轉貼自 8/18 聯合報
http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR4/1510130.shtml

一項對兩千多名研究對象追蹤了數十年，應該是史上最詳盡的占星學研究報告指出，所謂的占星學全是垃圾。這項研究報告令占星界勃然大怒，並打算對發表報告的雜誌提出抗議。

英國每日電訊報網站十七日報導，占星學的精髓為，一個人的個性與宿命和他出生時太陽、月亮、行星的影響力息息相關。然而研究人員在對兩千多人進行追蹤研究數十年後，發現結果並非如此。

這兩千多人出生的時間多數只相差幾分鐘，根據占星學，他們的特性和命運應該極為相似。

科學家從研究對象還是嬰兒時即開始追蹤。這些嬰兒全都出生於一九五八年三月初，是一九五八年倫敦一項出生環境如何影響健康的醫學研究觀察對象，研究人員長期監視他們的發展。

研究人員觀察的項目有一百餘種，包括職業、焦慮程度、婚姻狀態、進取心、社交能力、智商、藝術傾向、運動細胞、數學與閱讀能力。

占星學家認為這些項目均可從一個人的出生宮位圖看出梗概。然而科學家卻發現，並無證據顯示這些所謂的「時間孿生兒」有類似之處。

科學家將他們的發現發表於最新一期的「意識研究雜誌」。研究的分析報告由澳洲伯斯的科學家狄恩及加拿大薩克其萬大學心理學家凱利執筆。

過去也是占星家的狄恩說，研究結果粉碎占星家的說法，而且占星家替人解命時，所根據的資料還不及他們所擁有的資料準確。

狄恩指出，占星家經常以守護宮或守護星的不同，對出生僅差一分鐘卻命運大不同的兩人提出解釋，狄恩說，這種說法也說不通。

研究的發現令占星界極為震驚與憤怒，認為研究分析過於簡化，狄恩等人的目的只是為讓占星學信譽掃地。南安普頓「占星學關鍵研究團體」的顧問麥吉利安說，他打算對雜誌提出抗議。

占星學日漸受歡迎，五十年前，只有一成三的英國人相信占星術，現在多數英國人均深信不疑，商場甚至還盛行理財占星，專門預測股市漲跌。英國知名占星家的年收入高達六十萬英鎊（約新台幣三千三百萬元），一個占星網站的收入可能高達五千萬英鎊。

英國每日郵報一九九九年發現他們的占星專家凱納準備跳槽時，據說曾開價年薪一百萬英鎊（約新台幣五千五百萬元）另加一百萬英鎊紅利留人，但凱納還是接受每日快報的合約，報社不付薪，但所有電話問命解惑的收入歸他一人所有。

「時間孿生兒」的研究只是對占星學不利的開始。狄恩與凱利還打算研究，在隨機取樣時，占星家的宮位圖與一個人的個性吻合度究竟有多高。他們已對四十份涉及七百多名占星家的研究作了調查，發現占星家的解析多半是猜測之詞。

狄恩說，一連串的研究均對占星學不利，而他已準備好接受挑戰。

【2003/08/18 聯合報】

參考英文網址
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_341875,00040010.htm

Studies. It is hailed as the most thorough scientific study ever made into the subject.

Astrologers have for centuries claimed to be able to extract deep insights into the personality and destiny of people using nothing more than the details of the time and place of birth.

The research debunks astrology's central claim---that human characteristics are moulded by the influence of the Sun, Moon and planets at the time of a person's birth.

The findings caused alarm and anger in astrological circles. Roy Gillett, the president of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, told The Telegraph the study's findings should be treated "with extreme caution" and accused the researchers of seeking to "discredit astrology".

In the course of the study researchers tracked more than 2,000 people over several decades - most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subjects should have had very similar traits.

The babies were originally recruited as part of a medical study into how the circumstances of birth can affect future health. More than 2,000 babies born in early March that year were registered and their development monitored at regular intervals.

Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading - all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.

The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the "time twins", however.

"The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success . . . but the results are uniformly negative", the research report said.

Analysis of the research was carried out by Geoffrey Dean, a scientist and former astrologer based in Perth, Australia, and Ivan Kelly, a psychologist at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Dean said the consistency of the findings weighed heavily against astrology.

"It has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid and it has failed hundreds of tests. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books which, in effect, are exercises in deception", he said.

Dean is ready for a torrent of criticism: "I'm probably the most hated person in astrology because I'm regarded as a turncoat."

The research undermined the claims of astrologers, who typically work with birth data far less precise than that used in the study.

Dean said: "They sometimes argue that times of birth just a minute apart can make all the difference by altering what they call the 'house cusps'," he said.

"But in their work, they are happy to take whatever time they can get from a client."

Dean and Kelly also sought to determine whether stargazers could match a birth chart to the personality profile of a person among a random selection.

They reviewed the evidence from more than 40 studies involving over 700 astrologers, but found the results turned out no better than guesswork.

The success rate did not improve even when astrologers were given all the information they asked for and were confident they had made the right choice.