You're assuming an a priori bias. Astrology didn't lose favor because of some societal decree, it lost favor because it had no predictive power. It seems to be the same with analysis of precursor signals, and the subfield apparently went a little nuts and started to sound like quackery and data fudging.
We started the study with a good faith survey and intent to use space and ground signals in sync to detect impending earthquakes on nearish term. We had good technologists and scientists. As the study went on it became clear that all the scientists were completely unconvinced. Sure we could have built out the network but it wouldn't have done much. Most the scientists either lost faith or write dissenting opinions as part of the report. We did our job putting out the report but it was clear there was nothing to do after.
If this sort of scientific astrology ends up providing precursor signals for future earthquakes, why would geologists have a problem with it?