We tested the astrological assumption that the position of the Sun at birth in astrological Elements is related to the psychological functions in Jung’s typology. Specifically, it was tested whether people who are born with the Sun in a Fire sign have a dominant intuition function and in the same way whether Earth corresponds to Sensing, Air to Thinking and water to Feeling. The Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI): Myers and McCaulley, 1985) was used to assess indices for Sensing, Intuition, Thinking and Feeling. MBTI-scores and birthrates were available for 370 subjects. Both the dominant psychological function and continuous MBTI-scores were analysed. Apart from a weak relationship between Water and Feeling, no analysis was statistically significant. The relationship between Jungian typology and astrological Elements, as postulated by astrologers, was not found.

Ever since times immemorial astrology has been a determining factor in the decisions and actions of men of all ranks and stations. At the beginning of the 17th century, great scientists as Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepelr – now best remembered for their roles in the development of modern physics and astronomy – all held astrology in high esteem. At the end of the 17th century, however, the scientific community had completely turned away from astrology. For some it was the subject of derision, others preferred to ignore it completely – so, hardly a single word on astrology, either pro or contra, is to be found in the works of scientists as Christian Huygens (1629-1695) OR Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727). However, in the case of Newton, the astrological literature presents a different view and even claims that in secret Newton was an ardent student of astrology. As evidence the following anecdote is often quoted: when the astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742), famed for his comet, once spoke with derision on the subject of astrology Newton is said to have rebuked him with the remark: “Sir Halley, I have studied the matter, you have not!” How much significance may awe attach to such a testimony? The first questions that should be answered are: what is the source of this statement and what evidence is there that Newton ever “studied the matter”?

Six astrologers matched 23 birth charts to comprehensive case files, including photographs, as specified by them. The charts were of native Americans (4 men, 19 women) aged 30-32 years. Birth times were verified by birth records and in most cases were recorded with a precision of five minutes or better. The mean accuracy (i.e.., agreement with the case files), expressed as Cohen’s kappa, was 0.02. The mean agreement between astrologers was 0.03. Accuracy was unrelated to confidence or to birth time precision. In a follow-up study, five groups of 5-6 astrologers each matched a subset of 5 charts, so that collectively all 23 charts were matched. The mean accuracy was -0.15, or worse than chance. Although the astrologers had collaborated to make the experiment as fair as possible, the negative findings had no effect on their belief in the validity of astrology.

A summary is given of each of the 29 entries to the Truth of Astrology Competition. Roughly half the entries conclude in effect that the truth delivered by astrology is actually satisfaction (it provides meaning, it enriches life, it does good) rather than accuracy (freedom from error), which due to the fallibility of astrologers is held to be undeliverable despite the underlying Greater Truth. By contrast the other half focused on accuracy, either by implication, observation (I.e., experience), statistical tests, or chart interpretations, to show how astrology delivers accuracy and therefore truth. This division of truth into satisfaction vs. accuracy matches the division obtained and discussed four years earlier in KT1. Although the entries collectively provide stimulating reading for the uncritical reader, for the critical reader they contain a disturbing level of error and faulty inference even among the big names, indicating an urgent need for a better general education among astrologers right across the board. Some possible requirements for a better education are discussed.

The French skeptics (CFEPP) attempt to replicate the Gauquelin Mars effect used a sample of 1,966 sports champions taken from two biographical sources. They reported an insignificant surplus of births in Mars key sectors upon which they concluded that a Mars effect was non-existent. The surplus became larger but remained insignificant when the CFEPP’s own critic, Dr, Nienhuys, mathematician at the Technical University of Eindhoven in the Netherlands, at my suggestion corrected the CFEPP’s wrong expectancy. However, Nienhuys missed an opportunity to correct another flaw, namely the CFEPP’s inclusion of cases that were not eminent enough to meet the requirements of “supreme eminence”. A Mars effect becomes manifest only with eminent professionals. On the one hand, the CFEPP rightly argued that champions listed in both biographical sources were more eminent on average than those listed in only one course. But they did not use this criterion for all 36 sports disciplines except for two that lacked appropriate records of successes. When all double sources (= more eminent) champions out of the CFEPP’s total were picked, a significant Mars effect (p = .02) resulted. In addition, the Mars effect for double-source champions was significantly (p = .04) larger than that of single-source champions, whose proportion of births with Mars in key sections did not deviate significantly from chance. In order to remove doubts of critics, a number of competent and independent researchers were invited to scrutinise the counts of the CFEPP’s published data as well as to analyse them using their own procedures. Six of them replied and all confirmed the counts. Four confirmed the significance of the Mars key sector deviations. Three confirmed the conclusions without reservation and one with some reservation. Two considered the CFEPP data and methodology as inappropriate which view is shown to be untenable.

This article gives a brief outline of pyrrhonism, the “skeptical way of life”, as it was described by the Greek physician Sextus Empericus. More extensively, it discusses his book Against the Astrologers, which describes and crticises astrology as it was practised in the 2nd or 3rd century AD. From Sextus’s description it is evident that the basic concepts of astrology have not changed much over the past 18 centuries. Surprisingly, much of his criticism seems fairly modern.

The present state of research on the Gauquelin data is re-considered in the light of more recent Darwinian theory and the ecology of family systems. New testable predictions are derived which are not subject to allegations of possible fraud by the Gauquelins. Important features are explained including curvilinear eminence and gender effects, and it is suggested that CTH (Character Trait Hypothesis) and inheritance effect need to be reconsidered if the predictions can be verified. A small study is presented which supports the theory, and further testing is invited.

Astrology on the Internet during 1996 is surveyed, including the newsgroup alt.astrology, mailing lists and the World Wide Web. Special attention is given to the topics, the numbers participating, and the quality of discussion. Almost all public astrology on the Internet is social or commercial talk of little interest to researchers. Included is an annotated list of useful Internet addresses.

The author argues for an alternative model of how astrology works. He proposes that only a few percent of people are “enhancers” or “starborn” and for those people astrological indicators work well. This theory accords closely with the Gauqulelin findings and also with his own work on time-twins. Finally, he presents evidence from questionnaire research that the starborn (as a small proportion) can be found among “ordinary people” by discerning planetary traits from their answers to carefully selected questions. It is suggested that the significance of this work would be much enhanced by independent replication.

This article summarises the evidence for the reality of Gauquelin’s claim of planet-birth frequency correlations The existence of planetary effects, however, exemplified by Mars and sports champions, is denied by skeptic circles. The grounds for this point of view are traced to biased investigations. The skeptics tend to work out insufficient designs, to collect unfavorable data, to prevent planetary effects from emerging, to ignore positive results if they show up or to obliterate them by reinterpretation and to defame authors whose results confirm planetary effects while providing evidence for the skeptics’ unfairness. The conclusion is that an increasing number of unprejudiced scientists is required who are ready to acknowledge the existing positive evidence while augmenting it by replications.