Mysfit

A Zetetic Experiment
« on: October 06, 2018, 05:22:53 PM »
Hello All,
This was touched upon a few times in other forum posts, but I am unsure it was specifically covered.
I am also worried that I might fall awry of the first or second forum rules, as I need to break apart someone's personal experiment. In case I am. I am sorry and it was not intentional.
I would like to discuss the viability of a Zetetic Experiment.
Therefore, I would like to discuss an experiment performed by a Zetetic, the Bishop experiment. The one who did the experiment will go unnamed for anonymity and rule-fear sake.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
In the Bishop experiment, a distance across water is observed without the interference of the water or curvature of the earth.
There is also a comment, by the experimenter, to say that this experiment was repeated whenever they had doubts about the shape of the earth (assuming more than once).
The evidence is, therefore, repeatably obtainable.

Now, I get to the problems.
1. In order for a zetetic experiment to be that, everything must be observable. As there are no pictures, but just a description of a beach as evidence. It falls short.
2. As the experiment was done to prove a flat earth, it indicates a bias and falls short of Zeteticism.
3. The wiki goes on to show how the round earth is wrong because of this experiment, but it merely indicates that this particular chunk of the earth is not round and the water is unusually calm. Any other conclusion would not be zetetic.
4. The experiment has been observed by 1. The wiki does not indicate peer-review but I am unsure one person's observation would be considered zetetic.
There are others but I don't want to beat a dead horse and want to get to my question.

This can't be a zetetic experiment and falls short of a scientific one.
What would be a zetetic experiment? Can there be one?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2018, 05:44:21 PM »
You fundamentally fail to understand the purpose of Zetetic inquiry. It doesn't matter how many people we claim to have completed the experiment, because you're not supposed to believe us. We're not here to persuade you.

The zeteticist in you may feel compelled to reproduce this experiment, or a similar one, for your own betterment and satisfaction. Not to convince us, not to painstakingly write it up for a peanut gallery of angry RE'ers/FE'ers, but for yourself.

As such, nothing in the Wiki can be Zetetic when you're reading it - it simply can't be. That's because you're reading about it, rather than performing it.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2018, 05:55:20 PM »
The zeteticist in you may feel compelled to reproduce this experiment, or a similar one, for your own betterment and satisfaction. Not to convince us, not to painstakingly write it up for a peanut gallery of angry RE'ers/FE'ers, but for yourself.

This is where I've always been confused about Zeteticism. As a Zeteticist, take Rowbotham as an example. He lectured, he debated, seemingly performed experiments to support his lectures and debates, and published books - He even gambled with others to prove his notions. Was he not doing all of those things to convince others? As well, he and his findings are cited quite frequently in debates here as "evidence".
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Mysfit

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2018, 09:09:53 PM »
It doesn't matter how many people we claim to have completed the experiment, because you're not supposed to believe us. We're not here to persuade you.
Then... Why?
Why's anything written here... Why do any flat earth theorists respond to the multitude of inquiries?

So, from what you're saying... A zetetic experiment is done for the self. It does not ask for peer-review and would not necessarily need to meet the burden of proof beyond personal interpretation?
This seems closer to faith than science. Oh, god, there is even a book.
I'm not interested in faith. I haven't got any and am afraid to catch it.

I just want your thought experiment to work, which means the wiki needs to be able to explain away everything. I don't care if it's truth, just that it sounds enough like it to stop folks asking the same questions again and again. You're right that I don't fundamentally understand. I am overwhelmingly aware of a round earth and can not make heads or tails of some parts of the wiki (the book is my nemesis).
The wiki needs help to give you folks more time to write the new book (I think Tom is working on it).

The zeteticist in you may feel compelled to reproduce this experiment, or a similar one, for your own betterment and satisfaction.

There is no zeteticist in me. I still can't understand it and am now told i'm not meant to.
I can reproduce an experiment to bounce a laser off a reflector placed on the moon by an Apollo mission. I'm not even smart.
I may even be able to do it zetetically. If I knew what it was.
You make me upset. You should have a nice day, though.

*

Offline Humble B

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Full merrily the humble B doth sing
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2018, 09:49:35 PM »
You fundamentally fail to understand the purpose of Zetetic inquiry. It doesn't matter how many people we claim to have completed the experiment, because you're not supposed to believe us. We're not here to persuade you.

The zeteticist in you may feel compelled to reproduce this experiment, or a similar one, for your own betterment and satisfaction. Not to convince us, not to painstakingly write it up for a peanut gallery of angry RE'ers/FE'ers, but for yourself.

