BrownRobin

Zetetic method VS. hoaxes.
« on: March 06, 2018, 06:52:30 AM »
- Flat Earthers propogate the notion that only the Zetetic method of scientific question and answer is used; but then they subscribe to un-substantiated / biased ideas like space travel and moon landing as a NASA hoax. Why is this?

Question asked in seperate thread but no response.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 07:44:45 AM by BrownRobin »

Re: Zetetic method VS. hoaxes.
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2018, 02:50:17 PM »
- Flat Earthers propogate the notion that only the Zetetic method of scientific question and answer is used; but then they subscribe to un-substantiated / biased ideas like space travel and moon landing as a NASA hoax. Why is this?

Question asked in seperate thread but no response.
See my signature, but essentially: It's Zetetically/Empirically obvious that the Earth is flat, so anything showing otherwise is obviously fake.

BrownRobin

Re: Zetetic method VS. hoaxes.
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2018, 03:12:05 PM »
- Flat Earthers propogate the notion that only the Zetetic method of scientific question and answer is used; but then they subscribe to un-substantiated / biased ideas like space travel and moon landing as a NASA hoax. Why is this?

Question asked in seperate thread but no response.
See my signature, but essentially: It's Zetetically/Empirically obvious that the Earth is flat, so anything showing otherwise is obviously fake.


Ok thanks.

If Rowbotham were alive today, I wonder what he would say about speculations / biases / unsubstantiated claims that go against the grain of his intended Zetetic method of discovery.

A lot of biases and faked space travel claims (per FES Wiki).

Re: Zetetic method VS. hoaxes.
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2018, 03:32:28 PM »
Rowbotham was a charlatan who was out to make a buck and a name for himself (by which he could make some more). If he was alive today, he would have a youtube account spouting the same false information with links to buy his book, t-shirts and the like.

I agree with you. It is amazing how they claim zetetic methods in defence of their beliefs and at the same time regurgitate the same discredited nonsense from youtubers as their "research"

wRadion

Re: Zetetic method VS. hoaxes.
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2018, 03:42:10 PM »
See my signature, but essentially: It's Zetetically/Empirically obvious that the Earth is flat, so anything showing otherwise is obviously fake.

At this point, it is logically impossible to argue with that (https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET).
Given that, the FET is basically a religion.

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic method VS. hoaxes.
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2018, 09:51:29 AM »
See my signature, but essentially: It's Zetetically/Empirically obvious that the Earth is flat, so anything showing otherwise is obviously fake.

At this point, it is logically impossible to argue with that (https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET).
Given that, the FET is basically a religion.

I don't know - I'm willing to argue against it.

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
    obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
    P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
    P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
    contradicts the FET
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
    C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
    is fabricated evidence
    P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then
    there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
    P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.


Though proposition 3 is a truism, propositions 1 and 2 require unsubstantiated and unverifiable leaps in logic, of necessity negating conclusion 1.

Propositions 4 and 5 again both require unsubstantiated and unverifiable leaps in logic, thereby negating conclusion 2.
Proposition 4 is nearly a truism, but it still requires that the evidence of which it speaks be fabricated, which is unverifiable. The conclusion that there must be a conspiracy is also unverifiable. Its being unverifiable automatically negates proposition 5.

I like the style with which it is written, though. It could be the poster child for FE literature.