↑ Hartmann, P; Reuter, M.; Nyborga, H. (tháng 5 năm 2006). “The relationship between date of birth and individual differences in personality and general intelligence: A large-scale study”. Personality and Individual Differences 40 (7): 1349–1362. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.017. To optimise the chances of finding even remote relationships between date of birth and individual differences in personality and intelligence we further applied two different strategies. The first one was based on the common chronological concept of time (e.g. month of birth and season of birth). The second strategy was based on the (pseudo-scientific) concept of astrology (e.g. Sun Signs, The Elements, and astrological gender), as discussed in the book Astrology: Science or superstition? by Eysenck and Nias (1982).
↑ Vishveshwara, edited by S.K. Biswas, D.C.V. Mallik, C.V. (1989). Cosmic perspectives: essays dedicated to the memory of M.K.V. Bappu . Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-34354-2.
“Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding”. science and engineering indicators 2006. National Science Foundation. Truy cập ngày 28 tháng 7 năm 2012. About three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items[29]"..." Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body.
Bok, Bart J.; Lawrence E. Jerome; Paul Kurtz (1982). “Objections to Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists”. Trong Patrick Grim. Philosophy of Science and the Occult. Albany: State University of New York Press. tr. 14–18. ISBN0-87395-572-2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Allum, Nick (ngày 13 tháng 12 năm 2010). “What Makes Some People Think Astrology Is Scientific?”. Science Communication 33 (3): 341–366. doi:10.1177/1075547010389819. This underlies the "Barnum effect". Named after the 19th-century showman Phineas T. Barnum, whose circus act provided "a little something for everyone", it refers to the idea that people believe a statement about their personality that is vague or trivial if they think that it derives from some systematic procedure tailored especially for them (Dickson & Kelly, 1985; Furnham & Schofield, 1987; Rogers & Soule, 2009; Wyman & Vyse, 2008). For example, the more birth detail is used in an astrological prediction or horoscope, the more credulous people tend to be (Furnham, 1991). However, confirmation bias means that people do not tend to pay attention to other information that might disconfirm the credibility of the predictions.
1 2 3 4 Hoskin, edited by Michael (2003). The Cambridge concise history of astronomy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521572916.
↑ Evans, James (1998). The history & practice of ancient astronomy. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN9780195095395.
1 2 Arjomand, Kamran (1997). “The Emergence of Scientific Modernity in Iran: Controversies Surrounding Astrology and Modern Astronomy in the Mid-Nineteenth Century”. Iranian Studies (Taylor and Francis, for the International Society for Iranian Studies) 30: 5–24. doi:10.1080/00210869708701857.
1 2 Stephen Thornton, Edward N. Zalta (older edition). “Karl Popper”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
1 2 3 4 Kuhn, Thomas (1970). Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave, biên tập. Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science [held at Bedford college, Regent's Park, London, from July 11th to 17th 1965]. . Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN0521096235.
1 2 Popper, Karl (2004). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge . London: Routledge. ISBN0-415-28594-1. Bảo trì CS1: Văn bản dư (link)
The relevant piece is also published in, Schick Jr, Theodore, (2000). Readings in the philosophy of science: from positivism to postmodernism. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub. tr. 33–39. ISBN0-7674-0277-4.
↑ Cogan, Robert (1998). Critical thinking: step by step. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. ISBN0761810676.
1 2 Wright, Peter (1975). “Astrology and Science in Seventeenth-Century England”. Social Studies of Science 5: 399–422. doi:10.1177/030631277500500402.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thagard, Paul R. (1978). “Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience”. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (The University of Chicago Press) 1: 223–234.
↑ Hurley, Patrick (2005). A concise introduction to logic (ấn bản 9). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. ISBN0534585051.
1 2 3 4 5 6 James, Edward W. (1982). Patrick Grim, biên tập. Philosophy of science and the occult. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN0873955722.
1 2 3 4 Smith, Jonathan C. (2010). Pseudoscience and extraordinary claims of the paranormal: a critical thinker's toolkit. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN978-1-4051-8123-5.
1 2 3 4 Dean G., Kelly, I. W. (2003). “Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?”. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6–7): 175–198.
↑ Pont, Graham (2004). “Philosophy and Science of Music in Ancient Greece”. Nexus Network Journal 6 (1): 17–29. doi:10.1007/s00004-004-0003-x.
