He claimed much but fiddled with his sampling to get the results he wanted. When he was forced to have a properly controlled group, in 1982, where he compared top athletes with the general population no statistical correlation was found. Even he though that the traditional Zodiac classifications were bollocks. He just fell in love with the idea that you could prove that some astrological phenomonon were provavble but his methods were simply bad science and in fact proved nothing. If anyone could in fact show a repeatable properly controlled study that showed a correlation between birth and the movement of Mars it would be published in a peer reviewed journal. But there isn't one.
X-File 02 - Prophecies, Nostradamus to the Mayans and all that lies in between.
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
This is the frequency chart he used to "prove" that top french athletes were born more frequently at times that correlated with the movement of Mars. Even assuming that the 2 spikes correlate with such movements, something that I just don't have the data to agree with or dispute the assumption, the sample size and sampling errors probably actually demonstrate that there is no significant statistical difference between the samples. Scientists and statisticians would normally show these as bar graphs with error bars as a first pass and if the error bars overlap you pretty much know that there is no significant difference between them and if you are unsure you perform more complex tests. I'd guess that this basic ignorance of technique led to his mistake so that when a properly controlled test was conducted nothing was significant.
If it were possible to prove anything the astrology industry would have published it. Their lack of evidence is pretty telling.
Agreed.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about RB
All of these use the same data. In effect these are 4 samples and a control group of identical size. The first doesn't tell us much apart from each sample isn't identical. The second one has had the axes reduced to start at 4 which exaggerates the difference between the categories but when you add the (SE) error bars on they all overlap which strongly suggests that the differences are due to randomness in the data and that there is no significant statistical difference between any of the groups including the control. If the bars didn't overlap this would suggest further test were required to see if there really were significant statistical differences between groups.
Astrologers would simply have got very excited about graph 2.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about RB
All of these use the same data. In effect these are 4 samples and a control group of identical size. The first doesn't tell us much apart from each sample isn't identical. The second one has had the axes reduced to start at 4 which exaggerates the difference between the categories but when you add the (SE) error bars on they all overlap which strongly suggests that the differences are due to randomness in the data and that there is no significant statistical difference between any of the groups including the control. If the bars didn't overlap this would suggest further test were required to see if there really were significant statistical differences between groups.
Astrologers would simply have got very excited about graph 2.
There is an inherent problem with using scientific methods to prove/disprove something that is not compatible with 'science' as it is currently understood. Everyone has their own agenda and bias - studies can show anything and then most studies can be refuted on some level (bias, sample size etc etc). But it is still interesting to go through the processes and see what comes out...
This is not necessarily my view but since it is too time consuming to type out my own thoughts, I go for the lazy option and copy and paste from Wiki:
Astrologers have argued that there are significant obstacles in carrying out scientific research into astrology today, including lack of funding, lack of background in science and statistics by astrologers, and insufficient expertise in astrology by research scientists and skeptics. There are only a handful of journals dealing with scientific research into astrology (i.e. astrological journals directed towards scientific research or scientific journals publishing astrological research). Some astrologers have argued that few practitioners today pursue scientific testing of astrology because they feel that working with clients on a daily basis provides personal validation for their clients.
Another argument made by astrologers is that most studies of astrology do not reflect the nature of astrological practice and that the scientific method does not apply to astrology. Some astrology proponents argue that the prevailing attitudes and motives of many opponents of astrology introduce conscious or unconscious bias in the formulation of hypotheses to be tested, the conduct of the tests, and the reporting of results.
Can you please give me links to info about this as Im interested to read about it.
I found this:
Skeptics have suggested Gauquelin might have been inclined to consider an athlete eminent if he knew in advance the athlete had Mars rising or culminating. At first, it appeared the skeptics had a valid point. At times, Gauquelin, subconsciously perhaps, seemed to do just that. It was, in fact, German psychologist Suitbert Ertel who discovered what is now called "Gauquelin bias." Ertel, however, solved the problem of determining eminence by noting the number of times an athlete was mentioned in various sport periodicals, biographical dictionaries and sports encyclopedias. The more citations the more likely the athlete would be considered eminent. Seldom mentioned athletes didn't make the cut. Once Ertel used this new standard for determining eminence, he found that Gauquelin bias actually masked the Mars Effect. According to Kenneth Irving, "...when the bias was corrected for and the Mars effect was viewed through Ertel's new lens, it was even stronger than before." (Kenneth Irving, "The New Astrology" in American Astrology January 1995, p. 50.)
