The point... is that you have done the sort of investigations to prove or disprove that theory based on the tools you have at hand, and if you care to, advance a better one one that theory has been disproved or found to be inadequate.

On the scale of knowledge that one can have about computers, I would say that I don't know very much about how they work, so for all practical purposes I would be ignorant to say that I know with certainty "how a computer works".

It is part of the spell of the modern age for everyone to feel as if they know a lot about something when in fact they know very little... that's a product of the lens of our conscious awareness generally either being very broad in some areas and very narrow in others, in either case you have lost perspective.

That's the way it is now... someone with a high school education at the grade average of B (when a B meant something) can say with self-confidence that he knows far more than Cornelius Agrippa about ANYTHING... and that Newton should be place on an evolutionary pedestal.

Are you calling the Emperor of Germany a fool for keeping him in his council? Or a significant minority of the great minds at the time?

Well then, Sir... it's your choice to have confidence in what you know, I would not want to take that from anyone unless I opened up the mind to a more accurate possibility.


Yes this is what I'm asking. Which tools did you use to observe the correlation between planetary location and birth. To orove to me that astrology works, show me how you reached that conclusion, that's all I've been asking from the start. Reading comprehension is vital.

Yes it is also true about this modern age but believe me I know what I don't know.

You can't equate a person 500 years ago to someone from 30 years ago the differences are abysmal.

I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence