Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[DarwinX]

The amount of solar radiation we receive, which is determined by the sunspot cycle, may have profound historical significance. Soviet professor A. C. Tchyivsky has correlated the eleven-year cycle with what he calls a worldwide 'mass excitement cycle'. He found that throughout history events such as wars, migrations, crusades, uprisings, and revolutions have clustered around peak sunspot periods. In the three years surrounding these peaks 60 percent of such events occurred, while only 5 percent occurred in the troughs. It would appear that tides govern the affairs of nations as well as individuals.

Probably the most distinguished work connecting planetary cycles with events and trends in the lives of individuals has been that of French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin. In the mid-1960s he set out to disprove astrology statistically by analyzing planetary positions at the births of professionals, using samples as large as 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000. Astrologers have always believed that certain planets coming up over the horizon, or directly overhead at a person's birth, guide that individual toward a certain profession.

To Gauquelin, the task he had set for himself seemed like a piece of cake. All he had to do was prove that the planet associated with athletic achievement, Mars, fell at random points in the nativities of 10,000 or 15,000 athletes, and that would be that -- astrology would be debunked. To emphasize his point he also investigated groups of doctors, lawyers, writers, and others in jobs associated by astrologers with specific planets.

To Gauquelin's surprise, the results turned out to be exactly the opposite of what he had expected. Mars did appear to be rising or culminating in a vast number of athletes' birth charts. Similarly, Jupiter appeared for bankers, Saturn for doctors, Mercury for writers, and so on. Gauquelin was astounded. Had he accidentally proved the case for astrology when he had meant to debunk it?

Actually, he had done a lot more than that because his data not only confirmed traditional astrological assignments, they uncovered new ones. For writers, for instance, the traditionally associated planet is Mercury. Gauquelin found that Mercury was indeed significant in writers' natal charts, but he also found that the moon was equally important, something astrologers had never posited.

Gauquelin's work established the fact that planetary positions do affect human disposition, talent, and direction and that these effects can be specifically determined by scientific methods such as statistical analysis and probability.

[Steve3007]

I can see how it might be possible that the sunspot cycle could affect human activity, since sunspots are associated with peaks in solar magnetic activity, coronal mass ejections and so on which clearly do affect the Earth when they hit our magnetosphere. So worth taking this one seriously as a hypothesis worth looking into.

But there doesn't seem to be any conceivable way in which the tiny, inactive object called Mars could have any significant physical effect on human affairs. Although it's undoubtedly true that its appearance has had a psychological effect. And sure enough a quick search reveals that Gauiquelin's results were apparently later found to be explained by selection bias and not actually statistically significant at all.

[Atreyu]

I'd just like to comment that the ancients claimed to have the 'science' behind this idea millenia ago. Today, we know it as 'astrology', but back then it was their 'astronomy'. Only modern science rejects this idea of cosmic bodies influencing life on Earth because they know nothing of the alleged science behind it. But in ancient cosmological systems it was considered a very basic fundamental principle, and IMO the model which takes this into account seems to be a more complete model.

[Roel]

The amount of solar radiation we receive, which is determined by the sunspot cycle, may have profound historical significance. Soviet professor A. C. Tchyivsky has correlated the eleven-year cycle with what he calls a worldwide 'mass excitement cycle'. He found that throughout history events such as wars, migrations, crusades, uprisings, and revolutions have clustered around peak sunspot periods. In the three years surrounding these peaks 60 percent of such events occurred, while only 5 percent occurred in the troughs. It would appear that tides govern the affairs of nations as well as individuals.

Probably the most distinguished work connecting planetary cycles with events and trends in the lives of individuals has been that of French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin. In the mid-1960s he set out to disprove astrology statistically by analyzing planetary positions at the births of professionals, using samples as large as 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000. Astrologers have always believed that certain planets coming up over the horizon, or directly overhead at a person's birth, guide that individual toward a certain profession.

To Gauquelin, the task he had set for himself seemed like a piece of cake. All he had to do was prove that the planet associated with athletic achievement, Mars, fell at random points in the nativities of 10,000 or 15,000 athletes, and that would be that -- astrology would be debunked. To emphasize his point he also investigated groups of doctors, lawyers, writers, and others in jobs associated by astrologers with specific planets.

To Gauquelin's surprise, the results turned out to be exactly the opposite of what he had expected. Mars did appear to be rising or culminating in a vast number of athletes' birth charts. Similarly, Jupiter appeared for bankers, Saturn for doctors, Mercury for writers, and so on. Gauquelin was astounded. Had he accidentally proved the case for astrology when he had meant to debunk it?

Actually, he had done a lot more than that because his data not only confirmed traditional astrological assignments, they uncovered new ones. For writers, for instance, the traditionally associated planet is Mercury. Gauquelin found that Mercury was indeed significant in writers' natal charts, but he also found that the moon was equally important, something astrologers had never posited.

Gauquelin's work established the fact that planetary positions do affect human disposition, talent, and direction and that these effects can be specifically determined by scientific methods such as statistical analysis and probability.

I think that it's coincidence that there's a correspondence between where Mars is and the athletes. I don't understand your conclusion too, the only thing which the Mars Effect want to show is when successfull people are born, it doesn't have anything to do with wars etc., where did you get that from?

I think though that if it's warmer at earth due to the sun wars may be more prevalent, so that might be true. I also though that THAT is what you were talking about when I read the topic title, not astrology.

Read this:

U.S. athletes – CSICOP

At the same time CSICOP began a study of U.S. athletes in consultation with Zelen, Abell and Rawlins. The results, published in 1979[8] showed a negative result. Gauquelin contended the KZA group demonstrated an overall preference for mediocre athletes and ignored his criteria of eminence and that they included basketball players and people born after 1950.[9]
CFEPP test

In 1994 the results of a major study undertaken by the Committee for the Study of Paranormal Phenomenon (Comité pour l’Étude des Phénomènes Paranormaux, or CFEPP) in France found no evidence whatsoever of a "Mars Effect" in the births of athletes.[10] The study had been proposed in 1982 and the Committee had agreed in advance to use the protocol upon which Gauquelin insisted. The CFEPP report was “leaked” to the Dutch newspaper Trouw.

In 1990 the CFEPP had issued a preliminary report on the study, which used 1,066 French sports champions, giving full data for the 1,066 as well as the names of 373 who fit the criteria but for whom birth times were unavailable, discussing methodology and listing data-selection criteria. In 1996 the report, with a commentary by J. W. Nienhuys and several letters from Gauquelin to the Committee, was published in book form as The Mars Effect – A French Test of Over 1,000 Sports Champions. The CFEPP stated that its experiment showed no effect and concluded that the effect was attributable to bias in Gauquelin’s data selection, pointing to the suggestions made by Gauquelin to the Committee for changes in their list of athletes. [10]