*

Offline PhilosopherInAus

  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • FE is scientifically flawed
    • View Profile
Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« on: August 08, 2021, 12:43:18 AM »
So, for the past 3 months, I've been studying the philosophy of science and how theories can be scientific and pseudoscientific. I have reason to believe that the flat earth theory is pseudoscientific because of a multitude of reasons, which I'm happy to explain if asked.

But this question goes out to the FE theorists who are going out and experimenting. Are your experiments trying to prove or disprove FE?

I've read a lot of articles now saying that believed sciences like psychology and even chiropractics are pseudoscientific because they are not sound/reliable in their evidence and conclusions.

Thanks and I look forward to reading all, if any, responses
I am objectively correct because I said so; I think therefore I am

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9843
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2021, 01:02:01 AM »
As a philosopher you might want to look into the definition of pseudoscience, since several of the mainstream sciences fall under it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

*

Offline PhilosopherInAus

  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • FE is scientifically flawed
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2021, 01:16:02 AM »
I'm aware that many mainstream sciences fall under the pseudoscience category but I would have to argue that astronomy is not a pseudoscience. The wiki link you sent could be considered bias for the sheer fact that it is from this website - it's a subdomain - that notoriously cherry-picks information, I will look past that. Astronomy is an observational science as it said in that article and that is correct. Most science is observational. But unlike sciences like psychology, astronomy has a level of certainty with it. Until space travel becomes advance enough, astronomers will be limited in their experiments however, they can still observe an ever-changing universe that follows scientific laws, thermal dynamics, in particular.
I am objectively correct because I said so; I think therefore I am

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9843
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2021, 01:38:56 AM »
Typically I would just spam all of those quotes directly in a thread. I nicely put them onto a page for you to digest instead. If you find that anything is incorrect let us know.

Quote
Most science is observational. But unlike sciences like psychology, astronomy has a level of certainty with it.

Oh, so if the people doing it are "certain" of something it's not a pseudoscience? That's all it takes?

No, a pseudoscience is anything that doesn't follow the scientific method, as indicated in the article. If you're not following the scientific method you are performing pseudoscience.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 01:45:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline PhilosopherInAus

  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • FE is scientifically flawed
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2021, 02:04:29 AM »
Quote
Most science is observational. But unlike sciences like psychology, astronomy has a level of certainty with it.
Oh, so if the people doing it are "certain" of something it's not a pseudoscience? That's all it takes?

I didn't say that the people had to be certain, there are scientific laws that everything follows.

If we agree that astronomy is a pseudoscience because its theories cannot have experiments to prove it and then experiments to unsuccessfully disprove it, I can bring it back to my original question.

Do the experiments conducted by FE researchers follow the scientific method?
Are the experiments fair? Do they attempt to disprove the original hypothesis?
Is there one singular model of FE that can successfully explain all-natural occurrences as the RE model does? (in reference to daylight cycles, seasons, gravity, etc.)

This post wasn't about astronomy, it was about FE, however, it doesn't matter. I can see why having astronomy as a pseudoscience might help the idea of FE but astronomy isnt about defining the shape of the earth. it's subjects like geology, physics and thermal dynamics that would help the idea.
I am objectively correct because I said so; I think therefore I am

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9501
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2021, 02:14:14 AM »
Don’t bother having this conversation with Tom. He will be utterly self-serving and isn’t interested in the truth. You can tell already by how he twisted the word certainty to simply mean the scientists being certain mentally. It’s an obvious equivocation and he will continue to play these tricks.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline PhilosopherInAus

  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • FE is scientifically flawed
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2021, 02:17:21 AM »
I wont win in an argument but I sure as hell can out logic him
I am objectively correct because I said so; I think therefore I am

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6858
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2021, 11:02:06 AM »
I wont win in an argument but I sure as hell can out logic him
Where is the logic is trying to outlogic a recording?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline PhilosopherInAus

  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • FE is scientifically flawed
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2021, 11:39:22 AM »
I wont win in an argument but I sure as hell can out logic him
Where is the logic is trying to outlogic a recording?

There is none but then again, where's the logic in FE?
I am objectively correct because I said so; I think therefore I am

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6858
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2021, 12:01:49 PM »
I wont win in an argument but I sure as hell can out logic him
Where is the logic is trying to outlogic a recording?

There is none but then again, where's the logic in FE?
None.  But you're not in the upper forums.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14876
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2021, 03:03:26 PM »
Are your experiments trying to prove or disprove FE?
The short answer is "no". I'd suggest you read up on the Zetetic method and how it avoids the very biases you're trying to accuse us of.

Of course, not everyone follows the method. If your question is about individuals rather than FE as a whole, I'm sure you can find people who are either ignorant or unscrupulous

There is none but then again, where's the logic in FE?
Please familiarise yourself with the rules of this forum. If you don't, your stay here will be brief.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 03:12:57 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Philosophy of Science and Pseudoscience
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2021, 05:31:44 PM »
So, for the past 3 months, I've been studying the philosophy of science and how theories can be scientific and pseudoscientific.

Great! It is an important and neglected area of study :(

Quote
I have reason to believe that the flat earth theory is pseudoscientific because of a multitude of reasons, which I'm happy to explain if asked.

I'm happy for you to explain.  You may have overlooked that "flat earth theory" is not a scientific theory though?

Quote
But this question goes out to the FE theorists who are going out and experimenting. Are your experiments trying to prove or disprove FE?

Due to rampant miseducation (and colloquial abuse) almost no one knows what an experiment is.  For example, an experiment is NEVER be used to determine the shape of a physical object.  Experiments have a very different purpose.

Quote
I've read a lot of articles now saying that believed sciences like psychology and even chiropractics are pseudoscientific because they are not sound/reliable in their evidence and conclusions.

As tom already clarified, things are not pseudoscientific because their evidence and/or conclusions are unreliable. That would render literally all science as pseudoscience.  Things are pseudoscience because they are presented as science when they aren't.  Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method, save for natural law, and colloquially to the body of knowledge that method produces.

Quote
Thanks and I look forward to reading all, if any, responses

Welcome!
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 05:34:09 PM by jack44556677 »