The first step in providing an astrological reading is to cast the chart. This is followed by an analysis of interacting chart factors, which in turn is followed by the astrologer's interpretation of these factors. In regard to the third step, D. Hamblin, former chairman of the United Kingdom Astrological Association, wrote:

If I find a very meek and unaggressive person with five planets in Aries, this does not cause me to doubt that Aries means aggression. I may be able to point to his Pisces Ascendant, or to his Sun conjunct Saturn, or to his ruler in the twelfth house; and if none of these alibis are available, I can simply say that he has not yet fulfilled his Aries potential. Or I can argue (as I have heard argued) that, if a person has an excess of planets in a particular sign, he will tend to suppress the characteristics of that sign because he is scared that, if he reveals them, he will carry them to excess. But if on the next day I meet a very aggressive person who also has five planets in Aries, I will change my tune: I will say that he had to be like that because of his planets in Aries.

Does this statement indicate that the step involving chart interpretation is not subject to disconfirmation and is therefore unscientific? Is Hamblin saying here that the interpretation is not of the chart but of the face-to-face encounter with the client? (From "Does Astrology Need to Be True?" by Geoffrey Dean, in Frazier, 1991.)