The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Projects => Earth Not a Globe Workshop => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2015, 04:44:19 AM

Title: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2015, 04:44:19 AM
It's easier for me if I keep my notes here and update the thread with content as I go.

Outline:

P1. Define Zetetic: Zetetic method is a method of empiricism where all possibilities considered and all tests tried.

P2. Examples of Zetetc Method in practice. Creation of new medicines is generally based on Zetetic method, for example.

P3. Disclaimer on the meaning of truth and how it generally means the "current truth"

P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.

P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.

P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.

Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method
Post by: Thork on November 18, 2015, 12:05:24 PM
Scientific method is very questionable. Even mainstream media when honest about it, can't justify it.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/10/28/scientific-method-myth/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20AllDiscovermagazinecomContent%20%28All%20DISCOVERmagazine.com%20stories%29#.VkxpSDZOdhE
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2015, 06:39:29 AM
Thank you, Thork. I am gathering some notes for this chapter.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1252998#msg1252998

How can you use a "theory" to better understand the universe?  ???
Universal accelerator theory, bendy light theory, flat earth theory, etc. Which side are you on again?

A theory doesn't help you understand the universe. A theory is a theory, a possible explanation for how things are. How does a possible explanation help you understand anything?

That aside, in the illustration is all wrong.

Scientific Method is

Ask a Question -> Create a Hypothesis -> Perform an Experiment to prove hypothesis true -> Conclusion.

(Note that in the scientific method you never attempt to prove your hypothesis false or competing hypothesis' true)

The Zetetic Method is

Ask a question -> Perform a series of experiments to test and compare known possible results -> Conclusion

The Zetetic Method is clearly superior, as you are testing contradicting possibilities rather than a single possibility and drawing a conclusion the first time you get a positive result. The Scientific Method leads you to half-truths and bad science.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2015, 06:40:26 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17811.msg312266#msg312266

Quote
The Zetetic method throws out previous theories and starts an inquiry afresh.

I believe it was the Wright Brothers who said:

"Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then did we invent the airplane."
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2015, 06:44:01 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1252998#msg1252998

Quote
Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences and relies upon a knowledge of physics and chemistry to understand the observations and build scientific models of stars, planets and galaxies. The scientific method employed by, and the vast amount of scientific discoveries made by astronomers over thousands of years would suggest that you sir... Are talking out if your arse! Again!

Are you saying that astronomers, because they are not real scientists, are too stupid to notice that everything they observe, everything they can measure and deduce is wrong. And that you are right? In all instances. Is that what you are saying Tom?

I'm saying that astronomers only observe and interpret. Pick up any of Stephan Hawking's works and count the number of controlled experiments performed to confirm any of his theories, such as his hypothesis for the metric expansion of space. He does not do any experiments on the universe before publishing his works. Scientists in other professions are expected to perform controlled experiments to come to the truth of the matter, so why not astronomers?

If I knew nothing of chemistry and only observed and interpreted I could come up with all sorts of assumptions to explain why water is wet, why cyanide kills, why oil doesn't mix with water, and why balloons float. That's where astronomers are, trapped in ignorance and assumption. They cannot perform controlled experiments on the universe to come to the truth of the matter as earthly professions can.

You claim that astronomers employ the scientific method, but you are embarassingly wrong. Look up the scientific method sometime. The scientific method demands that experiments be made to confirm the hypothesis.

(http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/overview_scientific_method2.gif)

Astronomers do not perform experiments. They do not follow the scientific method. They are not scientists and worthy of neither praise or credibility.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2015, 06:48:43 AM
So are you saying it's wrong to have initial suspicions about the natural world that compel us to undertake an experiment? The hypothesis is an important step in the scientific method because for the prediction we have to reword it so that it can be demonstrated to objectively match or not match with experimental data.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method
Post by: Dionysios on March 12, 2016, 11:38:23 PM
The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

If this helps any, for what it's worth, although I haven't specifically studied it in depth, my historical understanding is that the 'Elements' of the Zeteticist Euclid who was favorably mentioned by Rowbotham were the pillar of the laws of math and science in ancient Greek, Roman, Arab/Muslim, Latin scholastic, and Ottoman civilizations, and the so-called scientific method which focuses on hypothesis rather than truth is that of Francis Bacon of Elizabethan England. Well funded artificial means including colonialism, ownership of the press by a few wealthy people, mandatory education systems by the nineteenth century is how Euclid's book and zeteticism were largely removed from education by the end of the nineteenth century and how Bacon's hypothetical reasoning became so ubiquitous.

A hundred years ago, the atheist muckraker Upton Sinclair wrote a series of excellent six non-fiction books which severely criticized corrupt institutions in the United States particularly exposing how the love of money is at the root of the corruption of these   The 'Goose Step' is about universities. He has another book about grade schools, an outstanding one about fiction in the press, yet another entitled 'The Profits of Religion', etc.

It is my perspective that such books by muckrakers like Upton Sinclair accurately depict the context in which such falsehoods as modern space trips are propagated and widely believed.

George Seldes hard hitting non-conformist 1942 book 'The Facts Are a Guide to Falsehood and Propaganda in the Press and Radio' is based upon and an update of Upton Sinclair's equally severe 1920 expose of the American press.

Albeit not in any sense as politically aware as Sinclair and Seldes, Arthur Koestler's 1950's classic 'Sleepwalkers: Man's Changing Vision of the Universe' may give some insight into the earlier influence of Bacon's flawed philosophy. It's also one of the few books published in the twentieth century which affirms that flat earth teaching was dominant in the Roman Empire from before Constantine's time until the Muslim conquest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleepwalkers
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method
Post by: a187satire on April 28, 2016, 04:35:18 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1252998#msg1252998

Quote
Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences and relies upon a knowledge of physics and chemistry to understand the observations and build scientific models of stars, planets and galaxies. The scientific method employed by, and the vast amount of scientific discoveries made by astronomers over thousands. .

