Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Re: Biorhythms / Astrology / Random Chance
Message-ID: <906@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 15-May-86 20:43:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.906
Posted: Thu May 15 20:43:22 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 16:36:45 EDT
References: <935@cylixd.UUCP> <719@bentley.UUCP> <415@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <2484@aecom.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 15

In article <2484@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes:
>	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.

Assuming that proper experimental techniques were used,
it lends some credibility to the hypothesis "professional
individual horoscopes are less satisying than averaged
general newspaper horoscopes".

A sample of 12 individuals is too few for this experiment.