Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!aecom!werner
From: werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Re: Biorhythms / Astrology / Random Chance
Message-ID: <2484@aecom.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-May-86 22:44:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: aecom.2484
Posted: Fri May  9 22:44:29 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 01:12:24 EDT
References: <935@cylixd.UUCP> <719@bentley.UUCP> <415@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Lines: 28

>      Don't knock astrology quite so hard please.  Have you ever had your
> chart drawn up by a competent astrologer?  I got fed up with the flaming
> on both sides of the astrology issue  and looked up how  to  draw up the
> chart and  drew  up  my own and found a book of interpretations.  Then I
> read not only the sections indicated  by  my chart  but  some others  as
> well.  And now I am convinced.  There is something to it.


	I know of a study done where 12 people each had their horoscope
done by 3 separate professional astrologers.  This was then combined with
a 4th horoscope compiled by randomly selected sentences from a newspaper
horoscope column (all 12 signs over the course of 10 days).
	Not only did the three professional individual horoscopes not
resemble each other any more than the resembled the random sentences
(as done by keyword statistical analysis), but 9 of the 12 subjects, when
asked which horoscope best fit their personality and life, picked the
random sentences.
	I beleive that this study seriously casts doubt on the believability
of astrology.

	It is fun, though, to read the columns, especially on the rare
day where it actually coincides with my life ...
-- 

				Craig Werner
				!philabs!aecom!werner
              (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
    "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."