Hey, if it works for you...
I'm trying to explain how the philosophy of naturalism infects all of science
I guess you haven't noticed that all of these terms include the word "naturalism." And it's a good idea. Even the highly-religious Francis Bacon knew it was a good idea because it frees you of the corruptive influences of what he called "idols." Rather than being an infection, it is a purification.
Here you make the assumption that redshift/blueshift is a function of recession/approach velocity that is probably not correct.
First of all, we know redshift and blueshift can be functions of relative speed and direction, just as we know the pitch of a train whistle gets higher at it approaches and lower as it goes away. It's the same phenomenon in both cases. However, we also know gravity can produce red shift in our views of stars.
The currently accepted model explains Andromeda's blueshift through approach. His model has everything with gravitational redshift, yet Andromeda is blue.
Hey, if it works for you...
"I guess you haven't noticed that all of these terms include the word "naturalism." And it's a good idea. Even the highly-religious Francis Bacon knew it was a good idea because it frees you of the corruptive influences of what he called "idols." Rather than being an infection, it is a purification."
Francis Bacon was referring to methodological naturalism which I have previously said must be natural. Now you are back to trying to justify metaphysical naturalism by pointing to methodological naturalism, just as I said you would. Hey, if it works for you...
"First of all, we know redshift and blueshift can be functions of relative speed and direction, just as we know the pitch of a train whistle gets higher at it approaches and lower as it goes away. It's the same phenomenon in both cases. However, we also know gravity can produce red shift in our views of stars."
First of all, we know that redshift and blueshift can be other than functions of relative speed and direction, like intrinsic properties of astronomical objects. You don't know that it is the same phenomenon in both cases, but it's easier to go along w/ the crowd because of that laziness you referred to earlier. There's cover there for being wrong, but hey, if it works for you...
"The currently accepted model explains Andromeda's blueshift through approach. His model has everything with gravitational redshift, yet Andromeda is blue."
If Ellis can construct a model that you cannot disprove through observation, then observing the blueshift of Andomeda would be included. Maybe Ellis is a liar, but hey, if it works for you...