Science as contemporarily understood, admired and practiced didn't start to take shape until the 1800s, but I don't think the comparison is out of line.
In the time of the hellenistic period and late antiquity when these good folks were writing and doing astrology, it was common to find the same person studying metaphysics and theurgical alongside the more traditional scientific disciplines (or the precursors). Proclus, Plotinus and Iamblichus are examples.
Although the influences of natural philosophy stretch back to the pre-socratic philosophers, natural philosophy seemed to be a more recent development in Medieval and Renaissance times. Natural history, it's counterpoint, is also important in the history of science, and it is within that field of knowledge where you find the more observational fields of study. We also know that science doesn't automatically lead to technology/technical innovation, even in the modern day. Hell, it's stated that it takes an average of 17 years from basic biomedical research to clinical practice - and this is for the sort of research that can actually be converted to something of practical value.
I think that the idea that science should result in greater ease and standards of living, and that such a pursuit should take primacy, is modern and commercially minded.
I don't think that religion has the premium on control and embargo on doctrine/knowledge. One could find the same in the scientific sphere, or more specifically at the intersection of science, politics, commerce and law.
But, traditional astrology still bunches up religion, science and philosophy in the 9th so there is a astrological basis for the grouping. I would view theurgical practices as being 9th house as well, as opposed to goety which is what I think the traditional astrologers were referring to when they placed "magic" in the 12th house.