Effectiveness

Astrology has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific
validity.[3]:85[8] Where it has made falsifiable predictions under controlled conditions they have
been falsified.[8]:!"! #ne famous e$periment included "8 astrologers %ho %ere as&ed to match
over a hundred natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the 'alifornia (sychological
)nventory *'()+ ,uestionnaire.[--5][--.] /he double0blind e$perimental protocol used in this study
%as agreed upon by a group of physicists and a group of astrologers[8] nominated by the
1ational 'ouncil for 2eocosmic 3esearch %ho advised the e$perimenters helped ensure that
the test %as fair[--.]:--4[--4]:!"5 and helped dra% the central proposition of natal astrology to
be tested.[--4]:!-6 /hey also chose ". out of the "8 eight astrologers for the tests *t%o more
volunteered after%ards+.[--4]:!"5 /he study published in 1ature in -685 found that predictions
based on natal astrology %ere no better than chance and that the testing 7clearly refutes the
astrological hypothesis7.[--4]
)n -655 astrologer and psychologist 8ichel 2au,uelin stated that although he had failed to find
evidence to support such indicators as the 9odiacal signs and planetary aspects in astrology he
had found positive correlations bet%een the diurnal positions of some of the planets and success
in some professions %hich astrology traditionally associates %ith those planets.[--8][--6] /he
best0&no%n of 2au,uelin:s findings is based on the positions of 8ars in the natal charts of
successful athletes and became &no%n as the 78ars effect7.[-"5]:"-3 A study conducted by
seven ;rench scientists attempted to replicate the claim but found no statistical evidence.
[-"5]:"-3<"-! /hey attributed the effect to selective bias on 2au,uelin:s part accusing him of
attempting to persuade them to add or delete names from their study.[-"-]
2eoffrey =ean has suggested that the effect may be caused by self0reporting of birth dates by
parents rather than any issue %ith the study by 2au,uelin. /he suggestion is that a small subset
of the parents may have had changed birth times to be consistent %ith better astrological charts
for a related profession. /he sample group %as ta&en from a time %here belief in astrology %as
more common. 2au,uelin had failed to find the 8ars effect in more recent populations %here a
nurse or doctor recorded the birth information. /he number of births under astrologically
undesirable conditions %as also lo%er indicating more evidence that parents choose dates and
times to suit their beliefs.[--.]:--.
=ean a scientist and former astrologer and psychologist )van >elly conducted a large scale
scientific test involving more than one hundred cognitive behavioural physical and other
variables but found no support for astrology.[-""][-"3] ;urthermore a meta0analysis %as
conducted pooling !5 studies consisting of 455 astrologers and over -555 birth charts. /en of the
tests %hich had a total of 355 participating involved the astrologers pic&ing the correct chart
interpretation out of a number of others %hich %ere not the astrologically correct chart
interpretation *usually 3 to 5 others+. When the date and other obvious clues %ere removed no
significant results %ere found to suggest there %as any preferred chart.[-"3]:-65