[TangoTrotFox]

The problem with non-falsifiability is that let's say we avoid 'overgeneralizing' from a categorization as you suggest. And instead we stick to whatever tightly constrained region of classification or prediction you'd consider acceptable. And so we take a Myers-Briggs test and it says this individual should exhibit this class of behavior. And it turns out they don't. Would this pose a problem to Myers-Briggs? Not in the least. Okay, what if it was a hundred? A thousand? A billion? There's no magic number where it's suddenly a problem.

I do agree with the person you're responding to that astrology would likely still be considered somewhat scientific if it didn't rely on things that we know to be false. For instance astrology mixes Mercury starting to go backwards as a key player in its predictions. The problem being there that Mercury doesn't go backwards. It was/is an optical illusion based on an inaccurate understanding of our solar system. But outside of getting some things fundamentally wrong astrology is the same as any other unfalsifiable model. Being wrong doesn't matter, and you can just constantly add onto it and claim you're 'refining' it.

Maybe even that geocentric model though is the same story. Part of the reason the geocentric model of our universe lasted so long was because, with the technology at the time, it wasn't completely falsifiable. Mercury needs to go backwards to make this model work? Other planets need to go into crazy floral sharped curvy patterns to make it work? Well okay then I Mercury goes backwards and planets go in floral shaped curvy patterns. If you wanted to suggest a different model, such as a heliocentric one, that'd involve throwing away literally centuries of work and entirely discrediting astrology (which was at one time a pursuit as scholarly as any other) as a science. People blame the church for the geocentric model, but there was much more to it than just that.