The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Mysfit on October 06, 2018, 05:22:53 PM

Title: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Mysfit on October 06, 2018, 05:22:53 PM
Hello All,
This was touched upon a few times in other forum posts, but I am unsure it was specifically covered.
I am also worried that I might fall awry of the first or second forum rules, as I need to break apart someone's personal experiment. In case I am. I am sorry and it was not intentional.
I would like to discuss the viability of a Zetetic Experiment.
Therefore, I would like to discuss an experiment performed by a Zetetic, the Bishop experiment. The one who did the experiment will go unnamed for anonymity and rule-fear sake.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence)
In the Bishop experiment, a distance across water is observed without the interference of the water or curvature of the earth.
There is also a comment, by the experimenter, to say that this experiment was repeated whenever they had doubts about the shape of the earth (assuming more than once).
The evidence is, therefore, repeatably obtainable.

Now, I get to the problems.
1. In order for a zetetic experiment to be that, everything must be observable. As there are no pictures, but just a description of a beach as evidence. It falls short.
2. As the experiment was done to prove a flat earth, it indicates a bias and falls short of Zeteticism.
3. The wiki goes on to show how the round earth is wrong because of this experiment, but it merely indicates that this particular chunk of the earth is not round and the water is unusually calm. Any other conclusion would not be zetetic.
4. The experiment has been observed by 1. The wiki does not indicate peer-review but I am unsure one person's observation would be considered zetetic.
There are others but I don't want to beat a dead horse and want to get to my question.

This can't be a zetetic experiment and falls short of a scientific one.
What would be a zetetic experiment? Can there be one?
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 06, 2018, 05:44:21 PM
You fundamentally fail to understand the purpose of Zetetic inquiry. It doesn't matter how many people we claim to have completed the experiment, because you're not supposed to believe us. We're not here to persuade you.

The zeteticist in you may feel compelled to reproduce this experiment, or a similar one, for your own betterment and satisfaction. Not to convince us, not to painstakingly write it up for a peanut gallery of angry RE'ers/FE'ers, but for yourself.

As such, nothing in the Wiki can be Zetetic when you're reading it - it simply can't be. That's because you're reading about it, rather than performing it.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: stack on October 06, 2018, 05:55:20 PM
The zeteticist in you may feel compelled to reproduce this experiment, or a similar one, for your own betterment and satisfaction. Not to convince us, not to painstakingly write it up for a peanut gallery of angry RE'ers/FE'ers, but for yourself.

This is where I've always been confused about Zeteticism. As a Zeteticist, take Rowbotham as an example. He lectured, he debated, seemingly performed experiments to support his lectures and debates, and published books - He even gambled with others to prove his notions. Was he not doing all of those things to convince others? As well, he and his findings are cited quite frequently in debates here as "evidence".
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Mysfit on October 06, 2018, 09:09:53 PM
It doesn't matter how many people we claim to have completed the experiment, because you're not supposed to believe us. We're not here to persuade you.
Then... Why?
Why's anything written here... Why do any flat earth theorists respond to the multitude of inquiries?

So, from what you're saying... A zetetic experiment is done for the self. It does not ask for peer-review and would not necessarily need to meet the burden of proof beyond personal interpretation?
This seems closer to faith than science. Oh, god, there is even a book.
I'm not interested in faith. I haven't got any and am afraid to catch it.

I just want your thought experiment to work, which means the wiki needs to be able to explain away everything. I don't care if it's truth, just that it sounds enough like it to stop folks asking the same questions again and again. You're right that I don't fundamentally understand. I am overwhelmingly aware of a round earth and can not make heads or tails of some parts of the wiki (the book is my nemesis).
The wiki needs help to give you folks more time to write the new book (I think Tom is working on it).

The zeteticist in you may feel compelled to reproduce this experiment, or a similar one, for your own betterment and satisfaction.

There is no zeteticist in me. I still can't understand it and am now told i'm not meant to.
I can reproduce an experiment to bounce a laser off a reflector placed on the moon by an Apollo mission. I'm not even smart.
I may even be able to do it zetetically. If I knew what it was.
You make me upset. You should have a nice day, though.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Humble B on October 06, 2018, 09:49:35 PM
You fundamentally fail to understand the purpose of Zetetic inquiry. It doesn't matter how many people we claim to have completed the experiment, because you're not supposed to believe us. We're not here to persuade you.

The zeteticist in you may feel compelled to reproduce this experiment, or a similar one, for your own betterment and satisfaction. Not to convince us, not to painstakingly write it up for a peanut gallery of angry RE'ers/FE'ers, but for yourself.

As such, nothing in the Wiki can be Zetetic when you're reading it - it simply can't be. That's because you're reading about it, rather than performing it.

In science an experiment is conducted to prove something true or false in such a convincing and irrefutable way that it will lead to a general consensus among all scientists (and all those who know to check the experiment's dependability) about what is true and what is false.

The above description given by Pete concerning the persuasiveness of Zetetic inquiries, makes the Zetetic inquiry a perfect tool for self-deception.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: stack on October 07, 2018, 12:30:53 AM
As such, nothing in the Wiki can be Zetetic when you're reading it - it simply can't be. That's because you're reading about it, rather than performing it.

What I find interesting too is that Rowbotham writes extensively regarding scripture as the proper base to the existence of a flat earth. Which, to me, seems like he’s using a theory as a basis for his conclusions, which, in turn, seems decidedly not very Zetetic. So I suppose he was not being Zetetic when reading the scriptures nor doing so when basing a flat earth foundation on such.

In Earth Not A Globe, Chapter XV he writes (among many other references he makes to Christianity, scripture, creator, etc., ):

"The modern or Newtonian astronomy has none of these characteristics. The whole system taken together constitutes a most monstrous absurdity. It is false in its foundation; irregular, unfair, and illogical, in its details; and, in its conclusions, inconsistent and contradictory. Worse than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of which its advocates are practically supporters. By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books."
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2018, 03:09:07 AM
Rowbotham is correct. Science has always had a seemingly underlying goal to prove old religious knowledge to be wrong. Science characterizes ancient knowledge as mythical and ignorant.

It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have been historically athiest and 'agnostic'.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: stack on October 07, 2018, 05:55:37 AM
It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have been historically athiest and 'agnostic'.

That’s a meaningless statement. It’s just as equal to say, "It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have not been historically athiest and 'agnostic’.” So I fail to see your point and it’s not the point anyway.

