[Idttisgoit]

I found that in your forum https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience
So that is to me kind a funny, but that aside

A Yale astronomy course explains:

  “ One of the questions asked in this astronomy course was "What type of experiment do astronomers perform?" None, was the answer. An astronomer's lab is his observatory. Astronomy is an observing science. Sight is the primary sense used in this science. The instrument that enhances this endeavor is the telescope. ”

The Department of Astronomy at UW-Madison states:

  “ Astronomy is an observational science, as opposed to most of the rest of physics, which is experimental in nature. Astronomers cannot create a star in the lab and study it, walk around it, change it, or explode it. Astronomers can only observe the sky as it is, and from their observations deduce models of the universe and its contents. ”

Well this is not true. Physics including astronomic physics use basically a theory based model. A scientist takes into account what he has observed (measured) and creates a model that represents this behavior. When he thinks he has a valid model he publishes his theory. Then this theory is taken as valid until some one can disprove it. When a theory can not be disproved for some time it will be adapted as probably working model for our world(universe whatever). So in order to disprove the circulation of the earth around the sun you have to take the publication and find a point that can be falsified by observation (measurement) e.g.  the sun does not rise for a day, then the theory would be disproved.

Lets take an example from the past:
https://hti.osu.edu/sites/hti.osu.edu/files/ptolemaic_model_of_solar_system_0.pdf
Ptolmey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy)
Thinks this is the model of the System in which the earth is the center (geocentric model)

Now it was disproved by the fact that venus and mercury are never are far away from the sun. You could argument that they just have similar speeds but that does not hold if you consider that every observed planet has a different speed. So it was disproved by observation.

Also an interesting page about pseudo science:
https://people.physics.carleton.ca/~watson/Physics/NSCI1000/Pseudo-science/Copernicus_vs_Ptolemy.html

But if a model does predicts something and if you try to measure (observe) the prediction then it strengthen the model.

[Idttisgoit]

With that said you can for example easily disprove the sun cycling model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F

This model does not hold if you consider solar eclipses do prove that the moon is before the sun. (and venus and mercury are also sometimes between earth and sun).

[Bikini Polaris]

I found that in your forum https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

I don't like the wiki approach as any definition of "Science" must find a social consensus, i.e. in the end "Scientists" is just a group of people sharing values. Within that group, Astronomy is surely accepted. So what the wiki should say is that the scientific approach to Astronomy is not zetetic and that it should be called pseudo-zeteticism. I mean, the two groups, scientists and zeteticists, should make their vocabulary distinct.