[eggsby]

Sorry if my language was unclear, I meant to highlight this line from the wiki article:

"There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth in the way astrologers say they do that does not contradict well-understood, basic aspects of biology and physics."

Relevant here because it essentially says "there is no empirical basis for spooky action at a distance" which has been grounds for dismissal of such action-at-a-distance claims like 'the relative positions of celestial bodies influence events on the earth'.

This kind of empiricism has been used as grounds to not critically evaluate these claims. Everyone is certainly free to have their own reasons around why they do not want to evaluate such claims. For example some people only want to consider things that are easily falsifiable and subject to particular scientific practices. The wiki article goes on to mention how Carl Sagan refused to disavow astrology on these grounds (i.e. gravity is weak so stellar influence writ large ought to weak) while still leaving room for a disavowal if it were on firmer grounds. I do think your point about simplicity is salient here.

[wizzwizz4]

> 'the relative positions of celestial bodies influence events on the earth'.

Who's claiming that‽ The relative positions of celestial bodies have influenced all sorts of events. For instance, the horoscopes in the newspaper, or photographs of the night sky.

No, what's in doubt is astrology, which is a much more specific set of (wrong) claims.