By Janice Barsky (written June 25, 2001)
Although many astrologers would define astrology as a science, most of today’s mainstream scientists would disagree. Today’s scientific community demands empirical evidence in order to regard something as a proven and established fact. Yet even when statistical and other proof is provided, modern scientists and academicians continue to exclude serious discussions of astrology from their journals and classrooms. The primary reason there has been no marriage between science and astrology is simply that astrology does not fit within the existing paradigm (or shared belief system) of modern science. Some astrologers and researchers have challenged this paradigm, and through their untiring efforts several have left a lasting impression on both astrology and science. One such man, Michel Gauquelin, was a major change agent in the current paradigm shift taking place in the scientific community with regard to astrology.
Scratching for a “Golden Nugget”
Michel Gauquelin was born in Paris on November 13, 1928, at 10:15 p.m. Although no one else in his family was interested in astrology, his curiosity about the subject emerged very early in life. By the age of seven he knew all of the dates for the astrological signs; at age 10 he asked his father to teach him how to calculate the ascendant for birth charts. At age 15, he began skipping school to visit the astrology bookstore, where he read over 100 books by the age of 17. As he learned astrology, he interpreted his schoolmates’ charts, and they nicknamed him Nostradamus.
Although Gauquelin by now felt he had “absorbed all the mysteries of the horoscope,” he finally asked himself, “Is all of this true?” He ultimately discovered skepticism,
[N]ot only in others, but also deep within myself. I could quote Descartes’ first principle: Never accept anything as true unless I clearly and obviously know it to be true. … I had at the very most a feeling that perhaps the astrological tree was concealing a forest of emptiness. Assurances from the astrologers I met were unrelated to the complex nature of the problem. It is true that for them there was no problem, and I found it increasingly difficult to tolerate their palaver. Was their proof only in their imaginations?
In an effort to verify what was true and false about astrology, Gauquelin began gathering birth data.(1)
During his school years, Gauquelin had studied the work of the German astronomer Johannes Kepler (born 1571), who was also an astrologer. He was struck by Kepler’s belief that it was possible to create a true astrology which would be an exact empirical science.(2) In many of his books Gauquelin quotes Kepler:
No man should hold it to be incredible that out of the astrologers’ foolishness and blasphemies some useful and sacred knowledge may come, … that in the evil-smelling dung a busy hen may find a decent corn, nay, a pearl or a golden nugget if she but searches and scratches long enough.(3)
At about age 20, Gauquelin began scratching. Realizing he needed to understand how to do statistical research, he enrolled at the Sorbonne.(4) He believed there were two things standing in the way of establishing astrology as a science: there had been insufficient experiments conducted with large samples to test astrological laws; and there had not yet been established a truly scientific method that could be applied to astrology. He decided to do his best to fill this void.(5) Gauquelin began collecting dates and places of birth for famous people, and he decided to look for correlations with traditional astrological principles in three main areas: occupations, heredity and personality traits.
At first he only used charts for which he had no birth times, but he failed to find any correlations:
I had already set up some real statistics about the thousands of cases without an hour of birth, in an attempt to verify some of the rules of traditional astrology, including the influence of the signs of the zodiac or particular planetary aspects. The results were less than encouraging and I should, in all logic, have abandoned the whole enterprise then. But I decided to continue and to concentrate on increasing my collection of famous figures with their hours of birth.
Gauquelin’s breakthrough came when a friend gave him a directory listing the dates and places of birth of every French doctor who had been elected to the Academie de Medecine from 1820 to 1939. He wrote away for the time of birth on each of them. By the end of 1951 he had collected information for 576 French doctors and scientists, and he began his research into correlations between planetary positions and occupations.(6)
When Gauquelin plotted the location of the planets Saturn and Mars in the charts of these doctors and scientists, he found that they appeared more often in certain key sectors of their charts. Saturn and Mars were most often located in the rising (twelfth house) or culminating (ninth house) in the birth charts. When Gauquelin assembled a sample group of charts, however, Saturn and Mars were randomly distributed around the wheel, as would be expected under the laws of chance. In disbelief, he collected another group of 508 eminent doctors and repeated the experiment. Again, Saturn and Mars fell most often in the same “Gauquelin sectors” of the charts. Statistically, the results were highly significant, and they could not be ignored:
This happened in 1950; I was twenty at the time, an age when youthful enthusiasm forbids an admission that anything is impossible. Perhaps, I thought, I have put my finger on a new scientific fact. Why should unprecedented prospects not be born from the ashes of astrology, but this time according to the procedures of contemporary science?
