Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
studying sun using zetetic
« on: March 17, 2019, 06:29:22 PM »
Last night I did zetetic observation of a sunset. It appeared the sun went down below the western edge of the earth. This morning I observed it emerge from below the eastern edge of the earth. So, as I understand zetetic, the truth is exactly what you see. It appears to me that the sun went underneath the earth and came up from the opposite edge.

Is this a good zetetic conclusion?

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: studying sun using zetetic
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2019, 07:07:16 PM »
I would think so.  I've come to the same conclusion from observing a sunset.  But, beware of cognitive bias.

How about stepping off a chair.  Do you feel yourself falling down, or the earth pushing up to your feet?  Someone here did that experiment and came to the latter as the conclusion, but there may have been psychoactive drugs involved.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

Re: studying sun using zetetic
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2019, 09:23:22 PM »
Don't you guys know that zetetic conclusion just means "The earth is flat, thus whatever conclusion fits my model"

And don't forget, that someone in the next experiment, they came to the conclusion that when you drop a ball, you can feel the earth pushing up your feet.
We are smarter than those scientists.
I see multiple contradicting explanations. You guys should have a pow-wow and figure out how your model works.

manicminer

Re: studying sun using zetetic
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2019, 09:40:04 PM »
So it is a case of draw the conclusion first from the outset 'the Earth is flat' and now make whatever you observe fit in with that presupposition whatever it takes?

Re: studying sun using zetetic
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2019, 05:08:24 AM »
So it is a case of draw the conclusion first from the outset 'the Earth is flat' and now make whatever you observe fit in with that presupposition whatever it takes?

That is precisely my problem with the invocation of zetetic methods in support of flat Earth theory. It seems if you make ten zetetic observations, the one that "the Earth looks pretty flat" is given priority over all others and you have to disregard those or invent magical theories for them. Why wouldn't you assume that the other nine that have obvious explanations are the ones to base your model on and that the Earth looks flat is the illusion (or, more accurately, exactly what you expect from an observer with a low POV on a huge sphere).

For example, if I did this experiment, I would assume that the two objects were being illuminated by the same light source.

https://twitter.com/kurtisbaute/status/1036255606414471168

But some people will argue that the moon is emitting it's own light and it's just a big coincidence that it's phases always match the golf ball. It's also a coincidence that the stars rotating around on the dome at the North and South Celestial Poles exactly match what would be expected by observers on a spinning globe Earth, and so on and on and on.