The point is that the father of Zeteticism, Rowbotham, basically undermines his entire ‘method of inquiry’ with the basing of his flat earth belief on the 'holy scriptures’ then going about trying to prove it. Which is the same as having a hypothesis and then performing experiments to prove or disprove said hypothesis. I.e., the scientific method. In his case, psuedo-scientific as it was, but still, certainly not with the supposed purity of the Zetetic method.

In ENAG, he drops the God hammer at the very end - Dozens and dozens of biblical references as the basis for the previous 14 chapters. 14 chapters where the reader is led to believe that all is just Zetetic observation without any preconceived notions. When in fact, it’s all based upon religious doctrine.

Lady Blount and her cronies do no better with their society in this regard. From The Universal Zetetic Society founded in 1892:

OUR MOTTO
For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.

OUR OBJECT

The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation.

RULES

1.  Everything extraneous to “Our Object” to be avoided.

2.  The so-called “sciences,” and especially Modern Astronomy, to be dealt with from practical data in connection with the Divine system of Cosmogony revealed by the Creator.


So how is this anything like what Zeteticism is really about? It is certainly not: “...using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.”

https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism

For these so-called Zeteticists they operated entirely with an initial theory, that theory being the bible.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2018, 07:30:34 AM
Quote
The point is that the father of Zeteticism, Rowbotham, basically undermines his entire ‘method of inquiry’ with the basing of his flat earth belief on the 'holy scriptures’ then going about trying to prove it.

The only place religion is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe is in the final chapter which speculates on the philosophical context, and even then Rowbotham depicts Flat Earth as agreeing with multiple religions and old mythologies, which it does.

I agree with every word of that chapter. We got the nature of the world correct the first time.

You believe that pointing out mentions of religion is an insult, but it just shows someone who is unknowledged and childish. Religon and mythology represents the original science of the world, the deep study of many over thousands of years, and must be respected as such.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 07, 2018, 10:02:07 AM
This is where I've always been confused about Zeteticism. As a Zeteticist, take Rowbotham as an example. He lectured, he debated, seemingly performed experiments to support his lectures and debates, and published books - He even gambled with others to prove his notions. Was he not doing all of those things to convince others? As well, he and his findings are cited quite frequently in debates here as "evidence".
Rowbotham has been troubled in many ways - consider some of his more interesting statements on medicine, for example.

However, there is nothing wrong with lecturing and debating per se. One cannot realistically expect people to become Zeteticists out of the blue. Similarly, modern education systems teach critical thinking, because you cannot expect for it to just happen through magic. If debates and arguments are what's needed to get people thinking - why not? If his bets and gambles brought some additional attention to the way of thinking he promoted (as you clearly evidenced yourself), there's no immediate harm in that.

But there's a difference between us trying to convince you to explore a way of thinking, and trying to convince you to accept our (or anyone else's) conclusions through their own persuasive power. The latter is harmful to intellectual pursuits - it turns you into a closed-minded individual. Without naming names, you can just look a few posts up to see great examples of that. Reaching the "right" conclusion through "wrong" means is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to a thinker.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Mysfit on October 07, 2018, 11:01:57 AM
It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have been historically athiest and 'agnostic'.
I believe Darwin was religious. Einstein once said "god does not play with dice" when debating the uncertainty principle so I will assume he is without googling it.
That's biology and physics covered... Chemistry is my favourite so I will pick one I think of every day, Henry Louis Le Chatelier.
I did alot of googling, but could not find any mention of his religious leanings. Nothing to say he was atheist either, but let's assume he was.

Why would religion, or lack thereof, bar someone from truth?

I agree with every word of that chapter. We got the nature of the world correct the first time.
I don't think I can point to a single thing that humans got right the first time. Not one. I am looking around my surroundings for something... No... Nope.
All things are worked on and optimized. The flat earth theory was optimized a bit with the bi-polar model.

Edit: I just realized something. Why does Tom believe the text? No text is to be believed.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: stack on October 07, 2018, 06:16:14 PM
Quote
The point is that the father of Zeteticism, Rowbotham, basically undermines his entire ‘method of inquiry’ with the basing of his flat earth belief on the 'holy scriptures’ then going about trying to prove it.

The only place religion is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe is in the final chapter which speculates on the philosophical context, and even then Rowbotham depicts Flat Earth as agreeing with multiple religions and old mythologies, which it does.

I agree with every word of that chapter. We got the nature of the world correct the first time.

You believe that pointing out mentions of religion is an insult, but it just shows someone who is unknowledged and childish. Religon and mythology represents the original science of the world, the deep study of many over thousands of years, and must be respected as such.

Just merely pointing out the obvious that both Rowbotham and Lady Blount & Co predicate their flat earth belief not on observation, but on religious doctrine, specifically, the scriptures. It’s their words that show this quite explicitly.

I’m only about 1/2 way through a reread of ENAG Chapter XV and have yet to find anything about any other religions/mythologies other than that akin to the ‘Scriptures'. Seems pretty downright fundamentalist so far and certainly does not come across as ’speculation’ on philosophical context. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with basing a belief on a religion. I’m just saying it’s clear that they used ‘observation’ to confirm their premise that the scriptures are ‘literally true’. That does not seem Zetetic to me.

You might want to reread it again. Here are just a few quotes to help you along:

“It is this confusion and want of certainty as to the absolute truths of religious teachings which creates a love of display and outward manifestation of religion, instead of that "cheerful solemnity" and quiet, unobtrusive good-will and devotion which solid convictions of the truthfulness of Christianity never fail to produce.”

"To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

"The following language is quoted as an instance of the manner in which the doctrine of the earth's rotundity and the plurality of worlds interferes with Scriptural teachings…”

"That of its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite number of revolving spheres, is equally false; and, therefore, the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true.”

"That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.”

"In the Newtonian astronomy, continents, oceans, seas, and islands, are considered as together forming one vast globe of 25,000 English statute miles in circumference. This assertion has been shown to be entirely fallacious, and that it is contrary to the plain literal teaching of Scripture will be clearly seen from the following quotations.
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear. And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He seas."--Genesis i., 9-10."
[/size]

Followed by a bunch more biblical quotations.

Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2018, 07:00:27 PM
Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not. It represents the scientific learning of many ancient civilizations as transmitted in story form from generation to generation, eventually co-opted with spiritual meaning.

