No, that's what Occam's razor is, by definition. Your opinion may be that Occam's razor is useless, but that's not an opinion shared by most people in the scientific community.
I expect most scientists would give a positive review of microscopes and karnaugh maps--that doesn't make microscopes or karnaugh maps infallible tools of first resort for selecting between alternative scientific theories.
Einstein's mechanics are infinitely superior to Newton's.
Then why, pray tell, do we still employ Newton's laws for most of our physics-related tasks?
Try using Newton's formulas to figure out what would happen to the trajectory of a neutron star passing by a black hole at 0.85c.
Newton was never faced with this case, just as Ptolomaic mariners were never faced with calculating the perihelion of Mercury. For tasks they were faced with, Occam's razor would eliminate the modern replacements for both theories, on account of their useless extra calculation complexity.
Unlike ancient astronomy, Modern astronomy totally fails to explain to individual humans what the subtle interactions of the stars predict for their personal lives.
And astrology does explain these things? Accurately?
Prove it won't--in a few months, when the stars begin to line up properly. Think you can do so without making astrology a subject of serious scientific inquiry? Once you start, of course, I expect you to label all the astronomy books with a small warning label, and teach astrology in astronomy classrooms for one hour per semester.
Be at one with his noodly appendage, grasshopper.
I never said anything about any tool being infallible.
[Einstein's mechanics are infinitely superior to Newton's.]
Then why, pray tell, do we still employ Newton's laws for most of our physics-related tasks?
Because for velocities in the range that macroscopic objects in our world move at, there's scarcely any distinction between the two. It's like asking why we round numbers.
[And astrology does explain these things? Accurately?]
Prove it won't--in a few months, when the stars begin to line up properly.
All that's necessary to show is that it's failed to give reliable, predictable explanations for people's behavior, which means that thus far, it's been disproved of having any explanatory value.