Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a science is easily settled: Conclusion it is both an art and a science. ███ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ████████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████████ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ █ ████████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ██ ███████████
The occultist concludes that astrology is both an art and a science. She says that the scientific components come from the math and astronomy used to create an astrological chart, while the art is in combining various factors and symbols to make meaningful statements about a person.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part v. whole, where the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about that thing as a whole.
In this case, the occultist assumes that astrology is a science simply because some parts of astrology involve components of science.
The reasoning in the occultist's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ ███████████ ███████████
incorrectly infers that █ ████████ ██ █ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████
denies the possibility ████ █████████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ ██████████
incorrectly infers that ████████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████████ █████
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ █ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████