The "judgement of scripture" is the judgement of many civilizations who prided themselves on extraordinary cosmology and astronomical predictive ability, and whose members spent entire lives and generations studying such matters.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: stack on October 07, 2018, 07:21:28 PM
Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not. It represents the scientific learning of many ancient civilizations as transmitted in story form from generation to generation, eventually co-opted with spiritual meaning.

The "judgement of scripture" is the judgement of many civilizations who prided themselves on extraordinary cosmology and astronomical predictive ability, and whose members spent entire lives and generations studying such matters.

I think you’re missing the point again. From the wiki regarding Zeteticism:

"For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.”

According to Rowbotham, "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” According to his bible interpretation, the scriptures are the hypothesis, the initial theory, that the world is flat. As he continually cites biblical quotes to prove such. That is a preconceived notion, a bias. Seemingly counter to how Zeteticism is described.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Mysfit on October 07, 2018, 09:10:32 PM
Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents.
*hits head on desk*
And the scripture before that? The clay tablets before that? The wall paintings before that?
I can't fault believing only what you observe. It's unbelievably skeptical, but I can understand that.

The topic has drifted a bit from trying to outline a zetetic experiment.
Pete has given me to understand that it is done for the self, but I don't understand how any experiment can be done without bias.
Are the terms just nonsensical if put together (there's a word for it but I don't know it)?
Is it a fools errand?




Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 07, 2018, 09:38:08 PM
Science has always had a seemingly underlying goal to prove old religious knowledge to be wrong.
Utterly incorrect although that is a depressingly common view. A lot of people do believe that science and religion have an adversarial relationship - some of those people are scientists, people like Dawkins. I like his science books but I wonder why he has such a chip on his shoulder about religion, I wonder what happened to him? I'm guessing he had some bad experience of church when he was younger.
But science simply seeks to understand how things work. How did the universe start? We can be glib and say "God did it", but science is seeking to understand exactlyhow, what were the mechanics of it, and when did it happen? How did stars and planets and moons form and develop? What laws govern the universe? Science has achieved a lot in understanding all this. That doesn't mean that the current theories are definitive but they do pretty much work, they match our observations and can predict behaviour. There is always room for more complete models though which match observations better, scientific theories should never claim to be definitively proven.

What science isn't trying to do though is find out why the universe was created or whether there is any purpose to our lives, that is not in the scope of science. And that is why science and religion are not opposed, they are simply asking different questions. And therefore I disagree with this:

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not. It represents the scientific learning of many ancient civilizations as transmitted in story form from generation to generation, eventually co-opted with spiritual meaning.
No, it absolutely doesn't represent that. Scripture isn't trying to teach me science, it revealing much deeper truths than that.
I don't understand why some Christians think that the important message of Genesis is the age of the universe or how long creation took. Really? You think that is the take home message? Genesis tells me that the universe is a creation, it tells me who it was created by. It tells me that we were created separately from the rest of the creation to have special relationship with the Creator and it tells of our rebellion and need for salvation. These are much more important, deeper truths, why do people get so bogged down with timescales as if that's the important thing?

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go" - Galileo

It strikes me that the problem with Zeteticism is that it relies too much on our senses which are flawed and limited, and while the notion of checking things out for ourselves makes some sense, at its purest form it means no progress can ever be made. If we can't trust peer reviewed and well tested scientific discoveries and each of us have to start from scratch in the pursuit of knowledge then we will never make any progress as a species. Science has made progress by building on previous work. Yes we should always be prepared to revise previous theories in the light of new evidence but we won't get anywhere if we each start from scratch and we won't get anywhere by relying on our senses alone.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" - Newton
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2018, 10:13:35 PM
Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not. It represents the scientific learning of many ancient civilizations as transmitted in story form from generation to generation, eventually co-opted with spiritual meaning.

The "judgement of scripture" is the judgement of many civilizations who prided themselves on extraordinary cosmology and astronomical predictive ability, and whose members spent entire lives and generations studying such matters.

I think you’re missing the point again. From the wiki regarding Zeteticism:

"For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.”

According to Rowbotham, "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” According to his bible interpretation, the scriptures are the hypothesis, the initial theory, that the world is flat. As he continually cites biblical quotes to prove such. That is a preconceived notion, a bias. Seemingly counter to how Zeteticism is described.

No. You do not understand Zeteticism at all. Zeteticism is a method of inquiry which takes away the bias inherent in the Scientific Method, and which may be practiced by anyone with any preconceived belief. Zeteticism simply demands that one test all possibilities to reach the truth of a matter, rather than the methods of the testing of a specific hypothesis or the building of one theory upon another theory, as is pervasive in science.

The Scientific Method, in contrast to the Zetetic Method, has one testing one specific hypothesis, and then coming to a conclusion based on those results. This is how one gets half truths, leads one astray, and is not a reasonable way to conduct science.

Rowbotham's argument that the ancients were right after all is in the concluding chapter of Earth Not a Globe, but that is not its premise. However, even if Rowbotham did believe that before ever entertaining the thoughts of the shape of the earth, and even if it was a prime motivating factor for the study, it does not matter, since Zeteticism demands a testing of all possibilities from first approximation.

The statement of "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen" is an appropriate conclusion. The ancient knowledge upon which scripture is based upon, in regards to the material world, has far more truth to is than the house of cards of science, where one hypothesis built upon the next. None of this conclusion is related to the Zetetic method of inquiry which demands that all possibilities are tested for, however. It is a statement that the ancients were correct in their assessment of the world from the start.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2018, 10:31:53 PM
Quote
What science isn't trying to do though is find out why the universe was created or whether there is any purpose to our lives, that is not in the scope of science. And that is why science and religion are not opposed, they are simply asking different questions.

If science and religion is not opposed, then I expect that you will provide us with a list of mainstream scientists who have written studies or papers which attempt to demonstrate God, Creationism, or the benefits of prayer.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Humble B on October 08, 2018, 01:32:26 AM
If science and religion is not opposed, then I expect that you will provide us with a list of mainstream scientists who have written studies or papers which attempt to demonstrate God, Creationism, or the benefits of prayer.

You're very badly informed about the history of modern science. Modern science sprang from theology in the Middle Ages. Roman Catholic theologians considered the universe and nature as a creation of God, and their motto was that: "A better understanding of the creation is a necessary condition for a better understanding of the Creator.

That is why natural sciences in past centuries were mainly practiced by theologians. An example of this was Isaac Newton, who as a theologian wrote more about the Bible than about physics, but is remembered as a physicist only because his studies of nature were more groundbreaking than his theological studies. Natural sciences were, and still are not seen as an enemy or competitor of religious studies, such as theology, but as a necessary addition to that.

