The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 07:53:38 AM

Title: Zeteticism
Post by: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 07:53:38 AM
From the wiki,
"Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out."

First of all, I'd like to be slightly pedantic and point out that, in the scientific method, one doesn't initially form a theory. The first step is a hypothesis, I think that might be the term you intended.

Second, I wanted to ask some FE'rs who believe things like Universal Acceleration while claiming to follow the zetetic method, how do these beliefs not conflict with each other?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2019, 05:56:56 PM
If you follow the Scientific Method as it is written you will get half-truths and fallacies. The Scientific Method has us coming up with a hypothesis and then performing an experiment around that hypothesis to prove it to be true or false. If it is true, and the experiment comes out in your favor, the next step is to declare yourself to be correct, communicate your results, and it ends there.

However, this is not sufficient. As an example consider Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation which mankind accepted as true for upwards of 2000 years. If you perform an experiment and put out a piece of meat and find that it eventually rots and flies and maggots develop on it, you would be prone to believe that the prevailing theory of spontaneous generation is true.

We see that a single experiment to confirm a hypothesis is not enough, and deeper and basic investigation is necessary to validate the underlying hypothesis. The Zetetic philosophy is conceived as a method of inquiry, where tests are tried and investigation is performed, not to corroborate any particular theory, but where all theories are discarded and the goal is to uncover basic truths about nature, with experience itself as the guiding force.

Many inventors and researchers already perform a Zetetic form of inquiry without knowing it. When Folding@Home systematically tests many different protein folding combinations across a distributed network to see what works and what does not, the Zetetic method is applied. When the Wright Brothers wrote that they had discarded scientific theories and began from experiment to experience, and that only then could they invent the airplane, they were performing the Zetetic method. Knowledge does not come from the 'logically sound' theories and models of man that are built up in academia, but from experience and nature.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Tumeni on December 07, 2019, 07:04:00 PM
When the Wright Brothers wrote that they had discarded scientific theories and began from experiment to experience, and that only then could they invent the airplane, they were performing the Zetetic method. Knowledge does not come from the 'logically sound' theories and models of man that are built up in academia, but from experience and nature.

So, when Norwood set out from the Tower of London to York, in the 1600s, armed with his chain and notebook, you would agree that he was following Zetetic method?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t69WAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA2&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t69WAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA2&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on December 07, 2019, 07:30:19 PM
The Scientific Method has us coming up with a hypothesis and then performing an experiment around that hypothesis to prove it to be true or false. If it is true, and the experiment comes out in your favor, the next step is to declare yourself to be correct, communicate your results, and it ends there.
This is absolutely not what the scientific method does.

The scientific method is about coming up with a hypothesis and then doing an experiment to test that hypothesis. No single test is said to prove anything.

If the results of the test are inconsistent with the hypothesis then it is discarded - unless there was some flaw with the test.
If the test results are consistent with the hypothesis then no, you don’t declare yourself to be correct, you publish your method and your results so that other people can check your work. If other people manage to reproduce your results then it builds confidence in your hypothesis. People may devise different ways of testing your hypothesis. All this serves to check your work. A theory is never said to be proven and the process never “ends”. But the more tests that are done and the more different ways of testing the hypothesis which gives results consistent with it, the more confidence there is in the theory which is built on the hypothesis.

Let’s take an example. Galileo had a hypothesis that objects fall at the same rate no matter what their mass is. To test that he (allegedly) dropped two cannonballs from the Leaning Tower of Pisa at the same time and observed that they hit the ground at the same time. Does that prove the hypothesis? Absolutely not. It builds confidence in it but it’s only one test. But the more tests people do with different pairs of objects the more confidence is built in the hypothesis. You could also vary the test - drop more than 2 objects, drop them from various heights. Drop them in different times of day or in different temperatures. And so on.

Now, let’s say one day someone drops a cannonball and a feather. Hang on a minute, what’s going on here? The cannonball falls a lot faster than the feather. Galileo was wrong!
So what happens then in science is we look at the original hypothesis - is it completely wrong or does it just need modification? In this case, modification. Earth has an atmosphere which means there is air resistance which needs to be taken into account. For cannonballs the effect is negligible, for feathers it is not. So now we have to say that objects in a gravitational field fall at the same rate if no other forces are acting on them. In effect this means that on earth objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum. You can find a video of a Brian Cox show in which they drop a bowling ball and a feather in a large vacuum chamber and show they fall at the same rate.

This is how science works. Hypotheses are tested, methods and results are published. Other people peer review what you did, repeat your tests or devise their own and the results can either see theories modified or even abandoned if they are shown conclusively to be wrong.

The issue with the method articulated on here - proceeding by personal enquiry alone - is that you miss the vital step of publishing your method and results. You miss the important feedback of peer review. You are not checking each other’s work. So you believe in a FE because of The Bishop Experiment. But you have provided no evidence for having even done it, you haven’t published details about your method or your results. Yes, I could do my own tests but I can’t exactly repeat what you did or know if my results are consistent with yours. And what if I did my own test which I declare similar enough to yours based on what I know of your test. What if I get different results? What happens then? How do we know who is wrong?
The principle of checking things out for yourself is sound up to a point but we have to consider our own limitations in understanding or ability to do tests.
I’d say the heart of the scientific method is peer review and this is a step you miss and it leads you to wrong conclusions.
Your shows a massive misunderstanding of what the scientific method is.

Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on December 07, 2019, 07:32:26 PM
When the Wright Brothers wrote that they had discarded scientific theories and began from experiment to experience, and that only then could they invent the airplane
You like that quote a lot, I’ve seen you use it on here before. I’ve yet to see a credible source for it.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2019, 07:40:20 PM
The scientific method is about coming up with a hypothesis and then doing an experiment to test that hypothesis. No single test is said to prove anything.

The tests are thought to confirm the hypothesis, which is treated as proven true. Do you think that when people believed that spontaneous generation was true, that they thought it wasn't proven?

Standards of "proof" have always been very low in science.

Quote
If the test results are consistent with the hypothesis then no, you don’t declare yourself to be correct, you publish your method and your results so that other people can check your work. If other people manage to reproduce your results then it builds confidence in your hypothesis.

That would just lead to the same flawed conclusion of spontaneous generation.

Quote
People may devise different ways of testing your hypothesis.

That's beyond what the Scientific Method says. The Scientific Method just says to perform a test to confirm that your hypothesis is true. That's it. There is no further investigation on your subject matter.

I would recommend reading the steps of the Scientific Method. They do not involve multiple tests in different fundamental ways of a hypothesis. It just says to perform a test to confirm whether it is true or false. It is your understanding of what the scientific method says which is flawed. The scientific method says none of that.