↑ Gauquelin, Michel (1955). L'influence des astres: étude critique et expérimentale. Paris: Éditions du Dauphin.
1 2 Carroll, Robert Todd (2003). The skeptic's dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN0-471-27242-6.
↑ Benski, Claude, with a commentary by Jan Willem Nienhuys và đồng nghiệp (1995). The "Mars effect: a French test of over 1,000 sports champions. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN0-87975-988-7. Bảo trì CS1: Định rõ "và đồng nghiệp" (link)
1 2 Randi, James. “UK MEDIA NONSENSE — AGAIN”. ngày 21 tháng 5 năm 2004. Swift, Online newspaper of the JREF. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 22 tháng 7 năm 2011. Truy cập ngày 8 tháng 7 năm 2012.
1 2 editor, Michael Shermer, (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. tr. 241. ISBN1-57607-653-9.
↑ Samuels, Andrew (1990). Jung and the post-Jungians. London: Tavistock/Routledge. tr. 80. ISBN0-203-35929-1.
1 2 3 Nickerson, Raymond S. Nickerson (1998). “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”. Review of General Psychology. 2 2 (2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.
↑ Gonzalez, edited by Jean-Paul Caverni, Jean-Marc Fabre, Michel (1990). Cognitive biases. Amsterdam: North-Holland. ISBN0-444-88413-0.
↑ Paul, Annie Murphy (2005). The cult of personality testing: how personality tests are leading us to miseducate our children, mismanage our companies, and misunderstand ourselves. (ấn bản 1). New York, N.Y.: Free Press. ISBN0-7432-8072-5.
1 2 3 4 Rogers, P.; Soule, J. (ngày 5 tháng 3 năm 2009). “Cross-Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Barnum Profiles Supposedly Derived From Western Versus Chinese Astrology”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 40 (3): 381–399. doi:10.1177/0022022109332843. The Barnum effect is a robust phenomenon, having been demonstrated in clinical, occupational, educational, forensic, and military settings as well as numerous ostensibly paranormal contexts (Dickson & Kelly, 1985; Furnham & Schofield, 1987; Snyder, Shenkel & Lowery, 1977; Thiriart, 1991). In the first Barnum study, Forer (1949) administered, astrological believers deemed a Barnum profile supposedly derived from astrology was a better description of their own personality than did astrological skeptics. This was true regardless of the respondent's ethnicity or apparent profile source. This reinforces still further the view that individuals who endorse astrological beliefs are prone to judging the legitimacy and usefulness of horoscopes according to their a priori expectations.
↑ Wunder, Edgar (ngày 1 tháng 12 năm 2003). “Self-attribution, sun-sign traits, and the alleged role of favourableness as a moderator variable: long-term effect or artefact?”. Personality and Individual Differences 35 (8): 1783–1789. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00002-3. The effect was replicated several times (Eysenck & Nias 1981,1982; Fichten & Sunerton, 1983; Jackson, 1979; Kelly, 1982; Smithers and Cooper, 1978), even if no reference to astrology was made until the debriefing of the subjects (Hamilton, 1995; Van Rooij, 1994, 1999), or if the data were gathered originally for a purpose that has nothing to do with astrology (Clarke, Gabriels, and Barnes, 1996; Van Rooij, Brak, & Commandeur, 1988), but the effect is stronger when a cue is given to the subjects that the study is about astrology (Van Rooij 1994). Early evidence for sun-sign derived self-attribution effects has already been reported by Silverman (1971) and Delaney & Woodyard (1974). In studies with subjects unfamiliar with the meaning of the astrological sun-sign symbolism, no effect was observed (Fourie, 1984; Jackson & Fiebert, 1980; Kanekar & Mukherjee, 1972; Mohan, Bhandari, & Meena, 1982; Mohan and Gulati, 1986; Saklofske, Kelly, & McKerracher, 1982; Silverman & Whitmer, 1974; Veno & Pamment, 1979).
1 2 3 Cary J. Nederman & James Wray Goulding (Winter 1981). “Popular Occultism and Critical Social Theory: Exploring Some Themes in Adorno's Critique of Astrology and the Occult”. Sociological Analysis 42.