Imagine that God created the earth as a spinning ball, but you believe that God created a stationary flat earth, then you are actually hold on to a false belief, and you deny God's creation, which is in fact a blasphemy.

But the shape of the earth has never been a point of discussion among theologians, for the science among the literate that the earth is a globe is older than Christianity itself. The belief among Christians in a flat earth only arose relative recently after the Reformation, when Protestant preachers taught that the Bible, as the highest magisterium, should not be interpreted but must be read literally. The contemporary rejection of the globe and the heliocentric model originated among the supporters of new fundamentalist and dogmatic protestant Christian sects, and is relatively new in the history of Christianity.

The only thing that was a matter of dispute and conflict in the Middle Ages was heliocentrism vs geocentricism , as preached by the Roman church. But the main reason that the Roman church opposed for a long time the heliocentrism of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei was not because they believed they were mistaken, but because the Roman magisterium feared loss of credibility and authority if they had to admit that what they had preached for centuries about God's universe would turned out to be false. After all, Roman magisterium had always presented themselves as "infallible" and they would lose this infallibility if they were to admit that they had always been wrong about geocentrism.

Ultimately, the Roman Magisterium was overthrown by the idea that it was better to admit a mistake than to become the pushers of a false belief by sticking to geocentrism in the knowledge that it is not what God created.

That is why theologians and scientists have never seen science as opposed to religion, but as a useful tool to purify religions of superstition and misconceptions about God and his creation, that are often the fruits of ignorance and lack of knowledge. After all, the more we learn about God's creation, the more we learn about the creator. And objective, independent, unbiased science not bound to religious pre-conditions is indispensable in achieving this goal of knowing the Creator by exploring His creation.

Quote from: Albert Einstein
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: stack on October 08, 2018, 06:29:02 AM
What would be a zetetic experiment? Can there be one?

I don’t believe there is such a thing, at least within the confines of Rowbotham’s depictions as such. All of ENAG Chapter XV is devoted to the notion that his interpretation of the Bible is that it speaks to a flat earth. And, therefore, those who go against that belief are going against God - Which is to “...declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

How is that not an initial theory, a hypothesis, a bias whereby one’s entering assumption is that any proof of earth’s rotundity through experimentation would defy the words of the scriptures, the teachings of God?

As well, The Universal Zetetic Society’s sole founding objective is "The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation.”

“…in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures…”? Seems like a confirmation bias is clearly stated prior to embarking on any ‘practical investigation’.

So Tom is right, I clearly don’t understand Zeteticism as defined by Rowbotham and The Universal Zetetic Society because it seems theirs is definitely not at all without bias, assumption, hypothesis and initial theory.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 08, 2018, 06:54:51 AM
So Tom is right, I clearly don’t understand Zeteticism as defined by Rowbotham and The Universal Zetetic Society because it seems theirs is definitely not at all without bias, assumption, hypothesis and initial theory.
Crediting Rowbotham with defining Zeteticism is off the mark by several millennia. Perhaps this might be where your confusion arises? You're using someone who tried (sometimes with success, sometimes not) to follow an ideology, rebranding him as the creator and ultimate arbiter of the ideology, and finally using the fact that he wasn't perfect to claim that the ideology is flawed.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: stack on October 08, 2018, 07:44:17 AM
So Tom is right, I clearly don’t understand Zeteticism as defined by Rowbotham and The Universal Zetetic Society because it seems theirs is definitely not at all without bias, assumption, hypothesis and initial theory.
Crediting Rowbotham with defining Zeteticism is off the mark by several millennia. Perhaps this might be where your confusion arises? You're using someone who tried (sometimes with success, sometimes not) to follow an ideology, rebranding him as the creator and ultimate arbiter of the ideology, and finally using the fact that he wasn't perfect to claim that the ideology is flawed.

From the 'Zeteticism' entry in the wiki: "Samuel Rowbotham was the first to use the term in reference to Flat Earth research." We're only talking FET here, nothing else.

I never said he was the creator and ultimate arbiter of the (ancient) ideology. Just pointing out that his brand of it does not adhere to the definition of Zeteticism as stated in your wiki and elsewhere. And quite often he is held up as the gold standard for Zeteticism for which he should not be as evidenced by his writings.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2018, 07:47:05 AM
Quote
What science isn't trying to do though is find out why the universe was created or whether there is any purpose to our lives, that is not in the scope of science. And that is why science and religion are not opposed, they are simply asking different questions.

If science and religion is not opposed, then I expect that you will provide us with a list of mainstream scientists who have written studies or papers which attempt to demonstrate God, Creationism, or the benefits of prayer.
I didn't say science and religion were aligned either. Science is not trying to prove God, or disprove God although some scientists may think they're doing the latter.
Science asks "how?" - in terms of the nuts and bolts of things, religion asks "why?". They are different questions with different answers.
I have no idea how you would design an experiment to determine whether we were made with a purpose.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2018, 08:20:39 AM
No. You do not understand Zeteticism at all. Zeteticism is a method of inquiry which takes away the bias inherent in the Scientific Method, and which may be practiced by anyone with any preconceived belief. Zeteticism simply demands that one test all possibilities to reach the truth of a matter, rather than the methods of the testing of a specific hypothesis or the building of one theory upon another theory, as is pervasive in science.
And yet in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10576.0

You show bias towards the UA theory throughout. You outline 2 experiments:

Quote
Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should simultaneously feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball.

In the first you emphasise the observation that you see the ground coming towards you - ignoring the fact that literally everyone else observing the experiment will see you falling.
In the second you deliberately ignore the observation that you see the ball fall to earth.

You then say:

Quote
"We can see that the earth moves upwards, while we have to imagine that there are hypothetical undiscovered puller particles or odd properties to space.

The first part is only true in one very specific case, that of you falling, in every other case the observation is you see something falling to earth.
The second part you emphasis how gravitons are hypothetical but ignore the fact that the entire mechanism behind UA is too.

