Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2019, 10:03:52 AM »
he argued that the only statements with scientific meaning are those that can be falsified with respect to some prior theory or framework
Or, as he more succinctly put it himself, myths.
What is it that Popper said were myths?

Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2019, 12:19:59 PM »
very good point I didn't know about that. I feel the best approach may be some sort of hybrid.
The Wright Brothers quote is a fabrication, there is no credible source for it. Tom just likes to use it to attack the scientific method.
I'm not sure how well the process of invention maps on to that anyway.
They were trying to build a plane, they did a lot of tests of various kites and the end result was something that flew.
The test of an invention is whether it works or not and theirs demonstrably did.
The result was not exactly a "theory" that if you build a machine a certain way it will do a certain thing, it was a design for something that flew.
And in the scientific method you publish your results. That is the key thing - you publish so other people can check your working and verify your results. That is the key thing missing in FE - you "proceed from personal inquiry" which is why there are so many competing FE models and no consensus. It's not a productive way of working.

Often with invention you do the opposite of publish your results - details of the design are often secret to stop others copying you and others may try to design something similar to take a share of the market. It's a completely different dynamic to the process of scientific discovery although principles of experimentation and learning from results are common to both.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1096
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2019, 04:45:06 PM »
The scientific method is about coming up with a hypothesis and then doing an experiment to test that hypothesis. No single test is said to prove anything.

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


People also thought the moon and sun were gods, that the earth was flat, and that an eclipse spelled the end of the world.  Proves nothing other than that as science progresses old silly notions are discarded.
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11114
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2019, 08:11:32 PM »
What is it that Popper said were myths?
I was making a light-hearted reference to the following quote from Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge:

Quote
Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; neither with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical discussion of myths, and of magical techniques and practices. The scientific tradition is distinguished from the pre-scientific tradition in having two layers. Like the latter, it passes on its theories; but it also passes on a critical attitude towards them. The theories are passed on, not as dogmas, but rather with the challenge to discuss them and improve upon them.
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 edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2019, 08:33:59 PM »
What is it that Popper said were myths?
I was making a light-hearted reference to the following quote from Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge:

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

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

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

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

Quote
If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected. This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question [i.e. Marx, psychoanalysis etc] were compatible with the most divergent human behavior, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11114
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2019, 08:35:41 PM »
Yes, it sounds like you identified my joke as something odd, but not necessarily as humorous in intent. I guess I'll take it as a compliment.
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 edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2019, 08:39:21 PM »
What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way? Have any flat earth researchers personally verified its existence?

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

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

Again, what direct observation supports the claim of bendy light? Direct observation surely contradicts any such claim. Or is bendy light a theoretical construct?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11114
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2019, 08:53:28 PM »
What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way?
Antarctica has been observed, and is observed, regularly by countless individuals. I don't see how one could reasonably question its existence in this day and age.

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

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

the celestial sphere is not a sphere at all?
Once again, you're not so much wrong as you're just spouting nonsense.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2019, 08:56:41 PM 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

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2019, 10:14:41 PM »
What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way?
Antarctica has been observed, and is observed, regularly by countless individuals. I don't see how one could reasonably question its existence in this day and age.
So Zeteticism does not exclude testimony? I.e. reliance on things that others have observed, but you yourself have not witnessed. I assume you personally haven't been to the ice wall.

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

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

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

I will check the wiki.

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

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

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

« Last Edit: December 10, 2019, 10:21:01 PM by edby »

Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2019, 08:23:29 AM »
What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way?
Antarctica has been observed, and is observed, regularly by countless individuals. I don't see how one could reasonably question its existence in this day and age.
No-one disputes Antarctica exists, the dispute is what it is.
You claim that the cliffs are effectively part of the inside of a circle, the RE claim is they are effectively part of the outside of a circle.
There are sailing races around it, you'd think people would have noticed if they were going 6 times further than they expected and going anti-clockwise in a circle rather than clockwise.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11114
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2019, 09:49:10 AM »
So Zeteticism does not exclude testimony?
Why would an increased reliance on observation and experimentation exclude something as basic as accepting something someone else claims to have seen? Your proposals here are bizarre. Did you really expect a method of inquiry to tell you to disregard every other human and walk around checking everything by yourself?

