An analysis of Gauquelin’s professional data revealed significant gender effects: female professionals (actors, athletes, writers) outdo their male colleagues regarding birth frequencies in sensitive sectors for Mars ( p = .01) and, marginally, for the Moon (p = .09). The significance level for the two planets combined is p = .006. In addition, G-sector births of women were generally more frequent than those of men when summed across all five Gauquelin planets ( p = .01). Eleven issues pertinent to these results are discussed. It is concluded that any theory that might be suggested to explain Gauquelin’s planetary effect for professions will also have to account for planetary effects associated with gender.

The authors tested the astrological claim that positions of planets in astrological signs at birth are related to a choice for a specific professional career. The frequencies for the position of the Sun, Mercury, Venus and Mars in sign were assessed for 5174 psychology students and 3232 engineering students. The frequencies were compared with expected frequencies but no significant relation between sun sign and profession was found. Special attention was given to the calculation of the expected frequencies. This calculation is the cause of problems in research into astrology because one has to correct for astrological factors (the time when a planet remains in a sign is not equal for all signs) and for demographic variables (births are not distributed evenly over a year). When such a correction is made figures that are striking at face value do not prove to be statistically significant. These necessary, but rather complex, corrections often are overlooked and may explain the discrepancy between lay-people who believe in astrology and researchers who cannot find any empirical evidence for astrology.

Each of the authors addressed a subset of the issues raised by Dean and Loptson in Discourse for Key Topic 2: some philosophical problems of astrology (Correlation 14(2) pp32- 44). Among the points: (1) The metaphysical principle “as above, so below” can only be understood within a classical cosmology (Pierce). (2) We must be clear about our definitions of “astrology” when formulating criticisms of it. Is the critic addressing the “study of the relationships between the stars and human affairs” or the activities of astrologers? Use of the dichotomy of satisfaction versus accuracy as a way of differentiating astrology from established sciences results from blurring this distinction (Iriving). (3) As positivism became a dominant philosophy, the misapplication of the methods of natural science to other domains was a category error (Urban-Lurain) (4) The evaluation of a discipline on the basis of scientific evidence requires an understanding of the nature of such evidence and its proper interpretation. A lack of physical mechanism for phenomena in any given domain of inquiry does not preclude scientific status for the inquiry. Fate, as understood in the context of astrology, limits freedom to a lesser degree than determinism. Prediction in the context of science must not be confused with prognostication; the latter is irrelevant to evaluating the validity of scientific theories (McPherson).

Modern philosophers generally accept astrology as a source of sympathy and support, but they reject it as a source of knowledge. This matches the idea, introduced in KT1, that astrology can be viewed in two ways, one in terms of the purely subjective satisfaction enjoyed by users, and the other in terms of its objective accuracy. The discourse looks at some philosophical (I.e., conceptual) problems revealed by each viewpoint. Astrology from the satisfaction viewpoint is generally unproblematic: (1) Satisfaction typically rests on value judgments and subjective feelings, both of which can legitimately differ. So arguments about the extent and type of satisfaction provided by astrology may be pointless. (2) The astrology so viewed need not be true and is therefore uncontroversial. (3) Nevertheless problems can arise if astrologers needlessly embrace assailable arguments. Why undermine uncontroversial claims with assailable arguments? (4) Problems can also arise if satisfaction depends on perceptions that are in fact false. Action based on false perceptions could be harmful. Astrology from the accuracy viewpoint faces numerous problems: (1) Astrology is defined as precisely not the result of any means we know of. (2) Astrological effects are essentially statistical, are non-identifiable except after the event, and therefore cannot be an independent source of knowledge. (3) Astrologers have been reluctant to describe what their model predicts, the criteria by which it could be tested, and the evidence they would accept as showing it had failed. (4) No claims to accuracy can be justified unless astrologers make proper experiments and distinguish between alternative explanations and have independent reasons for thinking that astrological effects exist.

