Most science is observational. But unlike sciences like psychology, astronomy has a level of certainty with it.
Oh, so if the people doing it are "certain" of something it's not a pseudoscience? That's all it takes?
I didn't say that the people had to be certain, there are scientific laws that everything follows.
If we agree that astronomy is a pseudoscience because its theories cannot have experiments to prove it and then experiments to unsuccessfully disprove it, I can bring it back to my original question.
Do the experiments conducted by FE researchers follow the scientific method?
Are the experiments fair? Do they attempt to disprove the original hypothesis?
Is there one singular model of FE that can successfully explain all-natural occurrences as the RE model does? (in reference to daylight cycles, seasons, gravity, etc.)
This post wasn't about astronomy, it was about FE, however, it doesn't matter. I can see why having astronomy as a pseudoscience might help the idea of FE but astronomy isnt about defining the shape of the earth. it's subjects like geology, physics and thermal dynamics that would help the idea.