Content uploaded by Kenneth McRitchie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kenneth McRitchie on Aug 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
34 - ISAR International Astrologer
Support for Astrology from the
Carlson Double-blind Experiment
Ken McRitchie
This article has been peer reviewed by subject matter experts refereed through the publisher.
ISAR International Astrologer, Volume 40, Issue 2, August, 2011, Pages 34-39
(submitted October 24, 2009)
Abstract
The Carlson double-blind study, published in 1985
in Nature (one of the world’s leading scientific
publications) has long been regarded as one of the
most definitive indictments against astrology.
Although this study might appear to be fair to
uncritical readers, it contains serious flaws, which
when they are known, cast a very different light on
the study. These flaws include: no disclosure of
similar scientific studies, unfairly skewed design,
disregard for its own stated criteria of evaluation,
irrelevant groupings of data, rejection of
unexpected results, and an illogical conclusion
based on the null hypothesis. Yet, when the stated
measurement criteria are applied and the data is
evaluated according to normal social science, the
two tests performed by the participating astrologers
provide evidence that is consistent with astrology
(p = .054 with ES = .15, and p = .037 with ES =
.10). These extraordinary results give further
testimony to the power of data ranking and rating
methods, which have been successfully used in
previous astrological experiments. A critical
discussion on follow-up studies by McGrew and
McFall (1990), Nanninga (1996/97), and Wyman
and Vyse (2008) is also included.
The research experiment conducted by Shawn Carlson,
“A double blind test of astrology,” published in the science
journal Nature in 1985 as an indictment of astrology, is one
of the most frequently cited scientific studies to have claimed
to refute astrology. A Google search for the title as a quoted
string returns over 6,600 links.1 Although the Carlson study
drew initial criticism for numerous flaws when it was
published, a more recent examination has found that despite
the flaws, the data from the study actually supports the claims
of the participating astrologers. This support lends further
credence to the effectiveness of ranking and rating methods,
which have been used in other, lesser known astrological
experiments.
The Carlson astrology experiment was conducted between
1981 and 1983 when Carlson was an undergraduate physics
student at the University of California at Berkley under the
mentorship of Professor Richard Muller. The flaws that have
been uncovered in the Nature article include not only the
omission of literature on similar studies, which is expected
in all academic papers, but more serious irregularities such
as skewed test design, disregard for its own criteria of
evaluation, irrelevant groupings of data, removal of
unexpected results, and an illogical conclusion based on the
null hypothesis.
In concept and design, the Carlson experiment was not
original. It was modeled after the landmark double-blind
matching test of astrology by Vernon Clark (Clark, 1961). In
that test astrologers were asked to distinguish between each
of ten pairs of natal charts. One chart of each pair belonged
to a subject with cerebral palsy and the other belonged to a
subject with high intelligence. Another influential study was
the “Profile Self-selection” double-blind experiment, which
was led by the late astrologer Neil Marbell and privately
distributed among contributors in 1981 before its eventual
publication (Marbell, 1986-87). In that test, participating
volunteers were asked to select their own personality
interpretations, both long and short versions in separate tests,
out of three that were presented.
In both of these prior studies, the participants performed well
above significance in support of the astrological hypothesis
as compared to chance. The Marbell study was
extraordinarily qualified as it involved extensive input and
review from astrologers, scientists, statisticians, and
prominent skeptics. Carlson neglected to provide any review
of these scientific studies that supported astrology or any
other previous related experiments.
The stated purpose of Carlson’s research was to scientifically
determine whether the participating astrologers (members
of the astrology research organization NCGR and others)
could match natal charts to California Psychological
Inventory (CPI) profiles (18 personality scales generated from
480 questionnaire items). Additionally, Carlson would
determine whether participating volunteers (undergraduate
and graduate students, and others) could match astrological
interpretations, written by the participating astrologers, to
themselves. These assessments, Carlson asserts, would test
the “fundamental thesis of astrology” (Carlson, 1985: 419).
