On a thread about Zetetic Method versus Scientific Method (
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3849.0), Tom Bishop posted this:
"The Chemist can put his subject matter under controlled experimental conditions to come to a truth. The Astronomer cannot. This is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.
Your argument about both "observing the results" is not a good one. The Chemist can clearly do a lot more testing on his subject matter than the Astronomer can. There is a huge difference. The Astronomer is not doing testing or experimentation at all before coming up with theories."
I replied:
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? The earth, whether flat or round, is definitely not a controlled experiment. Last time I checked, the earth does not fit into a test tube...or even inside a laboratory. Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations? How would the Zetetic Method get around this fatal flaw in all flat earth models?
For example, let's say...oh I don't know....that you conduct an experiment where you view a distant beach through a telescope? Here are the variables that cannot be controlled or at least that should be factored into and well documented in any results reported:
1-Air temperature all along the line of sight (which affects the refractive properties of air)
2-Humidity
3-Angle of the sun (unless you repeat the experiment once a year at the exact same time)
4-Human error or miscalculation.....like maybe looking at the wrong beach?
5-Pollution levels
6-Wave size and direction, along with any spray being thrown up by the wind
7-Amount of cloud cover or fog
8-Acuity of eyesight of the observer
9-Condition of the telescope
10-Exact location and height and compass direction of the telescope
11- Height of the tides at both locations, and more variable effects like unusually high or low tides caused by wind and storm surges
12- Wind or other factors affecting the steadiness of the telescope
13- Acuity of any photographic equipment used to document the results (if someone actually thought to document their results with a camera)
14- Editing or photoshopping done to any of the resulting photographic or video-graphic evidence collected
15-Fudging of the data collected or reported to support a preconception of what should have been observed
Maybe you could start adjusting for some of these variables by carefully documenting your experiments (including with photographs) and convincing others to repeat it and carefully check your experimental method and results....or you could just post about such an experiment on a forum somewhere and claim it is proof of something without actually having even controlled or documented what you could, or asked anyone else to repeat it and report back to you first.
Would you consider that experiment an example of the Zetetic method in action without any effort at controls, documentation, or independent repetition of the experiment?
And what about all of the factors that are mentioned above that cannot be controlled? Doesn't that make this experiment subject to the inherent flaws you claim for Astronomy?
I also added this:
And how are the observations on the beach an experiment anyways under your definition (further up in the thread): "To experiment is to isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence. It is entirely different than a mere observation."
All you did was look through a telescope. What did you isolate, prepare or manipulate on the beach during your observations?