*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #20 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #21 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.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #22 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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #23 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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #24 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #25 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. :(

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #26 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?  :)
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #27 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?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 01:34:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #28 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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #29 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.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 01:37:31 PM by Tom Bishop »

Mysfit

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #30 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?

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #31 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?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #32 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

Mysfit

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #33 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 :).

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #34 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…”.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #35 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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #36 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.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 07:05:44 PM by edby »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #37 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.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 09:21:38 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #38 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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #39 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. 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.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 10:40:51 AM by Tom Bishop »