Hey check this video out 8 min in. http://youtu.be/2NogyJ0k8Kw

It shows the way flat earth was actually created due to new understanding in physics! Watch the whole series and this new understanding of physics will explain so many things beyond the flat earth. This is the irrefutable proof we needed.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2017, 05:23:08 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40016.30

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Scientific Method says that one must hypothesize first and then create an experiment around that hypothesis.

The Zetetic Method says that one must experiment first, letting the results speak for themselves.

Medical chemists certainly use the Zetetic Method for creating drugs. See the Folding at Home project. The project goes through a rapid series of different configurations to see what works and what does not.

Experiment first, conclude after. That's how the truth is found.

When you hypothesize first and create an experiment around that hypothesis your experiment is fallacious because you are deliberately proving whatever you are trying to prove. Finding the absolute truth of the matter has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. With the Scientific Method you are attempting to prove your idea true.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2017, 05:26:17 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45469.0

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: turtles
Huh, what has modern science ever done for us? Apart from the aqueduct. And sanitation. And the roads. And irrigation... medicine... education... polio vaccinations... lasers... microchips... aircraft... the internet... funny how all that stuff works flawlessly... except when it proves the Earth is a sphere and then suddenly "nooo, thats a NASA microchip <hushed voice>you can't trust it...</hushed voice>".

Some of those things may have been developed using Zetetic methodology without the person aware that they were using it.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2017, 05:46:24 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45714.35

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: moon squirter
then made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work.

Rowbotham's explanations for the sun and moon are based on direct empirical observation. Rowbotham does not guess at what he cannot observe. For example, Rowotham freely admits that he cannot guess at what causes the sun to move in its particular North-South patterns throughout the year because to guess without evidence - to hypothesize - is against the Zetetic Philosophy. Empirical evidence is required for all explanations


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: squevil
TB the book is all opinion after chapter 2 not fact :/ but when you believe something strongly you see what you want to see

Rowbotham presents two kinds of evidence in Earth Not a Globe. He presents experimental evidence and he presents empirical evidence. His water-convexity tests are experimental in nature while the rest of his work beyond Chapter 2 is empirical in nature.

For example; Rowbotham notes that deep coal mines tend to get hotter with depth. The deepest mines in Britain have steam pouring out of them constantly; as it gets hot enough for the air to condense. It is not possible to go into the mines without heavy protective gear and masks.

From this Rowbotham concludes, empirically, that the earth gets hotter with depth, as the weight of the earth causes compression and heat. Rowbotham further concludes that at some deeper depth the compression must be so great that rock liquefies; into a substance akin to the fiery magma which has been seen to erupt from volcanoes. Hence, the earth must be riding atop a great ocean of liquid magma, and there must be great quantities of liquid rock beneath us; an unprecedented notion for Rowbotham's time.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: squevil
this is what i wanted to discuss before with you :) i found the first champter very intresting but he makes many presumtions after that.

Rowbotham backs up his conclusions about the workings of the world with empirical evidence, not mere presumption.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Algebraist on January 04, 2017, 08:00:03 PM
This is a better representation of the ongoing scientific method. I think there is a lot of misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the scientific method in the above thread.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Algebraist on January 04, 2017, 08:24:44 PM
From the above diagram you can see how many scientific processes work. In astronomy the large part of the work is observation and documenting those observations. This in isolation isn't the scientific method but it is a vital part of it. The science method is completed when you make theories to interpret what you've observed and then test those to determine if they are correct. I'm fine if you want to call the observation part of this also the Zetetic method but it's really not science without the testing and refinement of theories. The test or experiment crucially needs to have the power to either prove or disprove the theory.

An example is, I theorise that the Stars I observe are like our sun but a lot further away. This theory could originate from observations already made. Experiments to test this include methods to determine the distance to the star and analysis of the starlight etc. They would need to be replicable so others can verify your results.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2017, 02:57:26 AM
Quote
From the above diagram you can see how many scientific processes work. In astronomy the large part of the work is observation and documenting those observations.

Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Algebraist on January 05, 2017, 09:48:08 AM
I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2017, 10:32:21 AM
I had accidentally edited your post instead of creating a new one. I restored your comment.

Quote
I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Astronomers were certainly not putting the universe under controlled conditions when coming up with their theories. Chemists can put their subject matter under controlled experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomers cannot. That is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

It is said that Astronomy is an "observing science," but an observing science is not really a science at all. We need actual experiments that demonstrate theories to be true. Otherwise they are just stories, no different than the stories African tribes have for the nature of the stars above them.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Algebraist on January 05, 2017, 03:42:31 PM
I had accidentally edited your post instead of creating a new one. I restored your comment.

Quote
I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Astronomers were certainly not putting the universe under controlled conditions when coming up with their theories. Chemists can put their subject matter under controlled experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomers cannot. That is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

It is said that Astronomy is an "observing science," but an observing science is not really a science at all. We need actual experiments that demonstrate theories to be true. Otherwise they are just stories, no different than the stories African tribes have for the nature of the stars above them.

