Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullcrum  The other ones are bunk and limited in scope. |
It would help if you read the papers, not just the abstract, before you make such unfounded statement. If you don't have access to the papers, don't make any claims related to their content.
Though frankly even the abstract of the first reflects the large scope of the study. And that's even if you don't know that the MMPI contains over 500 items used to evaluate personality and is one of the most (if not the most) comprehensive and valid measures of personality we have (though the MMPI-2 is better).
If your complaint is directed at the scope where astrology is concerned, the same complaint can be directed at just about every form of popular astrology which doesn't involve full natal charts.
Nor does your complaint address the statement made by the researchers when they acknowledged that
Quote:
|
...the present study cannot falsify astrology at large since the position of planets other than the sun might also have an effect. However, as pointed out by Eysenck and Nias (1982, p. 31 and 49) if there is some truth to astrology then some general effects of prominent astrological factors like Sun Signs should be detectable using large enough samples. The present large-scale study certainly found no independent effects of Sun Signs, Elements, or gender, and thus yields no support for the common claims of astrology.
|
General tendencies were not found when accounting for what is claimed to be the major factor. The study provided evidence for its argument and so is not "bunk".