Double blind study published in Nature magazine disproves astrology

M

mrbobmac

New member
The Shawn Carlson's double-blind chart matching tests, in which 28 astrologers agreed to match over 100 natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the California Psychological Inventory test, was published in the magazine Nature. It found that experienced astrologers were no more able to discern people's psychological traits from the positions of the stars at their birth than others randomly guessing.

Double blinding helps to practically eliminate all bias from a study, including from participants as well as the person performing the study. The experimental protocol used in Carlson's study was agreed to by a group of physicists and astrologers prior to the experiment.Astrologers, nominated by the National Council for Geocosmic Research, acted as the astrological advisors, and helped to ensure, and agreed, that the test was fair. Published in Nature in 1985, the study found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."

Surely this effectively disproves the usefulness of astrology as a means of making predictions about the personality of individuals?

This post is not a troll, it's sole purpose is not "angering other people in the
forum," it is to discuss the legitimacy of the subject matter itself.
 
IleneK

IleneK

Premium Member
mrbobmac said:
This post is not a troll, it's sole purpose is not "angering other people in the
forum," it is to discuss the legitimacy of the subject matter itself.
Click to expand...

z-z-z-z-z--z, oh, excuse me, was someone talking?

What a waste of time. Very old "news." And a red herring anyway.

This forum is not about the legitimacy of astrology. It is about cultivating its practice. If you have concern about its legitimacy, then there are other forums that are better suited for your interests.

This line of conversation is a complete waste of time.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
mrbobmac said:
The Shawn Carlson's double-blind chart matching tests, in which 28 astrologers agreed to match over 100 natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the California Psychological Inventory test, was published in the magazine Nature. It found that experienced astrologers were no more able to discern people's psychological traits from the positions of the stars at their birth than others randomly guessing.

Double blinding helps to practically eliminate all bias from a study, including from participants as well as the person performing the study. The experimental protocol used in Carlson's study was agreed to by a group of physicists and astrologers prior to the experiment.Astrologers, nominated by the National Council for Geocosmic Research, acted as the astrological advisors, and helped to ensure, and agreed, that the test was fair. Published in Nature in 1985, the study found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."

Surely this effectively disproves the usefulness of astrology as a means of making predictions about the personality of individuals?

This post is not a troll, it's sole purpose is not "angering other people in the
forum," it is to discuss the legitimacy of the subject matter itself.
Click to expand...
Astrologer Judith Hill matched biographies and natal charts successfully when tested :smile:
Here is a quote from her website, and a link:
“......Judith Hill is an internationally recognized Astrologer, researcher
and award winning author of many books
with a lifetime of experience in all fields of the art.
She accepted a 1986 NCGR sponsored skeptic’s challenge and WON!
by SUCCESSFULLY MATCHING FIVE ANONYMOUS BIOGRAPHIES to FIVE NATAL CHARTS.
Her scientific research projects in astro-genetics and astro-seismology
have received international attention.......”
http://www.judithhillastrology.com/l...sed/88-welcome


Judith Hill did a very good study on MARS IN THE CHARTS OF RED HEADS
She did this study twice, both with significant results.
 
R

rahu

Banned
mrbobmac said:
the shawn carlson's double-blind chart matching tests, in which 28 astrologers agreed to match over 100 natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the california psychological inventory test, was published in the magazine nature. It found that experienced astrologers were no more able to discern people's psychological traits from the positions of the stars at their birth than others randomly guessing.

Double blinding helps to practically eliminate all bias from a study, including from participants as well as the person performing the study. The experimental protocol used in carlson's study was agreed to by a group of physicists and astrologers prior to the experiment.astrologers, nominated by the national council for geocosmic research, acted as the astrological advisors, and helped to ensure, and agreed, that the test was fair. Published in nature in 1985, the study found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."

surely this effectively disproves the usefulness of astrology as a means of making predictions about the personality of individuals?

This post is not a troll, it's sole purpose is not "angering other people in the
forum," it is to discuss the legitimacy of the subject matter itself.
Click to expand...

i am afraid it has been proven that even with double blind methods, bias is not eliminated
 
Last edited:
A

aldebaran

Well-known member
Psychology/Psychiatry have been enormously criticized on it's practice since it's very beggining, but rarely on it's episthemology.

Lies on the above sentence perhaps much more than it's few words portrait...
 
Top