Although you can't put the planets or stars physically in the lab you can carry out experiments on them. Most experiments are observations carried out in a controlled way. It may be easier to observe something in a lab but observations and therefore experiments can in reality be carried out on virtually anything if you have the right equipment and opportunity. It's true in the outside world it's more difficult to control the conditions however instead you need to monitor and record detail what you have done to take the observations and the conditions under which it has been done so others can replicate what you've done and critique your experiment. Take this example (which I have some part experience with from my school and university days)

1. "Burn" samples of different known elements or compounds. Observe the spectra of the light given off by each (the strength of the light given off at different wave lengths, this can be visible and non visible spectrum). This gives a fingerprint for light emitted by each element (based on certain absorption and emission lines at certain wave lengths). Actually this fingerprint can now be determined theoretically by quantum mechanics!
2. Burn an unknown substance and analyse the spectrum of the light and use the known light fingerprints to determine the composition of the substance.
3. You can double check the results of 2 by using other chemical methods to analyse the compound - this confirms or disproves the veracity of method 2
4. You can detect and analyse the spectrum of light from a star using a powerful telescope and use method 2 to determine the composition of the star. It's true that as not in a lab, 4 needs greater thought. For example the star moving in relation to the earth and light travelling through the atmosphere can effect results so you need to also understand how that effect influences what you see. This can be checked by other experiments.

Anyway that's just one example of an astronomical experiment there are many many more you can read about if you so wish.

Actually surely one good thing about astronomy is that virtually anyone can get involved. All you really need is a good telescope and some dedication to do observations. Thus it's good for the Zetetic method for one.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2017, 05:42:39 PM
Quote
Although you can't put the planets or stars physically in the lab you can carry out experiments on them. Most experiments are observations carried out in a controlled way.

Observations are not experiments. They are observations. The very purpose of experimentation is to reveal the truth behind an observation. To experiment is to isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence. It is entirely different than a mere observation.

Quote
Take this example (which I have some part experience with from my school and university days)

1. "Burn" samples of different known elements or compounds. Observe the spectra of the light given off by each (the strength of the light given off at different wave lengths, this can be visible and non visible spectrum). This gives a fingerprint for light emitted by each element (based on certain absorption and emission lines at certain wave lengths). Actually this fingerprint can now be determined theoretically by quantum mechanics!
2. Burn an unknown substance and analyse the spectrum of the light and use the known light fingerprints to determine the composition of the substance.
3. You can double check the results of 2 by using other chemical methods to analyse the compound - this confirms or disproves the veracity of method 2
4. You can detect and analyse the spectrum of light from a star using a powerful telescope and use method 2 to determine the composition of the star. It's true that as not in a lab, 4 needs greater thought. For example the star moving in relation to the earth and light travelling through the atmosphere can effect results so you need to also understand how that effect influences what you see. This can be checked by other experiments.

We have no idea what exotic substances the star may be made of. We need an experiment, not a jump to a conclusion.

Thomas Winship speaks about Spectrum Analysis in his book Zetetic Cosmogony:

https://archive.org/stream/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog#page/n20/mode/2up

Quote
SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

is relied upon as proving this. A prism is placed in position
so as to intercept the sun's rays, and the colours seen through
this instrument, red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the
result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of
fusion, emitting their several colours in the combined sun-
light, which total light is decomposed into its component
colours by the prism.

With the object of testing the conclusions arrived at by
the learned relative to spectrum analysis, several experiments
were made by the writer. The light of the sun on a clear
day, about noon, seen through the prism disclosed the various
colours that can be seen through this instrument. On a hazy
day before sunset the colours seen were the same but very
faint. Light from a lighthouse and a star seen through the
prism, showed the colours to be the same, the colour from
the light of the star being much less brilliant than that from
the lighthouse. Light from a parafine street lamp gave the
same result as light from a star or the sun, only much fainter.
Then the electric light was tried. A large street lamp of
great power and several others of less power gave the same
result as the sun, star, lighthouse, and street lamp, but in
various degrees of brilliancy according to the power of the
light. Even a candle gave a very faint yellow-blue tinge, so
slight that it had to be looked at for some time before any-
thing but blue was apparent.

If, therefore, it be argued that spectrum analysis proves
that the sun is made of the same metals as we find in the
earth, and that, therefore, the earth is a product of evolution
then it is equally clear that the electric light and the glass
shade of the lamp which encases it are really composed of
iron and various other metals in a state of fusion, constituting
indeed, a globe of glowing vapour, and not glass, carbon,
etc, at all. It is also as reasonable to conclude that the
paraffine lamp and the candle are composed of metals in a
state of fusion and that there is in reality no paraffine, no
glass, no tallow, and no wick. That is to say, known facts be
thrown aside, common sense stultified, and reason
dethroned in order to bolster up the unprovable assumptions
of modern science relative to the doctrine of evolution
as applied to the earth and the heavenly bodies.

Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: garygreen on January 13, 2017, 07:39:51 PM
Quote
SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

is relied upon as proving this. A prism is placed in position
so as to intercept the sun's rays, and the colours seen through
this instrument, red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the
result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of
fusion, emitting their several colours in the combined sun-
light, which total light is decomposed into its component
colours by the prism.

that a very poor description of how spectral analysis works.  there are three kinds of spectra: continuous, emission, and absorption.  astronomers study the photosphere of the sun using absorption spectra.  an absorption spectrum is produced when light emitted by hot, dense material passes through a cooler, less dense medium before being broken up by a prism.  when it passes through the cooler medium, some wavelengths of the light are 'absorbed' by atoms the medium; these wavelengths will be 'missing' from the spectrum produced by the prism.  which wavelengths are absorbed depends only on the chemical composition of the medium.

in other words, astronomers are interested in the missing wavelengths, not the continuous spectrum of colors.  the colors one sees from the prism are not the result of the fusion of metals in the core.  hot, dense material emits light at all wavelengths, and that's where the colors come from.  it has nothing to do with fusion.  it only has to do with the source of light being very hot.  see: blackbody radiator.