As such, nothing in the Wiki can be Zetetic when you're reading it - it simply can't be. That's because you're reading about it, rather than performing it.

In science an experiment is conducted to prove something true or false in such a convincing and irrefutable way that it will lead to a general consensus among all scientists (and all those who know to check the experiment's dependability) about what is true and what is false.

The above description given by Pete concerning the persuasiveness of Zetetic inquiries, makes the Zetetic inquiry a perfect tool for self-deception.
He who believes windmills are his enemies, will take the gentle turning of their blades an act of aggression, and mistake their soft murmur for angry ranting.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2018, 12:30:53 AM »
As such, nothing in the Wiki can be Zetetic when you're reading it - it simply can't be. That's because you're reading about it, rather than performing it.

What I find interesting too is that Rowbotham writes extensively regarding scripture as the proper base to the existence of a flat earth. Which, to me, seems like he’s using a theory as a basis for his conclusions, which, in turn, seems decidedly not very Zetetic. So I suppose he was not being Zetetic when reading the scriptures nor doing so when basing a flat earth foundation on such.

In Earth Not A Globe, Chapter XV he writes (among many other references he makes to Christianity, scripture, creator, etc., ):

"The modern or Newtonian astronomy has none of these characteristics. The whole system taken together constitutes a most monstrous absurdity. It is false in its foundation; irregular, unfair, and illogical, in its details; and, in its conclusions, inconsistent and contradictory. Worse than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of which its advocates are practically supporters. By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books."
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2018, 03:09:07 AM »
Rowbotham is correct. Science has always had a seemingly underlying goal to prove old religious knowledge to be wrong. Science characterizes ancient knowledge as mythical and ignorant.

It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have been historically athiest and 'agnostic'.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 03:13:17 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2018, 05:55:37 AM »
It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have been historically athiest and 'agnostic'.

That’s a meaningless statement. It’s just as equal to say, "It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have not been historically athiest and 'agnostic’.” So I fail to see your point and it’s not the point anyway.

The point is that the father of Zeteticism, Rowbotham, basically undermines his entire ‘method of inquiry’ with the basing of his flat earth belief on the 'holy scriptures’ then going about trying to prove it. Which is the same as having a hypothesis and then performing experiments to prove or disprove said hypothesis. I.e., the scientific method. In his case, psuedo-scientific as it was, but still, certainly not with the supposed purity of the Zetetic method.

In ENAG, he drops the God hammer at the very end - Dozens and dozens of biblical references as the basis for the previous 14 chapters. 14 chapters where the reader is led to believe that all is just Zetetic observation without any preconceived notions. When in fact, it’s all based upon religious doctrine.

Lady Blount and her cronies do no better with their society in this regard. From The Universal Zetetic Society founded in 1892:

OUR MOTTO
For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.

OUR OBJECT

The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation.

RULES

1.  Everything extraneous to “Our Object” to be avoided.

2.  The so-called “sciences,” and especially Modern Astronomy, to be dealt with from practical data in connection with the Divine system of Cosmogony revealed by the Creator.


So how is this anything like what Zeteticism is really about? It is certainly not: “...using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.”

https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism

For these so-called Zeteticists they operated entirely with an initial theory, that theory being the bible.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2018, 07:30:34 AM »
Quote
The point is that the father of Zeteticism, Rowbotham, basically undermines his entire ‘method of inquiry’ with the basing of his flat earth belief on the 'holy scriptures’ then going about trying to prove it.

The only place religion is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe is in the final chapter which speculates on the philosophical context, and even then Rowbotham depicts Flat Earth as agreeing with multiple religions and old mythologies, which it does.

I agree with every word of that chapter. We got the nature of the world correct the first time.

You believe that pointing out mentions of religion is an insult, but it just shows someone who is unknowledged and childish. Religon and mythology represents the original science of the world, the deep study of many over thousands of years, and must be respected as such.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 08:05:33 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2018, 10:02:07 AM »
This is where I've always been confused about Zeteticism. As a Zeteticist, take Rowbotham as an example. He lectured, he debated, seemingly performed experiments to support his lectures and debates, and published books - He even gambled with others to prove his notions. Was he not doing all of those things to convince others? As well, he and his findings are cited quite frequently in debates here as "evidence".
Rowbotham has been troubled in many ways - consider some of his more interesting statements on medicine, for example.

