One example would be the precession canard frequently used by people who try to "debunk" astrology. It goes something like this:
"Astrologers don't know about the precession of the equinoxes, nor that there are actually thirteen constellations in the Zodiac instead twelve. So when they say the Sun is in Aries, it's actually in Pisces, and they ignore Ophiucus completely. Ha, ha!"
That's comparable to saying "Chemists don't know that there are actually four elements, they think there are over a hundred, ha ha!" except that the people who propagate the precession canard actually expect to be taken seriously on it.
Some people who say it are just repeating what they've heard from other "skeptics" and haven't looked into the facts behind it. Some people who say it honestly believe that after thousands of years of making precise observations of the skies, astrologers really haven't noticed that the equinox moves and really don't know where the constellations are. And I think some, hoping to make astrology look bad, are deliberately lying about the whole thing while being aware that astrologers use a coordinate system in which 30-degree intervals of longitude measured from the equinox wherever it happens to be at the time are named after but not identical to constellations that were roughly in those longitude intervals at the time the names were chosen.
None of those three explanations reflects well on the person making the claim. Blind faith in authority, failure to check or even think about surprising factual claims, and deliberate political lies are all among the things "skeptics" claim to be against.
no subject
"Astrologers don't know about the precession of the equinoxes, nor that there are actually thirteen constellations in the Zodiac instead twelve. So when they say the Sun is in Aries, it's actually in Pisces, and they ignore Ophiucus completely. Ha, ha!"
That's comparable to saying "Chemists don't know that there are actually four elements, they think there are over a hundred, ha ha!" except that the people who propagate the precession canard actually expect to be taken seriously on it.
Some people who say it are just repeating what they've heard from other "skeptics" and haven't looked into the facts behind it. Some people who say it honestly believe that after thousands of years of making precise observations of the skies, astrologers really haven't noticed that the equinox moves and really don't know where the constellations are. And I think some, hoping to make astrology look bad, are deliberately lying about the whole thing while being aware that astrologers use a coordinate system in which 30-degree intervals of longitude measured from the equinox wherever it happens to be at the time are named after but not identical to constellations that were roughly in those longitude intervals at the time the names were chosen.
None of those three explanations reflects well on the person making the claim. Blind faith in authority, failure to check or even think about surprising factual claims, and deliberate political lies are all among the things "skeptics" claim to be against.