Acharya Prashant asserts that astrology cannot be considered a science because it lacks verifiable and falsifiable principles. Science requires experiments that yield consistent results under the same conditions, such as Newton's laws of motion. Astrology, however, is a narrative or a collection of unverified beliefs that cannot be demonstrated or validated through objective experimentation. It often relies on fear and insecurity to maintain its influence, functioning more as a profit-yielding industry of storytelling rather than a logical or rational discipline. He further clarifies the distinction between science and spirituality. Science is defined as the study of objects and the material universe, whereas spirituality is the study of the subject, or the self that perceives. Because they have mutually exclusive definitions and domains, it is incorrect to label spirituality as a pseudoscience. Just as science is not expected to be spiritual, spirituality is not intended to be scientific in the objective sense. They address different aspects of reality: the material world and the observer of that world. Acharya Prashant critiques the tendency to base inquiries on unexamined assumptions. He points out that the questioner assumed spirituality is a pseudoscience without understanding its definition. He emphasizes that true curiosity should not be founded on such assumptions, as they lead to flawed conclusions. He encourages a deeper investigation into the nature of the subject rather than relying on labels or unfounded beliefs, urging the audience to recognize the difference between objective facts and subjective inquiry.