However, there is nothing wrong with lecturing and debating per se. One cannot realistically expect people to become Zeteticists out of the blue. Similarly, modern education systems teach critical thinking, because you cannot expect for it to just happen through magic. If debates and arguments are what's needed to get people thinking - why not? If his bets and gambles brought some additional attention to the way of thinking he promoted (as you clearly evidenced yourself), there's no immediate harm in that.

But there's a difference between us trying to convince you to explore a way of thinking, and trying to convince you to accept our (or anyone else's) conclusions through their own persuasive power. The latter is harmful to intellectual pursuits - it turns you into a closed-minded individual. Without naming names, you can just look a few posts up to see great examples of that. Reaching the "right" conclusion through "wrong" means is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to a thinker.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 10:05:12 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Mysfit

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2018, 11:01:57 AM »
It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have been historically athiest and 'agnostic'.
I believe Darwin was religious. Einstein once said "god does not play with dice" when debating the uncertainty principle so I will assume he is without googling it.
That's biology and physics covered... Chemistry is my favourite so I will pick one I think of every day, Henry Louis Le Chatelier.
I did alot of googling, but could not find any mention of his religious leanings. Nothing to say he was atheist either, but let's assume he was.

Why would religion, or lack thereof, bar someone from truth?

I agree with every word of that chapter. We got the nature of the world correct the first time.
I don't think I can point to a single thing that humans got right the first time. Not one. I am looking around my surroundings for something... No... Nope.
All things are worked on and optimized. The flat earth theory was optimized a bit with the bi-polar model.

Edit: I just realized something. Why does Tom believe the text? No text is to be believed.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 11:36:39 AM by Mysfit »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2018, 06:16:14 PM »
Quote
The point is that the father of Zeteticism, Rowbotham, basically undermines his entire ‘method of inquiry’ with the basing of his flat earth belief on the 'holy scriptures’ then going about trying to prove it.

The only place religion is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe is in the final chapter which speculates on the philosophical context, and even then Rowbotham depicts Flat Earth as agreeing with multiple religions and old mythologies, which it does.

I agree with every word of that chapter. We got the nature of the world correct the first time.

You believe that pointing out mentions of religion is an insult, but it just shows someone who is unknowledged and childish. Religon and mythology represents the original science of the world, the deep study of many over thousands of years, and must be respected as such.

Just merely pointing out the obvious that both Rowbotham and Lady Blount & Co predicate their flat earth belief not on observation, but on religious doctrine, specifically, the scriptures. It’s their words that show this quite explicitly.

I’m only about 1/2 way through a reread of ENAG Chapter XV and have yet to find anything about any other religions/mythologies other than that akin to the ‘Scriptures'. Seems pretty downright fundamentalist so far and certainly does not come across as ’speculation’ on philosophical context. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with basing a belief on a religion. I’m just saying it’s clear that they used ‘observation’ to confirm their premise that the scriptures are ‘literally true’. That does not seem Zetetic to me.

You might want to reread it again. Here are just a few quotes to help you along:

“It is this confusion and want of certainty as to the absolute truths of religious teachings which creates a love of display and outward manifestation of religion, instead of that "cheerful solemnity" and quiet, unobtrusive good-will and devotion which solid convictions of the truthfulness of Christianity never fail to produce.”

"To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

"The following language is quoted as an instance of the manner in which the doctrine of the earth's rotundity and the plurality of worlds interferes with Scriptural teachings…”

"That of its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite number of revolving spheres, is equally false; and, therefore, the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true.”

"That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.”

"In the Newtonian astronomy, continents, oceans, seas, and islands, are considered as together forming one vast globe of 25,000 English statute miles in circumference. This assertion has been shown to be entirely fallacious, and that it is contrary to the plain literal teaching of Scripture will be clearly seen from the following quotations.
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear. And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He seas."--Genesis i., 9-10."
[/size]

Followed by a bunch more biblical quotations.

Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2018, 07:00:27 PM »
Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not. It represents the scientific learning of many ancient civilizations as transmitted in story form from generation to generation, eventually co-opted with spiritual meaning.

The "judgement of scripture" is the judgement of many civilizations who prided themselves on extraordinary cosmology and astronomical predictive ability, and whose members spent entire lives and generations studying such matters.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 07:23:14 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2018, 07:21:28 PM »
Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not. It represents the scientific learning of many ancient civilizations as transmitted in story form from generation to generation, eventually co-opted with spiritual meaning.

The "judgement of scripture" is the judgement of many civilizations who prided themselves on extraordinary cosmology and astronomical predictive ability, and whose members spent entire lives and generations studying such matters.