If people "may" test the hypothesis in different ways, that's beyond what the scope of the scientific method says to do, and is closer to the Zetetic method.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on December 07, 2019, 08:23:01 PM
The tests are thought to confirm the hypothesis, which is treated as proven true.
No, it isn't. Were that true we wouldn't have relativity, if Newton's ideas were thought to be "Proven True" then why would anyone ever have challenged them?
The reason it took so long for Newton to be shown to be wrong is because in most circumstances his theory does work fine, it's only in certain circumstances that his theories break down and it took a long time for us to have instruments sensitive enough to notice.
Science is always open to the possibility that it might not be correct and the models might need to be modified or discarded entirely and replaced.

Quote
Do you think that when people believed that spontaneous generation was true, that they thought it wasn't proven?

Did they believe it because of rigorous scientific, peer reviewed experiments? Remember you're talking about theories which have been disproved for hundreds of years ago. But how was it disproved? With a controlled scientific experiment

https://www.microbiologytext.com/5th_ed/book/displayarticle/aid/27

Quote
That would just lead to the same flawed conclusion of spontaneous generation.
If the conclusion was based on controlled but flawed scientific experiments then maybe. Was it?
Ultimately, when a controlled scientific experiment was done to test the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, it was shown to be false.

Quote
That's beyond what the Scientific Method says. The Scientific Method just says to perform a test to confirm that your hypothesis is true. That's it. There is no further investigation on your subject matter.

Well, it's up to you whether you do further investigation but the end of the method is "Report results". This is the key part which allows others to review and attempt to repeat your result either using your method or different method which may test things you missed. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say this is not allowed, it's how progress has been made down the years.

As for the Wright brothers, they certainly did work in a scientific way:

Quote
The Wright brothers were much more scientific and methodical inventors. They believed in testing their ideas in smaller or safer versions before building an actual plane. Scientists today, like the Wright brothers, don't just build things and see what happens; they make observations, then form a hypothesis or guess, and then do more tests to see if their hypothesis is correct. This is known as the "scientific method." For example, the Wright brothers built a wind tunnel to compare wing shape ideas By attaching an old shop fan to a 6-foot-long wooden box, they could blow "wind" on hundreds of different miniature wings and measure with a scale exactly how much lift each wing produced. The Wright brothers also flew countless kites as well as motor-less gliders to test their designs. They studied the way birds move through the air and tried to duplicate it with their models. Throughout all their experiments, Orville and Wilbur took careful notes and measurements so they could analyze what worked and what didn't.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/flight/wright/invent.htm
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Tumeni on December 07, 2019, 10:30:26 PM
The Scientific Method just says to perform a test to confirm that your hypothesis is true.

Where is this "said"?

I would recommend reading the steps of the Scientific Method.

From which books?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2019, 10:53:13 PM
The tests are thought to confirm the hypothesis, which is treated as proven true.
No, it isn't. Were that true we wouldn't have relativity, if Newton's ideas were thought to be "Proven True" then why would anyone ever have challenged them?
The reason it took so long for Newton to be shown to be wrong is because in most circumstances his theory does work fine, it's only in certain circumstances that his theories break down and it took a long time for us to have instruments sensitive enough to notice.
Science is always open to the possibility that it might not be correct and the models might need to be modified or discarded entirely and replaced.

Funny statements there, but the word "proven" is widely used by academia when a hypothesis is allegedly tested to be true.

Search term: "relativity was proven" site:.edu

Quote
In 1919 his theory of General Relativity was proven correct from measurements taken during a total solar eclipse and he instantly became a ...

Oct 25, 2018 · Shortly before the Versailles treaty was signed in 1919, Einstein received good new when his theory of relativity was proven by a British ...

Aug 4, 2017 · ... and how Einstein's theory of relativity was proven true to a skeptical world when, during the eclipse of 1919, scientists collected photographic ...

TOTALITY also looks back to a fascinating period in scientific discovery when general relativity was proven with the photographic recording of a total solar eclipse.

Mar 12, 2019 · Look back to a fascinating period in scientific discovery when general relativity was proven with the photographic recording of a total solar  ...

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Well, it's up to you whether you do further investigation but the end of the method is "Report results". This is the key part which allows others to review and attempt to repeat your result either using your method or different method which may test things you missed. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say this is not allowed, it's how progress has been made down the years.

The Scientific Method says nothing about testing a hypothesis with different methods to better determine a truth.

"Well it's up to you" --- That's not a method.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
As for the Wright brothers, they certainly did work in a scientific way:

Quote
The Wright brothers were much more scientific and methodical inventors. They believed in testing their ideas in smaller or safer versions before building an actual plane. Scientists today, like the Wright brothers, don't just build things and see what happens; they make observations, then form a hypothesis or guess, and then do more tests to see if their hypothesis is correct. This is known as the "scientific method." For example, the Wright brothers built a wind tunnel to compare wing shape ideas By attaching an old shop fan to a 6-foot-long wooden box, they could blow "wind" on hundreds of different miniature wings and measure with a scale exactly how much lift each wing produced. The Wright brothers also flew countless kites as well as motor-less gliders to test their designs. They studied the way birds move through the air and tried to duplicate it with their models. Throughout all their experiments, Orville and Wilbur took careful notes and measurements so they could analyze what worked and what didn't.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/flight/wright/invent.htm

Looks like investigating from experiment to experience to me.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: pricelesspearl on December 08, 2019, 12:07:12 AM
Quote
The Scientific Method says nothing about testing a hypothesis with different methods to better determine a truth.

You’d benefit from some study of Karl Popper.

Quote
The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.

Quote
Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game.

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2019, 12:36:42 PM
Is that the Scientific Method, or is it someone's commentary from a book?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: pricelesspearl on December 08, 2019, 05:01:25 PM
Is that the Scientific Method, or is it someone's commentary from a book?

Karl Popper was one of the most influential philosophers of science in the twentieth century and some would say of all time. "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" is hardly "commentary".  His teaching and contributions to the philosophy of science are considered the cornerstone of the modern scientific method.

The fact that you apparently don’t know even who he is much less have familiarity with his work, or with the various criticisms of it, show how utterly superficial your understanding of the scientific method is. "The Scientific Method in Practice by Hugh Gauch" is also a good resource.  I believe you can download a pdf of it as well, so there really is no excuse not to educate yourself.

But typically, you’d rather reduce the profound to what you find in a 6th grade science book. 
 
