*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10391
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2019, 07:48:34 PM »
What is the difference between “testing to prove/disprove “an interpretation of an observation” and “testing to prove/disprove a hypothesis”?
You seem to suggest that Zeteticism involves no testing or verification. How silly of you.

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

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

However, the difference between the FE community and the scientific community at large is actual experimentation to prove their hypotheses either correct or incorrect.
How many FE experiments have you reproduced, and what led you to the conclusion that there was a difference to be found in them?
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 07:54:10 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!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #41 on: December 11, 2019, 08:34:02 PM »
Quote
You seem to suggest that Zeteticism involves no testing or verification. How silly of you.

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




*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 581
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2019, 10:20:19 PM »
Also light-bending, which is a great example of a Popper unfalsifiable thesis. We can design a light-bending model that is perfectly consistent with standard astronomical models, but where the earth is flat (one astronomer has designed such a computer model*). Impossible to strictly prove it is false, any more than we can prove that the earth is not controlled by a giant blue unicorn. And every piece of evidence whatsoever could be cited in support of such a model.
I believe this is called EA (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration).  I'd love to see the supporting experimental data and write-up to draw the conclusions given there.  That wiki page shows a 2-D field of light.  Presumably a representation of the real world 3-D field.  However, the math they give as a approximation is a function of a single variable, not a field equation.  So, my questions would be - how is EA Zetetic at all?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1613
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2019, 11:31:01 PM »
How many FE experiments have you reproduced ...

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

Can you point to a few that have been documented already?
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10391
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2019, 11:36:53 PM »
However, the math they give as a approximation is a function of a single variable, not a field equation.  So, my questions would be - how is EA Zetetic at all?
"I don't like the approximate formula, therefore this phenomenon couldn't have been observed" is a very poor argument. It is precisely this sort of obsession with formalisms that we try to avoid. I believe Parsifal had this exact conversation with you already.

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

Can you point to a few that have been documented already?
By design, no. Again, something you already know and are wasting our time with.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 11:05:57 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!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 581
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2019, 11:56:01 PM »
However, the math they give as a approximation is a function of a single variable, not a field equation.  So, my questions would be - how is EA Zetetic at all?
"I don't like the approximate formula, therefore this phenomenon couldn't have been observed" is a very poor argument. It is precisely this sort of obsession with formalisms that we try to avoid. I believe Parsifal had this exact conversation with yob already.
I love the "approximate formula".  In fact I investigated it, analyzed it, took it's derivative and plotted both it and it's derivative.  I also discovered the form it's in now can be much simplified seeing as both the speed of light and the "Bishop Constant" are both constants and could be combined into a new single constant outside the root symbol.  However, it cannot possibly be applied to a 3-dimensional field - so whatever is approximates, it is not the bending of the light field being cast by the sun.  Be it near or far.

If you don't eventually formalize things, put things into a universally expressable form (like mathematics), how do you make predictions or take your research to the next step?  For instance, how would FE Zeteticism have developed the cellphone?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 581
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #46 on: December 12, 2019, 12:47:44 AM »
I had to make dinner and learn how to use LaTex here, so sorry for the delay.

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

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

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

K would then be the Bishop Constant.  Much simpler and easier to read.  Still not a field equation though, so just as useless for the intended purposes.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 12:49:34 AM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10391
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2019, 06:18:49 AM »
For instance, how would FE Zeteticism have developed the cellphone?
An interesting question. My personal opinion is that it wouldn't. Its scope is generally discovery, not invention. I'd go as far as to say that a hypothesis stage of some form is strictly necessary for the purpose of invention. There might be some edge cases in which an accidental discovery could lead to an inventive outcome, but in general I don't think Zeteticism would be very applicable here.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #48 on: December 12, 2019, 10:39:43 AM »
… You can travel to the location you originally perceived as the horizon line, and confirm that the Sun doesn't literally sink there.

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

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

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

But the same observation is difficult to reconcile with FE, for obvious reasons, hence FE requires some theory to explain the observation of the sun (apparently) disappearing below the horizon. (Which leads to the question, how does Zeteticism deal with the distinction between appearance and reality?)
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 10:49:43 AM by edby »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10391
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #49 on: December 12, 2019, 10:56:14 AM »
Are you saying that the location of the horizon is a finite distance away? That assumes a globe-earth model.
Not at all.

What I actually said was that if the earth is flat, then there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat surface.
If you are suggesting that the Earth is a literal flat plane with no irregularities, there is no helping you. Please let me remind you that blatant trolling won't be tolerated in the upper.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #50 on: December 12, 2019, 11:28:12 AM »
Are you saying that the location of the horizon is a finite distance away? That assumes a globe-earth model.
Not at all.

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

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

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


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10391
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #51 on: December 12, 2019, 11:34:57 AM »
That logically implies that the location originally perceived as the horizon line is a finite distance away, at least assuming I cannot travel infinitely fast.
Yes.

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

I fail to see why what I say is ‘blatant trolling’.
Yeah, I'm not buying it. Please sort it out.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #52 on: December 12, 2019, 11:46:14 AM »
It's also completely irrelevant with regards to the distance of the horizon under the FE model.
But if you don't know that distance, which you don't, how can you say it is irrelevant?

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


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10391
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2019, 11:52:55 AM »
But if you don't know that distance, which you don't
How could I possibly know the distance between two hypothetical locations you failed to specify?

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

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

Then what we see when the sun sets is the sun disappearing below that plane.
This is where your obvious troll comes into play. No, you will never observe the Sun disappearing below a hypothetical infinite plane. I encourage you to present a set of conditions in which that occurs, rather than the Sun being apparently obscured by the very corporeal Earth.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 11:54:54 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!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2019, 12:07:36 PM »
No, you will never observe the Sun disappearing below a hypothetical infinite plane.
Correct, given that a hypothetical plane is transparent. You will see the sun pass below the plane, assuming nothing is in the way.

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

And what if I concede that the sun only appears to pass below the plane? There is still the problem for Zeteticism in that some criterion is needed to distinguish appearance from reality. The foundation of FE is that the earth appears flat. OK, but is it flat? What observation would confirm that the reality matches the appearance? Over to you.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10391
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2019, 12:23:47 PM »
Correct, given that a hypothetical plane is transparent. You will see the sun pass below the plane, assuming nothing is in the way.
You cannot make that assumption, because the physical world actually exists. Therein lies your obvious troll. I will ask you one last time to drop it. Stop derailing upper fora threads.

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

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

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

I will ask you, politely, for the last time: stop trying to derail this thread with blatant trolling. At the very least, try to get better at it and present a devil's advocate argument that doesn't immediately fall apart.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 12:26:06 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!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1093
    • View Profile
Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2019, 12:43:21 PM »
Correct, given that a hypothetical plane is transparent. You will see the sun pass below the plane, assuming nothing is in the way.
You cannot make that assumption, because the physical world actually exists. Therein lies your obvious troll. I will ask you one last time to drop it. Stop derailing upper fora threads.

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

Quote
Metaphysical "reality" which somehow doesn't match observable reality ...
You clearly failed to understand what I said, but never mind.

Re: Zeteticism
« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2019, 07:56:16 PM »
Second, I wanted to ask some FE'rs who believe things like Universal Acceleration while claiming to follow the zetetic method, how do these beliefs not conflict with each other?

Has Zeteticism ever been criticized by some philosopher?

How is that related?

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