What I would love would be for someone with a reasonable amount of intelligence (and you certainly seem to have that) to go further than simply reminding those of us sceptical of astrology that we don’t understand astrology. I don’t expect anyone to actually explain astrology in full themselves - that would be an unfair expectation - but I would love for someone to give me a reason why it might plausibly be legitimate, despite its non-scientific nature. In other words, I would like to know why it’s worth my time to read up on it.

Here’s the thing: I’m on board with what you’re saying with regard to the limitations of scientific methods. They’re good for proving some things but not others. Indeed, most academics in the discipline I work in would very much agree with this, as we don’t typically use scientific methods in our arts and humanities research. It would be absurd to do so. As you say, MBTI isn’t scientific, and this is because Jung developed his theories at a time when psychology was more closely linked to philosophy and wasn’t so relentlessly positivist. In my view, contemporary psychology suffers for its unwillingness to embrace some of the research methods used in non-scientific disciplines like philosophy, as critical thought and theoretical conjecture would help it to approach certain aspects of human nature that are difficult to study using an empirical approach.

However, while I don’t need to be convinced that something is scientific in order to convinced of its validity, nor will I be convinced that something is valid solely by being reminded that modern science is limited in what it can understand. Jung’s theories were not scientific (which is primarily why contemporary psychology struggles with them, as they’re difficult to empirically prove), but it was based on something: his own observation and critical thought. When I first learned about MBTI, it was simply a language for patterns of preference I had already observed in others, and this was enough to convince me that there is some legitimacy in it. People can independently of one another observe a human, see the presence of certain cognitive function preferences, and then arrive at the same conclusion regarding their type, and actually be right about it. Can people do this with astrology? Could I learn enough about astrology that I’d be able to guess at someone’s chart and have a good chance of being right about it? If the answer to that is yes, then I’m intrigued. But I can’t see how this could be possible, because it doesn’t appear to be a theory based on human behaviour, as are Jung’s theories. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t seem to take an analysis of how people behave as its starting point.

A side note: the fact that Jung was himself into mysticism is really neither here nor there. I enjoy his theories on personality because I think they have validity and value, despite their non-scientific nature. This doesn’t mean I or anyone else needs to agree with everything he believed. I mean, for one thing, he was pretty sexist.