From the time of its release, the Carlson study has been
criticized for the extraordinary demands it placed on the
August Issue, 2011 - 35
participating astrologers, which would be regarded as unfair
in normal social science. As with any controversial study, all
references to Carlson’s experiment should include the
scientific discourse that followed it, particularly the points
of criticism that show weaknesses in the design and analysis.
Notable among recent critics has been University of
Göttingen emeritus professor of psychology Suitbert Ertel,
who is an expert in statistical methods and is known for his
criticism of research on both sides of the astrological divide.
Ertel published a detailed review in a 2009 article, “Appraisal
of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests” (Ertel, 2009).
From a careful reading of Carlson’s article in light of the
ensuing body of discourse, we can appreciate that the design
of the experiment was intentionally skewed in favor of the
null hypothesis (no astrological effect), which Carlson refers
to, somewhat misleadingly as the “scientific hypothesis.”
Some of the controversial features of the design are as follows:
•The astrologers were not supplied with the gender
identities of the CPI owners, even though the CPI creates
different profiles for men and women. (Eysenck, 1986: 8;
Hamilton, 1986: 10).
•Participants were not provided with sufficiently
dissimilar choices of interpretations, as the Vernon Clark
study had done, but instead were given randomly selected
choices. This may give the impression of a fair method,
but given the narrow demographics of the sample, there is
an elevated likelihood of receiving similar items from which
to choose, which makes it unfair (Hamilton, 1986: 12; Ertel,
2009: 128).
•The easier to discriminate and more powerful two-
choice format, which had been used in the Vernon Clark
study, was replaced with a less powerful three-choice
format, which further elevated the chances of receiving
similar items (Ertel, 2009: 128). No reasons are given for
this unconventional format, although it can be surmised
that Carlson was well aware of the complexities of a three-
choice format from his familiarity with the Three-Card
Monte (“Follow the Lady”) sleight of hand confidence
game, which he had often played as a street psychic and
magician (Vidmar, 2008).
•The requirement for rejecting the “scientific
hypothesis” was elevated to 2.5 standard deviations above
chance (p = .006). In the social sciences, the conventional
threshold of significance is 1.64 standard deviations with
probability less than p = .05 (Ertel, 2009: 135).
•Failure to consider the astrologers’ methodological
suggestions or give an account of their objections. Carlson
credits astrologer Teresa Hamilton with giving “valuable
suggestions,” yet Hamilton complained later that “Carlson
followed none of my suggestions. I was never satisfied that
the experiment was a fair test of astrology” (Hamilton,
1986: 9).
Given this skewed design, the irregularities of which are not
obvious to the casual reader, Carlson directs our attention to
the various safeguards he used to assure us that no unintended
bias would influence the experiment. He describes in detail
the precautions used to screen volunteers against negative
views of astrology, how the samples were carefully numbered
and guarded to ensure they were blind, and the contents of
the sealed envelopes provided to test participants.
The experiment consisted of several separate tests. The
astrologers performed two tests, a CPI ranking test and a
CPI rating test. The volunteer students performed three tests,
a natal chart interpretation ranking test, a natal chart
interpretation component rating test, and a CPI ranking test.
In the CPI ranking test, astrologers were given, for each single
natal chart, three CPI profiles, one of which was genuine,
and asked to make first and second choices. There were 28
participating astrologers who matched 116 natal charts with
CPIs. Success, Carlson states, would be evaluated by the
frequency of combined first and second choices, which is
the correct protocol for this unconventional format. He states,
“Before the data had been analyzed, we had decided to test
to see if the astrologers could select the correct CPI profile
as either their first or second choice at a higher than expected
rate” (Carlson, 1984: 425).
In addition to this ranking test, the astrologers were tested
for their ability to rate the same CPIs according to a scale of
accuracy. This task allowed for finer discrimination within a
greater range of choices. Each astrologer “also rated each
CPI on a 1-10 scale (10 being the highest) as to how closely
its description of the subject’s personality matched the
personality description derived from the natal chart” (Carlson,
1985: 420).
