Assuming that a hypothesis is a fact, after its been rigorously peer reviewed and verified, is science.
No. An unproven hypothesis cannot be considered as fact.
You kind of need to prove it before you can treat it as fact.
Your assertion was not on astronomy alone, it was on the whole of modern science, and by only attacking this single strand of science, your attempting to avoid taking on much more validated sciences such as the ones used for modern medicine (expressed in my example).
I've already touched on medicine earlier in the thread. Medicine is actually a Zetetic Science where the researcher puts the experiment first, conclusions after.
When they want to know how different chemicals will react to red blood cells, for example, they create rooms and rooms of vials which test each and every result for the desired cause.
They do the same with the "Folding at Home" project. It tests each and every possibility methodically to find a suitable result.
There aren't any hypothesis' when it comes to medicine. When you want results you start with the experiment stage first, conclusions after. That's how you find the truth. Samuel Birley Rowbotham knew this very well.
Modern Medicine is a Zetetic Science. Doctor Samuel Birley Rowbotham even contributed to its establishment his very own self.
How could Alexander Fleming, a biologist and pharmacologist, possibly have stumbled upon the uses of penicillin, without first assuming that germ-theory was true.
Flemming actually discovered Penicillin by accident. It's an invalid example. Read up on your history. He didn't use any particular method to discover it.
He left a petri dish containing deadly bacteria next to an open window and some mold blew in and started to dissolve the bacteria. That's how it was "discovered".
That's right Bishop, you have trusted people before, and in trusting anyone, your making the assumption that what they are saying is true, and your simply "Building one unproven hypothesis off of another." Why assume that what you read upon Stephen Hawkings was even said by him and not simply made up to spread the flat earth conspiracy? I mean, its just as valid as being skeptical on whether or not every space organization and person who claims to have explored Antarctica was actually telling the truth. Without having any trust in anything other than your own personal visual senses, you can only progress in horribly small increments.
What are you babbling about? It's not a matter of doubting someone's word. It's a matter of the search for truth.
Astronomers do not care about truth, so they operate by fantasy alone.