a_g said:
... so i can stop his ignorance by informing him.
if the guy is determined to be a jerk and scoff at over a century of careful painstaking work by dedicated men and women, then what he should target is not the estimates of SIZE of stars but the estimates of their DISTANCE
the reason is that the process of building up the astronomical distance scale is complicated and can't be summed up in a few sentences---it involves measuring different ways and checking one against the other, and generations of detective work, analyzing clusters of stars to learn the relation of temperature to luminosity
and discovering special types of stars which pulsate regularly according to their brightness
constructing the distance scale has been a great human achievement and it is still going on.
everything else in astronomy depends on the distance scale, so if an antiscience person wanted to attack the creds of astronomers I think that would be the natural place to attack. It is vulnerable in the sense that the building up of ability to tell distance is a long fascinating story. If someone starts shouting that it is all wrong it would be difficult to counter because you'd have to lead him---and whoever else had their doubts raised---patiently thru many steps to give an honest account of it.
I should have pointed out that in the short account I gave you of how one can tell the size of a star, there is a point where you need to know the distance (see, it's basic

).
That is where you use a telescope and light-meter to tell the WATTAGE of the star.
the amount of light you get falls off as the square of distance, so if you know the distance you can adjust for it and calculate how much light you would be getting if you were closer. The telescope is only sampling a tiny sector of the whole output---but knowing the distance and the wattage of that tiny sector let's you figure the total.