I thought this argument sounded familiar, and looking at my comment history confirms it. I argued with you about the necessity of an explanation for something to be scientific previously. Clearly you feel strongly about this issue, so I'll make a better attempt to understand your argument this time.
Can you clarify for me exactly what you mean by an "explanation"? The linked article starts to talk about a difference between description and explanation, but then just arbitrarily says that Newton's theory of gravity constitutes an explanation. I don't see how Newton's theory is anything more than a very detailed description.
Why is the hypothesis "There's a magic force called gravity that behaves according to these laws." any more valid than the hypothesis "Stuff falls because magic." Both provide testable predictions, and can be falsified. Indeed one could simply point to the moon and say "that doesn't fall, theory disproven" just as one could point to the unusual orbits, and disprove Newton. I don't see how that makes the hypothesis itself unscientific.
Can you clarify for me exactly what you mean by an "explanation"? The linked article starts to talk about a difference between description and explanation, but then just arbitrarily says that Newton's theory of gravity constitutes an explanation. I don't see how Newton's theory is anything more than a very detailed description.
Why is the hypothesis "There's a magic force called gravity that behaves according to these laws." any more valid than the hypothesis "Stuff falls because magic." Both provide testable predictions, and can be falsified. Indeed one could simply point to the moon and say "that doesn't fall, theory disproven" just as one could point to the unusual orbits, and disprove Newton. I don't see how that makes the hypothesis itself unscientific.