Utilisateur:Tristan Balguerie/Effet Mars : notes

Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

Sommaire

[modifier] Articles

[modifier] Règle de classement

Le classement des articles en "Favorable", "Neutre" et "Défavorable" est réalisé selon les critères suivants :

  1. Les articles "Favorables" retracent l'historique de la controverse sur l'Effet Mars en ommetant des expériences ou des arguments défavorables, sans les contredire de manières irréfutable.
  2. Les articles "défavorables" retracent l'historique de la controverse sur l'Effet Mars en ommetant des expériences ou des arguments favorables, sans les contredire de manières irréfutable.
  3. Les articles "Neutres" retracent l'historique en développant les deux points de vue que l'on peut retenir sans les ommetre sur tout ou partie de l'histoire, mais à conditions que la partie de l'histoire.
  4. Les articles ne sont pas classés en fonction de la positions des leurs auteurs du point de vue de la polémique, mais du contenu de l'article.

[modifier] Favorables

  • Michel Gauquelin Is There Really a Mars Effect? Cet article fait une bonne synthèse de l'hypothèse de Michel Gauquelin, mais il n'apporte pas de réponses ou de réfutations argumentées des expériences négatives.Modèle:Ref
  • Kenneth Irving [1] Le site de Kenneth Irving fait état des développements de l'histoire de l'Effet Mars après l'expérience du CFEPP.

[modifier] Neutres

  • Nick Kollersrom (2005) How Ertel Rescued The gauquelin Effect C'est sans doute l'article le plus neutre qui n'hésite pas à montrer tous les points faibles des travaux de Gauquelin et restitue remarquablement les études dans une synthèse ouverte et sincère. C'est le seul article qui donne une authentique matière permettant de se faire un point de vue personnel avec des données et des explications complètes, notamment sur l'évolution des découpages en secteurs. Il faut néanmoins connaître l'antériorité des travaux avant Ertel pour en apprécier toute la substance.
  • Dennis Rawlins sTARBABY Long exposé très détaillé, vue de l'intérieur, de l'investigation du CSICOP dans les vérification de MG, par un membre fondateur du CSICOP. L'article n'est pas favorable à l'Effet Mars, bien que très critique à l'égard du CSICOP.


  • Pierre Perradin L'effet Mars (Gauquelin) Pierre Perrandin s'est livré à sa propre expérience sur les travaux de Michel Gauquelin en les reproduisant. Son historique de la controverse biaise le point de vue de Ertel, le faisant presque passer pour un détracteur en ne retenant que sa découverte des données non publiées de Michel Gauquelin. Par ailleurs, il introduit une méthode arbitraire dans sa sélection de sportif, son appréciation personnelle, à une époque ou la controverse est basée sur l'objectivité de l'échantillonnage. Cependant, sa méta analyse remet de l'ordre dans l'approche de l'historique de l'Effet Mars en complilant les données connues et met en évidence l'érosion de l'effet mars en fonction des dates de naissance.

[modifier] Defavorables

  • Jan Willem Nienhuys The Mars Effect in Retrospect Malgré une apparence de neutralité, cet article fait beaucoup d'omissions des travaux de Ertel et focalise l'attention sur les points de controverse, sans rendre état de l'intégralité des travaux.


  • Jean Dommanget L'astrologie à l'assaut de l'université ? Cet article reprend l'historique des relations entre Michel Gauquelin et le Comité Belge PARA. Même si le respect pour Michel Gauquelin est manifeste, on peut regretter que l'auteur n'est pas progressé sur les conclusions du Comité Belge PARA qui prétendent l'impossibilité d'établir un échantillon témoin fiable alors que le test empirique de Zelen a démontré que l'on pouvait maîtriser les biais socio-démographiques et que la méthode théorique de Michel Gauquelin aboutissait à des résultats sensiblement similaire.

[modifier] Non classés

  • Philip J. Klass Réponse à Rawlins CRYBABY

[modifier] Liste d'articles parus dans le Journal of Scientific Exploration et leurs résumés

[modifier] Modèle:NoteIs there a Mars Effect? by Michel Gauquelin

Michel Gauquelin, Laboratoire d'Etude des Relations Entre Rythmes Cosmiques et Psychophysiologiques, 8, Rue Amyot, Paris, France 75005

The so-called "Mars Effect" is discussed in a larger context. The phenomenon refers to a significant tendency for champion athletes to have been born at the time of either the rise or the upper culmination of the planet Mars. The populations and sample, methodology and its development are described along with earlier and more recent findings. Control studies and replications by others are reported in some detail. Particular attention is paid to certain basic and procedural criticisms and the problem of bias or artifacts. The current scientific status of the issue is reviewed in light of several kinds of empirical evidence that has accumulated over the past three decades. The question raised in the title of the paper is answered in the affirmative.

