[3ifbyw]

The object of science, in the final analysis, is the collection, evaluation, and‒if the stars align‒acceptance as truth of sufficiently explanatory evidence. It is laughable to assert that the astrologers have better assisted us in this endeavor, or even that their contributions are on a par with those of astronomers. If you cannot adopt this perspective, you are simply lost to logical discourse; what evidence could possibly be provided to you to convince you to value evidence?

For what it's worth, you might like to know that it's destruction which pride precedeth.[0]

0: http://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-18.htm

[igravious]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm not asserting that there is any kind of equivalence between astrology and astronomy, I'm asserting that it is not science itself that can draw the distinction between the claims of the two but rather it is the philosophy of science where this takes place. that was my rebuttal.

I never knew (obviously) that 'pride comes before a fall' is a common misquote but I do now! Thanks!