http://66.201.42.16/viewitem.php3?id...9&kbid=ionsikc summarises peer review of Gauquelin from one of the worlds leading statistical psychologists at the University of London. Hans Eysenck has carefully reviewed the Gauquelin's work, and concludes: "Emotionally, I would prefer the Gauquelins results not to hold, but rationally, I must accept that they do. . . . We can find no valid major criticism of their conclusions, methods, or statistics. . . . We feel obliged to admit that there is something here that requires explanation. . . . The findings are inexplicable but they are also factual; . . . they cannot just be wished away because they are unpalatable or not in accord with the laws of present day science. . . . Perhaps the time has come to state quite unequivocally that a new science is in the process of being born."

According to Will Keepin (same url above), "three skeptical groups in Belgium, United States, and France launched independent experiments in an attempt to debunk Gauquelins Mars effect for sports champions. To their shock and dismay, each of these new studies actually confirmed Gauquelins results! Thus, over a thirty-year period, three skeptical groups in three different countries replicated the Mars effect, which has a probability due to chance of less than 1 in 5 million."

The claim that Gauquelin has been refuted is simply wishful thinking on the part of a scientific establishment for whom astrology has come to assume totemic status as a symbol of irrationality. I am not one of those astrologers who wishes to avoid evidence, but a philosopher intrigued by the cultural reasons for the intense scientific hostility to astrology. In working through these issues it is necessary to separate the entertainment of superficial horoscopes from their real scientific underpinnings, which are my subject. I note none of my critics here have so far engaged with my substantive argument but instead have engaged in superficial deflections.

The most substantive critique I have found on Gauqelin was from a skeptic who made the farcical assertion that French parents may have colluded with doctors to write down birth times (eg Mars or Jupiter rising) which would produce the Gauquelin effects. This criticism ignores the fact that astrology was quite unpopular among the community under study, making such a skewing of the data grossly implausible. Because scientists want to believe this criticism they have not investigated the empirical story behind it, instead accepting unfounded rumours of refutation.

kindly

Robert Tulip