[soheil]

"Astrology, for instance, is falsifiable — indeed, it has been falsified ad nauseam — and yet it isn’t science." -Pigliucci

Mind blown! Wat? If it's falsified then it's just wrong, i.e. it had the potential to be science before it was proven to be wrong and now it isn't. He seems to be confused about the chronology of theories. If I make up a theory based on complete bs and it just happens to be falsifiable and then falsified then I wasn't doing science. I don't know of any falsifiable theory that was just pulled out of a hat, was recognized as one but wasn't immediately falsified (if there is one then he has a point.) If I come up with a theory and work hard to make sure it's falsifiable then I was doing science even if the theory was later falsified.

[xamuel]

I'd actually argue against astrology being falsifiable. It mostly consists of making generic "predictions" that could apply to anyone, it's the very definition of unfalsifiability. It would be falsifiable if it made predictions like "soheil will spend exactly 35 minutes on Hacker News today", but it doesn't, instead it makes predictions like "You have a deeper side to you that people don't know about", total bs but not really "false".

[return0]

A single instance of false prediction is enough to falsify a theory. As such , the methodology of observing stars to predict the future has been falsified millions of times, hence the only thing that is left is to make vague, unfalsifiable predictions now. In either case, it's not popper-scientific.

[soheil]

I also agree, as a whole, Astrology isn't falsifiable. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[choosername]

I'd argue that it's purer than most because measurements interfer less with the measurenent space. The equipment and local setup are at odds, though.