[tellytubby]

I could put into words exactly what I think about such a suggestion that is made my FE Wiki. 

Being restricted by location and access, the astronomer is at a disadvantage. Astronomy does not, and can not, follow the Scientific Method; which is an empirical method of inquiry that demands that hypothesis is tested with experiment. The astronomer cannot put the stars under controlled experimental conditions to demonstrate ideas and come to the truth of a matter, as a chemist can do with his or her materials. The astronomer can only observe and interpret—a scientific fallacy which hinders truth and progress.

I quite agree with aspects of this quote.   At least the first sentence. However the rest of it I whole heartedly disagree with. The astronomers raw material is electromagnetic radiation.  Light if you will. Energy that has been chugging through the Universe since (very nearly) the moment it came into being. Analysis of that light (of all wavelengths from Gamma through to radio) has allowed astronomers to learn a vast amount about how the Universe works and given us valuable clues about how it might have been formed and ultimately how it will end.

By using an example that is hinted at in the quote, laboratory measurements of the position of lines in the spectra of various elements and then direct comparison with the spectra of stars has allowed us to confirm that the spectra lines visible in stars are due to the presence of those same elements in the atmospheres of stars.  The volume of data that such analysis has allowed us to gather about the stars has given us a strong insight into the physical properties of stars that was unimaginable to those who lived just a couple of centuries ago. 

Of course we cannot physically go and explore the cosmos at will and for that matter we probably never will.  But there is no way that anyone of clear and logical mind can suggest that such a restriction has in turn restricted the progress that has been made in astronomy.   Astrology most definitely yes, but astronomy equally no.   Sorry guys who write the FE Wiki but you are not getting away with that one!

[Rama Set]

You will notice the unreconcilable contradiction between the criteria with which the wiki disqualifies astronomy as science and the criteria it uses to include the Bedford Canal experiment, among others.  It is horribly inconsistent and not really worth much consideration as a topic of serious discussion.  It should be noted that the section on astronomy as pseudoscience is pulled from the thoughts of none other than the master contrarian himself, Tom Bishop, who is more than happy to cite YouTube videos of people making half-assed observations as experimental evidence, but dismissed the extremely precise measurements of astronomers because... well I am not sure why.  All I know is that it is inconsistent.

[Tom Bishop]

Several experiments use multiple control points. See Experiment 2 in Earth Not a Globe.

Whenever your opponent needs to try and change the subject rather than defend the matter directly, it is an implicit admission that he has no defense, and a sign that he has accepted your position and argument.

[tellytubby]

So sticking a few flags in a river is a carefully controlled laboratory level scientific experiment to you is it Tom?

What sources of possible systematic and experimental errors can you think of associated with such a method?

[Rama Set]

Several experiments use multiple control points. See Experiment 2 in Earth Not a Globe.

Whenever your opponent needs to try and change the subject rather than defend the matter directly, it is an implicit admission that he has no defense, and a sign that he has accepted your position and argument.

What could I possibly have to defend? There is direct observation of the Earth being a spheroid. This is all philosophical fun and games.  It's interesting to me that you have no problem holding contradictory viewpoints about what is admissible evidence.  That's all this is.

[Tom Bishop]

So sticking a few flags in a river is a carefully controlled laboratory level scientific experiment to you is it Tom?

What sources of possible systematic and experimental errors can you think of associated with such a method?

Since he saw the top of the flags to be perfectly aligned against the taller flag at the end, there would need to be a systematic refraction effect which caused the flags to be projected into the air at the exact height in accord with the height of the observer and the distance looked across to simulate a Flat Earth.

The top of the first flag would have been projected 8 inches into the air, the second flag 2.67 ft, the third flag 6 feet, the fourth flag 10.6 feet, the fifth flag 14.29 feet, and the sixth flag 24.01 feet in the air.

An amazing coincidence, really.

[Rama Set]

So sticking a few flags in a river is a carefully controlled laboratory level scientific experiment to you is it Tom?

What sources of possible systematic and experimental errors can you think of associated with such a method?

Since he saw the top of the flags to be perfectly aligned, there would need to be a systematic refraction effect which caused the flags to be projected into the air at the exact height in accord with the height of the observer and the distance looked across to simulate a Flat Earth.

The top of the first flat would have been projected 8 inches into the air, the second flag 2.67 ft, the third flag 6 feet, the fourth flag 10.6 feet, the fifth flag 14.29 feet, and the sixth flag, which should have been below the horizon, 24.01 feet in the air.

An amazing coincidence, really.

 
Illustrating the issue perfectly: you agree with the conclusion so you don't apply the same level of critical analysis to how the observation was made.  Ignore the result, and explain how the Bedford Level Experiment as performed by SBR, is in any way a controlled experiment.

[Tom Bishop]

There are multiple control points in that experiment and others. Each point is a test in the experiment. Amazing refraction coincidences would need to occur to account for them.

https://biologydictionary.net/controlled-experiment/

Controlled Experiment Definition

A controlled experiment is a scientific test that is directly manipulated by a scientist, in order to test a single variable at a time. The variable being tested is the independent variable, and is adjusted to see the effects on the system being studied. The controlled variables are held constant to minimize or stabilize their effects on the subject.

Rowbotham is well aware of the "refraction" argument, and this test is designed to test the refraction of light rays on the flags of constant height. The observation is turned into multiple experiments. The matter is artificially manipulated to separate one explanation from another, in the effort to more truthfully determine a cause of an observation.

[tellytubby]

To refocus this discussion back to my original point. Modern astronomy is a truly huge subject in all senses of the word.

To describe astronomy as a 'pseudo science' as FW Wiki puts it is an equally huge insult not only to the subject itself but also to the countless amateur and professional astronomers that have studied and loved it for most of their lives. Me included.

It has achieved more in just the last century than Flat Earth Theorists ever have or ever will achieve.

Pseudo science indeed. I can't think of an example of a subject that defines or represents what true science is all about in a much better way.  Science is about interpretation of data. It does not matter whether that data comes from experiments or observation, or a mixture of both.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

The astronomer can only observe and interpret—a scientific fallacy which hinders truth and progress.

Tom, could you explain why an observation of space cannot constitute a scientific experiment? This seems to be the crux of your argument, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case.