Would I have agreed to embark on this dangerous road if I had been less young? I hardly imagined how long and how far from the beaten track this journey would be, for as the investigations increased the results became even more surprising.(7)
After examining charts of 3,647 famous doctors and scientists, he found that 724 were born after the rise or culmination of Mars (probability of chance being 1 in 500,000); 704 were born with Saturn in the Gauquelin sectors (probability of chance being 1 in 300,000). Subsequent research by Gauquelin showed that, in the case of actors or writers, Jupiter appeared more frequently in these sectors (and Saturn seemed to avoid them). In the case of champion athletes, Mars was most commonly found in the Gauquelin sectors. The Mars Effect was the strongest of all (with a probability of chance of 1 in 5,000,000), and the one most often attacked by critics.(8) Although his results were very promising, Gauquelin remained skeptical and continued to question his own work:
I scratched for a long time and eventually I found the gold nugget. At least I believed I had. But at the same time, I was very much aware how unlikely it was that this was true. Could my pearl be an artificial one, a slip of my thoughts, or a mirage conjured up by my subconscious? I was alone with my problem.
But fate was watching over me. On the university benches I met Francoise, my future wife. She was my first listener, my first reader and above all, my first critic. She advised me to write a book setting forth all the labor I had performed in secret. It was to be the ‘antiastrological’ summary of my statistics and the nugget of gold. ‘And so,’ she said, ‘people will read you and criticize you. Then you will know if you have truly found something and if it is worth the trouble of continuing.’(9)
In 1955 Gauquelin published his research results in France in his first book, L’Influence des Astres, Etude Critique et Experimentale (or The Influence of the Stars: A Critical and Experimental Study). In response to suggestions by others who examined his work that he repeat it using birth data from other countries, the Gauquelins began gathering such data in 1956:
From year to year it became clearer that this was no mere freak of chance; in every country investigated, the same results appeared. Although they were separated by frontiers and different customs and languages, the newborn who were later to follow a given profession chose to come into the world under the same planet, whether they were French, Italians or Germans. Absurd though it seemed, a closer and closer correlation was revealed between the time when certain great men were born and their professional careers. Doctors were not the only example, and Mars and Saturn were not the only planets to follow this rule. Jupiter and the moon appeared to have an equally large importance for other professions. But the most significant results regularly appeared for each planet just after its rise and its zenith.(10)
Gauquelin had found significant correlations between astrology and his first area of research: occupations.
Like Father, Like Son
Encouraged by these results, Gauquelin began to look for evidence of correlations in the area of heredity. In an effort to test the traditional astrological law that there are more planetary similarities between parents and children than among persons with no blood relationship, he gathered birth data for parents and children. Gauquelin examined this theory from 1959 to 1964, using about 25,000 birth charts. He searched for hereditary correlations in the positions of the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. To his surprise, he discovered that when a parent has one of these planets (for example, Jupiter) in a key sector, their child is much more likely to have that same planet in a key sector. He further discovered that if both parents had Jupiter in key sectors, their child was twice as likely to have Jupiter in these sectors:
Nothing could be more shocking to a geneticist than this cosmic interference in hereditary matters. Yet the planetary effect is in perfect harmony with the classical laws of genetics. One of these laws states: ‘If both parents of a child have the same hereditary factor, the chances of the child’s inheriting it are doubled.’ This is also true in cosmic genetics.(11)
Gauquelin published his results in 1966 in his book, L’Heredite Planetaire, which was published in America in 1988 under the title, Planetary Heredity. In 1977 he did a second investigation using 30,000 birth dates of parents and children. Again, the results indicated that:
Children have a tendency to be born when a planet has just risen or culminated, if that same planet was in the same regions of the sky at the birth of their parents. … the probability that chance should have produced so many planetary similarities from one generation to the next falls to less than a million to one.(12)
After making 6,691 birth comparisons, he also concluded that: “Planetary similarities at the horizon and meridian are more frequent between siblings than between unrelated children.”(13)
Gauquelin believed that the child’s heredity played a major role in his findings, and he proposed what he referred to as the “midwife planet” theory:
Thus the newborn’s heredity, rather than a sudden action emanating from the planets, might account for our findings. Perhaps, at the time of birth, each child manifests an inherited sensitivity to planetary clocks. … This would mean that the birth of a child when Mars appears over the horizon is not mere chance. The birth occurs at that moment rather than another because his organism is ready to react to the perturbations caused by this particular planet at its passage over the horizon. … The following hypothesis can be proposed: The child inherits from his parents a tendency to be born when Mars rises, in the same way he inherits the color of his hair.(14)
