I agree that science is more than just making falsifiable claims, but I don't think that's a fair characterization of Popper. From what I understand of Popper's

I agree that science is more than just making falsifiable claims, but I don't think that's a fair characterization of Popper. From what I understand of Popper's philosophy (not having read his work first-hand), science is the development and refinement of theories that produce falsifiable claims. That already disqualifies astrology, and we could certainly add more criteria. But I don't think "shown to be correct" should be one because it's impossible in general, which is what inspired the falsifiability criterion in the first place.