Guest guest Posted June 28, 2000 Report Share Posted June 28, 2000 Hello, everyone. One thing that has often bothered me about the skeptics vs. astrology debate isn't so much what they say about astrology but the way astrologers have responded to them. Rather than examine the flaws in the skeptics' arguments, astrologers instead tend to get skeptics' birth data and then look for flaws in their charts! ("Of course he's a skeptic! He's got Saturn in Capricorn!") This sort of response is most unfortunate, as it plays right into the skeptics' hands. Back in 1994 there was such an article in a publication which should have known better -- _The Mountain Astrologer_. It was nothing but an _ad hominem_ attack on CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz, and CSICOP associates James "The Amazing" Randi and Carl Sagan (since deceased). It also mentioned the 1977 American Humanist Association's anti-astrology statement, but, in her zeal to badmouth Sagan, the author neglected to mention that although Sagan had been invited to sign it, he declined to do so on the grounds of its logical weaknesses. _The Mountain Astrologer_ has since published at least one other similar article last year. CSICOP's magazine, _The Skeptical Inquirer_, critiqued the article, and rather fairly (it even mentioned, and said good things about, the British Astrological Association's excellent journal, _Correlations_, prompting me to hunt it down on the web and !) . _TMA_ responded simply by calling the critique "nasty". Oh well. . . Later, Kevin/Baraka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.