[modifier] Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes' Mars Effect: Association co-varies with Eminence by Suitbert Ertel

Suitbert Ertel, Institute of Psychology, Georg-August-University, Goesslerstrasse 14, 3400 Goettingen, Germany

By 1955, Michel Gauquelin had begun to publicize the claim that famous athletes are born with frequencies far beyond change at times when Mars is rising over the Earth's horizon ("key sector I") or when the planet crosses the meridian ("key sector II"). Critics did not succeed in refuting this claim empirically: The "Mars effect" survived three such attempts. It was largely doubts over the impeccability of M. and F. Gauquelin's data base, however, which kept researchers from pursuing the problem further. The present study incorporates the entire repertoire of birth data of athletes available to date (N = 4391). The objective is to test the alleged planetary correlation as a function of degree of sportive eminence, the latter being determined by citation counts. It is contended that this procedure is superior to Gauquelin's own; and that the predicted eminence function could hardly be expected to materialize in case his former results were due to biased data treatment. Findings corroborate the eminence prediction: The proportion of athletes born at Mars key sector hours increases from the lowest to highest of five ranks of sporting eminence; the trend is highly significant (p < .005) by several criteria. It is concluded that Gauquelin's hypothesis, after having passed this crucial examination, deserves the most thorough attention.

[modifier] Planetary Influences on Human Behavior ("Gauquelin Effect"):To absurd for a Scientific Explanation? by Arno Mueller

Arno Mueller, Universitaets-Kliniken, D-6650 Homburg/Saar, Germany

Starting points are the investigations of the Gauquelins into planetary influences on human beings and the attempt at a scientific explanation by Michel Gauquelin. Aside from the fact that so far no physical link connecting planets and human behavior has been discovered, there are six other facts that resist integration into Gauquelin's explanatory model. In the model put up for discussion here, which includes not only physical and hereditary, but also cultural-historical, psychological, and evolutionary aspects, these critical points are reconciled with reality and at the same time the physical problems are simplified.

[modifier] The Gauquelin Effect Explained? Comments on Arno Mueller's Hypothesis of Planetary Correlations by Suitbert Ertel

Suitbert Ertel, Institute for Psychology, Georg-August-University, Goesslerstrasse 14, 3400 Goettingen, Germany

Arno Mueller's "hypothesis of the planetary elite" amended Gauquelin's "midwife hypothesis," which suffered from weaknesses. The approach is a welcome contribution to the persistent problem of how to explain planetary correlations with human births (the Gauquelin effect). However, it is inconsistent with empirical observations: (1) Gauquelin effects are unrelated to character traits. Mueller's hypothesis explains a correlation that does not exist. (2) Sometimes planetary effects decrease with eminence. This is inconsistent with Mueller's idea that more eminent as compared to less eminent people should have cultural and biological advantages. (3) Birth frequencies can be infrequent instead of abundant when the planet is rising or culminating. This is inconsistent with Mueller's assumption that in prehistorical times the births of children were desired, not avoided, when the divine planet was so placed. (4) The doctrine of planetary heredity — the basic precondition of Mueller's hypothesis — is probably invalid. (5) The Gauquelin effect is weakest for Venus. Mueller's claim of an impact of planetary appearances on the evolution of the Gauquelin effect would predict the opposite. (6) Mueller's model covers only the evolution of conditioning between planetary sensitivity and character traits. It does not explain the evolution of planetary sensitivity to such conditioning. Gauquelin's original midwife hypothesis as well as Mueller's new version of it could be refuted straight forwardly if further tests showed that the Gauquelin effect occurred undiminished in eminent births induced by obstetric drugs.

[modifier] Behavior ("Gauquelin Effect"): Too Absurd for a Scientific Explanation? Arno Mueller

Arno Mueller, Universitaets-Kliniken, D-6650 Homburg/Saar, Germany

Starting points are the investigations of the Gauquelins into planetary influences on human beings and the attempt at a scientific explanation by Michel Gauquelin. Aside from the fact that so far no physical link connecting planets and human behavior has been discovered, there are six other facts that resist integration into Gauquelin's explanatory model. In the model put up for discussion here, which includes not only physical and hereditary, but also cultural-historical, psychological, and evolutionary aspects, these critical points are reconciled with reality and at the same time the physical problems are simplified.

[modifier] Dutch Investigations of the Gauquelian Mars Effect J. W. Nienhuys

J. W. Nienhuys Department of Mathematics and Computing Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven.

The Netherlands A team of Dutch skeptics investigated a new explanation for the Mars effect with sports champions of Michel Gauquelin. They conjectured that outstanding sports people might have diurnal and seasonal birth rhythms different from average people and that moreover the short time base of Gauquelin's observations might further enhance the effects. Essentially their findings were negative. Simulations were either not possible because of lack of data or showed that along these lines an explanation only is possible if very implausible extra assumptions are made. However, it is argued that the Gauquelin data suffer from a bias, namely some artifact of the exploratory phase. The eminence effect of Ertel is shown be too weak to draw firm conclusions about its existence. It seems plausible that the Gauquelins did not realize that said artifact had to be tightly controlled for.

