h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Personally, I generally find the lack of a proof to be sufficient evidence of a thorough lack of any real investigation into the subject. Find out what it is about and you might find your proof.

It just wont be in a test tube

TSF

here are some references for one of the most well known science researchers on astrology. because i've seen the benefits of astrology from other angles i haven't needed a science explanation, so i'm not really familiar with the material. i do know there is some controversy about it, unsurprisingly.




"The French statistician and psychologist, Michel Gauquelin, however, achieved better results in favor of astrological influence. He began his research in the more biological and physical fields, studying the eleven year sun-spot cycle, with its daily and monthly magnetic oscillations. He learned that it had a curious relationship to many physical and psychic epidemics, revolutions, accidents, heart and lung diseases, psychiatric diseases, blood counts, and even molecular and chemical reactions"

from http://osgood.colgate.edu/syaussi/tpaper/michel.htm

~~~


"... I wasn't quite accurate in
claiming that the US committee which investigated Gauquelin's work
refused to publish data which tended to prove him correct - but they
don't come out of it at all well. In brief, Michel Gauquelin was a
French statistician who started investigating astrology in order to
demonstrate that it has no scientific basis and ended by showing that
some aspects of it can be proved rigorously (although he discarded many
of its traditional tenets). His best-known discovery is the "Mars
Effect" - champion athletes, together with other professions such as
military leaders, are frequently born when Mars is either rising or at
culmination; the effect is most marked amongst the more successful
ones. Several individuals and at least two committees set out to debunk
this notion. The (Belgian) Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Phenomena Reputed to be Paranormal was the one which failed to publish
favourable results: they initially agreed that his methods and results
appeared valid and set up an independent investigation, using fresh data
. These results confirmed his, whereupon they began to see errors in
his methods which had not previously been apparent to them. After
several years, during which further data strengthened G's findings and
"respectable" statisticians could find no faults in his methods, the
President of the Committee reported that they had verified G's
calculations but could not accept his conclusions; their report did not
include any of the additional work and concluded that the effect is the
result of a "simple demographic law" which they didn't explain further.
The later (US) Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal (CSICOP) made the Mars effect one of its first projects.
They collected data on US athletes which showed a strong Mars effect
amongst the best, diminishing at lower levels of success. It was
revealed by a member of the Committee who resigned in disgust that the
strongest sceptic, told that the first set of data showed this strong
effect, insisted on including these lesser atheletes and then averaging
out the frequency of a Mars-influenced birth over all, thus diluting the
result. It was later reported that CSICOP had produced definite proof
that there is no Mars effect.
The full story, including effects of birth under other planets upon
success in different professions, together with much similar skulduggery
by individuals who should have known better, is given by Gauquelin
himself in "The truth about astrology" (trans. Sarah Matthews,
Blackwell, Oxford, 1983) and by John Anthony West's "The case for
astrology" (Viking Arkana, New York, 1991).

http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/1998/bdnow1/msg04394.html

~~~

Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior ~ Ships in 2-3 days
Michael Gauquelin, Michel Gauquelin /
Paperback / Published 1985
Our Price: $16.95
Planetary Heredity ~ Ships in 2-3 days
Michel Gauquelin / Paperback / Published
1988
Our Price: $12.95
Psychology of the Planets ~ Ships in 2-3 days
Gauqueli, Francoise Gauquelin / Paperback
/ Published 1987
Our Price: $12.95

How Cosmic and Atmospheric Energies Influence Your Health
Michael Gauquelin / Paperback / Published
1911
(Publisher Out Of Stock)
Tables for Aspect Research
Mark Pottenger, et al / Paperback /
Published 1986
Our Price: $9.95 + $0.85 special
surcharge (Special Order)

Astrology and science
Michel Gauquelin

Birthtimes : A Scientific Investigation of the Secrets of Astrology
Michel Gauquelin / Published 1984
Cosmic Clocks
Michel Gauquelin / Published 1982

The cosmic clocks: from astrology to a modern science
Michel Gauquelin
The Cosmic Clocks: From Astrology to a Modern Science.
Michel. Gauquelin / Published 1974

Dreams and Illusions of Astrology
Michel Gauquelin / Published 1979

Gauquelin Book of American Charts
Michel Gauquelin, Francoise Gauquelin /
Published 1982