You show bias towards UA throughout the post, not very Zetetic. The fact is UA is a cobbled together idea because if the earth is flat and gravity exists then we would be pulled towards the centre of the disc. So you replace gravity with UA with no explanation as to how that would work. You then invent things like celestial gravitation to explain how 'g' varies in certain circumstances. Most bizarrely, having spent all this time rejecting the scientific method you then leap on to Relativity as an explanation for why UA doesn't whizz us past the speed of light. Correctly, as it happens, but it's bizarre how you cherry pick parts of scientific theory to suit your agenda.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 08, 2018, 01:10:03 PM
Again, it does not matter that Lady Blount was Catholic or said Catholic things. Zeteticism is simply a method of inquiry and it matters only how the experiment is set up and what is being tested.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 08, 2018, 01:14:31 PM
No. You do not understand Zeteticism at all. Zeteticism is a method of inquiry which takes away the bias inherent in the Scientific Method, and which may be practiced by anyone with any preconceived belief. Zeteticism simply demands that one test all possibilities to reach the truth of a matter, rather than the methods of the testing of a specific hypothesis or the building of one theory upon another theory, as is pervasive in science.
And yet in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10576.0

You show bias towards the UA theory throughout. You outline 2 experiments:

Quote
Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet.

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should simultaneously feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball.

I looked for gravitons and bending space while conducting those experiments. None were found. :(
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2018, 01:21:47 PM
I looked for gravitons and bending space while conducting those experiments. None were found. :(
Did you find any "dark energy" or whatever you're supposing powers UA?  :)
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 08, 2018, 01:23:04 PM
I looked for gravitons and bending space while conducting those experiments. None were found. :(
Did you find any "dark energy" or whatever you're supposing powers UA?  :)

I was not under the earth, so why would I be able to see what was pushing it?
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2018, 01:32:15 PM
I looked for gravitons and bending space while conducting those experiments. None were found. :(
Did you find any "dark energy" or whatever you're supposing powers UA?  :)

I was not under the earth, so why would I be able to see what was pushing it?
All my observations suggest that nothing is, instead objects fall to earth.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 08, 2018, 01:35:00 PM
We do not see anything pulling us, and cannot detect it. It is only possible to see something pushing us.

As for what is pushing the earth? Unknown. Without direct knowledge on a matter, we must only say that the matter is unknown, which is the more honest way to conduct science. Astronomers seem to not like to write books with the word "unknown" written 1000 times, however, and would prefer to be dishonest about reality with one hypothesis built upon the next in unending succession.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Mysfit on October 08, 2018, 01:35:33 PM
Zeteticism is simply a method of inquiry and it matters only how the experiment is set up and what is being tested.
Yay. Progress. We can remove the idea of a lack of bias for an experiment to be Zetetic.
From my being taught science as a kid, I would come up with a guess of what the result will be, test and observe, then reflect on how close my assumption is and whether it needs throwing out or tweaking.
What is the difference with the zetetic enquiry?
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 08, 2018, 01:47:25 PM
We do not see anything pulling us
The observation when an apple detaches from a tree is that it falls to earth, the earth pulls the apple towards it. As it does with every object we observe falling.
We throw something up, we observe the way the earth pulls it back down. We feel the pressure on our feet of the earth pulling us down.
So no, we don't "see" gravity any more than we "see" magnetism, but we do observe its effects so we know that it exists.
An alternative theory which would produce equivalent results is that the earth could be accelerating upwards.
The claim about Zeteticism is an experiment is done without pre-supposing which of these is the correct cause for the observation.
You outlined 2 experiments, one which you "observe" the earth coming towards you (while everyone else sees you descending)
The second where you observe the ball falling to earth, as does everyone else.
So which is the correct explanation? How do we distinguish which it is?

In the real world we have the Cavendish experiment which demonstrates a force between objects, if you reject that then what is the experiment in your world which can resolve this?
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 08, 2018, 02:12:48 PM
Zeteticism is simply a method of inquiry and it matters only how the experiment is set up and what is being tested.
Yay. Progress. We can remove the idea of a lack of bias for an experiment to be Zetetic.
From my being taught science as a kid, I would come up with a guess of what the result will be, test and observe, then reflect on how close my assumption is and whether it needs throwing out or tweaking.
What is the difference with the zetetic enquiry?

An example of zetetic inquiry is given above. In my experiments I only saw the earth rising upwards and the earth pushing me as I stood still. No 'gravitons' or 'bending space' were detected. I directly experienced one pushing  phenomena while its competition was, and as is admitted by its proponents, unable to be tested. This is direct evidence that the earth is moving upwards.

Yet, the gravity proponents argue that "just because you don't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," which is the same argument used to justify the existence of ghosts.

The fact is that most science is of this character: Dishonest and built with one hypothesis built upon the next in mumbling pretension.

The Scientific Method itself is biased. We are told to pick a hypothesis, test if it is true, and then make our conclusions off of that test. With this method we are only testing whether the hypothesis is true, not conducting basic inquisitive tests against reality to show us its possibilities and fundamental truths. The Scientific Method brings us to half truths.

In Astronomy, the situation is even worse! Astronomers generally do not use the Scientific Method at all when coming up with theories. The Scientific Method says to test your hypothesis. Astronomers do not conduct controlled tests on the universe to come up with their theories -- they cannot. And since Astronomy cannot, and does not, test the theories or conduct experiments with the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter, Astronomy is not a science. Astronomers are not scientists. The field is no different than Astrology, which is built on observation and interpretation.

Zetetics rightfully, and more honestly, characterize the unknown as unknown. This is the difference: Honesty
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Mysfit on October 08, 2018, 05:06:26 PM
Zetetics rightfully, and more honestly, characterize the unknown as unknown. This is the difference: Honesty
You once pointed out the the shape of the world was unknown. Yet *points to words at the top-left of the screen*.
If scientists practice half-truths, please can you tell me how my example was lacking.
From my being taught science as a kid, I would come up with a guess of what the result will be, test and observe, then reflect on how close my assumption is and whether it needs throwing out or tweaking.

It's a basic example, but i'm willing to make a hypothetical one if it's a bit too vague.
I have not lived long, but I have lived long enough to see sciences take backturns on all sorts of things. The easiest one to notice is the list of things that go from being "healthy" to "unhealthy" and back. It can't be that hard to test, and yet, it is always being refined and corrected. It will be chocolate's day one day :).
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: stack on October 08, 2018, 05:13:00 PM
Again, it does not matter that Lady Blount was Catholic or said Catholic things. Zeteticism is simply a method of inquiry and it matters only how the experiment is set up and what is being tested.

It does matter when your 'method of inquiry' is to be “…in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures…”.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 09, 2018, 10:39:00 AM
In my experiments I only saw the earth rising upwards and the earth pushing me as I stood still.
And everyone else saw you fall to earth while they stood still.
And in the second experiment you observed the ball falling to earth while you stood still. You keep ignoring that, strangely.
That's not you being biased towards one explanation is it?