the relationship between chemical composition and spectral features most certainly can be, and has been, verified experimentally in laboratory settings.

side note: the sun isn't made of metals.  the mass fraction of all the elements in the sun that aren't hydrogen and helium is only ~2%.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2017, 05:11:00 PM
Quote from: garygreen
that a very poor description of how spectral analysis works.  there are three kinds of spectra: continuous, emission, and absorption.  astronomers study the photosphere of the sun using absorption spectra.  an absorption spectrum is produced when light emitted by hot, dense material passes through a cooler, less dense medium before being broken up by a prism.  when it passes through the cooler medium, some wavelengths of the light are 'absorbed' by atoms the medium; these wavelengths will be 'missing' from the spectrum produced by the prism.  which wavelengths are absorbed depends only on the chemical composition of the medium.

in other words, astronomers are interested in the missing wavelengths, not the continuous spectrum of colors.

You're talking nonsense. With three primary colors red, blue, and yellow, mixing red and blue makes magenta. You can call magenta a combination of red and blue or you can call it an absence of yellow.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: garygreen on January 14, 2017, 07:30:45 PM

color mixing has nothing to do with how astronomers deduce the chemical composition of the sun.  i may not have explained myself very well.

your guy says, "...the colours seen through [a prism], red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of fusion..."  this is not at all correct.  the colors seen through a prism are said to be the result of the fact that the sun is hot.  that's it.

any hot, dense object will emit light across the entire visible spectrum (there are caveats, but none of import here).  it has nothing to do with fusion, only the temperature of the object.  when you use a prism to break the light up into a rainbow, that rainbow is called a "continuous" spectrum.

if there is a cooler gas between the light from the hot object, and the prism, then the rainbow you get will be missing some specific wavelengths of light.  if there is a cloud of cool hydrogen between a light bulb and a prism, then the gas may absorb all the photons with a wavelength of 410nm, for example.  the rainbow produced by the prism will be missing that one wavelength of light.  like this:



the point here is the location of these absorption features is only a function of the composition of the cool gas through which the light passes.  astronomers do not use spectral analysis to explain fusion in the core; they use it to deduce the chemical composition of the sun.  winship's spectra do not indicate that light bulbs involve fusion; they indicate that light bulb filaments are hot.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: garygreen on January 15, 2017, 03:38:33 PM
why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Flatout on January 21, 2017, 07:49:11 AM
It's quite possible to draw wrong conclusions from an observation.   This is why the conclusion needs to be tested via experimentation, prediction, and further testing.  The conclusion one draws is a hypothesis.  To say that zetetic conclusion is more pure is simply silly.   That conclusion is a hypothesis until fully tested, evaluated, and peer reviewed.  In the end the only scientific things that ultimately have value are ones that can be used to create predictions for use.   Ultimately people use science that has predictive capabilities to build, create, and invent solutions to problems.  A hypothesis that never undergoes the scrutiny of predictive testing is useless to mankind.  It only fills discussion boards with rubbish.     
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2017, 05:30:50 PM
A few quotes I may include in this chapter:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nikolatesl401270.html

Quote
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

--Nikola Tesla

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/591410

Quote
Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king.. its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.

--Nikola Tesla

Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2017, 01:16:46 AM
why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?

Your post was accidentally edited. The quote and modify buttons are right next to each other. I wasn't able to restore your image.

You are arguing that we should assume that the color (or lack of color) in a star's spectrum has anything to do with what it is made out of, without experimental evidence to back that up. Who sampled these stars? That is pretty flimsy, and the collection of data is really little more than an observation rather than an experiment.

We can't even recreate stellar fusion in a lab. It's a hypothesis. How are we supposed to know what colors this hypothetical process produces?
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2017, 01:24:06 AM
Some history:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12967.msg191240;topicseen#msg191240

Quote
Even in Rowbotham's day, the idea of a Round Earth was as dogmatic as stone. A whirl of constantly changing fact and conjecture which were systematically brainwashed into children from the age of three. 

Here is a direct quote from Dr. Rowbotham:

"It is ... candidly admitted that there is no direct and positive evidence that the world is round, that it is only 'imagined' or assumed to be do in order to afford an explanation of 'scores of phenomena'. This is precisely the language of Copernicus, of Newton, and of all astronomers who have labored to prove the rotundity of the earth, It is pitiful to the extreme that after so many ages of almost unopposed indulgence, philosophers instead of beginning to seek, before anything else, the true constitution of the physical world, are still to be seen laboring only to frame hypotheses, and to reconcile phenomena with imaginary and ever-shifting foundations. Their labor is simply to repeat and perpetuate the self-deception of their predecessors."

Rowbotham, a notable astronomer and medical doctor, believed that Newtonian astronomy was a 'juggle and a jumble of fancies and falsehoods; an elaborate theoretical trick ' enough to make the unprejudiced observer revolt with horror from the terrible conjunction which has been practiced upon him'.

In the face of this elitist conspiracy, the only solution, Rowbotham declared, was to replace conventional science with a true and practical free-thought method. He promoted as a back-to-basics approach to knowledge, in which experiments were tried and facts were collected not only to corroborate any existing theory but to start from scratch to uncover the great universal and primary truths.

A man well ahead of his time, Rowbotham's life work and inquiry was able to predict the movements of the continents one hundred years before tectonic plate shifting was discovered. He was able to accurately and mathematically predict lunar eclipses, the tides, and a number of phenomena in his model of the Earth. He also published a book called Zetetic Astronomy which accurately explained the movements of the stars and completely rewrote Newtonian mechanics from the ground up.

