influence of the moon upon fevers and other diseases. Such ideas flourished in the colonies and in the medical servives of the armed forces, but their exponents were not marginal men. Some, like James Lind were widely respected and drew support for their views from such influential figures as Erasmus Darwin.

Opposite extremes of the E and N dimensions of the EPI differ in personality as basically as it is possible to differ. To test the hypothesis that such extremes should differ in their planetary positioins at birth, subjects with the most extreme scores on the EPI (108 for each of E+, E-, N+, N-) were selected from a sample of 1145 subjects mostly from the southern hemisphere. The frequencies of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Moon and Venus in the Gauquelin “plus zones” was determined for E+ vs E- and N+ vs N-. Half of the results were in the expected direction but no result wwas significant either individually or in combination.

After outlining briefly a control study for the analysis presented in Part 1, this article discusses four theories fo the posssible origins of the planetary types. The first three theories are often upheld by astrologers, by their critics, or by both, but all of them, it is argued, are unsatisfactory as they stand. The fourth theory, which is new in some respects, is based partly on widely accepted historical data and partly upon speculations derived from scientific methodology. It is claimed that this theory makes it possible to construe the astrological enterprise, from its beginnings to the present, as far more rational than is usually supposed by astrologers and their critics alike.

John Nelson has claimed that heliocentric planetary aspects are an important factor in predicting short-wave radio disturbance. But a correlation analysis of his predictions and observed radio quality showed that the claim was not substantiated. In assessing his own predictions, Nelson used a method of anlaysis that gave an accuracy of around 90%. This is shown to be an artifact arising from the high proportion of undisturbed days. A valid system of predicting must do better than both chance and baseline conditions, but on the basis of conventional statistical tests Nelson’s planetary system does not.

Modern scientific research and astrology are different kinds of activity. Astrology is derived from given Principles, research from theory and empirical data. The author argues that the two activities come from different world-views and one cannot validly be regarded in the light of the other. Questions about the direction of astrological research are posed.

A study of the accuracy of “ancient” astrologers’ keywords on planetary temperaments is reported, using astrological material different from that used by Francoise Gauquelin in her study (Traditional Symbolism in Astrology and the Character traits method, LERRCP, Paris, 1980). The astrology of “ancient” authors who lived in Elizabethan times or before was tested. Its accuracy was evaluated using 50,000 character traits systematically collected from the biographies of 2000 successful subjects. Results strongly suggest that “ancient” astrologers are doing as well as the modern ones. The results seem to vinidicate the idea that the origin of the astrological planetary temperaments is very old and probably far more ancient than the “ancient” astrological keywords investigated.

Previous attempts to quantify the agreement between astrologers’ keywords for the planets and the Gauquelins’ independently derived lists of planetary traits have been marred by the use of less than ideal data. A fresh analysis, with new data and a different method, is presented here. The results show quite high, non-random agreement, especially for Mars, Saturn and Moon though arguments are also presented for regarding the measurements as only rough estimates. Improvement in astrologers’ accuracy over time was anticipated but the evidence supporting it was slight.

The author’s previous research with M. and F. Gauquelin data confirmed the existence of planetary effects for eminent professionals. However, the present research casts doubt on Gauquelin’s physical explanation. (1) For sports champions the planetary effect was unrelated to astronomical variables (distance of Mars from Earth, its angular size, apparent magnitude, declination, right ascension, solar elongation, and radius vector). Further, the effect did not diminish during Mars-Sun conjunctions. (2) For ordinary people, Gauquelin’s claim that geomagnetic activity enhanced the planetary correspondence between children and parents was not supported. Nor did the planetary effect for eminent professionals covary with geomagnetic activity. lt seems that Gauquelin’s positive results with geomagnetism are due to random oscillations. (3) Gauquelin’s claim that planetary effects decrease after 1950 – a presumed side-effect of applying obstetric drugs – could not be veried with professionals’ data. However, the number of post-1950 births was insufficent for a definite conclusion. (4) The accuracy of birth times on official documents increased markedly through decades 1830 – 1950 but produced no corrresponding increase in planetary birth frequencies. In the light of these results, Gauquelin’s midwife hypothesis, seems to be untenable, in which case an interpretation of planetary effects in terms of physics and physiology must be replaced by something else.