While doing his research on heredity, Gauquelin stressed the importance of using charts with natural birth times. He found that planetary correlations between parents and children disappeared when the child’s birth was induced or they were taken by Caesarian-section.(15) He explained that rupturing the membrane, as well as the use of drugs and even forceps can alter the birth time sufficiently enough for the hereditary correlations to be reduced or disappear altogether.(16) Gauquelin only used charts dated before 1945 in his research, and he recommended that “Any experiments on planetary heredity that use births from 1950 onward should include a careful analysis of each case in order to exclude non-spontaneous births. This is an absolute necessity for anyone who aims to replicate the results presented in this book.”(17)
In several of his books Gauquelin refers to research which shows that the fetus secretes a hormone that begins the process of labor, and how “through the intervention of the placental progesterone, the fetus maintains a control over the delivery process which can be retarded at any given moment.” Gauquelin emphasized the importance of allowing the child to choose their own birth time, pointing out that 2,500 years ago Hippocrates declared: “When the time comes, the baby stirs and breaks the membranes containing it and emerges from its mother’s abdomen.”(18) He expressed concern that more and more births are being scheduled for the convenience of the doctor and the hospital rather than allowing the child’s cosmic clock to govern the birth process:
In a sense, the child is able to choose the time at which he will be born. But is the fetus really free? There are some mysterious influences affecting it. Is it possible that throughout the entire labor procedure, it has some invisible contact with the planetary signals? For if the fetus gives orders to the maternal uterus, this is because it is in turn receiving orders. Are there some subtle directives coming from above whose orders modern medicine, with its drugs, is disturbing like an elephant entering a china shop? Do we have the right to cast aside the role of the cosmos in this way and deprive ourselves of natural data on the temperament of the newborn? If the child is born at a time set by the physician, it will no longer keep its appointment with Mars or Jupiter.(19)
* * * *
But now doctors are confusing the orderly relationship between man and the planets. A child who should have been born when Jupiter had just risen or culminated, because both his parents were born under that configuration, now has his time of birth determined by a physician. In contrast, the child may be born as Saturn is rising!(20)
Astrology and Personality Traits
In 1967 Gauquelin turned to the third and final area of focus in his research: personality traits. He believed that: “It is not sufficient to establish a global relationship between professional personalities and the planets if this relationship cannot be confirmed on an individual basis.” Using the same charts he had gathered to prove a relationship between the planets and occupations, he searched for a connection between the planets and character traits. He consulted biographies of each famous person to find words which had been used to describe their personality and behavior. After compiling lists of these traits, Gauquelin found that there was a significant correlation between character traits and the location of certain planets within the Gauquelin sectors. It took more than two years to compile information from biographies of sports champions alone. Then he checked to see if Mars was more often rising or culminating in charts of individuals with these specific traits (described as iron-willed, aggressive, competitive, adventurous, untiring, etc.).
Gauquelin discovered that extraverted champions who possessed traits which were more typical of the traditional description of Mars were twice as likely to be born with Mars in the Gauquelin sectors.(23) He concluded that “[t]he position of Mars at birth is very much the expression of a temperament and has relatively little to do with one’s professional destiny.”(24) In describing Gauquelin’s research on personality traits, H. J. Eysenck and D.K.B. Nias remarked:
Regardless of occupation, it was found that personality was associated with the planets being in one of the critical zones. For example, extraverts and tough-minded people tended to be born ‘under’ Mars and Jupiter, while introverts and the tender-minded were born ‘under’ Saturn. It was personality rather than occupation that was related to the planets; and it was only because a particular personality tends to characterise success in given occupations that Gauquelin had obtained his original results.(25) (emphasis provided in original)
Gauquelin eventually found that, in addition to the “plus zones” of the rising and culminating positions, two other zones--when the planet was setting (6th house) or when it was passing its lower culmination (3rd house)--held less powerful yet noteworthy significance.(26) As a result of his work on character traits and planetary positions, Gauquelin published an entire book on the subject which describes each of the planetary personality types he researched in great detail.(27) His wife Francoise also published her own book which examined planetary correlations with personality traits.(28)
“Prostitution” of Astrology
Throughout his career, Gauquelin had little patience for most modern predictive astrologers, claiming that they had “prostituted astrology.”(29) In 1967 Gauquelin published his first book in America, The Cosmic Clocks, in which he explored the seeming contradictions between mystical interpretations of the universe and current scientific thought. He expressed his own strong view about the state of astrology in that book:
