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]
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!
Ouch.
I refute it thus: science itself cannot tell us why I should believe the claims of the astronomer over the claims of the astrologer.
The moment you try to explain why the belief system of the former should be privileged over the belief system of the latter you have left the realm of what science itself claims it can do.
I have no problem with scientists thinking they have displaced theologians with their better explanations of the natural world; I reject totally that science can in any way replace the inter-generational philosophical project, I reject that the proper place for the philosophical project is the arts, and I reject that the philosophical project has in any way come to an end.
Also, your insults do you an injustice. And didn't anyone ever tell you that pride comes before a fall?