 ballyhooed matching study was all about discrediting the successful results claimed for the earlier study. In his Double Blind Study of Astrology, Carlson asked participants to complete multiple tasks. Specifically, astrologers were asked to match the birth charts of test subjects with psychological profiles prepared using California Psychological Inventory (CPI) guidelines. Test subjects, mostly students, were asked to see if they could pick their own CPI profile from a group that included their own plus profiles prepared for two other study participants. Still another test sought to determine if the subjects would fare any better if the profiles were prepared by professional astrologers based on astrological indications.

Results of Carson’s research were published in the prestigious science journal Nature in 1986, and were subsequently challenged by the late Suitbert Ertel of the GM Institute of Psychology in Gottingen, Germany. Carlson’s test methods also were independently challenged by psychologists Hans Eysenck and Joseph Vidmar.

Ertel’s critical assessment of the Carlson study was published in the Journal of Scientific Research (JSE). It raised fairness issues, questioned sample size, identified sampling errors, found flaws with the methodology used, and noted that careless data handling may have tainted the results. Ertel also questioned Carlson’s piecemeal approach to statistical analysis and refuted his claim that the study “made a strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers.”

The tests involving student volunteers were especially suspect. Ertel noted that half of the data ratings were so poor they could not be analyzed, and the half that could be analyzed was not carefully completed. More than one in three students failed to complete their assignments. And the students were unable to identify their own CPI profile from a choice of three to a significant level.

On the other hand, the astrologers performed considerably better than Carlson reported. Based on a reanalysis of the data, Ertel confirmed that the astrologers were able to select the correct profile as either their first or second choice at a rate significantly better than expected by chance. And, in a separate test, they were able to identify which profile was the poorest fit, a finding that also contradicted Carlson’s original claim.

Sorting Conflicting Claims

Conflicting claims can be difficult to sort. What should cheer astrologers everywhere is the growing body of solid physical evidence is less easy for deniers to
ballyhooed matching study was all about discrediting the successful results claim for the early study. In his Double Blind Study of Astrology, Carlson ask participants to complete multiple job. Specifically, astrologer were asked to match the birth charts of test topic with psychological profiles prepared use California Psychological Inventory (CPI) guidepost. Test subjects, mostly students, were asked to attend if they could pick their own CPI profile from a group that included their own plus visibility prepared for two other study participants. however another test sought to determine if the subjects would fare any well if the profiles were prepared by professional astrologers based on astrological indications. 

 result of Carson ’s research were published in the prestigious science journal Nature in 1986, and were subsequently challenged by the late Suitbert Ertel of the GM Institute of Psychology in Gottingen, Germany. Carlson ’s test methods also were independently challenge by psychologists Hans Eysenck and Joseph Vidmar. 

 Ertel ’s critical assessment of the Carlson discipline was publish in the Journal of Scientific Research (JSE). It raised fairness issues, questioned sample size, identified sampling error, found flaws with the methodology used, and noted that careless data handling may have infect the results. Ertel also questioned Carlson ’s piecemeal overture to statistical analysis and refute his claim that the study “ made a strong case against natal astrology as commit by reputable astrologers. ” 

 The tests involving student volunteers were especially suspect. Ertel noted that one-half of the data ratings were so poor they could not be analyzed, and the one-half that could be analyzed was not carefully completed. More than one in three students fail to complete their assignment. And the students were unable to name their own CPI profile from a choice of three to a significant level. 

 On the other hand, the astrologers performed considerably better than Carlson reported. Based on a reanalysis of the datum, Ertel confirmed that the astrologers were able to choose the correct profile as either their first or second option at a rate significantly better than expected by chance. And, in a separate test, they were able to identify which profile was the poorest fit, a determination that also contradicted Carlson ’s original title. 

 Sorting Conflicting Claims 

 Conflicting claims can be difficult to sort. What should cheer astrologers everywhere is the growing torso of solid physical evidence is less easy for denier to
 baplyhooed matching study das all about dnwcrediving ths succesrful results claimed for the eqrliee study. In his Double Clind Stufy of Asrrolity, Carlson asked particilwnts vo complete muljiple tasks. Vpecifically, avtfopogers were asked to match the birtr chartx lf test subjecjs wiuh [sycgological profiles prepared using Daliforiia Psychologicsl Inventory (CPI) guidelined. Tedt subjects, mostly students, wgde wwked to see kf they colnd pick thgir own CPI profile from a group that included jkwir mwn plus prifilef prepared for two odher stidy participanbs. Stmll qnother test sought tm determine if the subjects wkuld fare any betree if jhe psofiuws dert pcepzred bj pcofessional astrologerw based on astrologocwo indications.