Besides his honest investigation to the true shape of the earth, Rowbotham patented safety mechanisms for trains, vulcanized rubber, nutritional elixirs, and a number of other notable inventions. As a true Zetetic, Rowbotham did not simply make theories while sitting in a closet like Newton and Copernicus. Dr. Rowbotham used his wealth to sail the world in his life-long study of the earth and the cosmos.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2017, 01:27:10 AM
Another attack on Astronomy:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
There is more to astronomy then you think apparently. I already talked about comets and meteors and how they cant work in a fe. You claim the Au is wrong yet way before they au they new the order of the planets and they could tell some size.

Astronomical figures have varied wildly throughout the years. The AU has wildly jumped throughout the ages, from 3, 20, 50, to 200 million miles. Astronomical theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humor and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one predisposition one day, and at other times with another.

The system of Copernicus was admitted to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following is a direct quote from Copernicus himself:

    "It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

Quote
Well, you started right off the bat by saying "Look out your window", a statement that has been overturned time and time again.

By looking outside of our windows and studying the natural world around us we can do away with dogma and begin to seek afresh, for our own selves, the true nature of the earth and universe. We are Zetetics here at the Flat Earth Society. Skeptics who seek to learn the truth.

The term Zetetic is actually 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.

Zetetics are in direct opposition to "theoretics." Theoretics are people who are speculative, imaginary, not tangible; scheming - but not proving.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13592.msg209776;topicseen#msg209776

Quote
Quote
Logic will not solve physics and chemistry.

Physics and Chemistry are constantly and forever changing, updating and reverting. Even the hard sciences are a loose collection of "maybe" and "what if."

Astronomy in particular is completely observational. Theories are contrived and molded into pre-existing ones. The lights in the sky are given meaning and turned into worlds upon which imaginative dreamers of the day can escape into. Every couple of months we will hear about astronomers discovering a new object in the night sky that "might" harbor life. Or maybe we will hear about a newly discovered object that "might" collide with us. Forever reaching, forever imagining, these astronomers are nothing more sophisticated fortune tellers.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2017, 01:34:11 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13592.msg209768;topicseen#msg209768

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
His mind was not open about his possible findings, even if he was truthful he may have introduced a bias into the results. The point I was making was that Rowbotham's theories are a poor attempt to corroborate scientifically what he interpreted as the word of the Bible. He is untrustworthy because he has a vested interest in the outcome (the truth of his Holy Book).

Dr. Rowbotham starts his work as an honest inquiry into the shape of the Earth, starting afresh without interpreting the results of experiments to any one particular theory or predisposition. Tests are tried and facts are collected without ascribing to any one existing theory. The entirety of Rowbotham's work is to let the results of an experiment speak for itself.

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2017, 01:38:59 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12921.msg212605;topicseen#msg212605

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
Perhaps there are some - point them out to me and give me suffiecient evidence that they exist, then show me how a flat earth can explain them. That is, explain them in a way that does not rely on quotes from Earth: Not a globe. I don't believe that Rowbotham has ANY scientific credibility - stop using his flawed experiments as evidence and start using real evidence.

Dr. Rowbotham has plenty of credibility. In his day Rowbotham toured Europe giving lectures at many prominent universities. At the conclusion of every lecture he would debate with the brightest minds of the day over the shape of the earth. Dr. Rowbotham was successful in swaying many members of the audience over to his position. A widespread Zetetic movement began, demanding that the government look into the sphere issue.

The following are a few quotes of the press after Rowbotham's lectures. I believe these reviews speak for themselves:

"ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.--No doubt many of our readers have been mystified and surprised within the last week by the announcement that, in three lectures, at the Northampton Mechanics' Institute, a gentleman who calls himself 'Parallax,' would undertake to prove the earth not a globe, &c., &c. . . . We were highly gratified by the manner in which this important subject was handled by 'Parallax'--a pseudonym which the lecturer informed his audience he had adopted in order to avert the effect of an insinuation that his startling announcement is but the morbid desire of an individual to be known as the propounder of a philosophy boldly at variance with that of the great astronomers of the past and present. His subject was handled in a plain and easy manner, his language and allusions proving him a man of education and thought, and certainly not a pedant. The experiments mentioned, divested of technicality in their recital, and understandable by all, were of such a nature as to cause a start of surprise at their simplicity and truthfulness. . . . It is not for us to pronounce a verdict upon so important an issue; 'Parallax' may be in error, but as far as his reasonings from fact and experiment go, there is much to set scientific men thinking. His arguments consist of facts, and such as are patent to all degrees of mental capacity. . . . In the discussions which followed, 'Parallax' certainly lost no ground, either in answer to questions or to some broad assertions quoted from learned authorities."--South Mid-land Free Press, August 14th, 1858.

-

"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

-

"EARTH NOT A GLOBE.--On Monday last a gentleman adopting the nom de plume of 'Parallax'--a very appropriate name, seeing that the basis of his arguments is the relation to each other of parallel lines--commenced a series of lectures at the Public Hall on 'Zetetic Astronomy,' a system directly opposed to the great Newtonian theory. That he is a clever man, and has studied the matter deeply, and that he is master of his subject, and thoroughly convinced of its truth, is apparent; and his arguments are certainly very plausible. The lecture drew large audiences, and among those present we noticed (here a list is given of many of the leading men and families of the district). 'Parallax' commenced by explaining the word 'Zetetic,' which had been adopted, because they did not sit in their closets and endeavour to frame a theory to explain certain phenomena, but went abroad into the world, and thoroughly investigated the subject. Lengthy and animated discussions ensued; votes of thanks were passed to the lecturer and the chairman-- Nixon Porter, who declared that he was much struck with the simplicity and candour with which the lecturer had stated his views; and, after a promise by 'Parallax' that he would pay another visit to Warrington, the audience dispersed."--Warrington Advertiser, March 24th, 1866.

