But now I see a contradiction you are making then. On the one hand you accept that astrology is prescientific, and prescientific systems should not be considered pseudoscience, yet you also claim that it’s not possible for astrology to be an “art”, that it is a system of casual representation and therefore, pseudoscience.

Now, we do agree that astrology used as a system of casual representation would be a pseudoscience.

However, I see horoscopes more than often used as an intuitive social augmented reality game, where the serious consideration of cause is not even necessary or even useful, like a form of psychological theater that can appear intuitively true depending on the interaction.

Are you saying that you don’t believe society should play with such intuitive psychological ARGs or are you suggesting this is possible?

Also, I promise my intention here is not to be pedantic, I think these little distinctions make all the difference in the world in todays age where the challenges of misinformation are a bit more complex.