The reviews below are posted in a handy reference format. Each reviewer has been allocated a number (1, ,2, 3, etc). The review has also been allocated a reference number (i, ii, iii etc) to each main point and a sub-reference (a, b, c, etc) to sub-points. Hence the first reviewer's (Kyösti's) first main point is 1 (i) (a). If there are sub-points, as there are in Kyösti's point (ii) it will be shown as 1 (ii) (a) and the next sub-point 1 (ii) (b) and so on.
If you wish to submit reviews or comments to reviews, please send them to the Correlation Editor, Pat Harris at email@example.com
1.(i) The Gauguelin research: misleading continues
Dr. Geoffrey Dean again claims (Section 6.9.2) that almanacs earlier presented Gauquelin plus zones as fortunate places for planets. This claim is, however, based on a translation error. He has translated the French expression "en l'ascendant ou au mileu du ciel" to the expression "above the horizon or culminating". Note first that it doesn't read here "past the culmination", which could refer to the Gauquelian plus zone in the 9th house. Secondly, "en l'ascendant" means "at the Ascendant", not above the horizon or Ascendant, which could refer to the Gauquelian plus zone in the12th house. This translation error was pointed out already by Tarvainen (2014) but it is repeated in this new book. In all, the authors don't have presently any arguments to discredit the Gauquelin results.
Recently 'Tests of Astrology' by Dean, Mather, Nias & Smit was published as the successor to 'Astrology under Scrutiny '. The authors are very ambitious: they intend to give an objective assessment and evaluation of more or less all the relevant astrological studies to date, and they have high pretentions: to express a final opinion on the significance of astrology. The previous book has received substantive fundamental criticism, as well as admiration and respect for the tremendous amount of work involved. General criticism concerned the one-sided philosophical approach to which the authors are committed to. Specific criticism concerned the incorrect representation and statistical analysis of some interesting studies, including my studies on serial killers. My understanding was that this time the review of these studies would be more extensively argued and that proves to be the case.