Along with the discussion on scientific topics, I would like to touch upon the philosophy of science. What makes an argument scientifically valid? There are many layers to it. I don't think we can give a sufficient condition that makes an argument scientific. But what we can do is derive the necessary condition. Out of many, falsifiability is the most useful and with this argument, you can distinguish many pseudoscientific arguments from science.
In PRL library I had seen a book titled " Astrology Unproved". I did not read that book but it may be interesting to read.
If some one says this article is great, I cannot falsify it :)