You are referring to this page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_PseudoscienceAstronomy is literally a pseudoscience, as it relies on observation and interpretation.
Phys.org says:
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-scientists-distinguishes-science-pseudoscience.htmlPseudoscience mimics aspects of science while fundamentally denying the scientific method. A useful definition of the scientific method is:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
A key phrase is "testing of hypotheses". We test hypotheses because they can be wrong.
Chemical Times & Trends, Volume 23 says:
"A theory does not become a fact without experimentation and repetition to rule out all other explanations."
Roger Bacon, father of the scientific method said:
"Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment."
“The strongest arguments prove nothing, so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience.”
In regards to blueshift and redshift, those theories don't work out in the universe as they do on Earth. The theories need to be modified. Most galaxies we see are redshifted to a degree that doesn't really make sense, and the implication is that we are the center of the universe. The cosmological redshift is known as Hubble’s law, and postulated that the known universe is expanding. Hypothetical mechanisms were put in place to change the observation and its implications based on the experimental science of the redshift and blueshift of light into an undiscovered metric expansion of space and time.
See this quote from Edwin Hubble:
“ Such a condition (the red shifts) would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied.
Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations.
The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position.
But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs… Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable… Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. ”
— E. Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.58
Stephen Hawking said:
“ "...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe."
"There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe." ”
—Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 42 (Bantam, 1988).
From Paul Davies in Nature:
“ If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! This theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations ”
Does believing in a theory "on grounds of modesty" sound scientific to you?