As to the results of the astrologers’ three-choice ranking test,
Carlson first directs our attention to the frequency of the
individual first, second, and third CPI choices made by the
astrologers, each of which he found to be consistent with
chance within a specified confidence interval. This
observation is scarcely relevant, given the stated success
criteria of the first and second choice frequencies combined.
Then, to determine whether the astrologers were successful,
Carlson directs our attention to the rate for the third place
choices, which, as already noted, was consistent with chance.
Thus he declares that the combined first two choices were
not chosen at a significant frequency.
“Since the rate at which the astrologers chose the correct
CPI as their third place choice was consistent with chance,
we conclude that the astrologers were unable to chose [sic]
the correct CPI as their first or second choices at a significant
36 - ISAR International Astrologer
level” (Carlson, 1984: 425). This conclusion, however,
ignores the stated success criteria and is in fact untrue. The
calculation for significance shows that the combined first
two choices were chosen at a success rate that is marginally
significant (p = .054) (Ertel, 2009: 129).
As to the results of the astrologers’ rating test (10-point rating
of three CPIs against each chart), Carlson demonstrates that
the astrologers’ ratings were no better than chance within the
first, second, and third place choices made in the three-choice
test. He shows a weighted histogram and a best linear fit
graph to illustrate each of these three groups of ratings.
Carlson directs our attention to the first choice graph as
support for his conclusion for this test. The slope of this graph
is “consistent with the scientific prediction of zero slope”
(Carlson, 1985: 424). The slope is actually slightly downward.
The graphs for the other two choices are not remarked upon,
but show slightly positive slopes.
The notable problem with Carlson’s analysis of the 10-point
rating test, however, is that this test had no dependency on
the three-choice ranking test and even used a different sample
size of CPIs.2 According to the written instructions supplied
to the astrologers, this rating test was actually to be performed
before the three-choice ranking test (Ertel, 2009: 135). These
10-point ratings should not be grouped as though they were
quantitatively related to the later three-choice test.
Confirmation bias from the claimed “result” of the three-
choice test, which Carlson presents earlier in his paper,
suggests acceptance of irrelevant groupings in this 10-point
rating test, presented later. When the totals of the ratings are
considered without reference to the choices made in the
subsequent test, a positive slope is seen, which shows that
the astrologers actually performed at an even higher level of
significance (p = .037) than the three-choice test (Ertel, 2009:
131).
The other part of Carlson’s experiment tested 83 student
volunteers to see if they could correctly choose their own
natal chart interpretations written by the astrologers.
Volunteers were divided into a test group and a control group.
Members of the test group were each given three choices, all
of the same Sun sign, one of which was interpreted from
their natal chart (Carlson, 1985: 421). Similarly, each member
of the control group received three choices, all of the same
Sun Sign, except none of the choices was interpreted from
their natal charts, although one choice was randomly selected
as “correct” for the purpose of the test.
For the results of this test, Carlson shows a comparison of
the frequencies of the correct chart as first, second, and third
choices for the test group and the control group (again
ignoring his stated protocol to combine the frequencies of
the first two choices). He finds that the results for the test
group are “all consistent with the scientific hypothesis”
(Carlson, 1985: 424). However, he does note an unexpected
result for the control group, which was able to choose the
correct chart at a very high frequency. He calculates this to
be at 2.34 standard deviations above chance (p = .01). Yet,
because this result occurred in the control group, which was
not given their own interpretations, Carlson interprets this as
a “statistical fluctuation.”
Yet the size of this statistical fluctuation is so unusual as to
attract skepticism, particularly in light of Carlson’s other
results. It is reasonable to think that the astrologers could
write good quality chart interpretations after having
successfully matched charts with CPI profiles. Yet, according
to Carlson’s classification, the test group tended to avoid the
astrologers’ correct interpretations and choose the two
random interpretations, while the control group tended to
choose the selected “correct” interpretations by a wide
margin, as if they, the controls, had been the actual test
subjects (Ertel, 2009: 132). This raises suspicion that the
data might have been switched, perhaps inadvertently, but
this is unverifiable speculation (Vidmar, 2008).