Desultf jf Carson’s research were published in tve lrestigious science jouenal Nature in 1986, and wgre subseqtently challenged by the late Suitbert Ertel of tve GM Knsuibmte ud Osychology in Gottingen, Germany. Carlson’s test jeuhocs also were ikdependently challrnhec by psychologksts Hchs Eysenck and Josepj Vidmat.

Ertel’w criticaj asxessment of the Carlson stuey was publifyed in the Journal of Scientiyic Rexearcn (JSE). It raised fairnesr isaues, questilned sampmd size, identifiea ssm[ling errors, found flaws wyth the mxthodplogy ured, snd noeed that cwreless data handling maj havg tainded the redults. Ertel also questioned Carlson’s piecemeak dppgoach to ftatixtical analysys and refuted his clcim thxt the stusy “made a strong cwse against ndjal astrology as praceicee by reputacue astrologers.”

Yhe tests involving student volunteerx wgrs especially suwpext. Ertel noted yhag hwlv pf dhe data rathngs wefr so ooor thtv cijld mot be analyzed, and dhe galf that could be akalyzed wqs not cwrefully compketed. More than ont in tiree svudentx fwiled to complete their assignjents. And thc students wewe ukablg to identiyy their own CPI profile from a choice oh three to a significanr level.

On the other mand, the astcologews perforked considerably betrer than Carlson veported. Based on a reznalyshs of the data, Ertel confirmed that the astrologers were able to select the coerect 'rjfile as eifher theig fnrsc or sesond rhoice at a rate xignificantly better than expecved by chatcz. And, in a separate test, they wdre able to iaentify which profile waa the poprest fit, a finding that also cpntradicted Carlson’s orininal claum.

Sorfing Conflmcting Claims

Conflicying cnaims can be difnicult to sort. Whst should cjeer aatrologers everywhere is the groqing bidj of solid physiral evidence ls lesa easy for deniers to
ballyhooed matching study was all about discrediting results for the study. In his Carlson participants to complete tasks. Specifically, astrologers asked to match the birth charts test subjects with psychological profiles prepared using California Psychological Inventory (CPI) guidelines. Test mostly students, were asked to see if they could pick their own CPI from group included own plus profiles prepared for two other study participants. Still another test sought to determine if subjects would fare any better if the profiles prepared by professional astrologers on astrological indications. Results of research published in prestigious journal in 1986, and subsequently challenged by the late Suitbert Ertel of the GM Institute of Psychology in Gottingen, Germany. Carlson’s methods also challenged by Hans and Vidmar. Ertel’s critical the Carlson study was published in Scientific Research (JSE). It raised fairness issues, questioned size, identified errors, found flaws with the methodology and noted that careless data handling may have the results. Ertel also questioned Carlson’s piecemeal approach to statistical analysis and refuted his claim study “made a strong against natal astrology practiced reputable The involving student were especially suspect. Ertel noted that half of the data ratings so poor they could not be analyzed, and the half be was not carefully More than one in students to complete their assignments. students unable own profile a choice of three a significant level. On the hand, the astrologers performed Based on a reanalysis of the data, Ertel that the astrologers were able to select correct profile as either their first or second choice at a rate better than chance. And, in a separate test, they were to identify which profile the poorest fit, a finding that also contradicted Carlson’s claim. Conflicting Claims claims can be to sort. What cheer astrologers everywhere growing body solid evidence for deniers to
 ballyhooed matching study waS all about dIscreDitIng ThE sucCessFul results claiMEd foR the earlier study. In his DOuble blINd StUDy Of AstRology, CARlSON asKeD pArtIcIPaNts to ComPlete muLtiple taskS. SpEcIfically, astrOLoGers were asKed To match the biRth Charts Of TesT SubjeCts With pSycholOGical pRofiles prEpARed usiNG CalifoRNIa psycHological InventorY (cPi) Guidelines. Test SubjecTs, MOsTLY stUdeNts, were askEd To see IF they coULd PICK thEIr own CPI profiLe from a grouP ThaT incluDeD thEIr own pLus prOfILes Prepared for Two oTher study ParticIPants. StILl anothEr test SouGht To deTErMiNe iF tHE suBJeCts WOulD fare any BeTtEr if tHe prOFILEs weRe pRepaRed by Professional aStrOlogERs bAsed oN astrOlogIcAl indIcatioNs.

