Astrology tested in double--blind experiment
--------------------------------------------
The results of a double-blind test of 
astrology were reported recently by 
physicist Shawn Carlson of the 
University of California, Berkeley 
(Nature, Dec. 5, 1985, page 419). 
Many tests of astrology have been 
published, Carlson notes, but they 
have been largely dismissed by 
either scientists or astrologers, 
depending on how they came out. 
The author and his colleagues set 
out to design an experiment "that 
would meet the tight specifications 
of both the scientific and 
astrological communities."
The experiment tested the propo-
sition that.
"The positions of the 'planets' (all 
planets, the sun and moon, plus 
other objects defined by 
astrologers) at the moment of birth 
can be used to determine the 
subject's general personality traits 
and tendencies in temperament and 
behavior, and to indicate the major 
issues which the subject is likely to 
encounter."
The proposition was formulated, 
and the experiment designed, with 
the help of astrologers and scien-
tists "held in high esteem by their 
respective communities."
The experiment had two parts. 
First, astrologers constructed and 
interpreted natal charts using data 
provided by volunteers. (Charts 
were constructed with a Digicomp 
DR 70 Astrological Computer.) 
Each volunteer then tried to select 
his own natal chart interpretation 
from a trio comprising his own and 
two selected at random from the 
entire group. The astrologers 
predicted that the subjects would be 
able to pick their own 
interpretations at least half of the 
time; chance would yield one 
correct pick in three.
In the second part of the experi-
ment, each participating astrologer 
was given the natal chart of a ran-
dom subject and a measure of the 
subject's personality traits called 
the California Personality Inventory 
(CPI). Each was also given the 
CPIs of two other subjects chosen 
at random from the group. The 
astrologers then had to pick the 
CPIs that came closest to the natal 
charts. They figured they could do 
it at least half the time; chance, 
again, would yield one correct 
choice in three.
Great pains, including copious use 
of double-blind techniques, were 
taken to render the experiment free 
of bias or other glitches, Carlson 
says. In the end, however, neither 
the subjects in Part 1 of the experi-
ment nor the astrologers in Part 2 
performed at a level better than 
chance. "The experiment," Carlson 
writes, "clearly refutes the 
astrological hypothesis."

[March 10, 1986 C&EN (Chemical & Engineering News), pg. 48]