Astrology, the ancient universal religion, the primitive majestic effort toward a cosmic synthesis, has fallen completely into the hands of charlatans. A new science has been born in its place. This science should not be scornful of the past; after all, we owe the birth of astronomy to the astrological concern of our predecessors. It is only poetic justice that this science, in its maturity, and after a two-thousand-year detour, should help to discover the true links that tie man to the universe.(30)
Gauquelin’s position did not increase his popularity with astrologers, who insisted that “statistics are irrelevant to astrology” and that “the validity of astrology ought … to be judged only on the basis of forecasts taken from whole charts, with all their components.” Gauquelin replied that “astrology is a collection of apparently very precise laws. We are told that … these laws have been discovered after millions of daily observations. In that case they would be nothing but empirical statistics, and therefore confirmable by mathematical statistics.”(31)
In 1968 Gauquelin conducted a survey by offering free 10-page horoscopes; in exchange the recipients agreed to respond to a questionnaire:
To each one of our 150-odd correspondents we sent the same horoscope. But not just any horoscope. We sent … that of the most infamous evildoer in our collection, Dr. Petiot [a mass murderer]. We reproduced the psychological profile and the yearly rhythm of this horoscope without changing so much as a comma. …
To our first question—“Did you recognize yourself in the psychological portrait sent you? Did you recognize any of your personal problems?”—we received a positive answer in 94 percent of the replies.
* * * *
[N]early all of our ‘clients’—nine out of ten—recognized themselves in the horoscope of someone who murdered several dozens of people and then dissolved their bodies in lime. It is thus not at all incorrect for the astrologer to say that he is ‘successful’ eight times out of ten. (emphasis provided in original)(32)
Gauquelin questioned both science and astrology, and he demanded that each provide proof of their claims.
Atmospheric Influences on Health
Although he remained skeptical about the outrageous claims made by modern astrologers, Gauquelin firmly believed that cosmic and atmospheric changes had a direct influence on humans. He did a great deal of research regarding the effects of the weather and changes in atmospheric conditions on mental and physical health. In How Atmospheric Conditions Affect Your Health (first published in 1971), he described how extreme changes in weather are connected with physical conditions such as heart disease. He also examined the seasonal nature of mental health disorders, such as depression, which peak in the month of May:
Springtime is a period of both physical and mental effervescence. Duhot has termed this phenomenon the “spring hormonal crisis.” The endocrine glands become more active, …[and] the endocrine glands are also closely associated with our behavior and mental state.
* * *
According to psychiatrists, spring is the season when the potentially suicidal subject finally decides to accomplish the fatal act. He buys the lethal poison or opens the gas jets. As a result of the physiological changes it causes in the organism, spring seems to push the desperate toward that final act.(33)
Gauquelin also described the Full Moon’s effect on mentally unstable people:
Does the full moon have such a distinct effect on mentally unbalanced persons? Does its light act as a sort of stimulant for an insane criminal? …
Not long ago, Inspector Wilfred Faust of the Philadelphia Police Department published a report entitled Effects of Full Moon on Human Behavior. This report states: ‘The seventy police officers who deal with telephone complaints claim that they have much more work when the full moon draws near. People whose antisocial behavior has psychotic roots—as firebugs, kleptomaniacs, destructive drivers, and homicidal alcoholics—seem to go on a rampage more often when the moon is waxing than when it wanes.’(34)
Although he was never able to explain it according to the laws of physics, Gauquelin was confident that cosmic forces affect humans in many more ways than science has imagined.
“No Verified Scientific Basis”
Although the scientific community was initially somewhat tolerant of Gauquelin’s work, no one seemed to take it seriously. In 1956, shortly after publishing his first book, he approached the Belgian Comite Para (The Belgian Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Reputedly Paranormal Phenomena) and asked if they would like to review his research results and give their opinion on his work. They declined. In 1967, after Gauquelin had gained support from more members of the scientific community, the Comite Para finally assented. In 1968 their own research revealed a striking agreement with Gauquelin’s hypothesis. They responded to this discovery with eight years of silence on the matter. When pressed by Gauquelin, the Comite finally released a summary of its full report in 1976 which accused Gauquelin of making “imaginary demographic errors.”(35)
This treatment by the Belgium Comite was only the beginning of overwhelming resistance Gauquelin would face to his work in the scientific community. Gauquelin gives vivid examples of how his critics ignored any facts that did not fit their own beliefs (or paradigm). He quotes from a 1975 manifesto signed by 193 “leading scientists” which condemned astrology:
‘Those who wish to believe in astrology should realize that there is no scientific foundation for its tenets … It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures … There is no verified scientific basis for astrology, and indeed, there is strong evidence to the contrary.’
