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