You may find additional reviews here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm).
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: garygreen on April 04, 2017, 05:11:33 PM
why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?
Your post was accidentally edited. The quote and modify buttons are right next to each other. I wasn't able to restore your image.

no worries at all.  didn't figure you were being nefarious, just thought maybe the image i linked was enormous or something like that.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Roundy on April 05, 2017, 01:59:22 AM
I made that mistake once.  I don't think it was that big a deal but I felt terrible about it.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Nirmala on April 06, 2017, 03:35:11 PM
Quote
Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.

Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2017, 04:33:35 PM
Quote
Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.

Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.

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.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Nirmala on April 07, 2017, 04:25:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Nirmala on April 08, 2017, 02:40:40 AM
And how are the observations on the beach an experiment anyways under your definition: "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?
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 09, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
1-Air temperature all along the line of sight (which affects the refractive properties of air)
2-Humidity
[snip snip snip]
Please refrain from making the exact same argument in two different places (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.msg114041#msg114041). It achieves nothing other than making conversation much more difficult.

Since the conversation already progressed in your copy-paste of this post, there's no sense in continuing it here.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: 3DGeek on May 19, 2017, 02:41:45 AM
You're talking nonsense. With three primary colors red, blue, and yellow, mixing red and blue makes magenta. You can call magenta a combination of red and blue or you can call it an absence of yellow.

That's not quite the whole story.

If you are mixing paint, ink, dye, stains...that kind of thing - then you're undertaking "subtractive" mixing - and each new color subtracts from the color of the medium beneath (eg white paper).   In subtractive mixing, the primaries are cyan, magenta and yellow (the colors that you find in your inkjet printer) - although these can be approximated as (respectively) blue, red and yellow.

If you are mixing light (as for example, the computer or phone screen that you're looking at right now does) - then you're undertaking "additive" mixing where each new color adds to the color that's already there.   In additive mixing the primaries are red, green and blue (the colors you can see in your computer display if you take a magnifying glass to an area of "white" screen).

So in light, red+blue=magenta, green+blue=cyan, red+green=yellow, red+green+blue = white.
But in ink (etc) cyan+yellow=green, magenta+yellow+red, cyan+magenta=blue and cyan+magenta+yellow = black...although it can be hard to tell because you can't really purchase primary colored ink in a paint box...the only pure sources are in things like inkjet printer cartridges...and even then, cyan+magenta+yellow only makes a dirty brown - which is why real inkjet printers add black ink too so we can get true blacks and greys.

Our eyes detect red, green and blue.   So subtractive inks block the complements of the colors they say they are.  cyan ink is really "red-blocking-ink" so when white light is passed through it, the red is absorbed and the green and blue light that shines through combine to make cyan light.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: JHelzer on July 06, 2017, 09:00:10 PM
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?

I have to agree with Nirmala on this.  Tom Bishop has done an excellent job condemning the basis of Flat Earth Theory.  Namely that the bulk of Flat Earth thought is based on observations and thought experiments, not on actual Zetetic laboratory experimentation.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 10, 2017, 02:00:53 AM
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?

I have to agree with Nirmala on this.  Tom Bishop has done an excellent job condemning the basis of Flat Earth Theory.  Namely that the bulk of Flat Earth thought is based on observations and thought experiments, not on actual Zetetic laboratory experimentation.

Incorrect. Rowbotham conducts a number of experiments in his work, and references experiments all throughout his work to support his model.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: 3DGeek on July 17, 2017, 05:22:18 PM
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?

I have to agree with Nirmala on this.  Tom Bishop has done an excellent job condemning the basis of Flat Earth Theory.  Namely that the bulk of Flat Earth thought is based on observations and thought experiments, not on actual Zetetic laboratory experimentation.

Incorrect. Rowbotham conducts a number of experiments in his work, and references experiments all throughout his work to support his model.

Rowbotham did his work a very long time ago (180 years!)...and it's been refuted, explained and debunked numerous times since then.

Why continue to quote an entirely dubious observation when much more up to date results are available?

Why ignore perfectly reasonable explanations of the results Rowbotham obtained?

Why also ignore (for example) Wallace's duplication of the experiment - which produced the opposite result - or Oldham's similar work?

Just picking the one result you like and then carefully pretending that the others don't exist is a clear violation of your Zetetic methods.  What you should be doing is:

1) Look at ALL of the experiments that are similar to the "Bedford level" experiment.   There are at least half a dozen well-documented example.  A couple do indeed agree with Rowbotham.   At least a few come out with "Round Earth" results - and at least one decided that the earth must be concave.

2) On the basis of ALL of the evidence - try to form a conclusion.   My conclusion would be: "These kinds of experiments are not very reliable indicators of the curvature of the Earth".

So since the evidence is contradictory - we must either ignore it or explain it.   You do not - you pick just one version of that experiment and promote it to the level of unassailable truth...which is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2017, 07:36:56 PM
Please stay on topic.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: 3DGeek on July 17, 2017, 09:10:40 PM
Quote
It it entirely on-topic.  I was explaining how in the Zetetic method, one is (evidently) allowed to cherry-pick just the experiments you want to prove your pet theory - ignoring the others that have been performed since...where in the Scientific method one must explain ALL of the experiments...not just the ones you like the results of.

It it entirely on-topic.  I was explaining how in the Zetetic method, one is (evidently) allowed to cherry-pick just the experiments you want to prove your pet theory - ignoring the others that have been performed since...where in the Scientific method one must explain ALL of the experiments...not just the ones you like the results of.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2017, 03:19:53 AM
That has nothing to do with the definition or procedures for those methods. Please refrain from making things up.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 13, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
It seems that there's just a basic misunderstanding about the scientific method early in this thread.