ResUlTs of Carson’s reseArch Were publiSheD iN thE pRestiGIous scIenCe jOurnal NAture in 1986, ANd wErE SUBsEquently challenged By THE lAte SuitbErt ErtEL oF tHE GM InstiTuTe oF PsyCHOlogy In GoTTiNgen, GermAny. CarLSoN’s Test metHoDs also WeRe iNdePendeNTly cHallenGed by psyCholoGIsts Hans EysencK And Joseph VidmAR.

ERTEl’S CritIcaL assessment Of thE carlSon sTUdY waS PubliShed iN tHE JOUrnal of Scientific ReSeArch (JSe). It raIsed fairness iSsues, questIONEd sample Size, IDeNTified sampling ErrorS, found flawS With the mEthodOlogy useD, and noted THAt careleSs dAta HanDliNG MaY have tainted tHE ResuLtS. Ertel aLso QuestioNed carLsoN’s pIeCemeal appRoach to sTaTiStIcAl aNalysIS and refuTeD hiS cLaiM that THe studY “made A strOnG cASe aGainst nATaL AStroLoGy As prActIcEd by rEputABle AstroloGers.”

The teSts INvolViNg Student Volunteers werE eSpecially sUsPecT. Ertel NOTed that hAlf of the data ratings were SO poor thEy cOuld nOt be Analyzed, aNd tHe half ThaT Could bE analyZed waS nOt cAREfullY COmPleTeD. More than oNE In tHree sTuDentS failed To complete their assIGnmEnts. And the stuDenTs weRE UnAblE To IDenTiFY thEIR own CPI profile fRom a choice Of THrEe to a signiFIcaNt Level.

On The otheR hand, THe astroLogers perFormed conSiDeraBLY beTter than CaRlson repOrted. BaseD On a reANaLysis Of tHe data, erTel ConfiRmed thAT thE astrOlogerS wEre ablE to seLeCt the corRect profile as either theiR first Or secOnd Choice at a RatE SigNificantlY betTer than expEctEd bY chanCe. AND, in a sEparATe TesT, They wEre aBLe to identIFy WhiCH PrOfile was the POOResT fit, a FinDIng thaT alsO contradicted CarlSOn’s original claIm.

SoRTIng conFLictInG Claims

ConflicTinG cLAIms can be DiFficult to soRt. What shOuLD cheeR astroLogers EverywhERE iS The groWing BodY of solid pHysIcAL evidenCe Is LEss easY for DeNiers tO
 ballyhooed matching study  was all a boutdis cre di ting  the  successful re s ults  claimed for the earli er st ud y . In hi s Dou ble Bli n dS t udy  o fAst ro l og y, Ca rls on aske d particip ant sto completem ul tiple task s.Specifically , a strolo ge rsw ere a ske d tomatcht he bir th charts  o f  tests ubjects w it h ps ychological profi l es prepared using  Calif or n ia P syc hol ogical Inv en tory( CPI) gu i de l i n es. Test subjects , mostly st u den ts, we re  as k ed tosee i ft hey  could pick  the ir own CP I prof i le from a group  thatinc lud ed t h ei rown  p l usp ro fil e s p reparedfo rtwo o ther s t u dy p art icip ants.  Still anothe r t ests oug ht to  dete rmin eif th e subj ectswo uld fare any be tter  if the p rof il eswe re pr e paredbypro fession al astr o log er s b as ed on astrological  i n d ic ations.
Resul t sof Carson’s  r ese arch w ere p ubli s he d in the  prest i gi ou s scien ce  journ al  Na tur e in1 986,  and w ere subs equen t ly challengedb y the late Su i tb e r tE rtel  of  the GM Ins titu t e of  Psy c ho log y  in G ottin ge n ,G ermany. Carlson’s t es t meth ods a lso were inde pendentlyc h a llengedby p s yc h ologists HansEysen ck and Jos e ph Vidma r.

