Test no 2 by Carlson (1985)
Test No 2 – astrologers selecting the corresponding CPI profile
Each
participating astrologer was given a pre-agreed number of natal charts (usually
4) together with 3 CPI profiles related to each natal chart. The astrologers attempted to select the right
CPI profile out of the three provided for each natal chart.
According to
the laws of chance, each astrologer had a 33% probability of selecting the
right CPI profile. It was agreed that if
the astrologers selected the right chart at least 50% of the time, the data
would be considered to support the validity of astrology.
The selection was correct in only 34.4% of cases. Therefore, also the performance of the
astrologers was not better than chance.
Do the results of Test no 2 prove that astrology is FALSE?
The results of Test no 2 are not in favor of
astrology, but …
This study was
performed 35 years ago. Today I do not
think that any astrologer would accept to participate in an investigation where
birth times are provided with a broad approximation that could have a major
impact on results (15 minutes). For
research purposes the birth time should be corrected by means of the rectification
technique with an approximation of no more than one minute by a separate
astrologer.
The CPI
profile may have been an inappropriate choice.
The factors that prevented the subjects from identifying their own
profile may have also prevented the astrologers from selecting the right
profile. Moreover, the CPI profile does
not include key data that might have enabled the astrologers to achieve correct
matches, such as important life events (marriage, etc).
According to me, the results
are therefore to be considered inconclusive.