Like the participating astrologers, the student volunteers were
also given a rating test; in this case for the sample chart
interpretations they were given. They were asked to rate, on
a scale of 1 to 10, the accuracy of each subsection of the
natal chart interpretations written by the astrologers. “The
specific categories which astrologers were required to address
were: (1) personality/temperment [sic]; (2) relationships; (3)
education; (4) career/goals; and (5) current situation”
(Carlson, 1985: 422). This test would potentially have high
interest to astrologers because of the distinction it made
between personality and current situation, which is a
distinction that is not typically covered in personality tests.
Also, the higher sensitivity of a rating test could provide
insight, at least as confirmation or denial, into the
extraordinary statistical fluctuation seen in the three-choice
ranking test.
However, based on a few unexpected results, Carlson decided
that there was no guarantee that the participants had followed
his instructions for this test. “When the first few data
envelopes were opened, we noticed that on any interpretation
selected as a subject’s first choice, nearly all the subsections
were also rated as first choice” (Carlson, 1985: 424). On the
basis of this unanticipated consistency, Carlson rejected the
volunteers’ rating test without reporting the results.
As an additional test in this part of the experiment, the student
volunteers were asked to choose from among three CPI
profiles the one that was based on the results of their
completed CPI questionnaire. The other two profiles offered
were taken from other student volunteers and randomly
added. Of the 83 volunteers who completed the natal chart
interpretation choices, only 56 completed this task. As usual,
Carlson compared the results of the three choices for the test
and control groups taken individually (instead of the
August Issue, 2011 - 37
frequency of the first two choices taken together).
Furthermore, in contravention to the logic of control group
design, Carlson compares the two groups against chance
instead of against each other (Ertel, 2009: 132). He found no
significant difference from chance for the two groups.
There are plausible reasons that could explain why the test
group was unable to correctly select their own CPI profiles,
even though the astrologers were able to a significant extent
as we have seen, to match CPI profiles with the students’
charts. The disappointing number of students who completed
this task, despite having endured the 480-question CPI
questionnaire, suggests that the students might have been
much less motivated than the astrologers, for whom the stakes
were higher (Ertel, 2009: 133). The CPI matching tasks, for
both the volunteers and the astrologers, were especially
challenging because of the three-choice format. The random
selections of CPIs made within the narrow demographics of
the sample population of students would have elevated the
likelihood of receiving at least two CPI profiles that were
too similar to make a discriminating choice and this would
have had a negative impact on motivation.
In the conclusion of his study, Carlson claims: “We are now
in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against
astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers” (Carlson,
1985: 425). However, this conclusion defies rationality. Ertel
points out the logical flaw that such a conclusion cannot be
drawn even if the tests had shown an insignificant result.
“Not being able to reject a null hypothesis does not justify
the claim that the alternate hypothesis is wrong” (Ertel, 2009:
134).
Despite its numerous flaws and unfair challenges, the Carlson
experiment nevertheless demonstrates that the astrologers,
in their two tests, were able to match natal charts with CPI
profiles significantly better than chance according to the
criteria normally accepted by the social sciences. Thus the
null hypothesis must be rejected. As such, the Carlson
experiment demonstrates the power of ranking and rating
methods to detect astrological effects, and indeed helps to
raise the bar for effect size in astrological studies. The
benchmark effect size that had been attained by the late
astrological researcher Michel Gauquelin was merely .03 to
.07. Although these were small effects, they were statistically
very significant due to large sample sizes (N = 500-1000 or
more natal data) and had to be taken seriously (Gauquelin,
1988a). In Carlson’s experiment, which applied sensitive
ranking controls, the effect size of the three-choice matching
test with p = .054 is ES = .15, and the effect size of the 10-
point rating test with p = .037 is ES = .10 (Ertel, 2009: 134).
Follow-up studies
Other experiments have attempted to address the earlier
documented criticisms of the Carlson test. However, these
experiments, each of which claims to confirm that astrological
choices are made at no better than chance levels, have drawn
criticism from astrologer Robert Currey (2011) and others
as having fatal flaws. Each falls short of the Carlson study.
