Skyscript Astrology Forum

From Patrice Guinard:

C.U.R.A. THE INTERNATIONAL ASTROLOGY RESEARCH CENTER
http://cura.free.fr
CURA's special information bulletin (June 24, 2008)

...................................................

I've learnt, sadly this morning, the death of Fran?oise Gauquelin, on
August 10, 2007 in Joigny (in the department of Yonne).

see CURA's forum :
http://cura.les-forums.com/topic/96/obi ... -2007.html

Thanks for your attention!

Dr. Patrice Guinard


...................................................

Fran?oise's CURA articles can be found here :

The Greek Error or Return to Babylon
http://cura.free.fr/xxv/24app3-3.html

Clefs pour la Recherche Statistique en Astrologie
http://cura.free.fr/decem/15frgq.html

And see of course the ARCHIVES GAUQUELIN (143,860 Data)
http://cura.free.fr/gauq/17archg.html

Also my text : French Astrology in the 20th Century
http://cura.free.fr/docum/16afr-en.html

Fran?oise SCHNEIDER-GAUQUELIN (born Marie Schneider)
- born June 19, 1929 at 4 a.m. (04:00) in Neuch?tel (Switzerland)
(sources : Patrice Guinard, pers. inf.)
- married to Michel Gauquelin from 1954 to 1985.
- director of Astro-Psychological Problems magazine (1982-1995), not
well known in France, but appreciated by the English-speaking community.
- author of books on applied psychology, of Psychology of the Planets
(San Diego, ACS Publications, 1982), and of Probl?mes de l'heure r?solus
pour le monde entier (Paris, Tr?daniel, 1987).

- Her contribution to the works of the "Gauquelins" has been
considerable, notably in the research of data and the technical
organization of statistical procedures, while her husband can be
credited with the initial intuitions (which are those of his
predecessors, notably Lasson), the will to get results, and the writing
of most of the works. Fran?oise Gauquelin has demonstrated, through her
magazine, that she was a first rate researcher. She only believes in the
results that she has found, and remains skeptical, if not hostile, to
current practices. She has been the other great lady of French astrology
in the XXth century.

..........................................

Thank you for passing this on, Deb!

I didn't know that either before, and indeed it's sad belated news.

With Suzel Fuzeau-Braesch having passed away suddenly (and, in a tragic echo of Francoise Gauqelin's late husband Michel, at a time of her own choosing) just a few months later, this January, the world of astrology has lost two of its outstanding statistical researchers in the space of a few months, both of them French and both of them incidentally women.

The sadness of their departures notwithstanding, it is heartening to see the recent posts by Clelia and Sari here, among others, indicating to me that the future of astrological research may yet be bright.

I don't know whether this comparison is really nice for Francoise, who left the association (RAMS) and journal that she had created. Comparing Francoise with SFB, it's like comparing "Sir" Mick Jagger with anywhat singer of a provincial French band ... The first one is creating music, but we don't know exactly what the other is doing.

And I prefer to keep quiet here on the opinion of Francoise about methods and works of SFB, even on what some of the collaborators of SFB are really thinking about her papers. The problem is that French astrology is bad known outside, just through some papers that may have been translated or not, or through second or third hands reports.

Dr Patrice Guinard

Hello Dr. Guinard!

For the record, I certainly did not intend any insensitivity towards or disrespect for Fran?oise Gauqelin by my post.

It was not my intention either to appear to pass a fully informed critical judgement on the relative intellectual strengths and weaknesses or significances of the overall contributions to the field of the respective lifetime bodies of work of Francoise Gauqelin and Suzel Fuzeau-Braesch.

And certainly I have no knowledge of the circumstances of Francoise Gauquelin's departure from the RAMS or any interpersonal feuds that might have been involved.

I mentioned S. F.-B. in the same post purely because, having met her by correspondence and entered into discussion on research proposals with her last year, I felt that she was herself a genuine and committed advocate of scientific astrological research, and to be admired for this good intention. Whatever the perceived shortcomings of her work that you and others in French astrology may take issue with (and to these I must plead ignorance), I would be surprised if you would affirm that as a scientist seeking to actively promote scientific astrological research projects she was fundamentally harmful to the cause or unworthy of being mourned on account of her contributions to statistical research into astrology.

Perhaps Francoise Gauquelin was a researcher of truly exceptional skill and statistical acuity the like of whom may not be known again to the field of astrology for a very long time.

I feel it would be sad all the same if we were to deny others who devote considerable parts of their lives to the same quest some kind of acknowledgement of their worth to a good cause simply on account of their work being judged to be of lesser quality in certain respects.

Perhaps in another strand you would care to elucidate the deficiencies of S. F.-B.'s work, at least in summary, in order for others to learn from?

In truth, the main thrust of my earlier post in this thread was sadness on top of sadness, in that it was only a few months ago that I learned (and the forum learned) of S. F.-B.'s passing, and now we have learned of that of Francoise Gauquelin. Because they were both involved in statistical research into astrology and the news arrived in relatively quick succession, it naturally occurred to me to remember the recent loss of S. F.-B. when the news of that of Francoise Gauquelin arrived via your communication to Deb, because of the similar principles (as measured relatively speaking against the backdrop of astrological practice as a whole, whatever their particular differences may have been on close analysis) of statistical scrutiny on which they each worked.

As a personal advocate of statistical research at a time when many astrologers have turned their backs on it, I am saddened whenever anyone of any ability level who has invested time and effort into the area is lost from the world.

Nonetheless, I must apologise to you for any unintended insensitivity in having discussed another astrologer in this strand which was and still is essentially devoted to honouring Francoise Gauquelin.

Best regards,

Philip

Then, it's OK, because THAT is the point.

And certainly I have no knowledge of the circumstances of Francoise Gauquelin's departure from the RAMS or any interpersonal feuds that might have been involved.

She left RAMS that she created with three others in november 1991. The "circumstances" are simple : she disagreed with "RAMS" methods and projects.

Later, some good articles have been published by RAMS : see Castille and Delboy ones newly published at CURA, section STATISTICAL INVESTIGATION INTO ASTROLOGY ( http://cura.free.fr/artic-en.html )

Perhaps in another strand you would care to elucidate the deficiencies of S. F.-B.'s work, at least in summary, in order for others to learn from?

I had not time to lose for that when she was alive. So now ??

Anyway several deficiencies have been pointed out by specialists of statistical methods. See for example, by the Dean's team : "Are personality differences between twins predicted by astrology?" A copy here : http://www.astropants.com/ErDe96.pdf

But more interesting (because not coming from sceptical circles) is the report of Mike O' Neill : "Replication of a dramatic twin experiment" (received in private copy in 1993, and after published somewhere, in Correlation?) that shows the biased data & methods used. Please contact him to learn more about : m.on AT virgin.net

Not to say more about the procedures that SFB did at Sorbonne University against my own thesis, and later her biased review of my Manifesto. See my response to her poor paper here : http://www.ramsfr.fr/reponseguinardfr.htm (in French), and here http://www.ramsfr.fr/reponseguinardus.htm (indeed in a bad English translation).

To a question about the impossibility to prove astrology with statictics methods, SFB was replying in a French Astrology Congress (FDAF, Nantes, April 1995) : "It's not me that the (my) statistics have to convince, but the whole humanity" !

It resumes rather well what has been SFB.

A final point : Fran?oise, who had a good sense of humour & was definitely anti-conformist (on many subjects), gave me amounts of books, personal papers, opinions she had on astrologers and statistical investigators, etc. I have also an interview with her (2000), unpublished but very instructive, although not 'politiquement correct' , to be published soon, if you are interested ...

Patrice