These three sentences, taken from the manifesto, set the tone. ‘No verified scientific basis’? By 1975 I already had twenty years of publications behind me …
* * *
… I think of Galileo’s enemies who refused to look through his telescope and see Jupiter’s satellites.(36)
The manifesto was published in The Humanist magazine, together with an article critical of Gauquelin’s work.
In 1976, some of the scientists who signed this manifesto (together with magicians and other “debunkers”) formed the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, or CSICOP. Members of CSICOP, including Paul Kurtz and George Abell, used the unsupported conclusions of the Belgian Comite as the basis for their criticism of Gauquelin’s work (and specifically the Mars effect). Another member, Marvin Zelen, a professor of statistics at Harvard, proposed a definitive test that would prove or disprove Gauquelin’s hypothesis. Zelen suggested that a test be conducted using the records of all births occurring on the same date and in the same place as each of the Mars champions.(37) Zelen agreed that if this random sampling of the general population did not show the Mars effect, then he would have to accept the validity of Gauquelin’s results. The results showed no Mars effect. But after the results were in, they changed their minds: “Though each of these three had stated, either publicly or privately, that the results of the Zelen test would be definitive, they now said it was not.” Instead they engaged in a “cover-up” by misusing statistics to convince the nonscientific public that Gauquelin was wrong. However, in private Abell said that Gauquelin’s theoretical calculations had been “vindicated” and that the results of the Zelen test were “significant.”(38)
CSICOP then suggested another test: an attempt to replicate the Mars effect using data for American athletes. Gauquelin and CSICOP agreed to certain criterion that would govern the study, but CSICOP did not abide by this agreement. Most notably, CSICOP included many athletes who, according to Gauquelin, were not champions. The question of the importance of eminence in the charts used for the study became a major point of disagreement. According to Kurtz, inclusion in a sports directory was a good enough indicator of fame. But Gauquelin insisted that accomplishments such as setting records were more important. In the end, Kurtz, Zelen and Abell concluded that the Mars effect was not demonstrated in their data.(39)
Challenging the Old Paradigm
In 1981 Dennis Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP who had spoken out since 1976 to protest how the Gauquelins were being treated, went public regarding what he perceived as lack of integrity within the organization:
I used to believe it was simply a figment of the National Enquirer’s weekly imagination that the Science Establishment would cover up evidence for the occult. But that was in the era B.C.—Before the Committee. I refer to the … CSICOP, of which I am a cofounder and on whose ruling Executive Council … I served for some years.
I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism.
I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the public (for the public’s own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an ‘unfortunate’ interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with ‘further research.’ (emphasis provided in original)(40)
After Rawlins exposed the cover-up, CSICOP was forced to readdress the issue, and it did so in 1983:
The net effect of Rawlins’ expose and a flood of critical articles from outside CSICOP’s tight inner circle, was a ‘reappraisal’ of the Mars effect by Kurtz, Zelen and Abell. This contains some important elements of apology, such as saying clearly (though six years after the fact) that the Zelen test had been resolved in Gauquelin’s favor.(41)
In 1981 the French skeptic organization (CFEPP) agreed to review Gauquelin’s research. Gauquelin met with them to agree upon experimental protocols, and after repeated requests the results were discussed in 1994 at a Euroskeptics Conference (although to date no report has been released, the data was made available). The skeptics concluded: “The results are clear and do not show the least evidence for the ‘Mars effect’.” Early in 1995, The Prometheus Publishing house (owned by Paul Kurtz) announced a victory over “Gauquelin’s neo-astrology.” Ironically, in 1979 Prometheus Books had published Gauquelin’s book, Dreams and Illusions of Astrology, which contained a foreword by George Abell in which he spoke highly of the Gauquelins and their work.
Suitbert Ertel later conducted his own analysis of CFEPP’s data and found that:
(1) the CFEPP’s data clearly support the Mars effect,
(2) the CFEPP’s analysis of their data is biased,
(3) their sampling of the data is biased, and
(4) they tended to ignore basic rules of the scientific procedure.(42)
Still, the skeptics refused to take Gauquelin’s work seriously. Instead of maintaining a healthy skepticism and examining the facts they had become “debunkers” who were unwilling to consider anything which deviated from their own version of the truth.
