Astronomy is a Pseudoscience

On the topic of Astronomy it is a general view that, for whomever may practice it, Astronomy is a pseudoscience.

Being restricted by location and access, the astronomer is at a disadvantage. Astronomy does not, and can not, follow even 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 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.

From Copernicus to Stephen Hawking, its practitioners publish works but fail to perform experiments to verify the hypothesis put fourth, such as the hypothesis of the metric expansion of space. Scientists in other fields are expected to perform controlled experiments to come to the truth of the matter, and so we must ask, why not the astronomers? If direct and demonstrated knowledge cannot be obtained then it is an issue of honesty and integrity to leave the matter as unknown.

A Yale University astronomy course explains:

The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method is a method of inquiry, expected even of school children, where an experiment is made to confirm or disprove a hypothesis.



Without experimental confirmation of a hypothesis, one must conclude that the science of astronomy is of questionable value that should, by necessity, be regarded as little different than those other "sciences" which are based on observation and interpretation.

Oxford Dictionary
Oxford Dictionary defines pseudoscience as

Wikipedia
From the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on pseudoscience we see:

Livescience
According to What is Science? on livescience.com we read:

Further Reference

 * Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared in Earth Not a Globe