There's a very popular type of person who dismisses it out of hand and thinks themselves more intelligent for doing so, but it really just boils down to the scientistic, mechanicist bias of our times. Things are thought to be emergent from purely physical forces which all reduce to microscopic interactions of known forces. Also, things are separated into "black boxes" of functionality that are assumed independent of each other except for known channels of interaction or correlation, without even thinking about it. All these premises are wrong. There's no good reason astrology can't be possibly valid, but that doesn't mean it is. The only way to know is to really get into it and observe how well it works. Oh, also, people tend to call astrology pseudoscience, but, because of scientism, the term pseudoscience is way overused, to refer to basically anything that's not science, as if science is the only valid way of knowing anything. "Pseudoscience" should refer only to things that purport to be scientific but aren't. Astrology never claimed to be science and such (though the way it was developed over generations of observation and tinkering may very well be closely scientific method-adjacent). My essay: https://philosophy.inhahe.com/2018/04/13/notes-on-science-scientism-mysticism-religion-logic-physicalism-skepticism-etc/#Astrology