LETTERS Starmongery
Sir: Petronella Wyatt is perfectly right in drawing attention to the lack of any positive evidence for astrological phenomena, and to deprecate the profusion of media exposi- tions of astrology's alleged predictions ('Signs of the times', 6 March). She goes wrong, however, in underestimating the sci- entific value of the late Michel Gauquelin and his discoveries, which go well beyond the 'Mars Effect'. He not only discovered that prominent athletes tend to be born when Mars is just over the horizon, or just past its highest point, at the moment of their birth, but he found similar effects for actors and Jupiter, Saturn and scientists, etc. It is notable that the Mars Effect has been replicated many times, even by Gauquelin's worst critics, and that there can now be very little doubt about its exis- tence. It is true that there is no 'satisfactory explanation' for his findings, but then there is no agreed theory about gravitation either — we still have a choice between Einstein's theory in terms of relativity, and quantum mechanic theory in terms of gravitons. This does not prevent scientists from using the concept!
I am puzzled when Petronella Wyatt says that Gauquelin does not give a satisfactory explanation 'least of all for identical fore- casts for one-12th of mankind based on planetary movement'. Gauquelin's argu- ments apply exclusively to the most promi- nent sportsmen, scientists, actors, etc.; it has been found in all the studies carried out by him and his critics that the Mars Effect is greatest in the most prominent, declining among the less prominent and then vanish- ing among the least prominent. There is nothing in his work to deal with 'one-12th of mankind'!
Hi. Eysenck
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5
Previous page
