“A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged; and the less it is understood, the more tenaciously it is held.”

George Cantor, German Mathematician

Over the past decade, there has been a huge development within the astrological community that has also been relatively silent and invisible. What I am referencing is the 2011 article by Robert Currey in the Correlation astrological journal. This article details the results of his review of the infamous astrological study (the “Carlson Test”) in Nature magazine initially published in 1985. For those who are not familiar, the Carlson Test was developed and run by then 19-year-old undergraduate, Shawn Carlson. It is widely popular with skeptics and viewed as the “gold standard” in debunking astrology.

Without belaboring the details, the test was basically a “matching” exercise where 28 astrologers were recruited to match natal charts to psychological profiles. (Spoiler alert: the reported statistical results were not very supportive of astrology.) Currey’s review is one of the most significant rebuttals performed in generations. It showed that the conclusions of the Carlson Test were incorrect because the test was not conducted appropriately. Additionally, when the test is reevaluated using correct statistical processes it also showed that the tested astrologers actually performed much better than chance.

If interested, please read Currey’s full 27-page article for all the details, but I will summarize some of the major findings (and criticisms) here:

• Carlson removed data and tests and imposed abnormally high levels of proof (i.e., P values much higher than standard). 
• For the results that were publicized, Carlson focused on data that presented astrology in a negative light while suppressing other factors that highlighted the opposite.
• Carlson misused the data in order to create sampling errors that also only presented the most negative results.
• Evidence obtained afterwards clearly show that Carlson was biased against astrology before conducting the test. 
• The subjects themselves could not identify their own psychological profiles, when provided. 

Again, when all the data is considered and included and according to standard statistical methodology, the results clearly showed that astrologers were able to correctly match at a rate higher than chance or random. In other words, Carlson “cooked the books” (or did not know what he was doing).

The problem is that the ripple effects of these “results” are everywhere. When anyone declares that astrology has been “debunked over and over again,” this is usually one of the major tests they are referencing. To finally have evidence that confirms the opposite is not just vindicating, it should be a tectonic shift. And yet…crickets. No one is aware of the results of this reevaluation and this includes many within the astrological community as well. The reason no one is paying attention is because the damage to astrology’s reputation has already been done. The judgment has been rendered. No one cares anymore.

So, how did this happen?

The CSICOP

In order to answer that question, we must first inquire as to how the Carlson Test came to be. I mean, it is a little strange that a 19-year-old would receive this degree of exposure unless they were connected. Carlson was. His professor was part of an organization called the Committee for Scientific Investigation Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). Yes, they seriously named themselves that. The CSICOP includes membership of many well-connected skeptics across the world. This included the then editor of Nature magazine. Basically, through Carlson’s relationship to his professor, his astrology test eventually received the attention of Nature’s editor as well as the support of the CSICOP’s founder, Paul Kurtz.

Kurtz formed the CSICOP on April 30, 1976 (untimed chart below) due to concerns with the increased interest in the paranormal, aliens, the occult, astrology, and psychic phenomena.[i] The chart provides much insight into the group’s goals, but also reveals some surprising characteristics as well.

The most immediate feature is the “double -debilitated” conjunction between Saturn and Mars (which was also out of bounds). The debilitation highlights the strong possibility that these two planetary archetypes will not manifest properly and instead behave in a manner that is touchy while also unemotional, defensive while also aggressive.

In order to better understand the motivations connected to Saturn and Mars we look to their dispositor, the Moon in Taurus. Normally, the Moon’s placement in this sign would be considered beneficial and a position of strength. The problem is that this Moon is close to the fixed star, Algol. Granted, we do not have a time for this chart, but it should be noted that the CSICOP’s formation occurred at an international symposium. If Kurtz’s speech to introduce the CSICOP occurred close to 1:00 pm, then the Moon would be within orb of conjunction with the fixed star.[ii] This is significant because Algol is one of the most insane stars. It often represents passion and emotion increased to levels that can make a person lose their head. With a potential Moon – Algol conjunction calling the shots for Saturn – Mars we get a better picture of how angry (Mars) these skeptics (Saturn) were/are.

This aggressiveness is echoed (or exacerbated) by the square aspect to the planetary bodies they disposit, Chiron and Venus (also debilitated in Aries). In Aries, this combination reflects a problem with aggressiveness and anger (Chiron), an attraction to it (Venus) along with a general disposition that is pretty unfriendly (Venus square Saturn).[iii] It also confirms that the organization was specifically formed to be aggressive and attack anything related to the categories initially referenced above.

In addition to the Moon, the Sun and Jupiter are also in the fixed earth sign of Taurus creating a very stubborn stellium of energy. If you have never tried convincing a Taurus Sun of anything (especially when it doesn’t agree), then you do not understand how unyielding this energy can be. This sign quality is not known for its open mindedness or flexibility. The combination of this stellium of energy strengthens the probability that this is a very challenging group to work with.

The focus of their core Taurean energy is aimed in one direction: Uranus. The opposition to Uranus (which is also further under review due to its retrograde status) shows that what this planet represents is a concern to them. This is significant because Uranus is the planet associated with the practice of astrology. So, despite all their claims that the CSICOP was created to stop the rise of pseudoscience (Neptune’s opposition to four different midpoints), its real enemy was astrology.

So, what did astrology or astrologers do to anger the CSICOP so bad?

The Mars Effect 

In the 1950’s, a French team of statisticians (Michel and Francoise Gauqueline) conducted one of the largest astrological studies in history. Using the birth data of thousands of individuals, they were able to show a statistically significant correlation between athletes and the position of Mars in the upper part of the chart. At the time, these results shocked the world because it provided credible evidence for the existence of astrological phenomena. 