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 08, 2019, 05:39:20 PM
Popper's contributions to philosophy were largely hypothetical, and commonly dismissed - he made no claim that anyone actually employs them, and presented them as a recommendation. To suggest that critical rationalism and the scientific method are one and the same is disingenuous to say the least.

In short, you took someone who proposes a method similar to Zeteticism, except you chose to pretend that his proposed methodology is representative of what his contemporaries did, or what's being done now. How foolish.

In your credit, you did bring to attention the fact that Popper agreed with us on this particular issue. It's just a shame that you did that by attempting to sneak through a lie.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: garygreen on December 08, 2019, 08:07:26 PM
Popper's contributions to philosophy were largely hypothetical, and commonly dismissed - he made no claim that anyone actually employs them, and presented them as a recommendation. To suggest that critical rationalism and the scientific method are one and the same is disingenuous to say the least.

In short, you took someone who proposes a method similar to Zeteticism, except you chose to pretend that his proposed methodology is representative of what his contemporaries did, or what's being done now. How foolish.

In your credit, you did bring to attention the fact that Popper agreed with us on this particular issue. It's just a shame that you did that by attempting to sneak through a lie.

your interpretation of popper as i understand it from this post is really not very accurate.

for one thing, popper was an absolute giant in the philosophy of science, and he's still taken very seriously.  popper's falsification theory dominated the field until thomas kuhn rocked everybody's tits off talking about paradigms.

for another, popper was the opposite of a zetetic.  the wiki says that "using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved."  contra zeteticism, he argued that the only statements with scientific meaning are those that can be falsified with respect to some prior theory or framework.  even beyond that, popper explicitly argued against newtonian 'pure observation.'  he believed that observations/empirical statements themselves are always and necessarily 'theory-laden.'

apropos of this argument about whether or not science tells you to stop doing science after a single experiment (lol), popper says this in the logic of scientific discovery:

Quote
We do not take even our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a mere isolated ‘coincidence’, but with events which, on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively testable.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: pricelesspearl on December 08, 2019, 08:49:13 PM
Popper's contributions to philosophy were largely hypothetical, and commonly dismissed - he made no claim that anyone actually employs them, and presented them as a recommendation. To suggest that critical rationalism and the scientific method are one and the same is disingenuous to say the least.

Right, which is why the concept of falsifiability never really took off.  ::)


Quote
n your credit, you did bring to attention the fact that Popper agreed with us on this particular issue. It's just a shame that you did that by attempting to sneak through a lie.

Quote
The doctrine that the empirical sciences are reducible to sense perceptions, and thus to our experiences, is one which many accept as obvious beyond all question. However, this doctrine stands or falls with inductive logic, and is here rejected along with it. p. 103 "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"

Quote
In contrast, that Zetetics "[learn] from experience and observation" (Rowbotham 1) implies that they make logical deductions based on data they have themselves experienced or observed, and that there must be a direct connection between the data and the person drawing logical conclusions from it. Otherwise, Zetetics would not be making logical deductions on the basis of "experience and observation", but rather from reported experiences or reported observations. In short, the Zetetic Method requires that logical deduction be based upon direct sensorial evidence.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48821.0

Wow, you caught me.  Obviously, Popper was a proponent of the Zetetic method.

And for the record, I didn't mention any particular issue...so I don't know what you think I was "lying" about.  I simply suggested that Tom would benefit from studying his ideas.

Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Astronomer on December 09, 2019, 07:12:57 AM
If you follow the Scientific Method as it is written you will get half-truths and fallacies. The Scientific Method has us coming up with a hypothesis and then performing an experiment around that hypothesis to prove it to be true or false. If it is true, and the experiment comes out in your favor, the next step is to declare yourself to be correct, communicate your results, and it ends there.

However, this is not sufficient. As an example consider Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation which mankind accepted as true for upwards of 2000 years. If you perform an experiment and put out a piece of meat and find that it eventually rots and flies and maggots develop on it, you would be prone to believe that the prevailing theory of spontaneous generation is true.

We see that a single experiment to confirm a hypothesis is not enough, and deeper and basic investigation is necessary to validate the underlying hypothesis. The Zetetic philosophy is conceived as a method of inquiry, where tests are tried and investigation is performed, not to corroborate any particular theory, but where all theories are discarded and the goal is to uncover basic truths about nature, with experience itself as the guiding force.

Many inventors and researchers already perform a Zetetic form of inquiry without knowing it. When Folding@Home systematically tests many different protein folding combinations across a distributed network to see what works and what does not, the Zetetic method is applied. When the Wright Brothers wrote that they had discarded scientific theories and began from experiment to experience, and that only then could they invent the airplane, they were performing the Zetetic method. Knowledge does not come from the 'logically sound' theories and models of man that are built up in academia, but from experience and nature.

Because others have already explained your misconceptions about the scientific method better than I could on my best day, I’ll leave it at that.

I do want to ask though, do you seriously think the Wright brothers didn’t form a hypothesis? I’m skeptical of your claim, as it doesn’t have a source, but even if it’s correct, they knew to make wings, they must have understood the basic concept of lift, so even if they didn’t realize it, that is a hypothesis. They tested it, and it worked.

Also, are you deliberately trying to derail topics? I’ve seen you do it in other threads, but maybe you aren’t trying to do it, or don’t realize you’re doing it.
This post had nothing to do with the validity of the scientific method, yet you dedicated the whole post to pointing out what you think are it’s flaws.

My point is, ironically, that many people who claim to follow Zeteticism might be unknowingly following the scientific method, contradicting your claim to the contrary.
Universal acceleration is a blinding example. The whole idea that the world is flat is a presumption in itself. It’s a contradiction to zeteticism.

Tom, I know you like the zetetic method, but I’m not sure your positions on FE hypotheses like UA.
How about it, what do you think?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 09, 2019, 09:18:59 AM
for one thing, popper was an absolute giant in the philosophy of science, and he's still taken very seriously.
I didn't say he wasn't. I'm merely pointing out that his proposed methodology is not followed to the letter (not even remotely), and never was. Parts of it were influential, which is a good thing, but to propose that reading Popper will give you an authoritative manual on how2science is to argue in bad faith.

he argued that the only statements with scientific meaning are those that can be falsified with respect to some prior theory or framework
Or, as he more succinctly put it himself, myths. I suspect the issue here is a poor understanding of Zeteticism. This may be something for us to work on - it's clear that the current documentation of Zetetic inquiry inspires misconceptions and misinterpretations. Newcomers to the ideology seem to think that it exclusively comprises observation in some sort of unachievable vacuum, rather than merely emphasising it. I view it as a similar failure as some of our prior work on the Ice Wall leading to people expecting an actual, literal wall of ice surrounding the South. It's not surprising that a lot of work remains to be done, and some of it is clearly just patching up past failures.