Quote
Yet, the gravity proponents argue that "just because you don't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist,"
No, they argue that every observation shows that objects fall to earth and the Cavendish experiment is proof that objects attract one another.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: edby on October 09, 2018, 07:03:02 PM
Astronomers do not conduct controlled tests on the universe to come up with their theories -- they cannot.
This is incorrect in at least one case, namely the search for stellar parallax.

Wikipedia:
Quote
The scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition which has characterized the development of natural science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a percept. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses ..

Note the phrase 'testing of deductions'. You formulate a theory. Then you see what observations are predicted by the theory, and test for those observations.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2018, 09:18:08 AM
Astronomers do not conduct controlled tests on the universe to come up with their theories -- they cannot.
This is incorrect in at least one case, namely the search for stellar parallax.

Wikipedia:
Quote
The scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition which has characterized the development of natural science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a percept. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses ..

Note the phrase 'testing of deductions'. You formulate a theory. Then you see what observations are predicted by the theory, and test for those observations.

Where do astronomers perform a controlled test on the universe? What was the control?

Chemists can test and manipulate every aspect of their subject manner in very controlled ways to come to a truth.  Astronomers, however, cannot put their subject matter under controlled conditions. They can only observe and interpret.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 11, 2018, 09:42:40 AM
Where do astronomers perform a controlled test on the universe? What was the control?
What was the control in the Bishop experiment? Not every experiment needs a control, you only need that if you're comparing two different outcomes.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2018, 10:13:05 AM
Where do astronomers perform a controlled test on the universe? What was the control?
What was the control in the Bishop experiment? Not every experiment needs a control, you only need that if you're comparing two different outcomes.

The water convexity experiments are all the same experiment, and are controlled by the fact that the distance is known, can be tested, and that one can perform experiments to test various aspects of the situation, if one desired. One could perform the test from the opposite vantage point, at various points along the route, or one could manipulate the situation and place objects along the route in attempt to line them up, as Rowbotham does in Experiment 2 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm). People have done the water experiment with lasers, over various distances. People have tested the barometric levels of the locations. The test can be conducted by measuring horizontal curve as well. Tests continue to be made by lining up mountains, etc.

All of this is infinitely more controllable than observing and interpreting something distant which you cannot reach. If all you can do is observe and interpret, that is not science. That is more akin to Astrology.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 11, 2018, 11:05:01 AM
What data is being interpreted in Astrology? I guess you're going to say "the position of the stars", but I'm not sure what scientific principle is being used to determine that because the stars are in a certain position that means I'll meet a tall, dark stranger.

I sort of see what you're getting at, and you're right in that a lot of astronomy is about collecting data and interpreting it, but interpreting data like red shift and blue shift isn't pseudo-science, it's based on well tested scientific principles which can be tested on earth in controlled conditions.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2018, 11:45:39 AM
Quote
What data is being interpreted in Astrology? I guess you're going to say "the position of the stars", but I'm not sure what scientific principle is being used to determine that because the stars are in a certain position that means I'll meet a tall, dark stranger.

Correct. A science which only observe and interprets is not a science, it is a pseudo-science.

Quote
I sort of see what you're getting at, and you're right in that a lot of astronomy is about collecting data and interpreting it, but interpreting data like red shift and blue shift isn't pseudo-science, it's based on well tested scientific principles which can be tested on earth in controlled conditions.

The red shift and blue shift of a substance's spectral lines isn't something that only happens with high velocities. It also happens in chemistry. Look into Bathochromic Shift and Hyposochromatic Shift. The spectral lines of a substance can shift left or right along the color spectrum for a variety of chemical reasons.

http://photonicswiki.org/index.php?title=Changes_in_Absorption_Spectra

Quote
Changes in Absorption Spectra

Terminology for absorption shifts

Bathochromic, Hypsochromic, Hyperchromic, Hypochromic shifts summarized

Changes in chemical structure or the environment lead to changes in the absorption spectrum of molecules and materials. There are several terms that are commonly used to describe these shifts, that you will see in the literature, and with which you should be familiar.

Bathochromic: a shift of a band to lower energy or longer wavelength (often called a red shift).
Hypsochromic: a shift of a band to higher energy or shorter wavelength (often called a blue shift).
Hyperchromic: an increase in the molar absorptivity.
Hypochromic: an decrease in the molar absorptivity.

Solvatochromism

Negative and positive solvatochromism

If as substance shifts to a lower energy state with a longer wavelength, it is referred to as a Bathochromic shift or (also called) red shift. The color will move more toward the red. Conversely, something that moves to higher energy will be referred to as a hypsochromic shift. If there is an increase in the absorptivity or cause the spectrum to become more intense, it will be referred to as a hyperchromic shift. But a decrease is referred to as a hypochromic shift. There is a variety of factors that can cause these changes. One of the factors is found in a process known as solvatochromism. This explains why certain molecules can, in a profound way, look very different in terms of their color depending on whether the molecules are in a polar or non-polar solvent.

Solvatochromism is the property of a molecule changing its color as a function of the solvent polarity. But it is actually more complex than that. It can be related to the solvent polarizability as well. Basically it is the change in the color of a material, or change in the spectrum, as a function of the dielectric properties of the solvent. The dielectric properties of the solvent have polarizability and polarity built into them. Therefore, if molecules go from a less polar solvent to a more polar solvent and a red shift or a bathochromic shift occurs, then the substance is referred to as being positively solvatochromic. Conversely if you put molecules into a more polar solvent and a blue shift occurs, i.e. higher energy, the molecules are referred to as being negatively solvatochromic.

Hence, the need for controlled experimentation. The appearance of stars shifted "red" and "blue" is not good enough.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: totallackey on October 11, 2018, 12:32:44 PM
I can reproduce an experiment to bounce a laser off a reflector placed on the moon by an Apollo mission. I'm not even smart.
Uh...no you cannot.
You make me upset.
Why on earth would you allow another person to do that?

Especially over the internet?
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 11, 2018, 12:34:17 PM
Yes, you mentioned that before Tom, and someone with more knowledge than me, JohnAdams1145, explained why that isn't what we observe when observing red or blue shift in stars:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8595.40

I note you never replied...

