Nice job picking an arbitrary definition of science and then claiming your arbitrary definition indicates a misunderstanding on my part. LOL.
Here's another arbitrary definition from wikipedia: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]"
Ho! Ho! According to this arbitrary definition, science is an "enterprise." An enterprise certainly falls under the category of "entity." Furthermore, an enterprise can indeed thrive. For example: "Our small enterprise of producing widgets struggled at first, but now it's THRIVING." And while I'm coasting on the merits of my arbitrary definition, I might as well point out that the article goes on to name astronomy as a science.
I love it when people call me out on my type 1 thinking/logical fallacies. It helps me grow as an intellectual.
It helps me more if they correctly point out a fallacy. But even when they are DEAD WRONG and misappropriate, say, the reification fallacy, it is still cause for me to reexamine my statements and figure out exactly why they are wrong. Thus it still benefits me by providing me with an intellectual exercise. So thanks.
Why don't I return the favor and point out a logical fallacy of yours? (Only I will try to correctly peg you on your type 1 thinking.)
This is a strawman fashioned out of the dryest straw imaginable. Nobody postulates a "whirling spinning ball" without noting laws of motion, forces of gravitation etc that make it possible for celestial objects to behave in such a fashion. By leaving out scientific theories which explain how the "whirling spinning ball" model works (and throwing the word fairytale in for rhetorical effect) you have thereby strawmanned the argument and said nothing of any substance.
As I said, I don't wish to debate the flat earth model. A conspiracy theory, by its very nature, is beyond falsifiability. No amount of empirical data can change that. So, no thanks.
I will, however, debate you on whether astronomy is a science or not--and I will do so accepting (for purposes of this argument) your assertion that a "science" is not an enterprise, but a methodology. (BTW, in order for us to have a coherent debate, we must agree upon definitions. You can't just proclaim that your definition is the correct one and say that I'm wrong because "you have the real definitions." To this end, I've accepted your definition as a show of good faith.)
The only part of your definition I reject is the part about "manipulating" the observed objects. I don't think that manipulation per se is required as part of the scientific method. Wikipedia (my go to source for arbitrary definitions) defines the process as:
1) Formulation of a question
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
4) Testing
5) Analysis
Can we agree, that a process which involves the above steps conforms to scientific methodology?
But before I go to the trouble of making my point, I want to ask: if I demonstrate that astronomy uses the scientific method as described above, will this count as a sufficient refutation of your position that astronomy is not a science?
[Insult redacted ]
Remember, all I need in response from you is a "yes" or "no" to the question in the above paragraph, and THEN I will proceed with my argument.
I learned how to swim at an early age. Granted, I learned in water, but the mechanics of the activity should be the same if I find myself in a vat of liquid bull.