What else?


I have included all the important scientific evidence that I am aware of, but I suspect that there is more out there.

All readers are invited to contribute.  Please point out any important evidence for or against astrology that you are aware of and is not on the website.  By "important evidence" I mean a study with the basic features required to provide reliable findings: 

-  a sufficiently large sample size i.e. number of participants (statisticians can set the number required, based on the extent of the expected effect and the variability of the data)

-  a reference (control), such as the psychologist in the astrologer performance test described on this website, the comparison between true and fictitious zodiac signs in The Astrology File and the comparison between famous and undistinguished sportsmen in the research by Gauquelin.   

I also welcome:

- comments on evidence that is already there (are there any missing arguments that support or detract from the validity of the studies?) and

-  information on theories on how astrology might work.

If you are aware of important evidence, please contact me.  I shall be pleased to discuss its scientific relevance and what should be added to this website.   It is understood that the author of any contribution that is published will be duly acknowledged.