The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Space Angel on October 26, 2014, 08:03:24 PM
-
If the scientific method is; observe, ask a question, form a hypothesis, experiment, analyze results, accept or reject hypothesis, and make a conclusion; then what would be the Zetetic methodology be and how would it differ from the scientific method?
If you were to deconstruct Robowtham's Zetetic philosophy to its most basic components, what elements would remain? And how could Zetetic philosophy apply to concepts beyond FE theory?
Also, when it comes to Robowtham's writings (if you've read his book and articles), do you feel as though his methods are dogmatic (possibly because of his religious background) or is there room for improvement? Would it be too controversial to change concepts from a book that is taken so seriously by so many FE believers? Or, would it be best to leave Robowtham's book untouched but write a book using his original as a sort of springboard for new ideas?
I've just started reading The Earth is not a Globe so I may be asking the wrong questions. I also don't know much about FE theory as a whole, since I'm so new to trying to understand it, so I don't know what other research has been done. I do know that there is a good deal of research that is based solely on religious texts and scripture, and some that are based on old scientific ideas.
Thanks!
-
The scientific method takes a theory and then tries to prove it. Zetetic Method doesn't start with a theory, it starts with an observation and then experimentation to come to the conclusion. They are similar but different.
At least that's my understanding. The Earth is flat because it obviously looks flat, and the experiments that came afterward seem to support this.
If I'm off base then someone please correct me.
-
The scientific method takes a theory and then tries to prove it. Zetetic Method doesn't start with a theory, it starts with an observation and then experimentation to come to the conclusion. They are similar but different.
At least that's my understanding. The Earth is flat because it obviously looks flat, and the experiments that came afterward seem to support this.
If I'm off base then someone please correct me.
What if the Zeteticist involved had poor vision or was blind, could person still take part in an investigation using his/her other senses as observation?
-
The scientific method takes a theory and then tries to prove it. Zetetic Method doesn't start with a theory, it starts with an observation and then experimentation to come to the conclusion. They are similar but different.
At least that's my understanding. The Earth is flat because it obviously looks flat, and the experiments that came afterward seem to support this.
If I'm off base then someone please correct me.
What if the Zeteticist involved had poor vision or was blind, could person still take part in an investigation using his/her other senses as observation?
Sight is not the only way to observe things. Granted, it would be harder to come to sight based conclusions but there is still smell, touch, hearing, and taste based conclusions.
-
The earth sounds flat to me.
-
The scientific method takes a theory and then tries to prove it. Zetetic Method doesn't start with a theory, it starts with an observation and then experimentation to come to the conclusion. They are similar but different.
At least that's my understanding. The Earth is flat because it obviously looks flat, and the experiments that came afterward seem to support this.
If I'm off base then someone please correct me.
Incorrect. A scientists starts with an observation, formulates a hypothesis, tries to prove it wrong, then assesses the experiment.
-
Sorry, I used the word theory wrong. I meant hypothesis.
-
Sorry, I used the word theory wrong. I meant hypothesis.
In what step of ZP is your AWT then? I do understand that you're using the word "theory" in "AWT" in only the colloquial sense, right?
-
No.
How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay afloat without some sort of invisible force? How is it any different than your theory of gravity?
-
Sorry, I used the word theory wrong. I meant hypothesis.
It's also important to note that a scientist tries to find an experiment to prove his hypothesis wrong. If it cannot do that then it is not a viable experiment.
-
No.
How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay afloat without some sort of invisible force? How is it any different than your theory of gravity?
So how does the observation of "something keeps the sun and moon afloat" logically become an invisible wind that you cannot detect with any sense or instrument?
-
No.
How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay afloat without some sort of invisible force? How is it any different than your theory of gravity?
So how does the observation of "something keeps the sun and moon afloat" logically become an invisible wind that you cannot detect with any sense or instrument?
Do you have a better 'hypothesis'?
-
No.
How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay afloat without some sort of invisible force? How is it any different than your theory of gravity?
I really don't want to derail the OP's question into a debate about the superiority of your AWT to gravity. I want to help us all understand the AP, using AWT as an example. So I ask again:
In what step of ZP is your AWT then?
Are you saying that AWT is not in concert with the ZP, rather resorting to the Scientific Method? If so, what is your hypothesis and experimental evidence to support it as a SM theory?
If you need an example of how SM provides evidence for a given theory, I refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity).
-
"I really don't want to derail OPs thread"
Yet you did anyways. Congratulations.
-
"I really don't want to derail OPs thread"
Yet you did anyways. Congratulations.
Again, I only hoped that you'd provide a working example of how ZP should be used. I would suspect that we'd all benefit from the example to better understand ZP. Would you like to work a different example? I'd be fine with that. Surely you can understand that some of us reach a better understanding of a process by being lead through a worked example. The OP seeks the basic essence of ZP, and your effort in showing a worked example would surely help Angel with that.
-
Rowbotham describes the Zetetic process as putting hypothesis and conjecture aside and letting the results of tests, trials, and experiments speak the facts of the matter.