This article summarises the evidence for the reality of Gauquelin’s claim of planet-birth frequency correlations The existence of planetary effects, however, exemplified by Mars and sports champions, is denied by skeptic circles. The grounds for this point of view are traced to biased investigations. The skeptics tend to work out insufficient designs, to collect unfavorable data, to prevent planetary effects from emerging, to ignore positive results if they show up or to obliterate them by reinterpretation and to defame authors whose results confirm planetary effects while providing evidence for the skeptics’ unfairness. The conclusion is that an increasing number of unprejudiced scientists is required who are ready to acknowledge the existing positive evidence while augmenting it by replications.

Astrology on the Internet during 1996 is surveyed, including the newsgroup alt.astrology, mailing lists and the World Wide Web. Special attention is given to the topics, the numbers participating, and the quality of discussion. Almost all public astrology on the Internet is social or commercial talk of little interest to researchers. Included is an annotated list of useful Internet addresses.

This article gives a brief outline of pyrrhonism, the “skeptical way of life”, as it was described by the Greek physician Sextus Empericus. More extensively, it discusses his book Against the Astrologers, which describes and crticises astrology as it was practised in the 2nd or 3rd century AD. From Sextus’s description it is evident that the basic concepts of astrology have not changed much over the past 18 centuries. Surprisingly, much of his criticism seems fairly modern.

A summary is given of each of the 29 entries to the Truth of Astrology Competition. Roughly half the entries conclude in effect that the truth delivered by astrology is actually satisfaction (it provides meaning, it enriches life, it does good) rather than accuracy (freedom from error), which due to the fallibility of astrologers is held to be undeliverable despite the underlying Greater Truth. By contrast the other half focused on accuracy, either by implication, observation (I.e., experience), statistical tests, or chart interpretations, to show how astrology delivers accuracy and therefore truth. This division of truth into satisfaction vs. accuracy matches the division obtained and discussed four years earlier in KT1. Although the entries collectively provide stimulating reading for the uncritical reader, for the critical reader they contain a disturbing level of error and faulty inference even among the big names, indicating an urgent need for a better general education among astrologers right across the board. Some possible requirements for a better education are discussed.

According to John Addey, harmonic analysis of the Gauquelin trait data reveals the existence of planetary harmonics in the diurnal circle beyond the simple emphasis on key sectors. This result became central to Addey’s dream of a unified astrology based on harmonics. But both the data and procedure are problematic. First, the trait data were not extracted blind and can be shown to contain bias due to Gauquelin’s knowledge of planetary postions during the extraction process. Second, Gauquelin’s own statistical tests were faulty, leading to conclusions that have led everyone astray. Third, the author’s computer simulations show that Addey’s sample sizes are too small, and the sampling errors too large, for his results to be meaningful to the extent required. (The sampling requirements in harmonic analysis are more stringent than in other types of analysis.) Other weaknesses are ineffective criteria for selecting amplitudes, non-independence of traits, sector bias (which creates spurious odd-numbered harmonics), incorrect expectancies, non-uniform expectancies, and subjective follow up. Collectively these weaknesses are fatal. Notwithstanding Addey’s inspiring vision and astonishing labor, it seems that most of his results can reasonably be attributed to artefacts and the rest to Gauquelin bias in trait extraction. The conclusion is drawn that planetary harmonics do not exist beyond the emphasis on key sectors. The same procedural weaknesses apply to Addey’s harmonic work in general, which leaves his harmonic theory of astrology with no secure basis.

This paper explains the true locations of the main horoscopic angles for charts cast in respect of events that occur within the Arctic and Antarctic Circles. In view of continuing controversy, it includes descriptions of apparent motions both of the ecliptic and the Sun, observed from within the northern Polar region. The study of Circumpolar horoscopy, though largely ignored, demonstrates perhaps more than any other how far practitioners have become removed from the real sky. It has been the subject of much misguided debate, with erroneous opinion gaining undue credibility. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that most current astrological software yields either incorrect circumpolar charts, or none at all. The paper is the first of a series and conclusions outlined are further developed in subsequent articles.