26.01.2015 Views

the-astrology-book

the-astrology-book

the-astrology-book

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

sTARBABY<br />

birth data of athletes against statistical probabilities; <strong>the</strong> Humanist challenged <strong>the</strong><br />

Gauquelins to test <strong>the</strong>ir findings against <strong>the</strong> actual birth data of nonathletes. Contrary<br />

to <strong>the</strong> expectations of skeptical critics, <strong>the</strong> Zelen Test (after Marvin Zelen, who carried<br />

out <strong>the</strong> test) confirmed <strong>the</strong> Gauquelins’s original findings. Reluctant to admit defeat,<br />

Zelen, Kurtz, and <strong>the</strong>ir colleagues quickly changed direction and began questioning <strong>the</strong><br />

validity of <strong>the</strong> Gauquelins’s original sample of athletes. This disagreement eventually led<br />

<strong>the</strong> Gauquelins to agree to a new test of <strong>the</strong> Mars effect, which was to be conducted by<br />

CSICOP with a sample of American athletes.<br />

Dennis Rawlins, one of <strong>the</strong> founders of CSICOP and a planetary motion specialist,<br />

oversaw <strong>the</strong> calculations. Anxious to have a “sneak peak” at <strong>the</strong> preliminary<br />

findings of <strong>the</strong> new test, Kurtz called Rawlins, only to be told that <strong>the</strong> early results<br />

seemed to confirm <strong>the</strong> Mars effect. According to Rawlins, in an article in <strong>the</strong> October<br />

1981 issue of Fate, a popular magazine on <strong>the</strong> paranormal, Kurtz responded to <strong>the</strong><br />

news with a groan and spoke “in a pained voice, as someone cursed with a demon that<br />

would not go away.” Kurtz <strong>the</strong>n supplied Rawlins with additional samples of athletes.<br />

The last sample supplied to Rawlins contained athletes with an extremely low Mars<br />

effect—so low as to effectively cancel <strong>the</strong> Mars effect of <strong>the</strong> original sample. Rawlins<br />

became convinced that <strong>the</strong> last group of athletes was not a random sample (i.e., that<br />

<strong>the</strong> sample had been intentionally designed to negate <strong>the</strong> Mars effect).<br />

Rawlins initially attempted to correct what he saw as a cover-up by appealing<br />

to o<strong>the</strong>r people within CSICOP. That group’s leadership responded by ejecting him<br />

from <strong>the</strong> organization. Meanwhile, Kurtz published <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> “test,” claiming<br />

that <strong>the</strong> Mars effect had been decisively disproved. Rawlins, however, soon published<br />

his “sTARBABY” exposé in Fate. Rawlins’s accusations were reinforced by Patrick<br />

Curry’s article “Research on <strong>the</strong> Mars Effect,” which appeared in <strong>the</strong> Zetetic Scholar<br />

soon after <strong>the</strong> publication of “sTARBABY.” The ensuing uproar eventually forced<br />

Kurtz and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r CSICOP personnel involved with <strong>the</strong> test to issue a partial confession.<br />

This “reappraisal” acknowledged many weaknesses in <strong>the</strong> test without admitting<br />

ei<strong>the</strong>r that <strong>the</strong> data had been manipulated or that <strong>the</strong> Mars effect might possibly<br />

be <strong>the</strong> result of astrological influences.<br />

To most astrologers, <strong>the</strong> “sTARBABY” incident has come to epitomize <strong>the</strong><br />

attitude of would-be debunkers. While many skeptics are far more reasonable than<br />

CSICOP, <strong>the</strong> individuals behind <strong>the</strong> “sTARBABY” cover-up were clearly more interested<br />

in defending a ra<strong>the</strong>r narrow interpretation of scientific orthodoxy than in<br />

empirical truth. Its image tarnished by <strong>the</strong> incident, CSICOP has since avoided active<br />

experimentation.<br />

Sources:<br />

Abell, George O., Paul Kurtz, and Marvin Zelen. “The Abell-Kurtz-Zelen ‘Mars Effect’ Experiments:<br />

A Reappraisal.” The Skeptical Inquirer 7, no. 3 (Spring 1983): 77–82.<br />

Bok, Bart J., Lawrence E. Jerome, and Paul Kurtz. “Objections to Astrology: A Statement by<br />

186 Leading Scientists.” The Humanist 35, no. 5 (September/October 1975): 4–6.<br />

Curry, Patrick. “Research on <strong>the</strong> Mars Effect.” Zetetic Scholar 9 (March 1982): 34–53.<br />

Forrest, Steven. “Exploring <strong>the</strong> Fear of Astrology Among <strong>the</strong> Educated.” Paper delivered at <strong>the</strong><br />

Cycles and Symbols conference, San Francisco, California, July 26–29, 1990.<br />

[628] THE ASTROLOGY BOOK

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!