I think you’re missing the point again. From the wiki regarding Zeteticism:

"For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.”

According to Rowbotham, "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” According to his bible interpretation, the scriptures are the hypothesis, the initial theory, that the world is flat. As he continually cites biblical quotes to prove such. That is a preconceived notion, a bias. Seemingly counter to how Zeteticism is described.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Mysfit

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2018, 09:10:32 PM »
Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents.
*hits head on desk*
And the scripture before that? The clay tablets before that? The wall paintings before that?
I can't fault believing only what you observe. It's unbelievably skeptical, but I can understand that.

The topic has drifted a bit from trying to outline a zetetic experiment.
Pete has given me to understand that it is done for the self, but I don't understand how any experiment can be done without bias.
Are the terms just nonsensical if put together (there's a word for it but I don't know it)?
Is it a fools errand?





Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2018, 09:38:08 PM »
Science has always had a seemingly underlying goal to prove old religious knowledge to be wrong.
Utterly incorrect although that is a depressingly common view. A lot of people do believe that science and religion have an adversarial relationship - some of those people are scientists, people like Dawkins. I like his science books but I wonder why he has such a chip on his shoulder about religion, I wonder what happened to him? I'm guessing he had some bad experience of church when he was younger.
But science simply seeks to understand how things work. How did the universe start? We can be glib and say "God did it", but science is seeking to understand exactlyhow, what were the mechanics of it, and when did it happen? How did stars and planets and moons form and develop? What laws govern the universe? Science has achieved a lot in understanding all this. That doesn't mean that the current theories are definitive but they do pretty much work, they match our observations and can predict behaviour. There is always room for more complete models though which match observations better, scientific theories should never claim to be definitively proven.

What science isn't trying to do though is find out why the universe was created or whether there is any purpose to our lives, that is not in the scope of science. And that is why science and religion are not opposed, they are simply asking different questions. And therefore I disagree with this:

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not. It represents the scientific learning of many ancient civilizations as transmitted in story form from generation to generation, eventually co-opted with spiritual meaning.
No, it absolutely doesn't represent that. Scripture isn't trying to teach me science, it revealing much deeper truths than that.
I don't understand why some Christians think that the important message of Genesis is the age of the universe or how long creation took. Really? You think that is the take home message? Genesis tells me that the universe is a creation, it tells me who it was created by. It tells me that we were created separately from the rest of the creation to have special relationship with the Creator and it tells of our rebellion and need for salvation. These are much more important, deeper truths, why do people get so bogged down with timescales as if that's the important thing?

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go" - Galileo

It strikes me that the problem with Zeteticism is that it relies too much on our senses which are flawed and limited, and while the notion of checking things out for ourselves makes some sense, at its purest form it means no progress can ever be made. If we can't trust peer reviewed and well tested scientific discoveries and each of us have to start from scratch in the pursuit of knowledge then we will never make any progress as a species. Science has made progress by building on previous work. Yes we should always be prepared to revise previous theories in the light of new evidence but we won't get anywhere if we each start from scratch and we won't get anywhere by relying on our senses alone.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" - Newton
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2018, 10:13:35 PM »
Personal favorite: "Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not. It represents the scientific learning of many ancient civilizations as transmitted in story form from generation to generation, eventually co-opted with spiritual meaning.

The "judgement of scripture" is the judgement of many civilizations who prided themselves on extraordinary cosmology and astronomical predictive ability, and whose members spent entire lives and generations studying such matters.

I think you’re missing the point again. From the wiki regarding Zeteticism:

"For example, in questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.”

According to Rowbotham, "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” According to his bible interpretation, the scriptures are the hypothesis, the initial theory, that the world is flat. As he continually cites biblical quotes to prove such. That is a preconceived notion, a bias. Seemingly counter to how Zeteticism is described.

No. You do not understand Zeteticism at all. Zeteticism is a method of inquiry which takes away the bias inherent in the Scientific Method, and which may be practiced by anyone with any preconceived belief. Zeteticism simply demands that one test all possibilities to reach the truth of a matter, rather than the methods of the testing of a specific hypothesis or the building of one theory upon another theory, as is pervasive in science.

The Scientific Method, in contrast to the Zetetic Method, has one testing one specific hypothesis, and then coming to a conclusion based on those results. This is how one gets half truths, leads one astray, and is not a reasonable way to conduct science.

Rowbotham's argument that the ancients were right after all is in the concluding chapter of Earth Not a Globe, but that is not its premise. However, even if Rowbotham did believe that before ever entertaining the thoughts of the shape of the earth, and even if it was a prime motivating factor for the study, it does not matter, since Zeteticism demands a testing of all possibilities from first approximation.