Obviously, Popper was a proponent of the Zetetic method.
If you're going to strawman me, please do so in AR so I can express my opinion of you appropriately. Alternatively, please stick to discussing arguments that were actually made, and not ones you've conjured in your head.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on December 09, 2019, 11:24:12 AM
Funny statements there, but the word "proven" is widely used by academia when a hypothesis is allegedly tested to be true.
You know, I'm going to concede that one. Yes, the word is used.
But I think most people understand that outside of the world of mathematics nothing can be truly proven in the strictest sense.
In court they talk about things being proven beyond reasonable doubt to reflect that.

In science the word may well be used but where you are misunderstanding (or deliberately misrepresenting) things is to claim that scientific ideas, once "proven", stand for all time.
They don't. Science is always open to the possibility that models may need tweaking or even replacing completely.

How do you think we ended up with the heliocentric becoming accepted? By your logic, the geocentric model was "proven" so nothing could ever replace it.
Obviously that model was well ingrained so it took a long time and lots of evidence for a different model to replace it. And people did initially make attempts to reconcile the geocentric model with observations which cast doubt on it. Ultimately though the evidence won out and the model was completely replaced.

Same with Relativity - Newton's model of gravity had been accepted for centuries, Einstein's model was revolutionary but, again, the evidence won out.
I note that you accept parts of Relativity which fit your agenda so UA doesn't see us whizzing past light speed.
If you want to try some introspection you might want to consider how dishonest it is for you to decry science and the scientific method but then cherry-pick parts of scientific theories which fit your agenda.

Quote
The Scientific Method says nothing about testing a hypothesis with different methods to better determine a truth.

Neither does it say you can't. All it says is report your results. Other people can then do what they want with them. And this is how progress is made.
People checking each other's results to make sure no mistakes were made.
You can sneer at the scientific method if you like but it's hard to argue that it hasn't been a success.

Quote
Looks like investigating from experiment to experience to me.

Call it what you like, your original quote claims that they explicitly rejected the scientific method - a quote you've used before and never provided a credible source for.
Can I suggest you stop repeating this lie unless you can provide any credible evidence that they actually said or wrote that.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: BillO on December 09, 2019, 05:15:06 PM
As an example consider Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation which mankind accepted as true for upwards of 2000 years.
I don't think this is a great example, Tom.  Aristotle formed his "theory" strictly from observation and experimentation.  He would observe life emerging from environments where they did not exist before, either existing environments, like pools of water that later produced fish, or created environments, like leaving raw meat out to later observe flies and maggots emerge.  Then formulated spontaneous generation as an explanation.  He strictly followed the Zetetic method, not the scientific method.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: iamcpc on December 09, 2019, 09:22:22 PM
If you follow the Scientific Method as it is written you will get half-truths and fallacies. The Scientific Method has us coming up with a hypothesis and then performing an experiment around that hypothesis to prove it to be true or false. If it is true, and the experiment comes out in your favor, the next step is to declare yourself to be correct, communicate your results, and it ends there.

I agree with this. The current scientific method really does have some flaws.

However, this is not sufficient. As an example consider Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation which mankind accepted as true for upwards of 2000 years. If you perform an experiment and put out a piece of meat and find that it eventually rots and flies and maggots develop on it, you would be prone to believe that the prevailing theory of spontaneous generation is true.

I don't think this is a fair example to show the flaws in the scientific method. Aristotle came up with this idea over 2000 years ago. Then, as a result of the scientific method, created many tests to this spontaneous generation. Some provided evidence for and some provided evidence against. Eventually, through hundreds of iterations through the scientific method, enough experiments had provided evidence against spontaneous generation to largely reject it.

In this specific example it took something like 2000 years to test these ideas. The modern scientific method, while still able to provide evidence toward an erroneous concept or idea, are tested much sooner than 2000 years.

For example X rays were used in shoe stores from 1920 to 1970. In 1927 the scientific method started providing evidence suggesting that these were harmful. By the end of the 70's enough evidence had been compiled that the machines were all but extinct.

While a glaring example of the flaws of the scientific method that such machines were allowed in stores in the first place it didn't take thousands of years to come up with substantial evidence against.





Many inventors and researchers already perform a Zetetic form of inquiry without knowing it. When Folding@Home systematically tests many different protein folding combinations across a distributed network to see what works and what does not, the Zetetic method is applied. When the Wright Brothers wrote that they had discarded scientific theories and began from experiment to experience, and that only then could they invent the airplane, they were performing the Zetetic method. Knowledge does not come from the 'logically sound' theories and models of man that are built up in academia, but from experience and nature.

very good point I didn't know about that. I feel the best approach may be some sort of hybrid.

There are pros and cons to having the experiment lead to a hypothesis



and there are pros and cons to having the hypothesis lead to the experiment

Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 10, 2019, 10:03:52 AM
he argued that the only statements with scientific meaning are those that can be falsified with respect to some prior theory or framework
Or, as he more succinctly put it himself, myths.
What is it that Popper said were myths?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on December 10, 2019, 12:19:59 PM
very good point I didn't know about that. I feel the best approach may be some sort of hybrid.
The Wright Brothers quote is a fabrication, there is no credible source for it. Tom just likes to use it to attack the scientific method.
I'm not sure how well the process of invention maps on to that anyway.
They were trying to build a plane, they did a lot of tests of various kites and the end result was something that flew.
The test of an invention is whether it works or not and theirs demonstrably did.
The result was not exactly a "theory" that if you build a machine a certain way it will do a certain thing, it was a design for something that flew.
And in the scientific method you publish your results. That is the key thing - you publish so other people can check your working and verify your results. That is the key thing missing in FE - you "proceed from personal inquiry" which is why there are so many competing FE models and no consensus. It's not a productive way of working.

Often with invention you do the opposite of publish your results - details of the design are often secret to stop others copying you and others may try to design something similar to take a share of the market. It's a completely different dynamic to the process of scientific discovery although principles of experimentation and learning from results are common to both.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: TomInAustin on December 10, 2019, 04:45:06 PM
The scientific method is about coming up with a hypothesis and then doing an experiment to test that hypothesis. No single test is said to prove anything.

The tests are thought to confirm the hypothesis, which is treated as proven true. Do you think that when people believed that spontaneous generation was true, that they thought it wasn't proven?


