[deleted my own header!...]
> >It is actually very difficult to find a content-free method of
> >distinguishing astrology, etc. from science. An effective distinction
> >would use how 'well-grounded the answer is to the question'. This is a
> >fuzzy term, because it's a meta-property.
> >/ Kenneth Boyd
>
> Astrology is to science as trashcan lids are to automobiles.
Agreed.
> Astrology uses no falsifiable/testable hypotheses, and can not even begin
> to describe the mechanism for its imagined operation.
The former statement is the essence to why astrology 'does not well-ground
the answer into the question'. They do attempt the latter, but THAT is
not formalized enough to provide testable hypotheses.
> It is actually extremely difficult to find any congruence between astrology
> and science, beyond the fact they both use mathematics.
Try viewing both as purely formal systems, devoid of meaning. That's why
I specified 'content-free'. Should I have said 'meaning-free'? It is
MUCH harder to find said analogies when one includes the meaning!
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////