oriel36 wrote:
In a purely technical sense the issue would be the structure of
observations and conclusions drawn from those observations which would
comprise the central issue of any resolution between the predictive side
of astronomy and the demonstrative or interpretative side of astronomy.

It is true that the Galileo affair brought out the issue of Biblical
interpretation using apparent motions against factual actual motions
which ultimately created this science vs religion environment however
this important issue tends to disguise problems which all sides were
unsure of and,in truth, couldn't be dealt with until late in the last
century or this century.

Everything from the current messes surrounding planetary definition,
ignorance of the leap day as it serves planetary dynamics and their
traits, climate change and all sorts of modeling/predicting is wrapped up
in the technical issues nobody ,at least those of any relevance, wants to
deal with or are content to leave historical characters as figurines
acting out ideologies to suit present agendas whether it is attacking
denominational Christianity or promoting voodoo and junk under the name of astronomy.

The issues should be fascinating for anyone who looks to astronomy beyond
astrophotography or 'stargazers' as they call themselves but I haven't
seen anyone come close to what is necessary to deal with refreshing
astronomy as a pursuit that encompasses other sciences.

Easy definition of a planet:
A planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massiveenough for its own
gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller
objects around its orbit.
If you had asked Galileo or Copernicus whether Pluto was a planet they
would have said "What are you talking about"
If you asked an ancient Greek they would have said "You cant see it so how
can it be a planet"

No mess here. Just you being anachronistic.