I had mentioned before about how philosophy and mathematics used to be equivalent before math diverged by making solid, technical assumptions, and proving what followed. Similarly is the case with regards to astrology and astronomy. Both began by looking for correlation between the stars and X, where X was pretty much any Earthly phenomenon. Then astronomy used counterexamples to the anthropic principle to establish more consistent theories, and astrology was properly buried. Then for some reason in the 20th century horoscopes reincarnated astrology.1 While technically the position of the stars infinitesimally changes the net gravitational force on a human, the fact that cognitive activity is based on electric potentials that globally dominate any infinitesimal net gravitational change on the body renders their study on personality irrelevant.
This being the case, the suffix -logy on astrology seems insulting to the scientific community. The suffix -log means “to speak”.2 Coupled with -y, it takes the meaning of “speaker” which appears to conventionally translate to “generic speaker”, or, “department/field”. Xlogy thus becomes “study/department of X”. In this case, X being astro–deriving from “stars”. At the same time, -nomy derives from “law”. How should we distinguish the two suffixes? We could say Xlogy is the general inquiry into X, which builds upon the object Xnomy. Xnomics could then be reserved for when Xlogy leads to multiple instances of an Xnomy. Hence we should have the following conventional-to-literal semantic assignments:
Astronomy (inquiry component) Astrology
Astronomy (law component) Astronomy.
What would academic departments call themselves then? We could pick the Xlogy form. In this case “economics” would be called “ecology”? The prefix eco- derives from the study of environments of living organisms. In this sense, conventional “economics” is far more abstract than it semantically pretends to be. I would consider something along the lines of
where E derives from something like “token”. Although trade itself may prove to be more fundamental and inherently connected to physics (think conservation of energy). We could then have
which one could plausibly argue. I’m not sure to what we could assign mathematics. It may not even matter since math, physics, and economics may share a fundamental equivalence (all could be construed as structures of symbols=0 volume energy regions=tokens).
 Campion, Nicholas, 2009. A History of Western Astrology, Vol. 2, The Medieval and Modern Worlds. London: Continuum. (via “Astrology” on Wikipedia).