Included here are the studies by McGrew and McFall (1990),
Nanninga (1996/97), and Wyman and Vyse (2008).
The McGrew and McFall (1990) experiment was intended
to include personal information of the sort typically used by
astrologers but not found in standard personality profiles.
Six “expert” astrologers, all members of the Indiana
Federation of Astrologers but none of whom claimed
professional accreditation, participated. Each astrologer was
asked to match the birth charts of 23 volunteers to an
extremely broad range of information gathered for each
volunteer. This information included photo portraits, results
from two standardized psychology tests, and written
descriptions of personality and life events generated by 61
questions that were developed from input that the authors
gleaned from the astrologers.
The use of photos in the McGrew and McFall study meant
that special restrictions were imposed on the experiment to
avoid age clues from the photos. The authors recruited
volunteers who ranged from only 30 to 31 years of age. This
narrow demographic, where natal charts would share
numerous similarities, and the large amount of non-uniform
information supplied for each volunteer, elevated the
difficulty of the matching task. The Carlson study is regarded
as unnecessarily complex because the astrologers were asked
to choose the genuine CPI from among three. In the McGrew
and McFall study however, astrologers were given the
virtually impossible task of choosing each genuine set of
personal descriptions and information from among no less
than 23 sets! The authors argue that the astrologers’
experimental task was a “simplification” of their ordinary
business (McGrew and McFall, 1990: 82). On the contrary,
it was much more complex and far more difficult than even
Carlson’s tasks. The reasons that the two authors provide
for their judgment against astrology is not at all convincing.
The Nanninga (1996/97) experiment was modeled on the
McGrew and McFall experiment and contained the same sorts
of flaws. It was intended to settle a dispute argued in the
local newspapers as to whether astrologers can or cannot
predict. Through the newspapers, Nanninga offered a large
cash prize to anyone who could match seven natal charts to
seven sets of personality information. He attracted an
unexpectedly large number of “astrologers,” from which he
chose 50 based on their claimed astrological experience. The
test subjects for the study were volunteers, all born “around
1958.” A test questionnaire for the volunteers, developed by
Nanninga from ideas solicited from the astrologers, covered
a very wide range of interests and background such as
education, vocation, hobbies, interests, main goals,
personality, relationships, health, religion, and so on, plus
dates of important life events. To these Nanninga added 24
multiple choice questions taken from a standard personality
test.
38 - ISAR International Astrologer
Like the McGrew and McFall experiment, Nanninga’s
experiment used a very narrow demographic of volunteer
subjects, making them difficult to astrologically differentiate,
and he likewise presented a very large amount of non-uniform
personal data written by the seven volunteers for the
astrologers to sort through. Although Nanninga’s task
involved seven matches instead of 23 and was therefore
somewhat less complex than the McGrew and McFall task,
it was nonetheless considerably more complex than the
Carlson task, which has been criticized as being more
complex than necessary. Nanninga’s study was not an
improvement over the Carlson experiment and does not
convincingly support his claims that astrology is in conflict
with science and that astrologers increasingly confine
themselves to statements that cannot be falsified (Nanninga,
1996/97: 20).
The Wyman and Vyse (2009) experiment was a low-budget
classroom study modeled on the Carlson experiment but
without the astrologers. In this experiment it was hypothesized
that the use of a very transparent self-assessment
questionnaire (the NEO Five-Factor Inventory) would enable
volunteer participants to better identify their own profile
scores than the CPI used by Carlson. Examples from this
questionnaire include, “I try to be courteous to everyone I
meet” (which contributes to A, Agreeableness in the resultant
profile), and “I like to be where the action is” (which
contributes to E, Extraversion). The authors asked 52
volunteers (introductory psychology class members and
others) to identify their genuine five-factor personality profile
from a bogus one and to identify their genuine astrological
description from a bogus one. The astrological descriptions
were created from the output of a commercial natal chart
interpretation program, modified to remove all planetary,
sign, and house clues and further simplified by the removal
of all aspect information to provide 29 one- to four-sentence
personality descriptions. The students succeeded at the
personality profile task but failed at the natal chart description
task.