This is why conversations go round and round on here. Keep bringing up the same incorrect things and you're going to get the same response and explanation. If you then just ignore that then round and round we go.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2018, 12:53:09 PM
Yes, you mentioned that before Tom, and someone with more knowledge than me, JohnAdams1145, explained why that isn't what we observe when observing red or blue shift in stars:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8595.40

I note you never replied...

This is why conversations go round and round on here. Keep bringing up the same incorrect things and you're going to get the same response and explanation. If you then just ignore that then round and round we go.

The posters from that thread admit that the chemical redshift and blueshift could be possible if the stars were made up of molecules rather than single free-floating atoms:

Followed your link, Tom.  That was interesting, thank you.  I did wonder why you suggest that the behavior of molecules in a solvent is at all applicable to stars?  Anyway, I then did some more reading.  Wikipedia has this relevant point:
Quote
Bathochromic shift is a phenomenon seen in molecular spectra, not atomic spectra

That means the mechanisms you suggest as substitute explanations of spectral shift are not applicable here, as we are talking about atomic spectra.

Eh. We can't assert that we're talking about atomic spectra unless we ascertain that stars are pretty much only made up of elemental molecules and free-floating atoms (which they are). After all, the measured spectra "could be" a result of molecular spectra if we knew that stars contained such complex molecules capable of such things... Of course, I've pointed out in my previous post that this hypothesis is trash.

We find that molecules have been found in stars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecules_in_stars

Quote
Stellar molecules are molecules that exist or form in stars.

...

Although the Sun is a star, its photosphere has a low enough temperature of 6,000 kelvin and therefore molecules can form. Water has been found on the Sun, and there is evidence of H2 in white dwarf stellar atmospheres.[2][3]

Cooler stars include absorption band spectra that are characteristic of molecules. Similar absorption bands are found in sun spots which are cooler areas on the Sun. Molecules found in the Sun include MgH, CaH, FeH, CrH, NaH, OH, SiH, VO, and TiO. Others include CN CH, MgF, NH, C2, SrF, zirconium monoxide, YO, ScO, BH.[4]
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: AATW on October 11, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
Nice cherries, you're picking.
I thought astronomy was pseudo-science, no better than astrology. Why are you now presenting things claimed by astronomy as evidence?
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Mysfit on October 11, 2018, 01:33:35 PM
I can reproduce an experiment to bounce a laser off a reflector placed on the moon by an Apollo mission. I'm not even smart.
Uh...no you cannot.
This is gonna become a "yes, I can", "no, you can't" until i'm forced to do it.
I'm unsure linking to a video of someone doing it is evidence, so I will be lazy and say perhaps I can't.

You make me upset.
Why on earth would you allow another person to do that?

Especially over the internet?
I'm soft.

Do you have anything to add to what a zetetic experiment is? It feels like paddling in custard atm.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: garygreen on October 12, 2018, 12:55:13 AM
The posters from that thread admit that the chemical redshift and blueshift could be possible if the stars were made up of molecules rather than single free-floating atoms:

lol that's one way of characterizing it.  what i actually said it that it doesn't matter because atomic lines don't have anything to do with molecular lines.  the hydrogen alpha line, for example, comes from a single hydrogen atom absorbing a photon of a specific wavelength.  if it were just some quirk of molecules, then the atomic lines would be unaffected.  it wouldn't be systematic across all absorption lines.

also, i get the impression from the literature that the shifts you're describing are small: on the order of a few nanometers.  here is a plot of "the bathochromic shift of the Soret bands of Zn-TNMPyP by increasing of pH" in some chemistry nerd's dumb nerd paper:
(https://i.imgur.com/tAakzbZ.png) 

here's a sample of redshifts presented in a super smart astronomy paper:
(https://i.imgur.com/fxBnVMN.png)

the shifts are systematic and large.  if it were some chemical reaction, then all the shifts would be the same, and they would be small.  nothing about what we observe matches with what we already know about chemical spectra.  it's a nonsense explanation.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2018, 01:27:24 AM
Why are you comparing the wavelength of light to rest frequency?
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: garygreen on October 12, 2018, 02:28:13 AM
Why are you comparing the wavelength of light to rest frequency?

why would you not?  for a light wave, wavelength and frequency mean the same thing.  they're just inverses of one another.

wavelength * frequency = the speed of light
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2018, 02:44:40 AM
http://amazingspace.org/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/glossary/term-full.php?t=wavelength_and_frequency

(https://i.imgur.com/CuxqEdI.png)
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: garygreen on October 12, 2018, 03:06:44 AM
http://amazingspace.org/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/glossary/term-full.php?t=wavelength_and_frequency

is there a point to this post?

"Light is measured by its wavelength or frequency."  they're just inverses of one another.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2018, 03:09:32 AM
They are different properties of light with different units of measurement.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: garygreen on October 12, 2018, 04:19:43 AM
They are different properties of light with different units of measurement.

they have different units, but they correspond to the same property.  they are not independent of one another.  if you know one, then you know the other.  you're quibbling over a unit conversion.

(https://i.imgur.com/Y7vXhF6.png)



Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Mysfit on October 13, 2018, 10:45:16 AM
I have found something interesting on a different forum section and will put it here as I think it will help.
Also, I'm not allowed to debate it there.
It's easier for me if I keep my notes here and update the thread with content as I go.

Outline:

P1. Define Zetetic: Zetetic method is a method of empiricism where all possibilities considered and all tests tried.

P2. Examples of Zetetc Method in practice. Creation of new medicines is generally based on Zetetic method, for example.

P3. Disclaimer on the meaning of truth and how it generally means the "current truth"

P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.

P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.

P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.
I think only P1, P2 and P4 are releveant, but I didn't want to lose context.

P1 - I don't understand how all possibilities can be considered or all tests done. There isn't enough time for either. Ever.
As an example, I want to test how high my bouncy-ball bounces.
There's an infinite range of possibilities for the expected height, it may even not bounce (I was sold a duff one).
Then on to testing it. What do I bounce it on? Concrete, grass, wood or an infinite spectrum of surfaces?
How do I measure the results? Video camera or human eye? What height do I put those? How would I illustrate scale?
At this point, i'm shaking with not being allowed to bounce the ball and I haven't even gotten to the possible errors in equipment.

P2 - Medicine development is almost certainly following the scientific process. It even has the safeguards of animal testing before moving on to human trials.
Error is expected from the beginning, it's literally assuming the medicine is deadly until proven otherwise.
Then you get on to side-effects, which can sometimes change the scope of the experiment entirely. Viagra was a good example of this, even though it still works as originally intended.