People also thought the moon and sun were gods, that the earth was flat, and that an eclipse spelled the end of the world.  Proves nothing other than that as science progresses old silly notions are discarded.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 10, 2019, 08:11:32 PM
What is it that Popper said were myths?
I was making a light-hearted reference to the following quote from Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge:

Quote
Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; neither with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical discussion of myths, and of magical techniques and practices. The scientific tradition is distinguished from the pre-scientific tradition in having two layers. Like the latter, it passes on its theories; but it also passes on a critical attitude towards them. The theories are passed on, not as dogmas, but rather with the challenge to discuss them and improve upon them.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 10, 2019, 08:33:59 PM
What is it that Popper said were myths?
I was making a light-hearted reference to the following quote from Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge:

Ah right. From my parsing of your statement below, I thought that your 'myths' was referring back to 'statements with scientific meaning that can be falsified '.

he argued that the only statements with scientific meaning are those that can be falsified with respect to some prior theory or framework
Or, as he more succinctly put it himself, myths.

Popper thought that ideas such as the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology, though posing as science, "had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy". Such theories "appear to be able to explain practically
everything that happened within the fields to which they referred."

By contrast, Newton's and Einstein's theories could be falsified.

Quote
If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected. This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question [i.e. Marx, psychoanalysis etc] were compatible with the most divergent human behavior, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 10, 2019, 08:35:41 PM
Yes, it sounds like you identified my joke as something odd, but not necessarily as humorous in intent. I guess I'll take it as a compliment.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 10, 2019, 08:39:21 PM
What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way? Have any flat earth researchers personally verified its existence?

Or is it a theory put together to explain how no one has explored the rim of the world?

Likewise, what direct observation supports the claim that the sun and the stars do not really set, and that the celestial sphere is not a sphere at all? Or is the claim more a theoretical construct to explain why people in other time zones can still see the celestial objects that have 'set' from our point of view? 

Again, what direct observation supports the claim of bendy light? Direct observation surely contradicts any such claim. Or is bendy light a theoretical construct?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 10, 2019, 08:53:28 PM
What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way?
Antarctica has been observed, and is observed, regularly by countless individuals. I don't see how one could reasonably question its existence in this day and age.

Again, what direct observation supports the claim of bendy light? Direct observation surely contradicts any such claim.
Really? When has direct observation contradicted such a claim?

Likewise, what direct observation supports the claim that the sun and the stars do not really set
??? What makes you think that the sunset doesn't "really" occur? This is not so much a false statement as it is a meaningless one.

the celestial sphere is not a sphere at all?
Once again, you're not so much wrong as you're just spouting nonsense.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 10, 2019, 10:14:41 PM
What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way?
Antarctica has been observed, and is observed, regularly by countless individuals. I don't see how one could reasonably question its existence in this day and age.
So Zeteticism does not exclude testimony? I.e. reliance on things that others have observed, but you yourself have not witnessed. I assume you personally haven't been to the ice wall.

From the wiki
Quote
How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

It is claimed that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice."  What evidence is there for that claim? Testimony, e.g. from Scott's two expeditions in the 1900s, when ingress was achieved, suggests otherwise.

Quote
Likewise, what direct observation supports the claim that the sun and the stars do not really set
??? What makes you think that the sunset doesn't "really" occur? This is not so much a false statement as it is a meaningless one.
By 'do not really set', I mean, the sun and stars do not set below the surface of the flat earth, but remain above it, obscured by perspective.

I will check the wiki.

Quote
Sunrise and Sunset refers to the time of the day when the light of the Sun rises from or sets into the horizon. The Round Earth model describes sunset as a rotating spherical earth that obscures the Sun. The Flat Earth model describes sunset as the light of the Sun setting into the Flat Earth.

Quote
Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west.

So if I interpret correctly, the sun does not really set, i.e. pass under the surface of the flat earth, but only appears to do so.

Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on December 11, 2019, 08:23:29 AM
What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way?
Antarctica has been observed, and is observed, regularly by countless individuals. I don't see how one could reasonably question its existence in this day and age.
No-one disputes Antarctica exists, the dispute is what it is.
You claim that the cliffs are effectively part of the inside of a circle, the RE claim is they are effectively part of the outside of a circle.
There are sailing races around it, you'd think people would have noticed if they were going 6 times further than they expected and going anti-clockwise in a circle rather than clockwise.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 11, 2019, 09:49:10 AM
So Zeteticism does not exclude testimony?
Why would an increased reliance on observation and experimentation exclude something as basic as accepting something someone else claims to have seen? Your proposals here are bizarre. Did you really expect a method of inquiry to tell you to disregard every other human and walk around checking everything by yourself?

Would you approach science in the same fashion? If I told you that I'm drinking a Red Bull right now, would you demand that I present you with peer-reviewed sources that demonstrate that I am indeed doing so, or that drinking Red Bull is even possible? I sincerely hope not, and I hope you can see why such extremism would be silly.

I assume you personally haven't been to the ice wall.
Spurious assumptions are useless. Don't waste your time (or mine) with those.

By 'do not really set', I mean, the sun and stars do not set below the surface of the flat earth, but remain above it, obscured by perspective.
This is true regardless of the shape of the Earth - the Sun does not sink below the Earth's surface, and indeed doesn't come close to ever touching it (that would be bad). It only appears to be doing so. It baffles me that this apparently requires explaining.

It seems to me that your question boils down to "If I'm right, then why are you wrong?" Surely you can see why I'm not interested in this.

No-one disputes Antarctica exists
You'd be surprised.

you'd think people would have noticed if they were going 6 times further than they expected and going anti-clockwise in a circle rather than clockwise.
I'm really not interested in what "you" would think. Ironically, edby's objection that I'm addressing here is a thinly-veiled accusation of us theorising without basing it on observation. Surely you can see why doing exactly what he asked us not to do wouldn't help here.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 11, 2019, 11:09:54 AM
By 'do not really set', I mean, the sun and stars do not set below the surface of the flat earth, but remain above it, obscured by perspective.
This is true regardless of the shape of the Earth - the Sun does not sink below the Earth's surface, and indeed doesn't come close to ever touching it (that would be bad). It only appears to be doing so. It baffles me that this apparently requires explaining.
Surely you understood what I meant. If the earth is flat, then there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat surface. According to the wiki, the sun and stars always lie above that plane. The appearance of setting, i.e. the sun appearing to move to a place below that plane, must therefore be deceptive. Or (what is equivalent) at sunset the sun appears to move “below the horizon line”.