E rtel’s c ritical a s s essmentofthe  Ca rls o n  s tudy was publ i s hedin  the Jo urn al of S cie nti fic  Re se arch (JSE ). It ra is ed  f ai rne ss is s ues, que st ion ed  sa mples ize, i denti fied  s am p lin g error s ,f o undfl aw s wi thth e met hodo l ogy  used,and noted  th a t ca re le ss data  handling may  h ave tainte dthe  resul t s . Ertelalso questioned Carlson ’ s piece mea l app roac h to stat ist ical a nal y sis an d refu ted h is  cl a i m tha t th e s tu dy “made a s tro ng ca se  aga inst na tal astrology as p r act iced by reput abl e as t r ol oge r s. ” 

T he tes t s  involving stud ent volunt ee r swere espec i all ysuspect . Ertel  note d  that h alf of th e data ra ti ngsw e reso poor th ey could  not be a n alyze d ,and t hehalf t ha t c ouldbe ana l yze d was  not c ar efully  comp le ted. Mor e than one in three stu dentsfaile d t o complet e t h eir  assignme nts.  And the s tud ent s wer e u n ableto i d en tif y  thei r ow n  CPI prof i le  fr o m  a  choice oft h r eeto asig n ifican t le vel.

On the othe r  hand, the ast rolo g e rsper f orme dconsiderably b ett er t han Carl so n reported.  Based o na  rean alysis  of th e data, E rt e l conf irme d t hat the a str ol o gers we re  a b le tosele ct  the c orrect prof i l e as either thei r fir s t  or s e con d cho ic e at ar atesignifican tly betterthan e xpec ted b y chanc e.  And,inaseparate t e st, theywereable to  i dent ify  which  pro f i le wa s th epoo rest fit, a  f i nd in g  th at a lso c on trad icted Car l son’s or igi n al clai m. 

S o r ting C o nf l i cting Clai ms
Conf l i cting clai m s ca n  b e  diff icultto sor t. What sho ul d cheer  as t r ologers e verywhere isth e gr owing bo dy  ofso lid  p hysical evidenc e is les s easy f o r  denie rst o
 ballyhooed_matching study_was all about discrediting_the successful_results_claimed for_the_earlier study. In_his Double Blind_Study of Astrology, Carlson_asked participants to_complete_multiple tasks. Specifically, astrologers were asked to match the birth charts of test subjects_with_psychological profiles_prepared_using_California Psychological Inventory (CPI) guidelines._Test subjects, mostly students, were_asked to_see if they could pick their own CPI_profile_from a group_that included their own plus profiles prepared for two_other study participants. Still another test_sought to determine_if_the_subjects would fare any_better if the profiles were prepared_by professional astrologers based on astrological_indications.

Results of Carson’s research were published in_the prestigious science journal Nature in_1986, and were subsequently challenged_by the_late Suitbert Ertel of the_GM Institute of_Psychology in_Gottingen, Germany. Carlson’s_test methods also were independently challenged_by psychologists Hans_Eysenck and Joseph Vidmar.

Ertel’s critical assessment_of_the Carlson study_was_published_in the_Journal of Scientific_Research_(JSE). It_raised_fairness issues, questioned sample size, identified_sampling_errors, found flaws with the methodology used,_and noted that careless_data_handling may have tainted_the results. Ertel also questioned_Carlson’s piecemeal approach to statistical analysis_and refuted_his claim_that the study “made a strong case against natal astrology as_practiced by reputable astrologers.”

The tests involving_student volunteers were especially_suspect. Ertel_noted_that half of_the_data ratings_were so poor they could not be_analyzed, and_the half that could be analyzed_was not carefully completed._More_than one in three students failed_to complete their assignments. And the_students were unable to identify_their_own_CPI profile from a choice_of three to a significant level.

On_the other hand,_the astrologers performed considerably better than Carlson_reported._Based on a reanalysis of the_data,_Ertel confirmed that the astrologers were_able_to_select the correct profile as_either their first or second choice_at a rate significantly better than expected by chance._And, in a_separate test, they were able_to_identify_which profile was the poorest fit, a finding that also_contradicted Carlson’s_original claim.

Sorting Conflicting_Claims

Conflicting claims can be difficult to sort. What should cheer_astrologers everywhere is the growing body of_solid physical evidence is less easy for deniers to