Dialexis de novae et prius incognitae stellae inusitatae magnitudinis & splendidissimi luminis apparitione, & de eiusdem stellae vero loco constituendo ...

From here he proceeds to the second reason, which he takes from the sense of the eyes: that, of course, this star appears to hold such a place and position in the sky as the eleventh one of Cassiopeia itself has, and to be distant from the polar [star] by six poles. This reason proves nothing. For reasoning and demonstration do not acknowledge as true everything that the sense of the eyes indicates to be true. The eyes judge the Sun to be like a small disk, when it is one hundred sixty-six times larger than the earth. Therefore, it is a bad deduction: "It appears to the view to hold that place and position, and to be distant from the polar star by six poles, therefore it is true." For Raimundus ought not to have brought forward only an intuition, but should have diligently measured the distances of the stars with astronomical instruments, and shown whether they agreed with the observations of the ancients or disagreed with them. Since nothing of this has been done by Raimundus, it appears easily how far he has deviated from the goal of truth. But besides those things, in this same place he also betrays himself as to how great an artist of astronomy he is: in that he thinks the sky can be measured by poles.

Finally, he seems to bring forward this third reason: that, besides that eleventh one, with the exception of the fourth and twelfth of Cassiopeia, no other sufficiently long distance is given in the sky, and he strives to prove this again by intuition alone.