Quote
Why would an increased reliance on observation and experimentation exclude something as basic as accepting something someone else claims to have seen? Your proposals here are bizarre. Did you really expect a method of inquiry to tell you to disregard every other human and walk around checking everything by yourself?
I am simply trying to understand the Zetetic method. The wiki is silent about whether testimony is allowed, or not. And recall that the significant testimony of space travellers is disregarded in the wiki.

Quote
People have been into space. How have they not discovered that the Earth is flat?

The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration.
I’m not disputing whether the wiki is correct or not. My question is, if some testimony (travellers to Antarctica) is allowed, and some isn’t (travellers to space), by what criterion do we distinguish the true from the supposedly false testimony?

Quote
edby's objection that I'm addressing here is a thinly-veiled accusation of us theorising without basing it on observation.
Yes, FE perspective being a case in point. What I see is the sun going ‘below’ the horizon line. That’s my observation, and the observation of many others. FE perspective is a fairly complex (and to me unintelligible) theory to explain why that observation is illusory.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 11, 2019, 11:21:45 AM
From the wiki again.
Quote
The Earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Geography_and_Related_Phenomena

The areas past the ‘ice wall’, including the Ross and Ronne ice shelves have been extensively surveyed, and there is a selection of maps as witness to those surveys (https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/maps/topographic-maps/). I met Felicity Aston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicity_Aston) a few months ago who told me of her 2012 solo journey to the South Pole and across a significant part of Antarctica.

I myself will be visiting Antarctica in 2021 and will report back if possible.

Of course any ‘to our knowledge’ type of claim is possibly true, but any robust method of enquiry would seek first to determine the limit of our knowledge.

[EDIT] To my knowledge, the first successful attempt to penetrate far beyond the ice shelf was the 1901-04 Discovery Expedition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Expedition).
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 11, 2019, 02:00:51 PM
Surely you understood what I meant.
I do understand what you mean, but the logical implications of what you propose are ludicrous, and I'll carry on bringing them to light until you've fixed your argument. You're trying to draw a parallel between an observation and whatever intentionally-terrible interpretation of said observation you can come up with. I do not for a second believe that you're proposing this in good faith.

The appearance of setting, i.e. the sun appearing to move to a place below that plane, must therefore be deceptive.
No, physics and optics are not "deceptive". The fact that you find one interpretation of a certain appearance to be intuitive does not make it the default. In the same way, the RE appearance of the Sun sinking into the sea/ground is not "deceptive" - it's just a poor interpretation of an observation.

I am simply trying to understand the Zetetic method.
In order to understand something, one must occasionally think. I asked you these questions for a reason, and I'm sad to see you ignored them entirely.

My question is, if some testimony (travellers to Antarctica) is allowed, and some isn’t (travellers to space), by what criterion do we distinguish the true from the supposedly false testimony?
Once again, if you had thought about the questions I asked you, this would be obvious. Much like you (hopefully) do not need peer reviewed literature to prove that I was drinking a Red Bull, humans do not need incontrovertible proof of everything they consider true. I honestly would never take someone seriously if they demanded that I go into length proving that it does exoist, but I'm confident that it can be done relatively cheaply and easily. Indeed, that confidence is part of the reason why nobody takes such demands seriously.

Yes, FE perspective being a case in point. What I see is the sun going ‘below’ the horizon line. That’s my observation, and the observation of many others.
That's your interpretation of an observation. one you don't sincerely adhere to. It's also an interpretation of an observation that doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can travel to the location you originally perceived as the horizon line, and confirm that the Sun doesn't literally sink there. I'm really not a fan of the eristic rhetoric you're trying to shove down people's throats here.

FE perspective is a fairly complex (and to me unintelligible) theory to explain why that observation is illusory.
It's not particularly complex when contrasted with most mainstream physics. I suspect it's more likely that you're unwilling to comprehend it, rather than unable.

The areas past the ‘ice wall’
Okay, so the Ice Wall has been surveyed. How does that constitute going very far past the Ice Wall?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: pricelesspearl on December 11, 2019, 04:09:13 PM
Quote
In the same way, the RE appearance of the Sun sinking into the sea/ground is not "deceptive" - it's just a poor interpretation of an observation.

What is the deciding factor as to whether or not an interpretation of an observation is correct? Is there room in the Zetetic method for one’s interpretations of their own observations to be wrong?  If so, how can one have any confidence in the interpretation without testing it?  It seems to me in the Zetetic method, if tests consistently appear to contradict one's interpretation of observations...the tests are "reinterpreted" to fit the observation instead of the other way around.


What is the difference between “testing to prove/disprove “an interpretation of an observation” and “testing to prove/disprove a hypothesis”?



Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 11, 2019, 05:20:35 PM
The areas past the ‘ice wall’
Okay, so the Ice Wall has been surveyed. How does that constitute going very far past the Ice Wall?
 

What I actually said was:

Quote
The areas past the ‘ice wall’, including the Ross and Ronne ice shelves have been extensively surveyed, and there is a selection of maps as witness to those surveys (https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/maps/topographic-maps/). I met Felicity Aston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicity_Aston) a few months ago who told me of her 2012 solo journey to the South Pole and across a significant part of Antarctica.

The Ronne ice shelf is the largest in Antarctica, about 200,000 sq m. The first stage of Felicity Aston’s journey was from McMurdo to the South Pole. She travelled by plane to the base of the transantarctic mountains, then walked solo the approx 550km to the South Pole station. I don’t know your definition of ‘very far’, but seems far to me. And she was one of many to make that journey. Note the McMurdo–South Pole Highway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_Traverse) follows the same route (995 miles).

Quote
If I told you that I'm drinking a Red Bull right now, would you demand that I present you with peer-reviewed sources that demonstrate that I am indeed doing so, or that drinking Red Bull is even possible? I sincerely hope not, and I hope you can see why such extremism would be silly.

Of course, since there is nothing unusual about your claim. Yet the wiki states (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Geography_and_Related_Phenomena) “To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey”. That is an extraordinary claim, so I can reasonably demand the evidence for it, i.e. that we do not know of anyone who has been ‘very far’ past the ice wall (specifically the Ronne shelf), given the weight of evidence that we do know of many such people – including Felicity, who have travelled what any reasonable person would regard as 'very far' past the ice wall.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Astronomer on December 11, 2019, 06:09:17 PM
Tom... I thought I was being pedantic with my criticism of your flawed explanation of the scientific method.

Bottom line, and there are more that I'm forgetting... Please RE's, feel free to add to the list if anything comes to mind.

