...the Gauquelins?
Two french scientists who conducted research into astrology, and not just based on sun sign (one of the reasons researching astrology is so difficult is that it is affected by and made up of such a huge range of different influences [i.e. the houses, planets, aspects etc] that testing any one thing is difficult and experiments involving a specific element of charts aren't very effective).
They focussed on the position of various planets in the natal charts of people of characteristic profesions - mars in the charts of athletes, jupiter in the charts of actors, saturn in scientists, the moon in writers.
The interesting thing was that their results were statisically significant and supported astrology. Statisticians could not fault the research or the results. Later experiments by other scientists also often supported astrology, though some failed to support it.
When they published their results, the scientific world refused to accept them. One-hundred and eighty-something scientists signed a statement that went something to the effect of "We don't agree that astrology is possible." (that's not an actual quote, just the upshot.)
However, the Gauquelins' results, and those of the other scientists, are still there. They've never been shown to be incorrect. They just get ignored.
If anyone's interested in further reading (I couldn't find some of the details I wanted on short notice for the purpose of this post), they should have a look at
The case for astrology, by John Anothony West. It has a great deal more than just this, plus details of Gauquelin's results and information about the other experiements. Also, have links.
http://www.astrologix.de/metalinx/Astrology/Research/Gauquelin/http://www.planetos.info/mmf.html 
Reply
