None of the draft review commentary was applicable to the appraisal of the experiment by Suitbert Ertel, published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 23(2), 2009. pp. 125-137, and used as an important secondary source.
All of the criticisms that detail flaws in scientific methodology are page sourced and verifiable in the Carlson article, published in Nature, Vol. (318), 1985, pp. 419-425.
RedirectYou have linked to the former location of a pre-publication draft of the article "Support for astrology from the Carlson double-blind experiment." Many thanks to the reviewers who kindly pointed out weaknesses and inaccuracies in the draft, which were corrected. Participation by the full spectrum of subject matter experts contributed much to the reliability of this article. Please go to the final peer-reviewed article that was published in ISAR International Astrologer Vol. 40(2), Aug. 2011. pp. 33-38. |
|
|