Shifting Paradigms
Early in his career, in an effort to be more acceptable to the scientific community, Gauquelin had been careful to avoid using astrological terminology in his work. In 1991, close to the end of his life, he wrote that this had been a mistake:
[T]he righteous indignation that had made me reject any astrological context for my work, had also caused me, more or less unconsciously, to close my eyes to the evidence. In the end, this proved to be a political error, a fact that the men of science left me in no doubt about when they awarded me the derisive title of ‘neo-astrologer’. In any case, I never forgot the lesson.
Those who have wished to follow the evolution of my work … know that I now accept the title of neo-astrologer, and even revel in it.(43)
In his final book, Neo-Astrology: A Copernican Revolution (which was published after his death by suicide in May of 1991), he expressed his exasperation over occupying the position of change agent during his time, and summed up the problem as follows:
[S]ince I present facts, why not examine them?
This would be too simple. Science is no paradise. Thomas Kuhn observes in his classic work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that any science is, at a given moment in history, a prisoner of fundamental prejudices which he calls ‘paradigms’. The paradigms are ‘universally’ accepted scientific truths which, for a time, provide the community of researchers with a model for all the problems and all their solutions.
History has shown that the shock produced by a new fact that is deemed incompatible with the paradigm of the epoch – what Kuhn calls the ‘normal science’ – is always severe. Hence the name ‘revolution’. In their way, scientific revolutions, like social revolutions, are violent events: what they teach us at school, namely that scientists are prepared to accept factual evidence and, consequently, to revise their theory, is only a myth. On the contrary, they will fight tooth and nail against any element which may destroy it. What is more, they will use their paradigm as an argument to reject a priori what is threatening their intellectual cosiness. We know the pragmatic observation of Max Planck, the physics Nobel Prize winner:
‘Great scientific theories do not usually conquer the world through being accepted by opponents who, gradually convinced of their truth, have finally adopted them. … What happens is that the opponents of the new idea finally die off and the following generation grows up under its influence.’(44)
Although he remained skeptical throughout his career, Gauquelin was interested in elevating the status of astrology by demonstrating scientific proof of its principles. He viewed the intense reaction he received from skeptics as a necessary part of the journey:
All this expenditure of energy and flood of words to defend the Mars effect—an effect which represents less than five percent of the numerous observations I have published over more than a quarter of a century. My opponents are a generation behind me. But you cannot always choose the field of battle on which to defend your ideas and work. And that the field of battle should be Mars—what a symbol for astrology! It won’t be the first time that the planet has featured in a scientific revolution: in struggling to understand the activity of Mars, which refused to behave according to Ptolemy’s classic theory of epicycles, Kepler, the astrologer-astronomer, discovered the true laws of the movement of the planets. He revived a stagnant medieval astronomy to lay the foundations of the modern science. I like to think that again it will be thanks to Mars, the rebel planet against ‘official’ scientists, that astrology—as stultified today as once astronomy was—will become a science, a caterpillar at last transformed into a butterfly.(48)
Gauquelin was well are of the source of the resistance to his work:
The observation of planetary effects at birth would be a discovery of that magnitude. It would demonstrate, too, that the age-old, good-for-nothing, fossilized astrology was not pure legend after all. And that is the source of opposition to my work—the fear that an ‘astrological’ Copernican revolution would destroy a particular vision of the universe and shatter belief in a scientific creed which has excluded ‘neo-astrology’, just as it ignored the intuition of the Chaldean priest.(45)
Like Copernicus, Gauquelin was unable to “supply well-founded physical proof of his theory” during his lifetime. But he also expressed confidence in those who will follow him, saying:
The proof was provided only later, thanks to the work of his successors. Copernicus himself only instigated the Copernican revolution. It is the same with neo-astrology. Its great value is that it poses new questions to science. This does not mean that it is in the position of answering them. The Mars effect is a challenge. It poses a problem, and when it is resolved, a new revolution of ideas will have been accomplished. But from the moment they accept the reality of the Mars effect, researchers can no longer think of the world, or their relation to it, in the same way as before.(46)
Scientists and others who became convinced of the validity of astrology through Gauquelin’s work have been inspired to undertake their own research. One such person was psychologist H. J. Eysenck, Ph.D., who was very impressed with the results of Gauquelin’s research:
[W]e feel obliged to admit that there is something here that requires explanation. However much it may go against the grain, other scientists who take the trouble to examine the evidence may eventually be forced to a similar conclusion. The findings are inexplicable but they are also factual, and as such can no longer be ignored; they cannot just be wished away because they are unpalatable or not in accord with the laws of present-day science.
