Here’s a survey of belief in Astrology.
I am amazed.
I can see how we are having trouble getting people to pay attention when half of America thinks that Astrology is scientific or reliable or something, but then alien abduction and ghosts have their advocates.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/20/the-6-political-groups-least-likely-to-believe-astrology/
I’m an Aquarius. We don’t believe in astrology.
Ad hominem attacks are used because the debater can’t counter the points made. It has nothing to do with hurt feelings or fairness. Using an ad hominem attack is a sure sign that you cannot logically refute the given argument. That is why they are considered logical fallacy. At best they can call the credibility or expertise of the opponent into question but only if the accusation levelled is accurate and relevant to the point being discussed. This survey fits neither of those criteria. You really could benefit from studying formal debate. It enables you to see through scams such as this one and it would make your own arguments much more effective. Calling someone a “dumb ass” doesn’t prove them wrong. If someone proposes an argument against you and all you can say back to them is personal insults then you are the one the listeners are going to assume is a dumb ass. The He-Who-Shouts-Loudest-Wins school of debate isn’t very well respected in intellectual circles.
Given your obvious intelligence in other areas I have to assume you’re either deliberately missing the point or you’re completely blinded by your own prejudice again. You wouldn’t stand for this sort of unfounded libelous accusation if it were levelled against you such as the infamous Lewandowsky paper (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/oct/02/climate-change-denial-skeptics-psychology-study-conspiracy-theories )
Why defend the exact same junk science methodology when it appears to confirm your beliefs? You have a serious problem with confirmation bias. You consistently demand less rigorous methodology in arguments you agree with than arguments you disagree with. That pattern of behavior calls your credibility into question leaving you less trustworthy even when you’re right.
Let’s take a look at that survey question again. “Do you ever read a horoscope or your personal astrology report?” Does the answer to that question, whether yes or no, actually indicate belief in astrology? I could just as easily ask whether you ever read tabloid headlines. Most people have just to waste time while standing in line at the checkout; it doesn’t mean you believe what they say. The phrasing of survey questions is everything. How many people can honestly say they have never read a horoscope? Non sequiturs about dancing bears do not refute my point. The information being implied by the article is not found in the data. Did you even bother to read the underlying data, or are you just happy to repeat anything you read on the right websites? It seems to me that what you’re really revealing to the Junk Science readership is that you care more about your personal political beliefs than you do about scientific accuracy and truth. Is Steve Milloy ever coming back?
Not true, it reveals what is most impoortant to JunkScience.com readers–who are the casual and careless as compared to those who would answer a question about astrology with seriousness and say–there is no scientific basis for astrology. It is nonsense.
Scientifically. After that dancing bears can be entertaining. Or consideration of the impact of some celestial bodies.
I really don’t get your reference to ad hominem attacks.
Everybody gets all worked up about ad hominem attacks like they are cruel or unfair–well in a limited way they are just attacks that hurt the feeling of the targets. If the targets don’t deserve the attacks, doesn’t matter what we call the attacks, they are unfair. However if the attacks are accurate, they better damn well be ad hominem–you a dumb ass–you get called a dumb ass. Any questions?
But astrology must be true. Over 97% of astrologists believe it is.
Since I’m bored, I’d also like to add that the question”Do you ever read a horoscope or your personal astrology report?” does not differentiate between people that go to an astrologer to have their stars read and people that read the newspaper and happen to check what the horoscope says purely for entertainment purposes. The only reason for these questios to even be asked on a political survey is to gather ammunition for an ad hominem attack.
The study does not indicate that half of America believes in astrology. This is typical propagandist misinformation.
I don’t believe in astrology, but I’m even less inclined to believe a Washington Post political survey. The claimed political delineations are questionable on their own. The underlying “study” also claims to examine a link between political beliefs and belief in geocentrism. The prejudicial slant is obvious in the opening statements. The question “Would you say that astrology is very scientific, sort of scientific, or not at all scientific?” fails to define the term scientific, and thus leaves room for considerable error in interpretation. It also fails to account for the number of people who may simply have confused astrology with astronomy.
I wouldn’t worry about the country based on this data. The study only claims that 9.7% of respondents felt that astrology was “very scientific”. 31.8% answered “sort of scientific”, but what does “sort of scientific” mean? Ancient astrology is the foundation for astronomy. Many of the facts we know about the solar system were discovered by astrologists. Given the lack of specificity in the question I could make a sound argument for calling astrology sort of scientific. Even ignoring that, “sort of scientific” is an accurate description of all junk science isn’t it? I’d hardly assume that designation is indicative of a belief in the principles of modern astrology. The analysis fails by combining two very different categories into one category of belief without the presence of an equal number of categories for levels of disbelief. This is a classic example of stacking the deck. You create a false majority by marginalizing the targeted belief with fine distinctions and then add the categories however you want to get the desired result.
What really baffles me is how this law student got the idea that “belief in astrology is such a good indicator of conservatism that it is appropriate to use as a measure of conservatism itself” is one of the “most common assumptions of political psychology”. I can only assume that Northwestern University isn’t a very balanced school.
I can sympathize with the author for being steeped in anti-conservative rhetoric, but that’s no excuse for trying to pass off equally biased pseudoscience. Doing so opens conservatives up to the Tu quoque variety of ad hominem attacks.