-Aether,
-Universal acceleration,
-Ice wall,
-Rotation of the "celestial spheres" and "luminous elements" above the plane of a flat earth,
-The dome,
-The map(s) of flat earth,
-The very claim itself that the earth is flat,

Each of these fly in the face of zeteticism. Each claim that FE's need to explain the natural phenomenon that we can observe with our own eyes, is in direct contradiction of the zetetic method.
Most FE'rs in the fora are proponents of at least one of these hypotheses, and they're unknowingly using the scientific method. However, the difference between the FE community and the scientific community at large is actual experimentation to prove their hypotheses either correct or incorrect.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 11, 2019, 06:25:14 PM
-Aether,
-Universal acceleration,
-Ice wall,
-Rotation of the "celestial spheres" and "luminous elements" above the plane of a flat earth,
-The dome,
-The map(s) of flat earth,
-The very claim itself that the earth is flat,

Not forgetting Flat earth 'perspective'.

Also light-bending, which is a great example of a Popper unfalsifiable thesis. We can design a light-bending model that is perfectly consistent with standard astronomical models, but where the earth is flat (one astronomer has designed such a computer model*). Impossible to strictly prove it is false, any more than we can prove that the earth is not controlled by a giant blue unicorn. And every piece of evidence whatsoever could be cited in support of such a model.

[edit] http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Bikini Polaris on December 11, 2019, 06:28:40 PM
Second, I wanted to ask some FE'rs who believe things like Universal Acceleration while claiming to follow the zetetic method, how do these beliefs not conflict with each other?

Has Zeteticism ever been criticized by some philosopher?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Astronomer on December 11, 2019, 06:43:28 PM
Second, I wanted to ask some FE'rs who believe things like Universal Acceleration while claiming to follow the zetetic method, how do these beliefs not conflict with each other?

Has Zeteticism ever been criticized by some philosopher?

How is that related?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 11, 2019, 07:48:34 PM
What is the difference between “testing to prove/disprove “an interpretation of an observation” and “testing to prove/disprove a hypothesis”?
You seem to suggest that Zeteticism involves no testing or verification. How silly of you.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say.
Oh, so you do understand why your position was ludicrous, and, as suspected, this was entirely intentional on your part.

Don't do that in the upper fora. If you want to practice meaningless eristic, you can do that literally anywhere else on the Internet.

However, the difference between the FE community and the scientific community at large is actual experimentation to prove their hypotheses either correct or incorrect.
How many FE experiments have you reproduced, and what led you to the conclusion that there was a difference to be found in them?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: pricelesspearl on December 11, 2019, 08:34:02 PM
Quote
You seem to suggest that Zeteticism involves no testing or verification. How silly of you.

That is not what I mean to suggest.  It just seems to me that performing tests to confirm/refute one's interpretation of an observation (which I assume is how a Zetetic would see as the purpose of experimentation...correct me if I am wrong)isn't any different from testing a "hypothesis".   A hypothesis is nothing more than a formally stated interpretation of observations.



Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: BillO on December 11, 2019, 10:20:19 PM
Also light-bending, which is a great example of a Popper unfalsifiable thesis. We can design a light-bending model that is perfectly consistent with standard astronomical models, but where the earth is flat (one astronomer has designed such a computer model*). Impossible to strictly prove it is false, any more than we can prove that the earth is not controlled by a giant blue unicorn. And every piece of evidence whatsoever could be cited in support of such a model.
I believe this is called EA (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration)).  I'd love to see the supporting experimental data and write-up to draw the conclusions given there.  That wiki page shows a 2-D field of light.  Presumably a representation of the real world 3-D field.  However, the math they give as a approximation is a function of a single variable, not a field equation.  So, my questions would be - how is EA Zetetic at all?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Tumeni on December 11, 2019, 11:31:01 PM
How many FE experiments have you reproduced ...

In order to reproduce any one, it would have to have been performed in the first place.

Can you point to a few that have been documented already?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 11, 2019, 11:36:53 PM
However, the math they give as a approximation is a function of a single variable, not a field equation.  So, my questions would be - how is EA Zetetic at all?
"I don't like the approximate formula, therefore this phenomenon couldn't have been observed" is a very poor argument. It is precisely this sort of obsession with formalisms that we try to avoid. I believe Parsifal had this exact conversation with you already.

In order to reproduce any one, it would have to have been performed in the first place.
Indeed, and you've been here long enough that I won't entertain you pretending that you haven't encountered these.

Can you point to a few that have been documented already?
By design, no. Again, something you already know and are wasting our time with.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: BillO on December 11, 2019, 11:56:01 PM
However, the math they give as a approximation is a function of a single variable, not a field equation.  So, my questions would be - how is EA Zetetic at all?
"I don't like the approximate formula, therefore this phenomenon couldn't have been observed" is a very poor argument. It is precisely this sort of obsession with formalisms that we try to avoid. I believe Parsifal had this exact conversation with yob already.
I love the "approximate formula".  In fact I investigated it, analyzed it, took it's derivative and plotted both it and it's derivative.  I also discovered the form it's in now can be much simplified seeing as both the speed of light and the "Bishop Constant" are both constants and could be combined into a new single constant outside the root symbol.  However, it cannot possibly be applied to a 3-dimensional field - so whatever is approximates, it is not the bending of the light field being cast by the sun.  Be it near or far.

If you don't eventually formalize things, put things into a universally expressable form (like mathematics), how do you make predictions or take your research to the next step?  For instance, how would FE Zeteticism have developed the cellphone?
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: BillO on December 12, 2019, 12:47:44 AM
I had to make dinner and learn how to use LaTex here, so sorry for the delay.

The proper form for the equation given as the approximate formula would be

y%3DKx%5E%7B4%2F3%7D

Where: K%3D%5Cfrac%7B3%7D%7B4%7D%5Csqrt%5B3%5D%7B%5Cfrac%7B%5Cbeta%20%7D%7BC%5E%7B2%7D%7D%7D

K would then be the Bishop Constant.  Much simpler and easier to read.  Still not a field equation though, so just as useless for the intended purposes.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 12, 2019, 06:18:49 AM
For instance, how would FE Zeteticism have developed the cellphone?
An interesting question. My personal opinion is that it wouldn't. Its scope is generally discovery, not invention. I'd go as far as to say that a hypothesis stage of some form is strictly necessary for the purpose of invention. There might be some edge cases in which an accidental discovery could lead to an inventive outcome, but in general I don't think Zeteticism would be very applicable here.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 12, 2019, 10:39:43 AM
… You can travel to the location you originally perceived as the horizon line, and confirm that the Sun doesn't literally sink there.

Are you saying that the location of the horizon is a finite distance away? That assumes a globe-earth model.