The statement of "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen" is an appropriate conclusion. The ancient knowledge upon which scripture is based upon, in regards to the material world, has far more truth to is than the house of cards of science, where one hypothesis built upon the next. None of this conclusion is related to the Zetetic method of inquiry which demands that all possibilities are tested for, however. It is a statement that the ancients were correct in their assessment of the world from the start.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 10:34:50 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2018, 10:31:53 PM »
Quote
What science isn't trying to do though is find out why the universe was created or whether there is any purpose to our lives, that is not in the scope of science. And that is why science and religion are not opposed, they are simply asking different questions.

If science and religion is not opposed, then I expect that you will provide us with a list of mainstream scientists who have written studies or papers which attempt to demonstrate God, Creationism, or the benefits of prayer.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Humble B

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Full merrily the humble B doth sing
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2018, 01:32:26 AM »
If science and religion is not opposed, then I expect that you will provide us with a list of mainstream scientists who have written studies or papers which attempt to demonstrate God, Creationism, or the benefits of prayer.

You're very badly informed about the history of modern science. Modern science sprang from theology in the Middle Ages. Roman Catholic theologians considered the universe and nature as a creation of God, and their motto was that: "A better understanding of the creation is a necessary condition for a better understanding of the Creator.

That is why natural sciences in past centuries were mainly practiced by theologians. An example of this was Isaac Newton, who as a theologian wrote more about the Bible than about physics, but is remembered as a physicist only because his studies of nature were more groundbreaking than his theological studies. Natural sciences were, and still are not seen as an enemy or competitor of religious studies, such as theology, but as a necessary addition to that.

Imagine that God created the earth as a spinning ball, but you believe that God created a stationary flat earth, then you are actually hold on to a false belief, and you deny God's creation, which is in fact a blasphemy.

But the shape of the earth has never been a point of discussion among theologians, for the science among the literate that the earth is a globe is older than Christianity itself. The belief among Christians in a flat earth only arose relative recently after the Reformation, when Protestant preachers taught that the Bible, as the highest magisterium, should not be interpreted but must be read literally. The contemporary rejection of the globe and the heliocentric model originated among the supporters of new fundamentalist and dogmatic protestant Christian sects, and is relatively new in the history of Christianity.

The only thing that was a matter of dispute and conflict in the Middle Ages was heliocentrism vs geocentricism , as preached by the Roman church. But the main reason that the Roman church opposed for a long time the heliocentrism of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei was not because they believed they were mistaken, but because the Roman magisterium feared loss of credibility and authority if they had to admit that what they had preached for centuries about God's universe would turned out to be false. After all, Roman magisterium had always presented themselves as "infallible" and they would lose this infallibility if they were to admit that they had always been wrong about geocentrism.

Ultimately, the Roman Magisterium was overthrown by the idea that it was better to admit a mistake than to become the pushers of a false belief by sticking to geocentrism in the knowledge that it is not what God created.

That is why theologians and scientists have never seen science as opposed to religion, but as a useful tool to purify religions of superstition and misconceptions about God and his creation, that are often the fruits of ignorance and lack of knowledge. After all, the more we learn about God's creation, the more we learn about the creator. And objective, independent, unbiased science not bound to religious pre-conditions is indispensable in achieving this goal of knowing the Creator by exploring His creation.

Quote from: Albert Einstein
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
He who believes windmills are his enemies, will take the gentle turning of their blades an act of aggression, and mistake their soft murmur for angry ranting.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2018, 06:29:02 AM »
What would be a zetetic experiment? Can there be one?

I don’t believe there is such a thing, at least within the confines of Rowbotham’s depictions as such. All of ENAG Chapter XV is devoted to the notion that his interpretation of the Bible is that it speaks to a flat earth. And, therefore, those who go against that belief are going against God - Which is to “...declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

How is that not an initial theory, a hypothesis, a bias whereby one’s entering assumption is that any proof of earth’s rotundity through experimentation would defy the words of the scriptures, the teachings of God?

As well, The Universal Zetetic Society’s sole founding objective is "The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation.”

“…in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures…”? Seems like a confirmation bias is clearly stated prior to embarking on any ‘practical investigation’.

So Tom is right, I clearly don’t understand Zeteticism as defined by Rowbotham and The Universal Zetetic Society because it seems theirs is definitely not at all without bias, assumption, hypothesis and initial theory.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.