Abstract

An astrologer (McRitchie) replied to our article criticizing the claims of astrologers who hold that psychic or supernatural factors play a role in astrological readings (JCS, 2003). However, McRitchie mistakes our 2003 JCS article 'Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi' for an attack on astrology when it merely asks if the performance of astrologers has implications for consciousness and psi. For example, he attempts to validate astrology by citing studies we ignored and by highlighting the supposed flaws that made our tests useless. A proper scientific validation of astrology or any other practical field would critically review the existing empirical studies and then demonstrate replication of effect sizes commensurate with the claims. But McRitchie does not do this, which is most easily explained by the seeming impossibility of doing so. Our conclusion that the performance of astrologers has no useful implications for consciousness and psi is unchanged by recent or previously missed studies, whose outcomes we describe.