What I actually said was that if the earth is flat, then there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat surface. That plane is infinite in extent. The FE claim (look up the wiki) is that all known celestial objects lie above that plane. (Where ‘above’ means, the side on which we live).

But what we see at sunset is the sun disappearing below the horizon line. This is consistent with globe earth, where the horizon is a small circle lying on a plane which the sun really does sink below. For an observer further West there is a different small circle, of course, so it is perfectly possible that the Sun disappears below my horizon, but remains above theirs.

But the same observation is difficult to reconcile with FE, for obvious reasons, hence FE requires some theory to explain the observation of the sun (apparently) disappearing below the horizon. (Which leads to the question, how does Zeteticism deal with the distinction between appearance and reality?)
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 12, 2019, 10:56:14 AM
Are you saying that the location of the horizon is a finite distance away? That assumes a globe-earth model.
Not at all.

What I actually said was that if the earth is flat, then there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat surface.
If you are suggesting that the Earth is a literal flat plane with no irregularities, there is no helping you. Please let me remind you that blatant trolling won't be tolerated in the upper.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 12, 2019, 11:28:12 AM
Are you saying that the location of the horizon is a finite distance away? That assumes a globe-earth model.
Not at all.

You said above “You can travel to the location you originally perceived as the horizon line, and confirm that the Sun doesn't literally sink there.” That logically implies that the location originally perceived as the horizon line is a finite distance away, at least assuming I cannot travel infinitely fast.

Quote
If you are suggesting that the Earth is a literal flat plane with no irregularities, there is no helping you. Please let me remind you that blatant trolling won't be tolerated in the upper.

What I actually said was that if the earth is flat, then there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat surface. That is a perfectly correct hypothetical statement. If on the other hand the flat earth has irregularities, it is nonetheless true that there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat-but-irregular surface. I fail to see why what I say is ‘blatant trolling’.

Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 12, 2019, 11:34:57 AM
That logically implies that the location originally perceived as the horizon line is a finite distance away, at least assuming I cannot travel infinitely fast.
Yes.

That is a perfectly correct hypothetical statement.
It's also completely irrelevant with regards to the distance of the horizon under the FE model.

I fail to see why what I say is ‘blatant trolling’.
Yeah, I'm not buying it. Please sort it out.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 12, 2019, 11:46:14 AM
It's also completely irrelevant with regards to the distance of the horizon under the FE model.
But if you don't know that distance, which you don't, how can you say it is irrelevant?

You are still failing to engage with my point that there must be a plane uniquely defined by the flat-but-irregular surface of the FE. That is a geometrical fact. Then what we see when the sun sets is the sun disappearing below that plane. That is not an interpretation, but what we really see. That observation is perfectly consistent with globe earth (because the plane is uniquely defined by a unique small circle). It requires considerable theoretical manoeuvring to explain in FE. I am perfectly serious.

Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 12, 2019, 11:52:55 AM
But if you don't know that distance, which you don't
How could I possibly know the distance between two hypothetical locations you failed to specify?

how can you say it is irrelevant?
By pointing out that it's painfully obviously not infinite.

You are still failing to engage with my point that there must be a plane uniquely defined by the flat-but-irregular surface of the FE.
There's nothing to engage with here. Yes, you can define such a plane. No, it has nothing to do with reality.

Then what we see when the sun sets is the sun disappearing below that plane.
This is where your obvious troll comes into play. No, you will never observe the Sun disappearing below a hypothetical infinite plane. I encourage you to present a set of conditions in which that occurs, rather than the Sun being apparently obscured by the very corporeal Earth.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 12, 2019, 12:07:36 PM
No, you will never observe the Sun disappearing below a hypothetical infinite plane.
Correct, given that a hypothetical plane is transparent. You will see the sun pass below the plane, assuming nothing is in the way.

But given that the flat-but-irregular corporeal earth lies on that plane, you will perceive the Sun apparently (and indeed actually) obscured by the very corporeal Earth.

And what if I concede that the sun only appears to pass below the plane? There is still the problem for Zeteticism in that some criterion is needed to distinguish appearance from reality. The foundation of FE is that the earth appears flat. OK, but is it flat? What observation would confirm that the reality matches the appearance? Over to you.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 12, 2019, 12:23:47 PM
Correct, given that a hypothetical plane is transparent. You will see the sun pass below the plane, assuming nothing is in the way.
You cannot make that assumption, because the physical world actually exists. Therein lies your obvious troll. I will ask you one last time to drop it. Stop derailing upper fora threads.

But given that the flat-but-irregular corporeal earth lies on that plane, you will perceive the Sun apparently (and indeed actually) obscured by the very corporeal Earth.
Congratulations. You have stated the obvious after multiple posts of contesting this.

And what if I concede that the sun only appears to pass below the plane?
Nothing. It continues to be irrelevant.

What observation would confirm that the reality matches the appearance? Over to you.
Great, you've gone from eristic to hot takes on epistemology. Zeteticists, much like scientists, are only concerned with the observable world. Metaphysical "reality" which somehow doesn't match observable reality is not something of much interest in this day and age.

I will ask you, politely, for the last time: stop trying to derail this thread with blatant trolling. At the very least, try to get better at it and present a devil's advocate argument that doesn't immediately fall apart.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: edby on December 12, 2019, 12:43:21 PM
Correct, given that a hypothetical plane is transparent. You will see the sun pass below the plane, assuming nothing is in the way.
You cannot make that assumption, because the physical world actually exists. Therein lies your obvious troll. I will ask you one last time to drop it. Stop derailing upper fora threads.

But given that the flat-but-irregular corporeal earth lies on that plane, you will perceive the Sun apparently (and indeed actually) obscured by the very corporeal Earth.
Congratulations. You have stated the obvious after multiple posts of contesting this.
No, that was my position all along. Glad we are agreed at last. After the sun has set, we cannot see it because the earth is in the way.

Quote
Metaphysical "reality" which somehow doesn't match observable reality ...
You clearly failed to understand what I said, but never mind.
Title: Re: Zeteticism
Post by: Bikini Polaris on December 15, 2019, 07:56:16 PM
Second, I wanted to ask some FE'rs who believe things like Universal Acceleration while claiming to follow the zetetic method, how do these beliefs not conflict with each other?

Has Zeteticism ever been criticized by some philosopher?

How is that related?

Your question could have been discussed by Philosophers of Science whose work is to criticize epistemological beliefs and contradictions. I'm not aware of anyone criticizing Rowbotham's Zeteticism in two hundred years, but it would be really nice!