This article is from the Scientific Skepticism FAQ, by Paul Johnson Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk with numerous contributions by others.
French scientist Michael Gauquelin has discovered an apparent
correlation between the position of some planets at the time of birth
and the career followed as an adult. The strongest correlation is
between the time when Mars rises on the day of birth and athletic
prowess. However:
o The Effect seems to come and go depending on exactly what the sample
population is. Most of the controversy seems to revolve around who
did what to which sample populations.
o Nothing found by Gauqelin bears any resemblance to classical
astrology, so claims that Gauqelin has somehow "validated" astrology
are bogus.
One of CSICOPs earliest investigations was the Mars Effect.
Unfortunately there is evidence that CSICOP failed to play by the
rules.
For more information, see
Michel Gauquelin, "Neoastrology: A Copernican Revolution", 1991,
N.Y.: Viking Arkana, was, I believe, his last book.
Patrick Curry, "Research on the Mars Effect," "Zetetic Scholar" #9,
pp. 34-53. This is followed by a number of critical commentaries,
which continue in "Zetetic Scholar" #s 10 and 11.
Curry's article and Richard Kammann's article in "ZS" #10 are the
most detailed and reliable sources of information on CSICOP's
examination of Gauquelin. You should, of course, also read the
U.S. test reports in the Winter 1979 "Skeptical Inquirer"--pay closest
attention to Dennis Rawlins' report, which correctly criticizes both
the main CSICOP report and Gauquelin's report. Also of great
importance is Abell, Kurtz, and Zelen's "Reappraisal" of the Mars
effect study in the Spring 1983 "Skeptical Inquirer", and Suitbert
Ertel's "Update on the 'Mars Effect'" in the Winter 1992 "SI".
You can obtain back issues of the "Zetetic Scholar" from Marcello
Truzzi, Dept. of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI
48197. I suspect that issues 9, 10, and 11 are now available only
in photocopied form. In 1987 they were $8 each.
 
Continue to: