Explain astrology to a sceptic, fairly

A friend thinks it's nonsense and you want an honest account rather than a defence.

Explain the concept below to an intelligent sceptic, without overselling it and without sneering at it.

Cover:
1. **What the concept actually claims**, stated precisely, separating the technical claim from the cultural one.
2. **The strongest sceptical case.** State it properly: what the evidence shows, what the usual psychological explanations are, and where the reasoning in astrology is circular or unfalsifiable. Do not weaken it.
3. **What practitioners would say in response**, in their own terms, and which of those responses are honest and which dodge the question.
4. **What is left.** What the practice can reasonably be said to offer as a symbolic, reflective, or creative discipline once the predictive claims are set aside.

Be even handed and do not perform belief. If the honest answer is that the concept has no empirical support, say so plainly in the first section.

Concept:

Questioning the tradition. Where sources disagree, what separates symbolic from predictive, and the sceptic's honest case.