How atmospheric conditions affect your health
Michel Gauquelin

Metodo De Lectura Rapida
F.M. Richaudeau, F. Gauquelin / Published
1979

Neo-Astrology : A Copernican Revolution
Michel Gauquelin / Published 1992

Saber Comunicarse
Por Francoise Gauquelin / Published 1984

Scientific Basis of Astrology
Michel Gauquelin / Published 1970

The spheres of destiny : your personality and
the planets
Michel Gauquelin

The truth about astrology
Michel Gauquelin

Written in the Stars N
Michel Gauquelin / Published 1988

Your Personality and the Planets
Michel Gauquelin / Published 1980

http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/1998/bdnow1/msg04384.html

~~~

you can also do a google for Michel Gauquelin, which is where i got the above. i didn't look very far for the science stuff though, just a few pointers.

Very interesting. It seems that people who deliberately set out to debunk astrology will find a way to do so.

But that's not really very surprising.

That is enough for a guide entry isnt it? Do you have one on it? Edited or not ~~ great list of info on the topic!

Hmm, out of interest... a quick poll...

Who believes in:

1. A major religion
2. Existance of the soul
3. Life after death
4. Homeopathy
5. UFOs as signs of alien intelligence
6. Crop circles as signs of alien intelligence
7. Evolution as the origin of life on earth
8. The big bang as the origin of the universe
9. Mediums, i.e. communication with the dead
10. Telepathy
11. Mind reading
12. Ghosts or similar

My answers:

1. No, 2. No, 3. No, 4. No, 5. No, 6. No, 7. Yes, 8. Yes, 9. No, 10. No, 11. No, 12. No

I'm be interested to see your answers -- feel free to answer 'maybe' or 'don't know' or 'don't care', of course ... or to add items to the list (I left Astrology off since I figure peoples' viewpoints on it are clear already )...

(oh, and thanks for the links/info, kea )

Snockerty..
"none of our little planets can have any influence on any of the stars on any of the constellations, and therefore to say that they as a system they affect us - miscule beings on earth- is absurd"

I of course meant it the other way round, i.e. stars can't have a significant effect on the planets of other stars(only of the solar system to which they belong, and even then, with the exception of our moon, the planets in the average solar system have very little effect on each other) [note to self- scan what you have written before posting]

I am well aware of the role the gas giants have played in the solar system's formation etc, but if all the other planets dissapeared just now, i think i'm right in saying that the only effect on us would be altered comet orbits. i.e. we would probably get hit by more of them, as Jupiter wouldn't be there to 'suck' them in. Earth would still have the same orbit, and all earth's living creatures would remain unaware of the change.

"I personally thing the explanation mooted earlier for starsign differences is very likely. i.e. the time of year that people are born affects their personality."

your comment on the above statement;

"And what exactly is the variation there if not the basic layout of the solar system and our position within it in relation to the Sun?"

The variation to which i refer is the variation of local conditions, i.e on earth! Seasonal variations, legnth of day, temperature etc. Nothing to do with the "layout of the solar systems. You mis-understood my argument.

O.K so you don't think i know a lot about astrology.. fair enough, you have a point- but only because i'm interested in astronomy, and i believe the two to be mutually imcompatible. As mentioned by someone earlier, the great Patrick Moore thinks it's all rubbish, and to be honest, that's good enough for me!

I wouldn't argue with a man as learned and intellegent and as the great monicled one.<'we're not worthy' smiley>

1- no
2- no
3- possibly/undecided
4- no
5- refer to my name- there are a lot of ignorant people out there..
ok, as 3.
6- no
7- yes(until i see a more eliquent theory)
8- yes
9- maybe, but only a tiny percentage -most are frauds
10- yes
11- yes (have read some very convincing cases)
12- yes -but have seen some excellent non-paranormal explanations for ghosts.

26199,

1. I believe in a deity, but don't follow any particular religous path.

2. As I don't follow any particular "creed", you'll have to be a little more precise with this question - what, exactly, do you mean when you say "soul"?

3. Only in cases where someone has been clinically dead, then revived. I accept the possibility of some form of continued existence after death, but I wouldn't classify it as "life".

4. I think there may be something in it. It's been known to produce positive results on animals, who aren't generally susceptable to the "placebo effect".

5. I believe that some unexplained phenomena show signs of intelligent control. I have no reason to assume it's alien in nature.

6. Nope.

7. Er... No... Life had to have originated *before* evolution could take place.

8. Yes, most probably.

9. I've seen some quite impressive examples of communication with non-corporeal entities, but nothing to prove they are the voices of the "dead". A group of psychology students made up a history for a ficticious "ghost", then set about trying to contact it. They used the common practice of "one knock for yes, two for no" and after several attempts the "spirit" started to answer them. Then, they got a "medium" to question the "spirit", and it gave answers consistent with the history they had made up for it. None of the students were "cheating", yet the seance worked... It suggests some form of discarnate energy which responds to a "group consciousness", giving the results the group wants to hear. To summarise - I believe that "mediums" can enter into some form of communication, I'm just unconvinced that it's with the dead. Phew.

10. Yes.

11. Yes.

12. Yes. (The "or similar" option; see (9))

7. You know what I mean

Probably, but in this sort of thing I try not to presume...

1. Yes, Wicca (although you might not be able to count that as a *major* religion as most people who have heard of it have heard wrong)
