Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.
Observational science is defined as pseudoscience. Science must follow the scientific method.
The only reference to "observational science" on that wiki page is the U of Madison statement that astronomy is an observational science, sure that's obvious.
You completely ignored my quote from Maxim Sukharev's paper on the scientific method (he is your FIRST quote on the wiki here about the scientific method). Here is the key part
4. Predict – this is where it gets really interesting! In order to test our hypothesis, however mystical and crazy it may look, we need to make an experimentally testable prediction: in
10 hours it is going to be dark again.
5. Test predictions – well, is it dark? It is vital in this method that a given test must be done
objectively and could be independently repeated. This is where the scientific method truly distinguishes between what is real (objective) and what is just a figure of our imagination (or fraudulent attempt).
Note that the key part is to make a prediction and test that prediction against observation. That observation can of course be of a controled experiment where you can modify numerous conditions but it need not be (as it was not in Sukharev's example).
Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.
- FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
- FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
- FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.
Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?
Some elements in FE are pseudoscience, and some of it is not. Anything astronomy is pseudoscience, like in RE astronomy is largely pseudoscience, since it cannot be directly tested.
My question was not whether FE claims are pseudoscience (that's obvious), but whether FETheory is FALSE according to Sukharev's outline of the scientific method.
Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies
We have traveled extensively around the planet and the times/distance match the RE model and are not close to matching the FE model. Grasping at straws of "well they are not non-stop flights" and "there are storms and unusual winds" does not get you out of this. Such things are not remotely of sufficient scale to account for the extreme distances around the edge of FET claimed disk not to mention no one ever observing this claimed edge despite global travel (much of which should be impossible with the FE model).
Plus of course you completely ignored the atmospheric containment mechanism that FET predicts but has never been observed.
Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience. Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.
Scientific American has a problem with the cosmology professed on websites like that:
(link to Jeranism reading a Scientific American article deleted). If you would like to hold Scientific American up as a source of truth, then show us an article there claiming the earth is flat?
Of course you can not do so. Further it is not one published paper which makes the case, that is only the first step. The work must be repeated and verified and stand the test of time.
I agree that cosmology is highly speculative (so do many, maybe even most, cosmologists). We were not talking about cosmology, if my reference to the astrophysics work at Stanford where they clearly delineate observation vs experiment (clearly finding scientific value in both) side tracked that conversation then my bad The point of the article is that even in their experimental work, it is often about making a special tool to observe. e.g. we can not generate gravity waves but the project to detect them is clearly classified as experimental.
This appears to be self published. Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here. This is a classic technique of the FE crowed. Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case. But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.
Refusal to appropriately address the argument provided means that you lost it.
No Tom, your insistence to pluck quotes from random self published papers means you never really made the argument. The whole point of peer review is that lay folks like you and I and likely everyone on this site, do not have the expertise to know what is being left out, what should the author have addressed, how was the analysis performed etc.
Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.
Actually it's easy to find that the Scientific Method is still the standard for science, and has nothing to do with only applying to Roger Bacon's time.
The Scientific Method does not require experiments where all conditions can be controlled but predictions which can be tested by observation (potentially of an experiment, but that is not required). My reference to Bacon who lived 700 years ago was that he could not comment about modern astronomy.
I am not questioning the scientific method, I am asserting that those pushing FET are NOT using it.