P4 - The inferiority of the scientific method. Wow. I'd be interested to see how P2 develops for this.
We're back to P1 for the not considering all possibilities, but I have no idea what a half-truth is.
By definition, it is also a half-lie. Why would that be helpful to understanding?
I can't even factor it in for my bouncy-ball explanation. (I tried writing guesses, but none of them made sense)

Anyways, I hope this injection of Zeteticism helps to get us somewhere.

Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: stack on October 13, 2018, 07:03:46 PM
P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.

From a meta perspective, you start with the hypothesis that the scientific method of building truth off of a hypothesis is inferior to Zeteticism, which doesn’t start with a hypothesis, then presumably proceed to explain why hypothesizing may obscure some truth.

P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.

Much of Astronomy is based upon observation. And pattern based. Wouldn’t that make it more Zetetic than anything else? Defacto, wouldn’t that make Zeteticism “not a science”?

P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.

A couple of things here. There is more to space flights and space science than just NASA. Many other countries and organizations partake in such endeavors.

Specifically, NASA has ‘pubspace’, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/funder/nasa/) their repository "to permanently preserve and provide easy public access to the peer-reviewed papers resulting from NASA-funded research."
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2018, 07:18:45 PM
P1 - I don't understand how all possibilities can be considered or all tests done. There isn't enough time for either. Ever.
As an example, I want to test how high my bouncy-ball bounces.
There's an infinite range of possibilities for the expected height, it may even not bounce (I was sold a duff one).
Then on to testing it. What do I bounce it on? Concrete, grass, wood or an infinite spectrum of surfaces?
How do I measure the results? Video camera or human eye? What height do I put those? How would I illustrate scale?
At this point, i'm shaking with not being allowed to bounce the ball and I haven't even gotten to the possible errors in equipment.

Perhaps it can be worded better. The meaning behind "all possibilities tested" is that you have to try and disprove yourself in the context of testing your hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis, you need to conduct tests to prove yourself wrong.

The Scientific Method has you coming up with a hypothesis, performing an experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis, and then declaring victory with any positive result. You are not instructed to prove yourself wrong.

Quote
P2 - Medicine development is almost certainly following the scientific process. It even has the safeguards of animal testing before moving on to human trials.
Error is expected from the beginning, it's literally assuming the medicine is deadly until proven otherwise.
Then you get on to side-effects, which can sometimes change the scope of the experiment entirely. Viagra was a good example of this, even though it still works as originally intended.

The example I am thinking of is the process of creating new drugs. Medical chemists certainly use the Zetetic Method for creating drugs. See the Folding at Home project. The project goes through a rapid series of different configurations to see what works and what does not.

Quote
P4 - The inferiority of the scientific method. Wow. I'd be interested to see how P2 develops for this.
We're back to P1 for the not considering all possibilities, but I have no idea what a half-truth is.
By definition, it is also a half-lie. Why would that be helpful to understanding?
I can't even factor it in for my bouncy-ball explanation. (I tried writing guesses, but none of them made sense)

Anyways, I hope this injection of Zeteticism helps to get us somewhere.

I would say that the question of "I want to see how high bouncy balls bounce" is actually a great example of Zetetic inquiry, because you are wanting to assess the possibilities.

The Scientific Method version of that (make a hypothesis and then test it) would have you make a formal hypothesis that the ball will behave in a certain manner and then declare victory if you experiment and observe it. But, you and I know both know that the bouncy ball may in fact exceed such a hypothesis and have all sorts of behaviors, and that the confirmation of a specific hypothesis may not be the entire truth, and would lead one astray if we then started using that knowledge to build other theories of bouncy-ball dynamics.

Hence we see that if the basic and fundamental truths are incorrect, then the entire house cards that rests on top of it is also incorrect.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Mysfit on October 13, 2018, 10:29:43 PM
The Scientific Method has you coming up with a hypothesis, performing an experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis, and then declaring victory with any positive result. You are not instructed to prove yourself wrong.
I think I can see where me and Tom differ on the scientific method.
To illustrate from my side, I will use the bouncy-ball experiment in my best recollection of the scientific method.

So, I have a bouncy ball, which I am almost certain bounces like any other. My recollection of how high they bounce is a bit sketchy, so I will test it's bounciness.
The ball will be dropped next to a rule and someone else watching will interpret the results (not perfect, but i'm not after a nobel prize)
On to the hypothesis, I think it will bounce to half-height the first time then less than a quarter-height on the second bounce. I think it'll work like I remember
[insert test here] (then hot drink break)
Results are in! The results seem to correspond to my hypothesis and I am one step closer to understanding the bounciness. I then post my results so that the world can marvel at my brilliance. I could provide hypothesisses... hypothesi... hypotheses (really?) for the flaws in my results. Other folks may look into those or come up with their own. Some folks may repeat my experiment to check that I wasn't telling fibs.
(rewinds time a bit)
Results are in! That hypothesis was WAY off. Who came up with that nonsense?! Time to start from scratch and work out why it's so far off. I post the results along with hypotheses for what went oh so wrong. Others may look into those hypotheses, or repeat my test to verify the veracity (said with a cowboy accent).

The negative result does seem more of a step forward to some sort of ultimate theory of bounciness.
I can agree that a positive result does not lead much further, which I assume is the point of peer-review. Other scientists trying to disprove something.
I like to think of Flat Theory as the peer-review of Round Theory, though I'm sure some folks might get upset by my use of peer.

From what you are saying, Zeteticism seems to focus on disproving a hypothesis, to improve the overall theory (of bounciness) but at the risk of not coming to a conclusion.
Any and every outcome would have to be disproved to the best of the Zetetic's efforts. This is where the infinite questions come in. It simply does not stop as everything is assumed wrong.
You can see my confusion and I worry.
Title: Re: A Zetetic Experiment
Post by: Pinky on October 17, 2018, 03:28:20 PM
Rowbotham is correct. Science has always had a seemingly underlying goal to prove old religious knowledge to be wrong. Science characterizes ancient knowledge as mythical and ignorant.

It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have been historically athiest and 'agnostic'.

That is absolutely incorrect.

If you look at the earliest members of the modern scientific tradition (Francis Bacon, John Dee, Isaac Newton, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz...) you will find that they were not atheist at all but ardent christian believers.

Science moved away from religious concepts and towards materialism at around 1800, when it became undeniable that experiments proved those religious concepts to be wrong.