The informed view during the Early Modern period in Europe was to view the world as a series of interconnected, mystical, yet pseudo-rational and predictable events. These events and actions would occur fractally from the smallest member of this universe to ‘God’ himself. Much of the sciences and hermetic practices at the time truly are the embryonic forms of the sciences we know today. Even from the lecture on Friday we can understand that Astrology makes certain ‘true’ observations and predictions despite being on a false foundation compared to the empirical study of Astronomy. Even the constellations that are understood and used as a tool in Astronomy were the astrological signs that were central to Astrology. This relationship speaks largely to the predicament of the Early Modern Period, people were equipped with logic and reason but were handicapped in their ability to use these tools due to a dogmatic belief, on the part of many, in ancient, mystical, and religious texts which were seen as a great font of wisdom.
Does an academic endeavor need to empirical, like we think we are today unlike our past, in order to be taken seriously? If so, then where can the line be drawn on where empirical claims can be made? If one’s senses are false or biased, then can one make an empirical claim? can there be multiple true empirical claims that answer the same question totally differently?