[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.