Just google "Mars effect hypothesis" and you'll find several links, including this one.
I had already looked at that but found it very heavy going - Im too lazy to digest an article like that and I really need Wiki style simple summaries or I get bored by all the detail.
Either way, there is plenty of critism of all the methods used to debunk The Mars Effect so I dont really think it is fair to claim that the study was invalid (neither do I claim that all his claims are true).
Spoken like a true non-scientific chap: 'Oh that's simply too too long and boring daahling - let's just believe some old bollocks instead'.
I dont have a problem with 'long' but I do have a problem with 'boring' - if you find it so interesting then perhaps you can read it and give a brief summary?
Plus you have no idea what I believe - Im just here as devils advocate as I see too many patronising comments on here from those who take the view that believing anything outside of science is something to be derided.
Anyway, there are as many articles debunking the debunkers as there are questioning the original research - so which are we supposed to believe?
Basically it says the initial study was flawed and there is no evidence of any correlation. We could do our own caf study:
Take the dates of birth of PL players from soccerbase
Chuck out the keepers since they need different skills - sample of 600
Sort them into astrological signs
See if there is a statistically significant trend (eg Pisces controls the feet so you should expect more Pisceans)
Might do that tonight or something, if I can get a script to harvest things.
He he I was banking on you to do the statistical analysis - if you can do the harvest that would be fantastic (leave in the keepers at first pass - should make it much easier).
Well i had already guessed that from the title so thank feck I didnt actually bother to read it
Could be interesting to do it just to see what comes out - although as Wibble pointed out earlier, Gauquelin was actually not a fan of horoscopes and the traditional signs of the Zodiac - his research was more about the position of certain planets (e.g. Mars) at the time of birth of people of certain professions (e.g. sportsmen) which is more difficult to test in the simple way that you describe.
Yeah, this one is quite simple but if the position of the stars at your birth has any significance (as astrology claims) you'd expect some reflection of that in the numbers.
I get the feeling that when you refer to 'astrology', you are mostly talking about the popularist daily horoscope type of atrology?
I prefer to move away from this mass marketed stereotype of astrology.
Here is an article that I found interesting - explains more about modern astrological theory - although the writer is someone who has abandoned atrology in favour of Christ and now views it as something evil (!)
Modern Astrology: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
There are really two types of astrology. One is the mass-marketed commercialized astrology popularized in newspaper horoscopes and in certain books written for large audiences (such as those by Linda Goodman). This astrology is usually linked to prediction and more rigid information about the various sun-sign types.
However, astrology practiced by most contemporary professional astrologers grew out of the modern psychology movements.
The late astrologer and metaphysician, Dane Rudhyar, developed transpersonal astrology, a system heavily influenced by occultist Carl Jung and his views of man and the universe using symbols and mythological archetypes.
The outer planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are particularly important in this system as they represent the universal order and how the individual interacts with it in his own consciousness.
Many modern astrologers do not believe the planets influence people but rather that each person is born at the moment when the planets align a certain way in order to reflect that person's character and destiny.
Two people born with the same chart (same time and place) can manifest different potentials and will not necessarily have similar lives. The twin souls theory of popular astrology is not adopted by most serious astrologers.
Predictions are often called "forecasts" or "trends" and are based on upcoming planetary influences on the birth chart. These influences are usually interpreted on a psychological level.
Scientific attacks on popular astrology have little effect on psychologically-oriented astrology. One reason is that this astrology does often seem to work.
As a former astrologer, I can attest to the accuracy and often predictive power of a chart. When a client is told specifics about childhood, relationships, job skills, etc., the client cannot help but be impressed.
Rational arguments as to why astrology should not or cannot work mean nothing to someone who has experienced a chart as accurate.
