In defence of science against the astrology snakeoil salesmen

It all started when my father ill-advisedly sent me this article on astrology

The crux of the argument was that astrology was pure science and that any failings that are there in the predictive capability is because the astrologer is not skilled at handling the complex calculations. This in itself is an old bit of excuse and it wouldn't have made any impact on me. But the author mentions things like neutrinos and tidal tugs and pissed me off enough to respond. In excruciating detail.

I would posit that whether astrology has physical basis or not, it is not a science. Even granting that the bulletproof argument that any failings that astrology has is not the fault of astrology but the imperfections of astrologer. 

Words have meanings. science has a very strict definition. Primary of these definitions of what makes science science is 'repeatability'. If I make the claim that the perforation force of a glass fibre sandwich composite is 5000 N (with s.d of 200 N), it means that if I test another composite plate tomorrow I expect it to be 5000 N. Another of the primary characteristics of science is user-independence. If my claim cannot be verified by another scientist using his equipment in another lab, then my claim is pretty useless. If the other scientist finds a perforation force of 2000 N, I can't with a straight-face say, "I am still right". Another feature of science is 'provability or disprovability'. If I make a claim that an unknown ray with unknown attributes is causing things to happen in unknown ways, but it is totally true, then it is not science. 

So even if we accept for arguments' sake that cosmic background radiation and neutrinos are perfect predictors of human destiny and the only problem is that we don't have capable astrologers to do all the math correctly, it still doesn't follow that astrology is science. believe, don't believe - i really don't care as long as you call it something else but science. 

And please don't joke around with terms like neutrinos or tidal tugs. sure to non-physicists these strategically placed jargon give the aura of true science but last time i checked the Higgs-Boson field does not cause tidal tugs on brains to emit neutrinos. here is more jargon to make your head spin - quantum mechanics, string theory, dark matter. Tachyons. Midichlorians.

Just so you know that I am not just being 'close-minded', I'll tell you what will make me a true believer. Let Nature, Science or The Astrophysical Journal publish an article that they have measured xrays, gamma rays, cosmic rays or whatever to affect the course of our lives because of the moment of our birth, I will, after critically reading those articles and not finding any leaps of faith, accept the scienciness of astrology. Well, I might even consider his arguments if Shivakumar can give me the link to the extraordinary claim that he has made (technically he has pointed that someone else has made a claim) that gravitational tugs has a measurable impact on brain of foetus. I regularly browse recent developments in cognitive neuroscience and I have friends who work in some of the best labs in the world on neural imaging. I have not heard of any scientific research that proves anything close to a done deal. In fact, I have spent the last hour on scientific databases and I can't find the research that they are referring to. 

So, what would take an open-minded person like you to question the validity of astrology?