Much astrological research can be faulted because of its neglect of proper methodological safeguards. This article illustrates a need to ascertain in a very precise manner the amount of knowledge of astrology possessed by subjects, as this may inadvertently influence their filling in of questionnaires, personality descriptions, etc. It is shown that apparently very successful studies can be reduced to non-significance by controlling of this variable.

This paper concerns astrology, research and philosophy of science. It argues that, in the final analysis, they are inseparable: astrology is in urgent need of good research, and that in turn requires some grounding in philosophy of science. Different variants of the latter are discussed, and one – the “methodology of scientific research programs” – is used to assess the current state of astrology. On the basis of this assessment, advice is offered concerning some present and future research.

An experimental approach to the age-old belief that specific metals are linked to corresponding planets is described. The former was developed in the 1920s by Frau Kolisko, following suggestions from Dr. Rudolf Steiner that planetary forces ought to be detectable in metal salt solutions precipitated on filter paper. The main reaction investigated – the slow reaction of ferrous sulphate with silver mitratet solution, precipitating colloidal silver – is described. Kolisko’s method was modified by Fyfe, and several, including this author, have confirmed the effects observable over planetary conjunctions

This study greatly extends that by Nias on the same topic (Correlation 1, 2. Pp 37-40) It examines Nelson’s claims that planetary positions correlate with short-wave radio quality and that they can be used to improve the accuracy of forecasts. Exhaustive computer analysis of 2006 1/2 day or 1/4 day quality forecasts (based on planetary positions) made by Nelson for RCA during 1964-5, and 4960 daily forecasts made for “73 Magazine” during 1966-82, failed to find support for his claims. There was no significant correlation between forecast and outcome (mean r = 0.01), and the outcome on days forecast as poor was not significantly different from that on days forecast as good. Nelson’s forecasts performed considerably worse than US Government forecasts and a control forecast based on the quality one solar rotation before. The accuracy of 105 forecasts of solar flares was not significantly better than chance. To increase the sensitivity of the analysis of a daily planetary index based on Nelson’s rules was compared with observed radio qualities and geomagnetic indices. No planetary effect was detectable, nor was the alleged effect of nodes and perihelia. In disagreement with Nelson’s claims, hard aspects and associated harmonic aspects were not consistently more numerous on the most disturbed 3% of days during 1969-80 than on the lest disturbed 3% of days. In particular, the 12 days with the most adverse planetary configurations during 25 years were not significantly different from those with the least adverse. Nelson’s claims are incompatible with the physical processes involved and are shown to rest upon three things, namely a statistical artefact that led to his original ideas, a calculation artefact that gives spuriously high accuracy, and selection of data to fit the case. The results do not deny that the planets could affect the Sun in other ways.

The results of national opinion polls and Mayo/Eysenck replication suggest that roughly 1 person in 3 not only believes in astrology but believes in it sufficiently to measurably shift their self-image in the corresponding direction. Observations made during a repeat of the News of the World’s test of sun sign guessing showed that the subjects had an above-average knowledge of sun signs. The level of self-attribution (determined by interview under less than ideal conditions) successfully predicted the test’s outcome for 6 out of 8 hits and 3 out of 4 misses. Successful sun sign guessing can be explained by subject selection, self attribution and cold reading.

Multidimensional Scaling is a set of techniques for the description of multiple variables in terms of their relative proximity; these relations, in the form of a matrix, are treated according to Euclidian principles and the solution presented as a set of Cartesian values for each variable in N dimensions, capable of spatial representation. This paper introduces the technique and applies it to the birth data of a group of individuals.

