The wiki voice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_sciencetends to destroy cthe redibility of astrology.
Actually, the factual concern is that the empiric evidence provided no proof of accurate forecasting (the experiments described). On the contrary, the results of astrological forecastes were the same as if chance would have governed the horoscopes (in other words, horoscopes would amount to tossing a coin).
This could be rebutted by saying that there are very few good astrologers nowadays. Of course, this woudl also mean that astrology could not be used unless we found those good astrologers and tested them.
The other criticism, that astrology has no basis in the physical sciences, in irrilevant. Astrology is not a phsical science, it's a metaphysical science and should be judged according to the rules of such a knowledge. Scientists cannot criticize metaphysical science, philosophers specialized in metaphysics could.
This doesn't rule out the fact that the basics of astrology should fit into a logical framework.
For example, the NASA objections posted above sound sensible. Why modern astrology does not allow for the equinoctial precession, why Ophiucus does not belong to the zodiac, why the zodiacal belt has been split into 12 equal durations rather than into their actual durations? Do these differences make up a fundamental flaw in modern astrology which hence should be discarded as lacking of inherent logical coherence (which is a very serious flaw in the field of metaphysical science).
