Sure they do, but it's impossible to get data in psychology that is not flawed on so many levels it's laughable. You will never have a big enough sample, and it will never be varied enough. It's depressing studing psychology as a science.

Astrology is not just about your personality traits. Astrology flies in the face of much of physics (for example). Astrology is a theory not based on evidence, that means it cannot be emprically tested and you cannot test if the claims are linked to reality.

Science needs to be useful science needs to help us describe and explain phenomena. Almost every definition of science infers it needs to be useful.

By dogmatic, I mean that science should be able to accept that it might have got it wrong, rather that asserting correctness.

not at all, I was just putting it out there that pseudoscience is often used in an attempt to validate some claim or another, and generally that is 'selling' the theory to either make it seem more palatable to a wider audience, or to sell a product. I think 'real' science is (generally) not used to sell products in the same way, if it actually works, there's no reason to tell you how many people found out it works out of the 15 tested, if you see what I mean?

Psychology will never develop into a true science. Not this form of psychology any way.