* * * *
Perhaps the time has come to state quite unequivocally that a new science is in process of being born. Amid all the dross, there does seem to have been a nugget of gold.(47)
In his later years, Gauquelin accepted and even relished his role as change agent in the scientific community. Many “astrological scientists” and ”scientific astrologers” have conducted statistical research to verify claims made by traditional astrology. For examples, see the links to astrological research sites located on the Internet at www.astrodatabank.com. In a Postscript to Gauquelin’s book, Written in the Stars, Dr. Geoffrey Dean states:
When the history of modern scientific research into astrology is written, the name of Michel Gauquelin will stand among the leaders. He was not the first to do such research but he was the first to do it rigorously with large samples. There is no researcher in the field today who has not been influenced by his work.(49)
Gauquelin was indeed a catalyst in the current paradigm shift which is taking place in the scientific community with regard to astrology. Because of Michel’s dedication to his work, the relationship between science and astrology has been changed forever.
New Approaches to Astrological Research
Conclusion
In describing where we are in the current transition from old paradigm to new, Gauquelin asked:
How can we reconcile the past and the present? We have an urgent need for a new paradigm to be able to understand the Universe. New? I would rather say lost, forgotten. Astrology’s ‘Aristarchoses of Samos” [predecessor to Copernicus] were numerous but inept. They did not know how to separate the wheat from the chaff and finally—almost—lost the wheat. Now that it has been rediscovered, assigned its true worth, and proved, astrologers have the duty to discard the chaff. In fact, like scientists, astrologers are confronted by the painful revision of their belief. It is not one but two revolutions that are taking place, although not on the same plane.(emphasis provided in original)(57)
It is incumbent upon astrologers that we keep our minds open and not become as firmly entrenched in our own beliefs as our scientific critics have been. We must be willing to accept challenges to traditional astrological principles and to seek our own proof (in whatever form that may take). Michel Gauquelin was a change agent because he had the courage to spend most of his life scratching through the “dung heap” for that “golden nugget.” We must be willing to get our hands dirty as well.
Endnotes
(1) M. Gauquelin, Cosmic
Influences on Human Behavior (New York: Aurora Press, 1973), pp. 17-18.
(2) M. Gauquelin, The
Cosmic Clocks (Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company, 1967), p. 47.
(3) M. Gauquelin, Birth
Times (New York: Hill and Wang, 1983), p. 8.
(4) M. Gauquelin, Cosmic
Influences on Human Behavior, p. 18.
(5) M. Gauquelin, Written
in the Stars (Northamptonshire, England: The Aquarian Press, 1988), p. 11.
(6) M. Gauquelin, Birth
Times, p. 20.
(7) M. Gauquelin, The
Scientific Basis of Astrology, (New York: Stein and Day, 1969), pp.
161-162.
(8) M. Gauquelin, Cosmic
Influences on Human Behavior, pp. 49-50.
(9) Ibid., p. 20.
(10) M. Gauquelin, The
Scientific Basis of Astrology, p. 163.
(11) M. Gauquelin, Cosmic
Influences on Human Behavior, pp. 181-184.
(12) M. Gauquelin, Birth
Times, p. 43.
(13) M. Gauquelin, Cosmic
Influences on Human Behavior, p. 184.
(14) M. Gauquelin, The
Cosmic Clocks, pp. 197-198.
(15) M. Gauquelin, Planetary
Heredity (San Diego: ACS Publications, Inc., 1988), pp. 24-27.
(16) M. Gauquelin, Birth
Times, p. 164.
(17) M. Gauquelin, Planetary
Heredity, p. 29.
(18) M. Gauquelin, Cosmic
Influences on Human Behavior, p. 190.
(19) Ibid., p. 196.
(20) Ibid., pp.
202-203.
(21) M. Gauquelin, Planetary
Heredity, pp. 6-7.
(22) M.
Urban-Lurain. Lecture given May 24,
2001, at Kepler College Symposium, Seattle, Washington.
(23) M. Gauquelin, Cosmic
Influences on Human Behavior, pp. 85-98.
(24) Ibid., p. 103.
(25) H.J. Eysenck
and D.K.B. Nias, Astrology: Science or Superstition? (London: Penguin
Books, 1982), pp. 188-189.
(26) M. Gauquelin, Neo-Astrology:
A Copernican Revolution ((New York: Penguin Books, 1991), p. 26.
(27) See, M.
Gauquelin, Your Personality and the Planets (New York: Stein and Day,
1980).
(28) See, F.
Gauquelin, Psychology of the Planets (San Diego, CA: ACS Publications,
Inc., 1982).
