Gary,
I misread this link thinking it was your summary but in fact it's the researchers, useful in this more condensed form.
The Carlson test strikes me as having all sorts of methodological problems. I have read the Cornelius book but it?s not available to me at the moment and I have no memory of his thoughts on this experiment, although I can imagine a few of them.
I found a similar one,
.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... mcgrew.pdf
''After another failure this is some of the conclusion:
In many cases, the correct answer contained the attributes we had chosen, but in
A different [astrological] position. . . . one big mistake was in agreeing to use young
subjects. This was the SaturnINeptune conjunction group, of course, which produced
many 'lost souls' . . . Like medicine, the law, and theology, astrology may not always
give quantifiable results-but it works, nonetheless''. (Mull, 1986).
These remarks do appear to be foolish.
The CPI is unfamiliar to me. I have now read the Wiki entry. In my experience these types of test are too vague to be comparable to serious astrology.It says people from the NCGR were satisfied with the use of the CPI, so I would question the skills of the astrologers who were on this advisory panel. (20% of the astrologers approached agreed).It was very revealing, as Philip points out, that subjects could not locate their own CPI profile from a set of three.
Plus, more crucially, the following:
Astrologers were asked to comment on these areas:
: 1) Personality/Temperament; 2) Relationships; 3) Education; 4) Career/goals; 5) Current situation.
Without access to any of the astrological interpretations I can?t assess their quality. Here we have 5 categories for interpretation. In my view a Natal Chart will give you very little certainty, or even useful information, about 2-5. Time Twins for example, do they show much similarity?
This analysis of tests strikes me as a good overview, includes some thoughts on the Carlson experiment.
http://www.williamjames.com/Folklore/ASTROLOG.htm
So how to do it, well here?s an idea.
Ask 20,000 people to fill in questionnaires, perhaps 500 random questions. Hidden in these would be time, place and date of birth and knowledge of astrology, we can assume an amount of Sun Sign exposure. At the end you may have 5,000 people who were able to provide the required data. Some of these times would be unreliable but with a big enough sample this would become less relevant. (Plus at the end of the experiment work could be undertaken to discover more about the times given).
Then randomly select 400 from the 5,000 and find 40 astrologers. Each subject would be informed they are due to see an astrologer, psychologist, physiotherapist, car mechanic, and piano teacher. Each would be given a sealed envelope to address and post to each of the above, or a pre-written email. Subjects would visit the astrologer on 3 different occasions.
25% of these times would be wrong. Some astrologers will check with the client the birth time at the outset or during the consultation, but as this has already been stated in the letter or via email, that the time is accurate, i.e. from hospital records, mother memory, birth certificate, etc. they may be less inclined to. The experiment would probably need to go on for a couple of years to avoid any astrologers becoming suspicious and information would need to be sent differently each time. Subjects would also be told explicitly that the astrologer has the information required.
Prior to the meetings with the astrologer subjects will be fitted with, without their knowledge, a recorder and camera.
How to assess
1/ - Astrologers should know when the time is wrong this is what they claim to be able to do, albeit more implicitly than explicitly.
2/ - Feedback from subjects should be less encouraging when the wrong time was given.
As the sessions are being monitored this can be assessed more objectively. As you can see from the Carlson attempt Self-assessment is unreliable. Astrologers will be told that certain times are wrong later on. They will be told times are wrong when they are and when they are not. All this will give clues as to the validity of their approach. (Perhaps for 1 person per astrologer the day or year would be out rather than the time, to mix it up a bit).
In order for the experiment to be worthwhile the very best astrologers would need to be involved.
Reasonably rigorous information would become available indicating whether astrologers knew times were suspect. All this would need a lot more thought and much fine tuning, it would cost a fair bit of money (?1 ? 1.5 million approx) and take a good few years to complete, but it would be considerably more worthwhile than the experiments I have seen to date. Dean and Co appear to have debunked a number of astrological claims made by certain astrologers but in the main they seem to have focused on that which seeks to predict real world events, and wishy washy astrology practiced by any Tom, Dick or Harry. This stuff probably should be debunked.