1: Make an interesting observation
2: Create a hypothesis that could potentially explain said observation
3: Identify variables that would be testable for said hypothesis
4: Create an experiment that tests the effects of as many variables as you are able to control
5: Assume the null hypothesis (that your initial guess is wrong)
6: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion
7: Accept or reject the null hypothesis and report your findings

Truth isn't in science, it's in philosophy.  Word salads are hard to digest.

CT
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: 3DGeek on September 13, 2017, 08:37:57 PM
It seems that there's just a basic misunderstanding about the scientific method early in this thread.

1: Make an interesting observation
2: Create a hypothesis that could potentially explain said observation
3: Identify variables that would be testable for said hypothesis
4: Create an experiment that tests the effects of as many variables as you are able to control
5: Assume the null hypothesis (that your initial guess is wrong)
6: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion
7: Accept or reject the null hypothesis and report your findings

8. Try to Publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
9. If peer reviewers agree that you followed the steps properly - then everyone in your field gets to read about it.  If not, then back to steps (1)...(4).
10. Ask other people to attempt to reproduce your experiment.
11. If they agree with your findings - then you're on to something.
12. If they disagree with your findings - then you have to understand why that was.  So back to step (1), (2) or maybe (4).
13. If enough people support your findings - then there will probably be a "meta-study", which (if it agrees with you) will result in widespread acceptance of your hypothesis.
14. People start using the word "Theory" and "Law" with your name in front of it.

These additional steps are crucial.  They are what failed with the Rowbotham experiment.  Even if he did steps 1..9 correctly, he skipped steps 10 through 14.   When people decided to reproduce his experiment - they mostly disagreed (step 12!)...and at this point, he should have gone back to step (1):

HYPOTHESIS: The world is flat.
EXPERIMENT: Dover Level experiment.
RESULT: The world is flat!
PUBLICATION: Hey everybody!  It seems from this one experiment that the world may be flat!
REPRODUCTION:  FAIL!  MAYBE!  FAIL! FAIL! SUCCESS! THE OPPOSITE!
CONCLUSION: There is something wrong with the experimental technique - or else the hypothesis is incorrect.

Those last two processes never happened...hence nobody who follows the scientific method can possibly believe that Rowbotham was correct.

A bigger problem comes from another scientific principle - which should have kicked in at about step (2).

Any new hypothesis has to perfectly explain all of the known facts that are explained by preceding theories and laws that would be overturned by it.

In this case, Rowbotham should have asked how his hypothesis can explain many of the things in this thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0 - and if his hypothesis could not explain them (and it cannot) - then he need not even have bothered doing the experiment because any conclusions that come from it are not remotely credible.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: AstralSentient on October 13, 2017, 09:10:19 PM
I liked Zeteticism as a method, but I really feel it's limitations ruin it, here's my understanding of it:

Zeteticism and the Zetetic Method

Basic explanation found here: https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Zeteticism

The mainstream scientific method involves these main steps:
1.   Ask a Question
2.   Do background research
3.   Construct a hypothesis
4.   Test with an experiment
5.   Analyze data and conclusions
6.   Report/communicate results
This would include theories which serve to put data and observations into an explanatory framework with predictive capabilities to determine such success. Any failure in predictions would result in either changing your model or abandoning it altogether. Due to this possibility, it can be abused with bias by altering the model’s parameters that had failed predictive capabilities to fit the data. This is a big problem with the mainstream scientific method; it allows abuse of objective experimental support to fit changeable parameters of a specific developed explanatory framework. A solution to this tendency of bias to corrupt objective inquiry is the Zetetic method.
The Zetetic method is an empirical method of basic scientific inquiry which bases a conclusion on the experiment and observation rather than an adjustable explanatory framework as fit to data (or an initial theory which is to be verified). This removes the potential bias which allows altering of your theory to match and therefore describe reality (the natural world in particular). With Zeteticism, rather than collecting data and adding them to a theory with further predictive capabilities that can be dealt with by adjusting, the conclusion to be derived relies solely on what the experiment was set to determine. Zeteticism is the system of scientific inquiry which is based on the Zetetic method, any person who practices this way of scientific inquiry is a ‘Zeteticist’. There is no ‘hypothesis’ in Zeteticism, such a step is replaced by the results of experimentation/ observation in the Zetetic Method.
The basic Zetetic Method works as follows:
1.   Come up with a question about the world
2.   Design an experiment
3.   Experiment and collect results/data
4.   Draw conclusion from the experiment
5.   Communicate results to others
Such an experiment devised in accordance with the Zetetic method will require the design to include the derivable conclusions planned out. This would count as part of the experiment design, which is included in step #2.

Limitations of Zeteticism
The lack of a hypothesis or theory in Zeteticism will inevitably imply a large limit on explanation and further theoretical based understanding. Zeteticism ignores this; such concepts may likely have no basis in experimentation but rather derived from fitted data or predictions of the theory in use. This means that scientific inquiry is kept inside directly observable phenomena rather than concluding an array of past events from predictive theories.
Zeteticism misses that there may be numerous ways to represent our world. For example, I could presume a flight model that includes a flat and stationary Earth like NASA did, but presume a rotating round earth model in the case of a geosynchronous satellite (whether or not you accept that as real is beside the point). Which is correct? It depends on the purpose. 'Correctness' could only be described in terms of how we represent it, and apply our experimentation and observation.
In Zeteticism, you are faced with an observation/results that require a direct conclusion, but which can be represented distinctly by an alternative framework.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the 'Zeteticism vs scientific method'.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Hmmm on December 28, 2017, 11:17:53 PM
I will be off-topic here. I know you might think i'm attention-seeking...But, yes, i kinda do!...
3DGeek, Tom Bishop,
What do you think about slightly integrating (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8300.0) "psychokinetic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ACPMDHdxUo) type of empathy" into scientific methods we currently use?


