A test of the overall validity of astrological statements in the handbook by Sakoian and Acker by Kyösti Tarvainen Correlation, Vol. 28, August 2012, pp 5-24 Abstract The validity of 316 statements in The Astrologer’s Handbook by Sakoian and Acker was tested. These descriptions concern eleven professions or groups for which the Gauquelins’ data was available (over 18,000 persons). Control groups were generated by shuffling all elements of the birth data except for dates for which a random perturbation of at most 30 days was drawn. The validity of this method of forming control groups was ascertained by simulations. It

U-turn in Carlson’s astrology test by Robert Currey Correlation, Vol. 27(2) July 2011, pp 7-33 Abstract In 1985, Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, published ‘A Double Blind Test of Astrology’, now known as the ‘Carlson experiment’. The conclusion was that natal astrology as practised by reputable astrologers was no better than chance. For astrology, it was a landmark experiment that continues to undermine the credibility of every astrological consultant, researcher and school. Recent research shows not only that Carlson’s conclusions were wrong (Vidmar 2008), but also that his experiment produced evidence that the tested astrologers performed

Statistical Analysis of the birth charts of serial killers by Jan Ruis Correlation, Vol. 25(2) 2007/2008, pp7-44 Abstract In this study, hypotheses of astrologers about the predominance of specific astrological factors in the birth charts of serial killers are tested. In particular, Mutable signs (Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces), the 12th principles (12th house, Pisces, Neptune) and specific Moon aspects are expected to be frequent among serial killers as compared to the normal population. A sample consisting of two datasets of male serial killers was analysed: one set consisting of birth data with a reliable birth time (N=77) and another set

Modern Science, epistemology and astrology by Garry Phillipson Correlation, Vol. 23(2) 2006, pp 4-23 Abstract Recent developments in science – particularly quantum theory – have been taken by some astrologers to herald a paradigm shift that would make it possible to validate and explain astrology as a science. The suggestion is made that this case is currently unconvincing. The realist (or foundationalist) model is considered as a philosophical tradition, with particular reference to Descartes. It is proposed that this tradition underpins much of the sceptical case against astrology (illustrated by reference to the work of Dean, Ertel, Kelly, Mather and Smit);