I have now done this, and the results are positive but weak. There are 106 astronomers listed on wikipedia with birth dates given since 1900. Seven have Uranus-Sun aspects with orb closer than one degree, but this is in line with chance. Two (Karl Jansky and Albert Whitford) have Uranus-Sun aspects with orb closer than 0.03 degrees, a finding only present in 2% of random samples of 106 people. The small number of correlations and the possible data error means this sample cannot be said to replicate the first finding with the group of 32.

Thank you for the correction on the probability function. I wrongly used NORMSDIST in Excel which gave me the 3.28% figure. 7.26% (~1/13) is correct.

This scenario with Sun Uranus aspects for these 32 people was the first I chose, for the reasons set out in the opening post. It did not come from Tarnas, but was my way of checking his claim. Tarnas observed Uranus/Sun aspects in major astronomers (Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Kepler, Newton), but did so anecdotally, not systematically. It is interesting that Tarnas himself is one of the six positives in the sample I found on wikipedia.

An informative and dispassionate book on these themes is ‘Astrology – Science or Superstition?’ by HJ Eysenck and DKB Nias, distinguished statistical psychologists. They survey claimed planetary correlations with sunspots, earthquakes, rain, etc, guided by the principle “we must be ruled by facts and be prepared to go in whatever direction they lead.” Sadly, many claims they look at turn out to be superstitious rubbish, with weak data, bad methods and lack of interest in factual scientific approaches. However, the work of Michel Gauquelin is the exception. Eysenck and Nias observe that the planetary correlations found by Gauquelin involve meticulous, replicated, diligently collected scientific evidence. They comment that critics of these findings often behaved in an irrational manner while Gauquelin remained calm and rational.

Eysenck and Nias suggest the need to extend the area of study to hitherto unexplored factors such as aspects. This is what I am trying to do, to test if Tarnas’s anecdotal claims about aspects have any compelling scientific evidentiary basis.

What could it mean? Eysenck and Nias comment that the strong inheritability of planetary effects (eg Mars rising) indicates a genetic disposition on the part of the foetus to choose its birth time to align with the planetary position. Considering the many amazing facts of evolution, such as salmon finding their home stream, turtles and coral laying eggs at precisely the right time to meet the best tidal conditions, etc, these subtle human correlations with the planets must be accepted as an amazing genetic fact. My interest is to mine the data to find more such facts linking cosmos and psyche.