To: All Msg #59, Dec-02-93 12:40PM Subject: Re: Rationality vs. -pistis- (WAS Re: IMPLANTE
From: James J. Lippard
To: All Msg #59, Dec-02-93 12:40PM
Subject: Re: Rationality vs. -pistis- (WAS Re: IMPLANTED MEMORIES
Organization: University of Arizona
From: email@example.com (James J. Lippard)
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
(Ethan Vishniac) writes...
>Rosemary Webb wrote:
>>....Others have irrational beliefs tacked onto
>>otherwise rationality (the close-minded skeptics, for example, who won't
>>look at the FRench scientific studies of modified astrology that seemd to
>>show correlation between birthdate and athletic success).
>This seems like a good opening to make a couple of points. These are not
>so much in opposition to what Rosemary has written, as a slightly different
>viewpoint. First, Gauquelin's work is not so much a modification of
>astrology as a matter of completing discarding everything ever written on the
>topic and starting anew by looking at statistical correlations. He seems to
>be cited (inappropriately) by people looking for support for traditional
>BTW, does anyone here know the current state of this controversy?
In the _Skeptical Inquirer_, Suitbert Ertel seems to have had the last
word in his reanalysis of the CSICOP "Mars effect" replication attempt
on U.S. athletes. Ertel maintains that the most eminent athletes in
the CSICOP sample have Mars in a key sector more frequently than the
least eminent, using citation frequencies as a measure of eminence.
No skeptic has published an article replying to this study--at least
not in _SI_.
In the _Journal of Scientific Exploration_, Jan Willem Nienhuys and
Ertel have exchanged views regarding Dutch analyses of the Mars
effect. Nienhuys agrees with Ertel that several Dutch attempts
to explain the Mars effect have failed, but maintains that the
evidence of bias in Gauquelin's sample (which Ertel himself was
the first to document) makes the correlation questionable. Ertel
disagrees, and argues that his eminence test on all of Gauquelin's
data (published and unpublished) actually improves the case for
the Mars effect.
The French skeptics, CFEPP, began a replication attempt over a decade
ago, and had all of their data collected at least eight years ago,
but so far no analysis has been published. Ertel obtained their
data, and has performed his own analysis, which he maintains once
again demonstrates the Mars effect. This has been discussed here
on sci.skeptic, with Nienhuys criticizing Ertel's analysis.
Paul Kurtz told me in October of last year that _SI_ would be
publishing something further on this, which I took to mean CFEPP's
own analysis, but so far it hasn't appeared. Last I heard, Claude
Benski and Jan Willem Nienhuys were going to be doing the analysis.
Ertel has in the works an article which analyzes the data from all
three of the skeptical groups' replications (the Belgian Comite Para,
CSICOP, and the French CFEPP), which concludes that they all show
the eminence trend (those athletes with more citations in sports
directories are significantly more likely to have Mars in a key
sector than those with fewer citations).
Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank