Is Astrology (Indian) Unscientific Venki?

Yearly visit of Venki Ramakrishnan, the Nobel laureate during the music season in Chennai is studded with a few invited lectures in South India. This time around he gave one memorial lecture in Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, on the topic 'Skeptical Scientist', which invited first page consideration by the newspapers along with the much discussed Lokpal bill in Indian parliament.

Venki was of the skepticism that astrology along with homeopathy are belief based and could just be fake (according to the news reports). Being an Indian who always has wondered and contemplated about Indian astrology which predicts (precisely!) about different eclipses every year, along with planetary position, I was not able to completely appreciate Venki's opinion, though I too have some reservations about certain aspects of Indian astrology that is purely based on superstition. I don't agree with his analogy of Vitamin C of Linus Pauling. There is definitely a scientific possibility of Vitamin C being a potent anti-oxidant, having potential roles in reducing the risk of cancer and other diseases. I feel it is absolutely scientific to speculate and also suggest that something has a potential as it is equally important to prove it. In the case of vitamin C at least there are quite a few studies that have proven its usefulness in treating (if not curing) some health related defects. Based on this, certain suggestions extrapolating its benefits are bound to come.

Also, Indian astrology at least from what I've read and come to know is not just based on beliefs. It is also based on the impeccable wisdom and observational and analytical brains of our ancestors, who may not have actually recorded their observations as meticulously a modern day scientist does. Our ancestors passed on scientific experience biologically, through sharing their wisdom. Perhaps they thought genetic imprints of knowledge transmitted by 'teaching through practice' would stay immortal as compared to hard prints on a paper. I also feel some of their data which were recorded on non-paper surfaces would have got destroyed or lost. Even today, there are persons in India who calculate (perhaps not using formulas discovered by European or Western mathematicians) planetary positions for the future of earth, its climate, monsoon etc.

I have also had reasonably good experience with homeopathy and other alternative medicines. For example, for cold and allergic esinophilia or even asthma, homeopathy could be a viable alternative to modern medicine where there is no cure. I don't say homeopathy cures asthma. I just say, based on experience of several people, it can alleviate allergic asthma and cold. Of course, nobody has recorded or defined what exactly alleviates asthma in homeopathic formulations, but the truth is it does have positive effects. Sometimes, a purely reductionist approach in science will not work as it worked for ribosome structure and its subsequent utility in antibiotics discovery. The flaw to me only lies with modern science. It doesn't allow and accept people from other medicines to define drug and disease response in a holistic manner. It has gone too deep into the ocean that modern medicine refuses to see the existence of light above the ocean.

I did not have the opportunity to attend Venki's lecture. It is possible that he is misquoted or partially or selectively quoted by the media. But if the media reports are true, I would only argue with Venki regarding his skepticism and also suggest to him, that being a scientist, he should have reviewed literature and data on Indian astrology at least, before being dismissive of astrology as a fake subject. I totally agree with him that astrological predictions should not be based on superstitions.

This is not an emotional reaction by an Indian to Venki's observation; just a counter argument by an 'Argumentative Indian'.