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes - no belief necessary, homeopathy takes care of most of my hayfever symptoms each year without any of the nasty side-effects from conventional medicines which take away all the symptoms but leave me half-asleep
5. I believe there are intelligent life-forms on other planets, and possibly in interstellar space as well, but I am not quite convinced that they've visited here
6. Undecided, there are too many possibilities, not all of them plausible of course
7. Evolution appears fairly obvious, however, I'm not necessarily convinced that it's all caused by random chance in mutations
8. I'm convinced that the current form of the universe originated in the big bang, but I also believe that the universe existed before the big bang - it was just different. I am not convinced that the entirety of the universe was formed in the big bang - I don't see why it can't be infinite - or why it could be finite, for that matter
9. Yes, but there are a lot of frauds out there
10. Yes
11. Isn't that part of telepathy?
12. Yes

Several postings to this conversation refer to the affect the sun , and moon
has on the earth,
For example the moons gravitational pull on the oceans .
Which I would not for one moment dispute,
Neither would I dispute those who say that the sun, and the moon can have
an effect on us , whether, it be physically, or mentally

But when it comes to astrologers claiming that they can make forecasts or
tell anything about us from the study of star charts I don't believe it is
quite impossible.
When they are correct it is pure coincidence

if you think its coincidence, its a statistically significant one. have a look at the michel gauquelin research referred to above.

and as has been discussed already forecasting in the sense of predicting the future is only one use of astrology and not necessarily a valid one.

do you know what a natal chart is, how it is constructed and interpreted ? if not my suggestion is that you don't know enough to have an opinion one way or another, and are probably basing your views on newspaper horoscopes and pop astrology.

(i could be wrong though )

'I of course meant it the other way round, i.e. stars can't have a significant effect on the planets of other stars'

Either way round it is still attempting to disprove a claim that is not being made.
The stars are no more than the numbers on the clock face. You can take away the numbers but the clock still tells the time. If you took away the planets.......

'Earth would still have the same orbit, and all earth's living creatures would remain unaware of the change.'

I don't doubt that you're right, time goes on even if the hands have fallen off the clock.
Perhaps the daily horoscopes would become more accurate


'The variation to which i refer is the variation of local conditions, i.e on earth! Seasonal variations, legnth of day, temperature etc. Nothing to do with the "layout of the solar systems. You mis-understood my argument.'

Seasonal variations in length of day, temperature etc, anyone would think you were talking about our annual trip around the Sun. Does it's annual movement across the sky have nothing to do with the layout of the solar system?
You accept the possibility of annual variations and similarities between those of the same birth sign yet you rubbish astrology which is the same thing as I see it?


'the great Patrick Moore thinks it's all rubbish, and to be honest, that's good enough for me! I wouldn't argue with a man as learned and intellegent and as the great monicled one.'
Neither would I about astronomy. But I'm not convinced he's studied astrology. Would you argue with Jung, who did?
Must the defence provide evidence under laboratory conditions while the prosecution relies on the statement of an expert in a different field?

1. No,
2. Need definition,
3. Don't think so,
4. yes,
5. Not necessarily alien,
6. No,
7. Have no problem with evolution but not as the origin
8. Yes,
9. Worthy of serious study, not necessarily as communications with the dead,
10. Yes,
11. Yes,
12. or similar, yes.

TSF

'But when it comes to astrologers claiming that they can make forecasts or tell anything about us from the study of star charts I don't believe it is quite impossible.'

Again, this is NOT a claim made by astrology or astrologers.

Thanks for your answers folks

Hmm, a definition of 'the soul'... er...

Well, in the sense I don't believe in ... it means something that accounts for human intelligence/conscience which isn't simply the chemical/eletrical/other knowable-to-science workings of your brain...

I'd be interested to hear any good definitions, though...

Without astrology you would have never of had Astronomy.

*1. A major religion

Nope, I'm a devout agnostic

*2. Existance of the soul

I have no idea

*3. Life after death

I have no idea

*4. Homeopathy

I'm not particularly interested and don't know much about it

*5. UFOs as signs of alien intelligence

The "UFO" phenomenon appears to be real. Whether it's the sign of alien intelligence I don't know. I'd need to look into it more.

*6. Crop circles as signs of alien intelligence

Almost certainly not. It's been demonstrated they can be created by human hand and are probably just pranksters (who are also a possibility for other bizarre phenomenon).

*7. Evolution as the origin of life on earth

It's the most likely explanation by a long shot.

*8. The big bang as the origin of the universe

I'd need to know what this means. It seems the universe did start with some massive explosion, but the "it came from nothing" argument is highly suspect.

*9. Mediums, i.e. communication with the dead

No idea. Not something I'm really interested in. I assume most mediums to be fraudsters.

*10. Telepathy

I have no idea. Some highly-regarded scientists have suggested that this is a posibility, although they usually get all sorts of names and abuse thrown at them by their colleagues.

*11. Mind reading

Same as the above, really. A lot of "mind reading" (stage, especially) is actually about reading other things. It's a highly complex and effective science.

*12. Ghosts or similar

As with UFOs, people certainly have been seeing similar apparitions for centuries. I'm not convinced they are the spirits of dead people which is the common (superstitious) belief.