The argument that astrologers are picking up clues from the client's appearance or responses can be true for some but many astrologers tape charts for clients they never meet. The information comes solely from the chart. The real source is the "angel of light."
As astrological reading impacts the client with its complexity and pseudo-psychological/spiritual language.
A client might hear, "Your reactions are immediate and forceful; you are impulsive," or "The emotional distance between you and your father has caused you to choose cold men as partners."
The scientific-sounding terms of psychology and benign spiritual/metaphysical language render astrology more acceptable and less "weird."
The usual arguments used against astrology by Christians and others are weak because they often attack ideas the transpersonal/psychological astrologers do not hold (such as the belief that planets influence people) and because astrologers and their clients have seen the chart give valid information.
Astrology is becoming more mainstream. More and more astrologers are asked to check out potential employees for employers, and some therapists refer their clients to astrologers.
Most astrologers themselves like to separate their art from other occultic practices, although many of them believe in or use things such as tarot cards, psychic sensitivity, and most accept the basic new age philosophy.
It is my belief that this astrology is extremely occultic and that the hand of evil is involved in making it work. Astrology exalts the self in place of God and His word in the guise of offering "spiritual" advise. It is one of the most seductive of the occultic arts, a true wolf in sheep's clothing.
[Ed. Note: Marcia Montenegro was a professional astrologer for eight years and involved in Eastern beliefs and metaphysics for almost fifteen years. God intervened and she abandoned astrology and came to Christ in November, 1990. She attends church in Atlanta, Georgia.]
I'm probably going to pull things from Wikipedia instead through their querying interface.
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?a...e=Category:Premier League players&cmlimit=500
There's 2,600+ entries in the Premier League players list and around 200 goalkeepers, and I'm limited to 500 hits, but that shouldn't be a problem (will do it manually).
From there, I'll figure it out somehow.
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?a...e=Category:Premier League players&cmlimit=500
There's 2,600+ entries in the Premier League players list and around 200 goalkeepers, and I'm limited to 500 hits, but that shouldn't be a problem (will do it manually).
From there, I'll figure it out somehow.
It's all aspects of the same bollocks - just more sophisticated. The fundamental principle is that the position of the planets at birth affects people's personality and life chances.
Have fun with that
Wont really prove anything either way but an interesting experiment nonetheless
Have you ever had your birth charts done? Why not give it a try before dismissing it?
I have calculated my birth chart using the internet sites and found it meaningless. You can do yours in a couple of minutes and see what you think.... http://www.astro.com/cgi/atxgen.cgi?btyp=atx. There's so much mumbo jumbo around it's as well to be sceptical.
Has anyone ever suggested a causal physical mechanism for how the position of other planets at birth can affect a person on earth?
'Many scientists today reject astrology because it does not present a causal mechanism, which according to the classical models of Standard Theory should operate between the celestial system and the individual. These scientists do not acknowledge the very different model that astrology seems to have always presented, which is a type of symmetry that may be observed between inner and outer environments. The ancient Hermetic maxim states: "As above, so below." The inner world of the individual is reflected in the symmetrical outer world of the celestial environment.
Evidence of this type of symmetry is found in hologram fragments. Each fragment contains a pattern that is an image of the whole. Another example is the so-called "self-similarity" found in fractal geometries, in which the same shapes or patterns, such as Mandelbrot or Julia sets, are repeated at different scales within a fractal environment. Although they are not recognized as such, these are symmetries, and they fall into the category of what may be called "cosmic symmetry." The behaviors of microcosms are reflected in the behaviors of their macrocosms and vice versa. Within an environment, behaviors implement cosmic symmetry.
Although relatively inconspicuous compared to other symmetries, cosmic symmetry is nonetheless a feature that is found throughout nature, and this natural feature has gone unacknowledged by science for the past 400 years.'