Criticisms of the Wyman and Vyse experiment include: (1)
No test of astrologers’ skills and performance. (2) The false
assumption that both natal chart interpretations and
psychology profiles “share a common purpose — to provide
a description of the respondent’s personality” (Wyman and
Vyse, 2008: 287). Natal charts provide their value as
descriptions of potential. (3) The tender age of the volunteers
(mean age of 19.3 years) whose life potential would be largely
unrealized and somewhat idealized. (4) Small sample size of
natal charts (N = 52, where a sample of 100 would have been
better). (5) The exclusion of aspects from the astrological
descriptions, arguably the most important component. (6) Lack
of synthesis of the chart components and a holistic approach.
(7) The unbalanced tasks of identifying an easy five-factor
profile that parrots the subject’s input compared to the
complexity of identifying a 29-factor partial astrological
description of life potential. (8) The false assumption that the
positive and negative polarities of the signs mean “favorable”
and “unfavorable” respectively and the listing (twice) of the
sign Aquarius as both favorable and unfavorable. (9)
Incomplete disclosure of result details. Statistical inferences
were drawn based on belief in astrology, but how many
students in this small sample would dare, even anonymously,
to declare belief in astrology in an experiment presided over
by a professor, Stuart Vyse, who is a prominent astrology
skeptic? Was it more than one? (10) Students’ fear for their
academic safety is a high stakes issue and could easily bias
such as study as this one.
These errors and inadequacies arouse suspicion as to the
accuracy of the modified astrological descriptions. Together,
these flaws place the Wyman and Vyse experiment well below
the level of the Carlson experiment and raise serious doubts
as to the authors’ conclusions. Although the simple five-factor
personality profiles were identifiable by the students at a
significant rate, the authors’ claim that the simplified
astrological descriptions they devised should be equally
identifiable is not convincing.
Discussion
The evidence provided by the Carlson experiment, when
considered together with the scientific discourse that followed
its publication, is extraordinary. Given the unfairly skewed
experimental design, it is extraordinary that the participating
astrologers managed to provide significant results. Given the
irregularities of method and analysis, which had somehow
remained transparent for 25 years, it is extraordinary that
investigators have managed to scientifically assess the
evidence and bring it into the full light of day. Now that the
irregularities have been pointed out, it is easy to see and
appreciate what Carlson actually found.
However, because of the unfairness and flaws in the Carlson
experiment, this line of research needs to be replicated and
extended in more stringent research programs. The research
done in the follow-up studies by McGrew and McFall (1990),
Nanninga (1996/97), and Wyman and Vyse (2008) were on
the whole better executed with regard to method and analysis
than the Carlson experiment. However, first-rate execution
does not magically transform faulty assumptions and design
into first-rate science. These are the relatively easy and
routine parts of research that can often be rescued from their
own problems, as we have seen with the Carlson study. With
hindsight, it is evident that the editors of the science and
psychology journals who published these research studies
failed to realize that astrology is a complex discipline with
many variables, limitations, and pitfalls. Ultimately, it is
important that astrologers offer criticism back to their critics
and help them to avoid the fundamental blunders and
misjudgments outlined in this article. Astrological expertise
should always be included in the final peer review stage prior
to publication.
August Issue, 2011 - 39
There is much to be learned from the Carlson experiment. If
natal charts can be successfully compared with self-
assessment tests by the use of rating and ranking methods, as
the Carlson experiment indicates, then astrological features
might be easier to evaluate than was previously believed.
New questions must now be raised. What would the results
be in a fair test? Why did the astrologers choose and rate the
CPIs as they did? Which chart features should be compared
against which CPI features? Could more focused personality
tests provide sharper insights and analysis? The door between
astrology and psychology has been opened by a just crack
and we have caught a glimpse of hitherto unknown
connections between the two disciplines.