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

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

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

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

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

you'd think people would have noticed if they were going 6 times further than they expected and going anti-clockwise in a circle rather than clockwise.
I'm really not interested in what "you" would think. Ironically, edby's objection that I'm addressing here is a thinly-veiled accusation of us theorising without basing it on observation. Surely you can see why doing exactly what he asked us not to do wouldn't help here.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 09:59:19 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

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2019, 11:09:54 AM »
By 'do not really set', I mean, the sun and stars do not set below the surface of the flat earth, but remain above it, obscured by perspective.
This is true regardless of the shape of the Earth - the Sun does not sink below the Earth's surface, and indeed doesn't come close to ever touching it (that would be bad). It only appears to be doing so. It baffles me that this apparently requires explaining.
Surely you understood what I meant. If the earth is flat, then there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat surface. According to the wiki, the sun and stars always lie above that plane. The appearance of setting, i.e. the sun appearing to move to a place below that plane, must therefore be deceptive. Or (what is equivalent) at sunset the sun appears to move “below the horizon line”.

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

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

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

Quote
edby's objection that I'm addressing here is a thinly-veiled accusation of us theorising without basing it on observation.
Yes, FE perspective being a case in point. What I see is the sun going ‘below’ the horizon line. That’s my observation, and the observation of many others. FE perspective is a fairly complex (and to me unintelligible) theory to explain why that observation is illusory.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #32 on: December 11, 2019, 11:21:45 AM »
From the wiki again.
Quote
The Earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Geography_and_Related_Phenomena

The areas past the ‘ice wall’, including the Ross and Ronne ice shelves have been extensively surveyed, and there is a selection of maps as witness to those surveys. I met Felicity Aston a few months ago who told me of her 2012 solo journey to the South Pole and across a significant part of Antarctica.

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

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

[EDIT] To my knowledge, the first successful attempt to penetrate far beyond the ice shelf was the 1901-04 Discovery Expedition.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 11:26:08 AM by edby »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11114
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #33 on: December 11, 2019, 02:00:51 PM »
Surely you understood what I meant.
I do understand what you mean, but the logical implications of what you propose are ludicrous, and I'll carry on bringing them to light until you've fixed your argument. You're trying to draw a parallel between an observation and whatever intentionally-terrible interpretation of said observation you can come up with. I do not for a second believe that you're proposing this in good faith.

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

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

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

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

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

The areas past the ‘ice wall’
Okay, so the Ice Wall has been surveyed. How does that constitute going very far past the Ice Wall?
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 02:15:31 PM 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

Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2019, 04:09:13 PM »
Quote
In the same way, the RE appearance of the Sun sinking into the sea/ground is not "deceptive" - it's just a poor interpretation of an observation.

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


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




Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2019, 05:20:35 PM »
The areas past the ‘ice wall’
Okay, so the Ice Wall has been surveyed. How does that constitute going very far past the Ice Wall?
 

What I actually said was:

Quote
The areas past the ‘ice wall’, including the Ross and Ronne ice shelves have been extensively surveyed, and there is a selection of maps as witness to those surveys. I met Felicity Aston a few months ago who told me of her 2012 solo journey to the South Pole and across a significant part of Antarctica.

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

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

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

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 05:50:06 PM by edby »

Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2019, 06:09:17 PM »
Tom... I thought I was being pedantic with my criticism of your flawed explanation of the scientific method.

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

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

Each of these fly in the face of zeteticism. Each claim that FE's need to explain the natural phenomenon that we can observe with our own eyes, is in direct contradiction of the zetetic method.
Most FE'rs in the fora are proponents of at least one of these hypotheses, and they're unknowingly using the scientific method. However, the difference between the FE community and the scientific community at large is actual experimentation to prove their hypotheses either correct or incorrect.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2019, 06:25:14 PM »
-Aether,
-Universal acceleration,
-Ice wall,
-Rotation of the "celestial spheres" and "luminous elements" above the plane of a flat earth,
-The dome,
-The map(s) of flat earth,
-The very claim itself that the earth is flat,

Not forgetting Flat earth 'perspective'.

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

[edit] http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2019, 06:28:40 PM »
Second, I wanted to ask some FE'rs who believe things like Universal Acceleration while claiming to follow the zetetic method, how do these beliefs not conflict with each other?

Has Zeteticism ever been criticized by some philosopher?
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2019, 06:43:28 PM »
Second, I wanted to ask some FE'rs who believe things like Universal Acceleration while claiming to follow the zetetic method, how do these beliefs not conflict with each other?

Has Zeteticism ever been criticized by some philosopher?

How is that related?