NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/19199

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-08 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!mcsun!sun4nl!tuegate.tue.nl!rw7.urc.tue.nl!wsadjw
From: [e-mail] (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Legitimate but Trivial Anomalies ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:21:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger D. Nelson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

This post comments on both Roger's and Carl's contributions.
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>>
>>JW>Many of the data he collected went into tests of this
>>JW>idea.  So even if the first result was a fluke, the later ones are
>>JW>not flukes.
>>
>CJL>That depends on how many other tests he did where the hypothesis was NOT
>CJL>supported.
>>
>>>Moreover the allegation that he didn't report his failures is rubbish.
>>>If there is one researcher whose extensive reports about failed astrological
>>>relations have sereved to debunk astrology, then it's Gauquelin.
>>
>CJL>Then just how many studies were done to test this hypothesis, how many of them
>CJL>supported it and how many failed to support it?

Maybe it would be a good idea for Carl to not stray down on abbott-road,
asking all kinds of questions without bothering to read the literature.
A good guide to further literature can be found in the articles by
C. de Jager & Rieks Jager, Koppeschaar, Ertel and F. Gauquelin in the
Proceedings of the 3rd EuroSkeptics Conference 1991.  Old issues of the
Skeptical Inquirer also can give a pretty good idea what the problem
is about (consult the 10 year index to the S.I.).

And then there's the famous Petiot hoax that Gauquelin engineered,
which gave some insight into what motivates people to accept astrological
interpretations of their horoscopes.

>
Roger's answer:
RDN>Your approach is, as Jan indicated, rather too simple, and certainly not
                      ^ Jan Willem if you please.
RDN>likely to get at the "truth" of the matter.  Just for starters, "how
RDN>many" is an inadequate question, since what you are counting may be
RDN>apples and oranges, and furthermore even if all oranges, may be of
RDN>greatly varying quality, not to mention the necessity for weighting to
RDN>accomodate statistical power.
RDN>
RDN>It is ironic that Jan is relegated to what might be perceived as a
RDN>defense of the Mars effect, and I suspect that his regard for Gauquelin
RDN>is well founded, for he evidently has studied the literature and done so
RDN>with a good understanding of the pitfalls.

There's another reason as well.  I've put a lot of effort into trying
to understand the source of Gauquelin's bias, and keeping the discussion
on it going, and I'm still involved.  And not just studying the
literature but parts of the Gauquelin data base as well.
[warning: flame ahead]   I don't quite like some guy, who
possibly knows more about it but does an excellent job in hiding his
knowledge, to blather about that it is just some silly error that just
about anybody who knows about VAXes can spot with his eyes closed.
[end of flame]

JW