(29) M. Gauquelin, Dreams
and Illusions of Astrology (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), p. 1.
(30) M. Gauquelin, The
Cosmic Clocks, p. xxii.
(31) M. Gauquelin, The
Scientific Basis of Astrology, p. 144.
(32) M. Gauquelin, Dreams
and Illusions of Astrology, pp. 118-119.
(33) M. Gauquelin, How
Atmospheric Energies Influence Your Health (New York: Aurora Press, 1971),
pp. 67-68.
(34) Ibid., pp.
165-166.
(35) S. Ertel and
K. Irving, The Tenacious Mars Effect (London: The Urania Trust, 1996),
pp. KI-14-KI-16.
(36) M. Gauquelin, Neo-Astrology,
pp. 34-36.
(37) Ertel and
Irving, The Tenacious Mars Effect, p. KI-17.
(38) Ibid., pp.
KI-18-KI-19 and KI-24.
(39) Ibid., pp.
KI-20-KI-21.
(40) D. Rawlins, sTARBABY,
Fate Magazine, October 1981, p. 1.
(41) Ertel and
Irving, The Tenacious Mars Effect, p. KI-23.
(42) Ibid., p.
A1-2.
(43) M. Gauquelin, Neo-Astrology,
pp. 2-3.
(44) Ibid., p. 33.
(45) M. Gauquelin, Birth
Times, p. 179.
(46) M. Gauquelin, Neo-Astrology,
p. 174.
(47) Eysenck and
Nias, Astrology: Science or Superstition?, pp. 208-209.
(48) M. Gauquelin, Birth
Times, p. 114.
(49) M. Gauquelin, Written
in the Stars, p. 191.
(50) K. Irving, “Misunderstandings, Misrepresentations, Frequently Asked Questions & Frequently Voiced Objections About the Gauquelin Planetary Effects,” Retrieved April 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://members.aol.com/kirving/mmf.htm.
(51) Urban-Lurain,
lecture given May 24, 2001.
(52) Telephone
conversation with Mark McDonough, President of Astro Databank Company, June 22,
2001.
(53) Email message
from Kenneth Irving dated June 22, 2001.
(54) “The Passing
of Michel Gauquelin,” The Astrological Journal, September/October 1991.
(55) J.L. Lehman, ”Tiptoeing
through the Method: An Historical Review of Empiricism in Astrology,
1900-1991,” The Astrological Journal, Special History of Astrology
Issue, Jan/Feb 1994, Vol. 36, No. 1, p. 65.
(56) Urban-Lurain,
lecture given May 24, 2001.
(57) M. Gauquelin, Neo-Astrology,
pp. 167-168.
Ertel, S. and Irving, K. (1996). The Tenacious Mars Effect. London: The Urania Trust.
Eysenck, H.J. and Nias, D.K.B. (1982). Astrology: Science or Superstition? London: Penguin Books.
Gauquelin, F. (1982). Psychology of the Planets. San Diego, CA: ACS Publications, Inc.
Gauquelin, M. (1983). Birth Times: A Scientific Investigation of the Secrets of Astrology. New York: Hill and Wang.
__________. (1967). The Cosmic Clocks. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.
__________. (1973). Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior. New York: Aurora Press.
__________. (1979) Dreams and Illusions of Astrology. New York: Prometheus Books.
__________. (1971) How Cosmic and Atmospheric Energies Influence Your Health. New York: Aurora Press.
__________. (1991) Neo-Astrology: A Copernican Revolution. New York: Penguin Books.
__________. (1988) Planetary Heredity. San Diego, CA: ACS Publications, Inc.
__________. (1969) The Scientific Basis of Astrology: Myth or Reality. New York: Stein and Day.
__________. (1988) Written in the Stars. Northamptonshire, England: The Aquarian Press.
__________. (1980) Your Personality and the Planets. New York: Stein and Day.
Irving, K. “Misunderstandings, Misrepresentations, Frequently Asked Questions & Frequently Voiced Objections About the Gauquelin Planetary Effects.” Retrieved April 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://members.aol.com/kirving/mmf.htm.
Lehman, J. Lee. ”Tiptoeing through the Method: An
Historical Review of Empiricism in Astrology, 1900-1991.” The Astrological
Journal, Special History of Astrology Issue, Jan/Feb 1994, Vol. 36, No. 1.
“The Passing of Michel Gauquelin,” The Astrological Journal, September/October 1991.
Rawlins, D. “sTARBABY,” Fate Magazine, October 1981.