Notes
1. By comparison, a Google query of some other peer
reviewed journal articles on astrology, searched as
quoted strings, returns the following: “Is Astrology
Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?” (Dean and
Kelly, 2003) 8800 results; “Are Investors
Moonstruck?—Lunar Phases and Stock Returns”
(Yuan et al, 2006) 3700 results; “Objections to
Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists”
(The Humanist, 1975) 3500 results; “A Scientific
Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology” (McGrew
and McFall, 1990) 2160 results; “Raising the Hurdle
for the Athletes’ Mars Effect” (Ertel, 1988) 1350
results; “The Astrotest” (Nanninga, 1996) 970
results; “Is There Really a Mars Effect?”
(Gauquelin, 1988) 630 results; “Science versus the
Stars” (Wyman and Vyse, 2008) 420 results.
2. Carlson presents the 10-point rating test as a finer
discrimination of the 3-choice ranking test, but the
sample size is not the same. A sample of 116 natal
charts is used in the 3-choice test (Carlson, 1985:
421, 423) and a different sample size is used for the
10-point rating test, which adds to the discrepancies
already mentioned between these two tests and
further emphasizes that they cannot be considered
as a single test. Carlson does not give the sample
size for the 10-point test, but it can be determined
by measurement of the first, second, and third choice
histograms in his article (Carlson, 1985: 421, 424).
Each natal chart had to be the “correct” choice in
one of these three “choices.” By adding up these
“correct hits,” Ertel shows 99 charts (Ertel, 2009:
130, Table 3). A more exacting scrutiny of the
histograms by Robert Currey (in a forthcoming
article) determines 100 charts.
References
Carlson, Shawn (1985). “A double-blind test of astrology,”
Nature, 318, 419-425.
Clark, Vernon (1961). “Experimental astrology,” In
Search, Winter/Spring, 102-1 12.
Currey, Robert (2011). “Research Sceptical of Astrology:
McGrew & McFall, ‘A Scientific Inquiry into the Validity
of Astrology’ 1990.” Retrieved on 2011-07-02.
Currey, Robert (2011). “Research Sceptical of Astrology:
Wyman & Vyse Double Blind Test of Astrology.”
Retrieved on 2011-07-02.
Ertel, Suitbert (1988). “Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes’
Mars Effect: Association Co-varies with Eminence”
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2(1), 53-82.
Ertel, Suitbert (2009). “Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s
Renowned Astrology Tests,” Journal of Scientific
Exploration, 23(2), 125-137.
Eysenck, H.J. (1986). “A critique of ‘A double-blind test
of astrology’” Astropsychological Problems, 1(1), 27-29.
Gauquelin, Michel (1988). “Is there Really a Mars
Effect?” Above & Below: Journal of Astrological Studies,
Fall, 4-7.
Hamilton, Teressa (1986). “Critique of the Carlson study”
Astropsychological Problems, 3, 9-12.
Marbell, Neil (1986-87). “Profile Self-selection: A Test of
Astrological Effect on Human Personality,” NCGR
Journal, Winter, 29-44.
McGrew, John H. and Richard M. McFall (1990). “A
Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology,” Journal
of Scientific Exploration, 4(1), 75-83.
Nanninga, Rob. (1996/97). “The Astrotest: A tough match
for astrologers.” Correlation, Northern Winter, 15(2), 14-
20.
Vidmar, Joseph (2008). “A Comprehensive Review of the
Carlson Astrology Experiments.” Retrieved on 2010-08-
01.
Wyman, Alyssa Jayne and Stuart Vyse (2008). “Science
Versus the Stars: A Double-Blind Test of the Validity of the
NEO Five-Factor Inventory and Computer-Generated
Astrological Natal Charts.” The Journal of Psychology,
135(3), 287-300.
Biography
Ken McRitchie is a Canadian poet,
technical writer, and research astrologer.
He is the one-time editor (1985-89) of
Above & Below: Journal of Astrological
Studies, and is the author of
Environmental Cosmology: Principles
and Theory of Natal Astrology. His
website is www.theoryofastrology.com.
Email ken@theoryofastrology.com.