Evidence of this type of symmetry is found in hologram fragments. Each fragment contains a pattern that is an image of the whole. Another example is the so-called "self-similarity" found in fractal geometries, in which the same shapes or patterns, such as Mandelbrot or Julia sets, are repeated at different scales within a fractal environment. Although they are not recognized as such, these are symmetries, and they fall into the category of what may be called "cosmic symmetry." The behaviors of microcosms are reflected in the behaviors of their macrocosms and vice versa. Within an environment, behaviors implement cosmic symmetry.
Although relatively inconspicuous compared to other symmetries, cosmic symmetry is nonetheless a feature that is found throughout nature, and this natural feature has gone unacknowledged by science for the past 400 years.'
Fair enough - I can respect that you have at least explored it and not just dismissed it out of hand - although I would recommend having your charts done and read by a proper professional to give you a proper view of how it all works.
So basically no then; none of these fruitcakes has any idea about how it could work.
I'm not giving some silly twat money unless he can give me the winner of the 5 o'clock at Kempton. If you met some bloke in the street and he said I can tell you things if you give me a toe-nail clipping you'd run a mile.
'As in heaven so on earth' seems to be the message (which seems uncannily like the lord's prayer 'Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.'). Possibly not surprising since both are probably descended from ancient sun worship.
It will at least show either:Have fun with that
Wont really prove anything either way but an interesting experiment nonetheless
1) There is insignificant evidence to suggest there is a relationship between Premiership footballers and their star signs; or
2) There is significant evidence to suggest there is a relationship between Premiership footballers and their star signs.
I'm pretty sure it's the former, but we'll see.
It will show a random distribution of star signs I reckon. That won't prove astrology is bunk since the determining factor could be some more subtle indicator like the position of Mars or Uranus. However, the position of the Sun is the most important feature in a chart and might be reasonably be expected to have some effect. It's a lot more rational way to proceed than incanting mumbo-jumbo like 'as in heaven so on earth'.
May have opened a can of worms, but I grabbed 2,695 players (including goalkeepers, around 185 of them) from Wikipedia and grabbed their dates of birth via wget and a couple of greps in a shell script, but I had to do a lot of it manually (there's no single format on Wikipedia).
Why a can of worms?
Apparently, I was never destined to be the next Messi or Ronaldo...
I'll run a statistical test on it now, I think.
Why a can of worms?
Apparently, I was never destined to be the next Messi or Ronaldo...
I'll run a statistical test on it now, I think.
Immediately what leaps out is how the curve follows the school year from the age registration boundary. The other studies of juniors had Sept/Oct/Nov as the optimum birth months. It looks as if this advantage is carried on into adulthood (as also predicted by some studies)
It does indeed. Who would have quessed?
Not me I'd have assumed that the effect would decline into maturity. Thinking about it I guess these decisions are made at 14 and aren't reversible. Ian Wright is the only player I can remember making it late on in the last twenty years.
Interesting - the sept/oct thing makes sense for kids but i really didnt expect it to come out in adults
also it seems i missed my calling as Im a libra
BTW good job x42
I might have guessed - far too ready to see both sides of the argument even if one of them is cack. Get off the fence before you get a groove in your arse.Interesting - the sept/oct thing makes sense for kids but i really didnt expect it to come out in adults
also it seems i missed my calling as Im a libra
BTW good job x42
A possible explanation is that once players are less likely to be picked to play, it affects both their motivation and development. This can explain how an advantage for certain kids is carried into adulthood.
Yeah on reflection that's absolutely right. Kids are 'chosen' at 14 or earlier when the older have a physical/mental advantage. There is clearly a trick to be learned if you can spot the signs of potential achievement in young kids over actual.
Saw it coming, but I got a rejection even at the 99.5% level when compared with the uniform distribution.
But I suppose that if this childhood thing is taken into account, you can't really compare it to the uniform distribution - there has to be a different one.
But I suppose that if this childhood thing is taken into account, you can't really compare it to the uniform distribution - there has to be a different one.
Eh? what are you on about?
As I said before, this study was not going to prove anything either way - it was just a simple but interesting experiment.
Anyway i dont know if it is statistically significant but it clearly shows a correlation between month of birth and the likelyhood of being a top level footballer - you may prefer to explain that by school cut off age but personally I dont buy it.
Were these random players from all over the world?