As a person, I normally dismiss anything, unless it can be backed up fact. My wife can contest to this, as she is someone who reads the horoscope, and I, the science pages.
So, as I was just catching up on some news, I came across this.
It is to defend against Mary Shelley, and her hour of creation of Frankenstein. I have to say, I do like it when science backs something up.
In the article is a link to another backed up piece of writing, one to Chaucer, and how science, yet again has proved that he could have been writing about about one of the earth's highest tides.
This is all well and good, until;
Now, my point on this, is that, shouldn't scientists also check for facts? Unless, theoretically, men certainly checked their horoscopes?
Maybe I should ask my wife to look up into the heavens for the answer.
So, as I was just catching up on some news, I came across this.
It is to defend against Mary Shelley, and her hour of creation of Frankenstein. I have to say, I do like it when science backs something up.
In the article is a link to another backed up piece of writing, one to Chaucer, and how science, yet again has proved that he could have been writing about about one of the earth's highest tides.
This is all well and good, until;
Chaucer was known to have visited France several times in the 1360s and 1370s and must have been familiar with Brittany's dramatic tides. He was born in 1340 or early 1341 and as a grown man, the scientists argue, he would have certainly checked his horoscope.
Now, my point on this, is that, shouldn't scientists also check for facts? Unless, theoretically, men certainly checked their horoscopes?
Maybe I should ask my wife to look up into the heavens for the answer.