It also triggered the scientific community into action because over the next couple decades the results of the Mars Effect were challenged and replicated multiple times by different entities, some of which were skeptic groups. The panic of these surprising findings eventually contributed in the development of the CSICOP[iv] to debunk those results. Instead, the CSICOP twisted/corrupted the data, making similar amateur mistakes that Carlson would make later in a desperate attempt to disprove astrological correlation.[v] The CSICOP’s unethical, unprofessional, and biased approach became so extreme that most of the educated professionals that were part of their team left and some eventually wrote exposes’ and “tell-all’s” of the group’s behavior.[vi]

It should be noted that part of the motivation for the CSICOP’s agenda was due to their relationship with their magazine, “The Skeptical Inquirer.” Since sales of this magazine funds their efforts it is obvious that the attack on astrology was strategic. Astrology was not as well known or understood to the general population (at least, at the time) so it was easy prey. To build their reputation and magazine, astrology was probably perceived as “low hanging fruit.” As a result, their aggressive stance was a desperate cash grab to enhance journal sales (Uranus’ opposition to the midpoint of the Sun and Venus).

Ultimately, the CSICOP acted like a bully (Saturn’s conjunction to the midpoint of Sun and Pluto) trying to beat up on an entity they thought would also make them some money. When the Mars Effect debacle blew up in their face (some of their early iterations also proved the Gauquelines’ initial results), they attacked astrology again, but this time through proxies like Carlson and the Nature magazine.[vii]

Ugly. 

“Organized Scientific Misconduct” (OSM)

The label above was also provided in Currey’s article and originated from other professionals when reviewing the faulty design of the statistical study the Nature magazine published. These experiences infer one crucial lesson: our partners do not work in good faith with us. Since there is now convincing evidence confirming this recurring trend, the astrological community needs to seriously question why it should ever consider working with the scientific community again (they shouldn’t). Because of OSMs (I want this acronym to become a thing), there is no reason to risk further damage to our community’s or astrology’s reputation. It is much wiser to practice caution and expand the knowledge base through other means.

Also, this damage to astrology’s reputation has not just been external. Internally, it has impacted the community as well. One of surprising side effects has been a reaction to “reform” various areas of astrology and the community in order to make it “appear” more agreeable to the rest of the world. I have lost count of how many times I have heard an astrologer complain, “If we could just get rid of all the fake astrologers then the rest of the world will take us seriously!”

Nonsense. We could create the most perfect, accurate form of astrology and it would make no difference because the other side has already decided that astrological manifestation/correlation does not exist and they will twist the data to satisfy that conclusion.[viii] That is why this strange form is self-loathing within the astrological community is basically just an inability to identify a root cause. And there is a reason for that as well. The long standing, protracted wars against what we study and practice has gaslit some of us into believing that somehow, we are the problem. But we aren’t. We never were. We have always been right. Astrology has been proven. It is real. It does exist.

They are the problem. 

Pride

Astrology has experienced a renaissance over the past 150 years. The degree of exploration, innovation and application that has occurred within this body of knowledge has been nothing short of miraculous. In the future, this time frame will be celebrated and appropriately commemorated as the era when astrology was reborn.

This may be hard to see, but that is only because we are still living it. The weight and stress of our current existence includes a massive transition of ages, but also a transition away from the belief that the deterministic paradigm of Newtonian mechanics governs 100% of all phenomena. And this epic change in perspective has not fully set in yet because many people are not aware of the revolution that things like quantum physics and fractals have introduced to our understanding of reality. This confusion has made it easy for charlatans like the CSICOP to manipulate the narrative and portray astrology (and astrologers) as silly.

But despite this stress, we should be vigilant against allowing it to compel pervasive negative perspectives against our own community. We should take pride in our intellectual heritage of belonging to a highly intelligent group of free thinkers who have the strength and vision to withstand constant persecution and marginalization without buckling. Curry’s reevaluation of the Carlson Test is a milestone because it counters the last major attack on astrology, and in the process, vindicates this ancient truth. It behooves us to take stock of this moment as well as the lessons learned. Most importantly, to know that we were always right.

---

[i] While Kurtz may have been dismayed by the amount belief in the paranormal, a little bit of astrology would have provided the necessary insight. This zeitgeist had a strong correlation with the mutual reception and square aspect between Neptune in Sagittarius and Jupiter in Pisces that was in the sky at that point in time.

[ii] I would welcome the CSICOP to confirm the actual time of Kurtz’s speech in order to confirm the possible conjunction with Algol along with the house placements in the rest of the chart.

[iii] In other words, this group is a bunch of assholes.

[iv] Kurtz’s statements within the Objections to Astrology manifesto made him an adequate candidate to create the CSICOP. Objections to Astrology was published one year prior to the formation of the group.

[v] For more details on the conflict surrounding the retesting of the Mars Effect, please see the great discussion on the full history in Episode #173 of the Astrology Podcast: Michel and Francoise Gauquelin and the Mars Effect

[vi] Astronomer, Dennis Rawlings expose’ of the CSICOP’s unprofessional behavior can be read in the following link: sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins

[vii] If the CSICOP’s aims were truly and purely intellectual, then it is only logical that their focus would have been on the unscientifically supported religious beliefs that form the basis of public policy and legislation and strip others of their rights.

[viii] For anyone interested in exploring the challenge of trying to “prove” astrology through traditional scientific methods, I would recommend reading “The Moment of Astrology” by Geoffrey Cornelius.