Yes, even Dawkins gets this wrong on "Enemies of Reason" - it always makes me wince now.
In general I think looking for internal inconsistencies like this is always the wrong path for skeptics (or atheists for that matter) to take - it can be entertaining, but unless you know the subject very well you expose yourself to having points like this scored off you. I would always advise instead highlighting the disconnect from evidence.
I don't think this is a matter of extremism - it's not that they are too skeptical of astrology at all - it's just poor rhetorical technique. It's also of course poor rhetorical technique in exactly the way the above articles highlight - it may entertain your fellow skeptics but it's not going to convince any astrology believers; it will rather drive them away in fact.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-11-13 02:05 pm (UTC)In general I think looking for internal inconsistencies like this is always the wrong path for skeptics (or atheists for that matter) to take - it can be entertaining, but unless you know the subject very well you expose yourself to having points like this scored off you. I would always advise instead highlighting the disconnect from evidence.
I don't think this is a matter of extremism - it's not that they are too skeptical of astrology at all - it's just poor rhetorical technique. It's also of course poor rhetorical technique in exactly the way the above articles highlight - it may entertain your fellow skeptics but it's not going to convince any astrology believers; it will rather drive them away in fact.