[modifier] Biased Data Selection in Mars Effect Research by Suitbert Ertel

Suitbert Ertel Institut für Psychologie, Gosslerstr. 14, 37073 Göttingen, Germany Kenneth Irving, 596 Villa Ave., Staten Island, NY 10302, U.S.A.

An earlier study (Ertel, 1988) showed that original evidence for Gauquelin's Mars effect with eminent athletes (Gauquelin and Gauqelin 1970) was based on an incomplete data sample. When athletes initially discarded by Gauquelin were included the Mars effe ct declined. The present study bears on a more subtle effect of the same bias. Gauquelin's original definition of planetary effects was based on birth frequences obtained in a "narrow" zone of the planet's daily circle (G-sector zone). After accumulating results over decades of research, he found that the area just preceding his narrow zone indicated initial planetary effects; he therefore proposed to include initial sectors in an "extended" G-sector zone definition. Assuming that these initial G-sectors had been ignored prior to 1984, the authors suspected that an unbiased proportion of births for these sectors in Gauquelin's exempted data should contrast with the biased proportion known to exist in the "narrow-zone" sectors. This idea gave rise to a new bias detector (IMQ, initial vs. main sector quotient), whose validity was confirmed with the biased Gauquelin data. Selection bias for Gauquelin turned up in his athletes study only; the IMQ did not indicate like anomalies for six other professional inve stigations conducted by Gauquelin. The IMQ was also applied to three athlete samples collected by skeptic organizations. Among them, the CSICOP data for U.S. athletes revealed an anomalous IMQ similar to Gauquelin's unpublished athletes. The results therefore suggest that a certain proport ion of U.S. athletes with unwelcome positions might have been exempted from analysis (p = 0.01). Support for this suspicion is provided by complementary evidence indicating biased admissions of less eminent athletes to the U.S. sample while the preference for most eminent athletes was required. Thus an avoidance of G-sector cases, consistent with this bent, cannot be disavowed. Nevertheless the authors refrain from firm conclusions as this case is circumstantial. It is suggested to merely disregard the CSICOP's negative result of their study in future discussions of the Mars effect as long as appropriate steps to convincingly resolve remaining ambiguities have not been not made.

[modifier] Is the "Mars Effect" Genuine? by Paul Kurtz, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Ranjit Sandhu.

Michel Gauquelin, Laboratoire d'Etude des Relations Entre Rythmes Cosmiques et Psychophysiologiques, 8, Rue Amyot, Paris, France 75005

The so-called "Mars Effect" is discussed in a larger context. The phenomenon refers to a significant tendency for champion athletes to have been born at the time of either the rise or the upper culmination of the planet Mars. The populations and sample, methodology and its development are described along with earlier and more recent findings. Control studies and replications by others are reported in some detail. Particular attention is paid to certain basic and procedural criticisms and the problem of bias or artifacts. The current scientific status of the issue is reviewed in light of several kinds of empirical evidence that has accumulated over the past three decades. The question raised in the title of the paper is answered in the affirmative.

[modifier] The "Mars Effect" as seen by the committee PARA by J.Dommanget.

J. Dommanget, Observatoire Royal de Belgique, Avenue Circulaire, 3-B/1180 Bruxelles, Belgique

This paper deals primarily with the research carried out by the Committee PARA (the Belgian Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of Paranormal Phenomenon)1 on a problem proposed by Michel Gauquelin in 1960, effectively undertaken in 1967, and of which conclusions have been published in 1976 in the Committee's Bulletin: Nouvelles Bréves (N.B., No. 43, September, 1976). It also contains some comments on newer research, including those by other authors. The problem concerns correlations that Gauquelin claims to exist between sports champions and the positions of the planet Mars in the sky at the time of their births. The Committee PARA has rejected the belief in any Mars effect in the case of sports champions. It is the position of the Committee PARA that, while some of Gauquelin's astronomical and statistical computations appeared perfectly correct, the theoretical principles proposed by Gauquelin to support his research have to be rejected because they do not correctly take into account the fundamentals of the problem — the secular and diurnal socio-demographic factors. The objective of this article is to correct the many mistakes, misinterpretations, and false inferences which have been made regarding the research of the Committee PARA. 1 Comité Belge pour l'Investigation Scientifique des Phénomènes réputés paranormaux (Belgian Committee for the scientific investigation of claims of paranormal phenomenon). In short: Committee PARA (Dommanget, 1993).

[modifier] Bibliographie

[modifier] Favorables

The Tenacious Mars Effect by Suitbert Ertel and Kenneth Irving with a Foreword by Jim Lippard - Urania Trust, (1996)