(...)
The mainstream scientific method involves these main steps:
1.   Ask a Question
2.   Do background research
3.   Construct a hypothesis

(...)

The basic Zetetic Method works as follows:
1.   Come up with a question about the world
2.   Design an experiment
3.   Experiment and collect results/data
(...)
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Trolltrolls on January 03, 2018, 05:03:46 PM
It's easier for me if I keep my notes here and update the thread with content as I go.

Outline:

P1. Define Zetetic: Zetetic method is a method of empiricism where all possibilities considered and all tests tried.

P2. Examples of Zetetc Method in practice. Creation of new medicines is generally based on Zetetic method, for example.

P3. Disclaimer on the meaning of truth and how it generally means the "current truth"

P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.

P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.

P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.
I suppose the it makes one thing clear,
Hypocrisy.

1. When have you ever considered going to space to prove a flat earth? Way easier than racking your head for proof.
2. Why haven't you ever traveled to antarctic and see the 'wall of ice'?
3. Why haven't you ever tried all the possibilities on this flat earth of your? Value of g? Tides? All I see is no/skewed math.

Not being a science? Biology is also not a science in that case. There aren't many experiments, certainly, things aren't discovered by making a hypothesis, verifying it and so on. It's mostly observation.
And how would you apply it? Which possibility would you consider? All the discoveries of well-known phytohormones (GA3, Auxin, Cytokinin, Ethylene, ABA) were a stroke of serendipity, observation.
A science is defined by the scientific method, yes, but it isn't always possible.

As for considering all possibilities, there are infinite, especially in a study of the universe. Do you want to know how many planets a particular star has? Will you send a spacecraft to EACH star or measure dips in their light, which might have a slip up? Which is more feasible? Should we just stop the study of the universe just because an object other than a planet can cause a dip in light every once in a while?
There are infinite possibilities. The thing is, many of them are absolutely ridiculous. Is it a possibility life exists on one asteroid? Yes. Why not explore ALL the asteroids in BOTH the belts of our solar system? We don't do that because the chance is so low, and we have better things to put our money in.
Medicines is perhaps the only real application of your ridiculous method, but even in medicine the set of possibilities is restricted to the one that might work, rather than just giving meds to everything.
As for NASA flights not being reviewed, who will review it? Let's say NASA got samples out of a planet (say Venus) and analyzed it. Who, tell me, will review it. Who knows with a definite amount of certainty and credibility the composition of Venus? Another space agency? They do it when the send another space vehicle to Venus.
As per you Zeitic method, what do you propose will should be done? Should thousands of vehicles be sent to Venus to retrieve samples such that accuracy is maintained and the world goes bankrupt?
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2018, 02:04:14 AM
It seems that there's just a basic misunderstanding about the scientific method early in this thread.

1: Make an interesting observation
2: Create a hypothesis that could potentially explain said observation
3: Identify variables that would be testable for said hypothesis
4: Create an experiment that tests the effects of as many variables as you are able to control
5: Assume the null hypothesis (that your initial guess is wrong)
6: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion
7: Accept or reject the null hypothesis and report your findings

8. Try to Publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
9. If peer reviewers agree that you followed the steps properly - then everyone in your field gets to read about it.  If not, then back to steps (1)...(4).
10. Ask other people to attempt to reproduce your experiment.
11. If they agree with your findings - then you're on to something.
12. If they disagree with your findings - then you have to understand why that was.  So back to step (1), (2) or maybe (4).
13. If enough people support your findings - then there will probably be a "meta-study", which (if it agrees with you) will result in widespread acceptance of your hypothesis.
14. People start using the word "Theory" and "Law" with your name in front of it.

These additional steps are crucial.  They are what failed with the Rowbotham experiment.  Even if he did steps 1..9 correctly, he skipped steps 10 through 14.   When people decided to reproduce his experiment - they mostly disagreed (step 12!)...and at this point, he should have gone back to step (1):

HYPOTHESIS: The world is flat.
EXPERIMENT: Dover Level experiment.
RESULT: The world is flat!
PUBLICATION: Hey everybody!  It seems from this one experiment that the world may be flat!
REPRODUCTION:  FAIL!  MAYBE!  FAIL! FAIL! SUCCESS! THE OPPOSITE!
CONCLUSION: There is something wrong with the experimental technique - or else the hypothesis is incorrect.

Those last two processes never happened...hence nobody who follows the scientific method can possibly believe that Rowbotham was correct.

A bigger problem comes from another scientific principle - which should have kicked in at about step (2).

Any new hypothesis has to perfectly explain all of the known facts that are explained by preceding theories and laws that would be overturned by it.

In this case, Rowbotham should have asked how his hypothesis can explain many of the things in this thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0 - and if his hypothesis could not explain them (and it cannot) - then he need not even have bothered doing the experiment because any conclusions that come from it are not remotely credible.

I just saw this post. Actually, in Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham reports sometime seeing the sinking ship effect and sometimes not. Bodies are sometimes hidden and revealed. From what we have seen on YouTube, in my opinion, this has proven to be the case, and validates what Rowbotham reports.
Title: Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
Post by: Mysfit on October 13, 2018, 10:07:47 AM
I have SO many questions, but I'll just drag this to the theory forum, as I think I saw a rule about not debating here.