From         Click here to return to home page

Astrologer attacks researchers
A tedious but typical interchange

Abstract -- In 2001 the British astrologer and teacher Dennis Elwell wrote four long articles attacking this website's researchers, their views, their results, and especially what they say in the Phillipson interview available on this website. Elwell wants to restore the importance of astrology. He claims that the researchers are hostile to astrology, and that his attack was so decisive that no response was possible. Article by article, the researchers summarise Elwell's attacks and their response. They argue that Elwell's approach to astrology cannot be taken seriously because he fails to apply safeguards to rule out artifacts, alternate explanations, and self-deception. Elwell denies this. He argues that his own personal judgement is sufficient, and if thousands of scholarly studies suggest he might be fooling himself then they are simply wrong. He claims the researchers have no idea how to properly test astrology. But when they ask him how it should be done, he generally evades the issue, so the debate is spectacularly unproductive. Nevertheless it does provide a typical example of what researchers have to endure, for Elwell is not the first astrologer unable to specify improvements to research when challenged. Includes an option to visit the original interchanges on another website (total 90,000 words, reading time 5 hours).

Click here for full article (will include abstract) or Click here for home page
Full article is 32 kB, needs 6-9 pages of A4, takes 15 minutes to read, has no graphics.