Editing Astrology (section)

=== Effectiveness ===

Astrology has not demonstrated its effectiveness in [[Experiment|controlled studies]] and has no scientific validity.{{sfn|Bennett|2007|p=85}}{{sfn|Zarka|2011}} Where it has made [[falsifiable]] predictions under [[Scientific control|controlled conditions]], they have been falsified.{{sfn|Zarka|2011|p=424}} One famous experiment included 28 astrologers who were asked to match over a hundred natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the [[California Psychological Inventory]] (CPI) questionnaire.<ref>{{cite web |last=Muller |first=Richard |title=Web site of Richard A. Muller, Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley |access-date=2 August 2011 |year=2010 |url=http://muller.lbl.gov/homepage.html |archive-date=12 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190312032922/http://muller.lbl.gov/homepage.html |url-status=live }}''My former student Shawn Carlson published in Nature magazine the definitive scientific test of Astrology.''<br />{{cite web |last=Maddox |first=Sir John |title=John Maddox, editor of the science journal Nature, commenting on Carlson's test |year=1995 |access-date=2 August 2011 |url=http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120912144554/http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html |archive-date=12 September 2012 |df=dmy }} ''"...&nbsp;a perfectly convincing and lasting demonstration."''</ref><ref name="Smith-2010">{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Jonathan C. |title=Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit |year=2010 |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |location=Malden, MA|isbn=978-1-4051-8123-5}}</ref> The [[Blind experiment#Double-blind trials|double-blind]] experimental protocol used in this study was agreed upon by a group of physicists and a group of astrologers{{sfn|Zarka|2011}} nominated by the [[National Council for Geocosmic Research]], who advised the experimenters, helped ensure that the test was fair<ref name="Carlson-1985"/>{{rp|420;}}<ref name="Smith-2010" />{{rp|117}} and helped draw the central proposition of [[natal astrology]] to be tested.<ref name="Carlson-1985" />{{rp|419}} They also chose 26 out of the 28 astrologers for the tests (two more volunteered afterwards).<ref name="Carlson-1985"/>{{rp|420}} The study, published in [[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']] in 1985, found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "...clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."<ref name="Carlson-1985" />

In 1955, the astrologer and psychologist Michel Gauquelin stated that though he had failed to find evidence that supported indicators like [[Astrological signs|zodiacal signs]] and [[Astrological aspects|planetary aspects]] in astrology, he did find positive correlations between the [[Diurnal motion|diurnal positions]] of some [[Planets in astrology|planets]] and success in professions that astrology traditionally associates with those planets.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Pont |first=Graham |title=Philosophy and Science of Music in Ancient Greece |journal=Nexus Network Journal |year=2004 |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=17–29 |doi=10.1007/s00004-004-0003-x|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Gauquelin |first=Michel |title=L'influence des astres: étude critique et expérimentale |year=1955 |publisher=Éditions du Dauphin |location=Paris |lang=fr}}</ref> The best-known of Gauquelin's findings is based on the positions of Mars in the [[natal chart]]s of successful athletes and became known as the ''[[Mars effect]]''.<ref name="Carroll-2003">{{cite book |last=Carroll|first=Robert Todd|title=The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions |year=2003 |publisher=Wiley |location=Hoboken, NJ |isbn=978-0-471-27242-7}}</ref>{{rp|213}} A study conducted by seven French scientists attempted to replicate the claim, but found no statistical evidence.<ref name="Carroll-2003" />{{rp|213–214}} They attributed the effect to selective bias on Gauquelin's part, accusing him of attempting to persuade them to add or delete names from their study.<ref>{{cite book |last=Benski |first=Claude|others=with a commentary by [[Jan Willem Nienhuys]] |title=The "Mars Effect: A French Test of over 1,000 Sports Champions |year=1995 |publisher=Prometheus Books |location=Amherst, NY |isbn=978-0-87975-988-9|display-authors=etal}}</ref>

Geoffrey Dean has suggested that the effect may be caused by self-reporting of birth dates by parents rather than any issue with the study by Gauquelin. The suggestion is that a small subset of the parents may have had changed birth times to be consistent with better astrological charts for a related profession.  The number of births under astrologically undesirable conditions was also lower, indicating that parents choose dates and times to suit their beliefs. The sample group was taken from a time where belief in astrology was more common. Gauquelin had failed to find the Mars effect in more recent populations, where a nurse or doctor recorded the birth information.<ref name="Smith-2010"/>{{rp|116}}

Dean, a scientist and former astrologer, and psychologist Ivan Kelly conducted a large scale scientific test that involved more than one hundred [[cognitive]], [[behavioural]], [[physiology|physical]], and other variables—but found no support for astrology.<ref>{{cite news |last=Matthews |first=Robert |title=Astrologers fail to predict proof they are wrong |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439101/Astrologers-fail-to-predict-proof-they-are-wrong.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439101/Astrologers-fail-to-predict-proof-they-are-wrong.html |archive-date=11 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=13 July 2012 |newspaper=The Telegraph |date=17 August 2003 |location=London}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref name="Dean-2003" /> Furthermore, a [[meta-analysis]] pooled 40 studies that involved 700 astrologers and over 1,000 birth charts. Ten of the tests—which involved 300 participants—had the astrologers pick the correct chart interpretation out of a number of others that were not the astrologically correct chart interpretation (usually three to five others). When date and other obvious clues were removed, no significant results suggested there was any preferred chart.<ref name="Dean-2003">{{cite journal |title=Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi? |last1=Dean |first1=G. |last2=Kelly |first2=I. W. |journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies |year=2003 |volume=10 |issue=6–7 |pages=175–198}}<!--p. 190--></ref>