It annoys me that academic and analytical types tend to dismiss astrology out-of-hand and sometimes ridicule it. I'm not saying one should just believe it for no reason, but the only way to legitimately judge whether there's something to it or not is to get into it, really study it and subjectively assess whether it describes reality better than mere chance. People just have this reflexive view on the universe that's totally mechanistic, lifeless and composed of 100% separate but interacting parts. It's very scientistic.

People assume that astrology only seems to work because the descriptions are vague enough that they could apply to anybody or any time of year, but this is merely an assumption. The fact that vague statements can be used to fool people sometimes doesn't necessarily mean that's all astrology is, and again, the only way to really know is to look into it and approach it with an open mind.

Just like we take it as an axiom without truly understanding it that objects can affect each other remotely per gravitation or magnetism, it could be simply taken as non-understood axiom that the relative positions of celestial objects can affect the characteristic of events and emotions here on Earth.

It also annoys me when scientistics call astrology (and many other things) a pseudo-science. The prefix "pseudo" means that something purports to be something it's not. Astrology isn't purporting to be a science in the hard way that, say, physics or biology is. It's something different entirely, but that doesn't make. it invalid. It's based on thousands of years of observation and the synthesis and refinement of models that seem to correlate with those observations.

I wrote more on the matter here: https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/notes-on-science-scientism-mysticism-religion-logic-physicalism-skepticism-etc/#Astrology