The putative Sun sign effect of astrological theory is re-examined in the light of present day knowledge of biology. It is hypothesised that the innate-but-non inheritable personality traits associated with the 12 sun signs are nonheterozygotic polymorphisms produced by polygenic switch mechanisms and that the seasonal entrainment of those mechanisms is the means by which the phases are stablised at their optimum ratios. The chief advantage of nonherterozygotic polymorhpism (herein called ” autogenic polymorphism”) is considered to be its ability to generate phenotypic diversity of a kind that is not subject to two critical constraints of evolutionary genetics: (1) An autogenic trait that enhances the survival fitness of the species at the cost of diminishing the adaptability or the reproductive success of affected individuals can be stabilised even if it is not balanced by any concomitant advantageous traits. (2) A tautogenic trait that enhances the survival fitness of the species by enhancing the adaptability or the reproductive success of affected individuals is not subject to hypermorphosis, even if it is not balanced by any concomitant disadvantageous traits. A hypoperiodicity, involving a seasonally entrained alternant functioning of the left and right ovaries, which are known to exhibit elements of bilateral asymmetry. A major advantage of the ovarian-alternation hypothesis is that it explains the chronobiological significance of the sun sign, or solar month, as the fundamental unit of the astrological calendar. A chronobiological periodicity is also proposed for dominance-sub dominance in man, whereby the Fire and the Earth signs are associated with dominance and the Air and the Water signs are associated with sub dominance. A simple test is described for the extraversion-introversion and the dominance-sub dominance periodicities.

A test of the hypothesis that the relationship between astrological birth sign and personality differences in extraversion and neuroticism (as reported by Mayo, White and Eysenck) can be explained in terms of self-attribution of personality descriptions is presented. Responses of n = 799 adult subjects to two questionnaires (German version of the Eysenck Personality Inventory: Belief in and Familiarity with Astrology) were analysed in several analyses of variance, with belief in astrology being one of the independent variables. An explanation of the Mayo-White-Eysenck results in terms of attribution theory was essentially verified.

At present a key question in astrological research is whether diurnal planetary effects are confined to eminent people. In order to investigate this, 23 predictions concerning the personality correlates of planets placed in Gauquelin’s plus zones at birth were obtained from previous experiments and from judges. These predictions were tested on 468 ordinary people by means of 11 measures of personality from the EPQ and the 16PF. Only three of the predictions gained any support: Mars in plus zones was associated with Psychoticism (p<0.05) and Extraversion (p<0.1). Because of the many failures to replicate, no firm conclusions can be drawn from these results.

In 1979, CSICOP–skeptics tried to replicate Gauquelin’s Mars effect using a sample of 408 U.S. athletes. Their first intermediate result (from batch 1 of 3 sub-samples) which was not made public confirmed Gauquelin’s effect, i.e., an excess of athletes was born when Mars was rising or culminating. The main researcher, Paul Kurtz, enlarged the sample (by batch 2 and 3) and ended up with a deficit of athletes born with Mars in the sensitive zones. Suspicion of data manipulation that might explain why the Mars effect changed significantly and even reversed within an ongoing research process arose in CSICOP’s own circle. Gauquelin and others expressed like concerns, but none had scrutinised the data. The present study reanalyzes CSICOP’s athletes data and reveals two anomalies (1) For athletes of batch 2 and 3, citation counts – which is an eminence indicator – decrease significantly (athletes must be eminent for a Mars effect to become manifest), citations would hardly decrease under proper sampling conditions. (2) An unattended additional indicator of a Gauquelin Mars effect, namely an excess of birth counts for secondary Mars sectors 36 and 9 (no. 36 preceding Mars rise sector 1 and no. 9 preceding culmination sector 10) did not change, remained unaffected from batch 1 of the initial sample, to batch 3 of the enlarged sample. In 1979, birth counts in secondary sectors were not yet considered effect-indicative. Thus, empirical evidence supports the hypothesis of data manipulation. My attempt to get permission to check the US athletes data in Buffalo in CSICOP’s headquarters in order to verify this hypothesis remained un-acknowledged. The present account of this case of doubtful data treatment adopted CSICOP’s own guidelines:” Debunking should not be abused, but should be used with caution; it should be based on an arsenal of facts” (Kurtz, 1986). Another case of debunking in the field of Mars effect research, by J. W. Nienhuys (1997), is shown to fall short of this admonition.