Sceptics rehash old research to spin a bored press.

• Who are the so-called boffins? Geoffrey Dean and sceptical psychologist Ivan Kelly. In the 70s Dean [from Perth, Australia] published a scientific astrology book 'Recent Advances in Natal Astrology' that included his own research validating the technique of unaspected planets. The content was too dry to sell and it was soon remaindered. From this experience he discovered that most scientific journals will not publish any research that validates or even favours astrology on principle. From that point onward, Dean has sought fame, money and respectability among the sceptical community.
• Media Spin to get the cash in. Let's face it, Dean is using the press to hype his research as much as they are using him to fill their bare August column space. For a fee of £15.87 plus VAT, you can download his research, but believe me you are wasting your time.
• Using an old hat for sleight of hand.The so-called 'new' research is actually a rehash of work done 18 years ago. Dean used a government study manipulating results from questionnaires until he got the results he wanted. Naturally, he doesn't publish his methods of selecting and comparing data.
• What a difference 3 days make! Some reports have claimed that Dean's data is based on time twins born 4.8 minutes apart. In fact, the subjects were born within a 3 day period in March 1958. As every astrologer knows a charts change a great deal within one day (with every different possibility of rising sign) and considerably more so within 3 days! For example, there has to be at least two different Moon signs.
• Self-fulfilling Personality Tests. So much of the 'evidence' is based personality tests filled in by the subject. If you have ever completed one, you will know that you can be who you want to be even with double checks for lies. Everyone ticks honesty, modesty, sincerity. And of all signs, young Pisceans [aged 11, 16 & 23] are perhaps the least likely group to have a definite idea of who they are! Given a choice of a self-fulfilling personality test or a horoscope for useful information, astrology provides the purest data. I am not saying that personality tests are invalid but this research does call their objectivity into question.
• Selecting data to fit results. It is interesting that the data was compared in pairs rather than in a general way. Tests like the number of musicians, doctors, within the group that one might expect are mysteriously excluded from the research.
• Where are 700 astrologers? I am founder and still involved in the busiest astrology shop in the world, I go to conferences throughout the world, I am part of international astrology networks and I have never heard of anyone getting involved in any of these tests. I don't believe there are 700 professional western astrologers.
• Who says astrologers are psychic? Dean has refined the art of misunderstanding what astrologers do or profess to do. Then he attempts to disprove what we don't do! One example is his report attempts to disprove that astrologers are psychic. Hey! - I haven't spent years studying astrology in London and the USA, using complex planetary tables, writing software and text to let my mind free float and hey presto - I have the lottery numbers. I don't mean to belittle psychic powers, but even people with very little knowledge of the subject know that astrologers don't claim to be psychic. A psychic can be an astrologer, just like a golf player can be a doctor but not all doctors are golf-players. Is Dean simple, unwittingly prejudiced or plain dishonest in order to attract attention and readers of his hopelessly flawed research?