The OP is already reading Earth Not a Globe, which goes further in depth on the Zetetic method. Many Flat Earthers have come to the conclusions themselves based on zetetic thinking, and many have come to the conclusion that Aetheric Winds exist as it solves many problems present in FET (similar to your theory on dark matter, and even gravity).
You , Gulliver, have created several threads on AWT... so take your bullshit to those threads and spare the new users here your boring prattling on and habits of derailment.
-
Rowbotham describes the Zetetic process as putting hypothesis and conjecture aside and letting the results of tests, trials, and experiments speak the facts of the matter.
The OP is already reading Earth Not a Globe, which goes further in depth on the Zetetic method. Many Flat Earthers have come to the conclusions themselves based on zetetic thinking, and many have come to the conclusion that Aetheric Winds exist as it solves many problems present in FET (similar to your theory on dark matter, and even gravity).
You , Gulliver, have created several threads on AWT... so take your bullshit to those threads and spare the new users here your boring prattling on and habits of derailment.
Again, I ask a simple question. Please provide a worked example to help us understand the ZP as you recommend it to be used. Speaking of EnaG, I recommend that you apply the following quote more often:
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
-
I recommend that you take it to the appropriate thread.
-
No.
How else would the Sun and Moon discs stay afloat without some sort of invisible force? How is it any different than your theory of gravity?
So how does the observation of "something keeps the sun and moon afloat" logically become an invisible wind that you cannot detect with any sense or instrument?
Do you have a better 'hypothesis'?
That does not really answer my question. Should I assume you aren't going to?
-
SA, you might find this post useful. FET is not science.
....FET is not science by default (even though it does not intrinsically include a conspiracy). We reject the scientific method as something that's insufficient for the purpose of establishing the truth. This is something you've known for a long time. ...
Also EnaG tells us that ZP does not use hypotheses or theories, despite what Vx might imply.
THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.
-
>Vauxhall; Would you say that the Zetetic method prefers tangible evidence as opposed to intangible evidence? For example, would mathematical and photographic evidence of a globular Earth be acceptable within ZP, or would it be consider fraudulent because both those things could be manipulated? If that's the case, what sort of evidence could persuade someone who prefers the ZP method?
>Gulliver; I have no idea what AWT is...
>Rama Set; I understand that FET is not considered science, but I'm trying to understand Zetetic philosophy and it's methodology as it pertains to FET. I am more interested in FET in a philosophical or ontological way rather than anything else. So, regardless of the shape of the Earth, I'm just trying to really understand ZP and it's influence, and also it's pros and cons as a method.
-
>Gulliver; I have no idea what AWT is...
Neither do I. I've participated in several threads and even started one trying to figure it out. The acronym AWT might mean FE's aether wind theory, but, of course, ZP doesn't include theories. I really can't resolve the contradiction.
-
>Vauxhall; Would you say that the Zetetic method prefers tangible evidence as opposed to intangible evidence? For example, would mathematical and photographic evidence of a globular Earth be acceptable within ZP, or would it be consider fraudulent because both those things could be manipulated? If that's the case, what sort of evidence could persuade someone who prefers the ZP method?.
Photographic 'evidence' is almost always dismissed in favor of first hand knowledge. Like you said, photos can be doctored.
Surprisingly, we have yet to see an astronaut come to this forum (or the other forum) with eyewitness accounts of Earth from space. People claiming the Earth is round on these forums have not seen the roundness firsthand. Yet, you can look out a window and see that it is obviously flat. I choose to believe my own senses over that of an anonymous user on a forum or a government that has been known to lie to its own people.
-
>Vauxhall; Does FET take into account curvature like hills, mountains, etc.? In the city where I live I often feel the roundness of the ground as i walk across certain areas. I could see a Zetetic counter argument from people who live in very mountainous areas for example. If mathematics, video, photography, etc., aren't enough to satisfy ZP, then what sort of experimentation would be enough to satisfy an observation?
It seems like a massive experiment would have to take place to prove without any doubt that FET is true. And it could be the case that to satisfy ZP, the world technology would have to advance a great deal because it would have to be tangible evidence and not documented evidence. ZP is difficult to persuade, so I wonder if that might be the "essence" of it. A sort of stubbornness that requires 100% tangible evidence to be satisfied.
-
Of course you're going to feel curvature if you're living in a mountainous region.
Zetetic thinking promotes self-discovery, original thought, creativity, and not following the established scientific doctrines just because "NASA" says so.
If you're interested in AWT (Aetheric Wind Theory), here are two threads with some useful information:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1945.0
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.0
-
So discovery of truth would be left to the individual who is following ZP then. One Zeteticist couldn't convince another Zeteticist of the discovery, leaving that Zeteticist to explore on his/her own; is that about right?
-
So discovery of truth would be left to the individual who is following ZP then. One Zeteticist couldn't convince another Zeteticist of the discovery, leaving that Zeteticist to explore on his/her own; is that about right?
These are some pretty involved questions. I do not know if I can answer them properly.
I would encourage you to discover the truth for yourself, yes. Following what I say or any other user on this forum blindly is not recommended.
-
The earth sounds flat to me.
I think it tastes flat too.
-
The earth sounds flat to me.
I think it tastes flat too.
Your mother.