If the scientific skepticism movement were to choose a mascot, we could do a lot worse than Sisyphus: the figure from Greek mythology doomed by the gods to spend eternity pushing a boulder uphill, only to watch it roll back down again the moment he rests. Few other analogies really capture the frustrations and seeming futility of counteracting a widely held pseudoscientific belief.

Perhaps worse, it is not enough for us merely to push back against the outrageous claims of pseudoscience, and those who capitalise on the bereaved and the vulnerable (whether knowingly or unknowingly) – we also have to do so responsibly. We can’t afford to use the dirty tricks employed by some of those we criticise, lest we lose our own integrity and with it whatever persuasive power we may have had.

Equally, we can’t afford to advocate rationalism with the same brashness and rudeness displayed by some pseudoscientists, because our truths are sadly less welcome than their comforting untruths. It is easy to convince someone of a falsehood if it’s something they desperately want to hear. They will even pay you for the privilege, and defend you to the hilt.

This is the Greek tragedy of the modern skeptical movement. If we’re cursed to play the role of Sisyphus and forever push our boulder up the mountain, we’re also fated to do so with one hand tied behind our back. Rest assured, those advocating reason will forever face an uphill battle, and any victories will be slow and difficult – and the moment we stop pushing, the boulder will inexorably roll back.

So why do we bother? If every victory only holds back the tide for a while, what’s the point? It’s a question I’ve been considering a lot of late, and I think the answer lies in social responsibility, humility and an awareness of our own susceptibility. It’s too easy to see ourselves as being beyond belief, or above belief: “There but for the grace of a god I don’t believe in go not I, for I am smarter than that, and I cannot be fooled.”

Personally, I don’t buy that mentality for a moment. Intelligence is no guard against pseudoscience – smart people simply find smarter ways to justify their belief in the unjustifiable. Instead, the real defence against succumbing to seductive nonsense is an awareness of our own intellectual limitations and the cognitive flaws to which we are all prey. Or, in short, skepticism. (...)

Science may have looked victorious in the recent debate between Bill Nye"The Science Guy" and young-Earth creationist Ken Ham, but a new study suggests Americans have a pretty loose interpretation of what actually constitutes "science."

According to a new survey by the National Science Foundation, nearly half of all Americans say astrology, the study of celestial bodies' purported influence on human behavior and worldly events, is either "very scientific" or "sort of scientific."

By contrast, 92 percent of the Chinese public think horoscopes are a bunch of baloney.

What's more alarming, researchers show in the 2014 Science and Engineering Indicators study, is that American attitudes about science are moving in the wrong direction. Skepticism of astrology hit an all-time high in 2004, when 66 percent of Americans said astrology was total nonsense. But each year, fewer and fewer respondents have dismissed the connections between star alignment and personality as bunk.

Not surprisingly, those with less science education and less "factual knowledge" have become increasingly willing to accept astrology as legitimate science, with 65 percent of such individuals considering the pseudo-science credible in 2012, up from 48 percent in 2010.

Young people are also especially inclined to offer astrology scientific legitimacy, with a majority of Americans ages 18 to 24 considering the practice at least "sort of" scientific, and the 25-34 age group is not far behind them.

John Besley of Michigan State University, the lead author of the report's chapter on public attitudes toward science, told Mother Jones he thinks we need to wait "to see if it's a real change" before speculating about what the data really means, but said the data "popped out to me when I saw it."

Americans have always had a strange fascination with astrology. First Lady Nancy Reagan famously employed the services of an astrologer after the assassination attempt on her husband.

Mrs. Reagan would have probably checked off the "sort of scientific" category. When asked in 1989 whether she thought astrology could be credited for her husband's success at avoiding any further danger, she said: "I don't really believe it was, but I don't really believe it wasn't."