Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Zetetics Deserve Better
« on: November 16, 2014, 08:43:21 PM »
FE'ers are not required to agree. There are multiple working, theoretical models of FET. This is a good thing and a sign of a healthy theory.
I think this is a little misleading. Some FEers eschew "theory", embracing instead the zetetic philosophy, which allows only the correct interpretation.

For example, see:
Quote from: EnaG, p. 1
THE term Zetetic is 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. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.
and reference: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Tom Bishop and pizzaplanet have been vocal on the issue as well. I encourage the use of the Forum's advanced search function to explore their points.

Pure zetetics do not produce theoretical models of FET. They do not go farther than pointing out that the Earth is flat, and other easily provable facts. The zetetic model is that from which all theoretical models follow. Those of us who refer to zeteticism and still theorize are neo-zetetics. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, but we're definitely getting off topic and I'm really not sure a semantic argument about the definition of zeteticism is one worth having. I definitely don't want to have it.
Give zetetics their due. For example, Tom Bishop has worked, or at least has claimed to have worked, harder that anyone at demonstrating that the earth is flat since Rowbotham. To say that he goes no farther than "pointing out that the [e]arth is flat, and other easily provable facts" is unfair. Can any "neo-zetetic" document any experiment of the caliber of the "Bishop Experiment"?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2014, 08:50:12 PM »
FE'ers are not required to agree. There are multiple working, theoretical models of FET. This is a good thing and a sign of a healthy theory.
I think this is a little misleading. Some FEers eschew "theory", embracing instead the zetetic philosophy, which allows only the correct interpretation.

For example, see:
Quote from: EnaG, p. 1
THE term Zetetic is 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. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.
and reference: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Tom Bishop and pizzaplanet have been vocal on the issue as well. I encourage the use of the Forum's advanced search function to explore their points.

Pure zetetics do not produce theoretical models of FET. They do not go farther than pointing out that the Earth is flat, and other easily provable facts. The zetetic model is that from which all theoretical models follow. Those of us who refer to zeteticism and still theorize are neo-zetetics. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, but we're definitely getting off topic and I'm really not sure a semantic argument about the definition of zeteticism is one worth having. I definitely don't want to have it.
Give zetetics their due. For example, Tom Bishop has worked, or at least has claimed to have worked, harder that anyone at demonstrating that the earth is flat since Rowbotham. To say that he goes no farther than "pointing out that the [e]arth is flat, and other easily provable facts" is unfair. Can any "neo-zetetic" document any experiment of the caliber of the "Bishop Experiment"?

I make no claim that zetetic research is invalid or obsolete. It's just not relevant to bring it up when we're talking about theoretical models. The zetetic model is what we know to be true. The theoretical models are an expansion on that which give potential explanations for other phenomena.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2014, 11:56:48 PM »
FE'ers are not required to agree. There are multiple working, theoretical models of FET. This is a good thing and a sign of a healthy theory.
I think this is a little misleading. Some FEers eschew "theory", embracing instead the zetetic philosophy, which allows only the correct interpretation.

For example, see:
Quote from: EnaG, p. 1
THE term Zetetic is 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. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.
and reference: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Tom Bishop and pizzaplanet have been vocal on the issue as well. I encourage the use of the Forum's advanced search function to explore their points.

Pure zetetics do not produce theoretical models of FET. They do not go farther than pointing out that the Earth is flat, and other easily provable facts. The zetetic model is that from which all theoretical models follow. Those of us who refer to zeteticism and still theorize are neo-zetetics. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, but we're definitely getting off topic and I'm really not sure a semantic argument about the definition of zeteticism is one worth having. I definitely don't want to have it.
Give zetetics their due. For example, Tom Bishop has worked, or at least has claimed to have worked, harder that anyone at demonstrating that the earth is flat since Rowbotham. To say that he goes no farther than "pointing out that the [e]arth is flat, and other easily provable facts" is unfair. Can any "neo-zetetic" document any experiment of the caliber of the "Bishop Experiment"?

I make no claim that zetetic research is invalid or obsolete. It's just not relevant to bring it up when we're talking about theoretical models. The zetetic model is what we know to be true. The theoretical models are an expansion on that which give potential explanations for other phenomena.
Again, give zetetics their due. You've made a claim that I've highlighted above with which I take issue.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2014, 12:11:44 AM »
What exactly are you taking issue with? Are you claiming that zetetics do make theoretical models? You yourself said otherwise about an hour ago.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2014, 01:52:44 AM »
What exactly are you taking issue with? Are you claiming that zetetics do make theoretical models? You yourself said otherwise about an hour ago.
I've been clear. They do more than you claim when you posted: They do not go farther than pointing out that the Earth is flat, and other easily provable facts.

They do go farther. I even pointed to the Bishop Experiment as a counterexample.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Ghost of V

Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2014, 02:11:26 AM »
I don't understand what point you're trying to make, Gully. Did Tausami do something to offend you or are you just trying to increase your jackass quota for the week?

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2014, 07:31:08 AM »
I don't understand what point you're trying to make, Gully. Did Tausami do something to offend you or are you just trying to increase your jackass quota for the week?
"Zetetics deserve better". Which one of those three words don't you understand?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9768
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2014, 07:38:07 AM »
"Zetetics deserve better".
What, exactly, puts you in the position to determine the social status of people from a group you can't even define?

I never claimed that rejecting SM makes one a "pure zeteticist". I don't even know what one is.

Furthermore, given that you don't even know what a zeteticist is, can you describe the thought process that led you to thinking that they "deserve better"? When you're done with that, please specify what you mean by them "deserving better" - ideally by specifying what it is that they deserve, and how you'd make it better.

Last, but not least, why is this in FED? It looks like a Lounge topic if I'm being generous, but depending on where you're going with all this it may well be AR/your personal blog material.
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 Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2014, 08:01:42 AM »
"Zetetics deserve better".
What, exactly, puts you in the position to determine the social status of people from a group you can't even define?

I never claimed that rejecting SM makes one a "pure zeteticist". I don't even know what one is.

Furthermore, given that you don't even know what a zeteticist is, can you describe the thought process that led you to thinking that they "deserve better"? When you're done with that, please specify what you mean by them "deserving better" - ideally by specifying what it is that they deserve, and how you'd make it better.

Last, but not least, why is this in FED? It looks like a Lounge topic if I'm being generous, but depending on where you're going with all this it may well be AR/your personal blog material.
You misrepresent me. I said I didn't know what Tausami meant by "pure zeteticist". I can readily use Rowbotham's definition of "zetetic".

They deserve better credit for their accomplishments in FET than Tausami gives them. I've already provided my reasons and an example.

The relative merits of the SM versus ZP and their comparative accomplishments in FET deserves debate. Of course, Tausami is welcome to correct me if he (or any of the rest of the AWT theorists) want to renounce SM and tell us all about his new non-zetetic, non-SM process at finding the truth. Maybe he uses micro-psi like another, self-proclaimed advanced, FEer.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9768
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2014, 08:13:03 AM »
I can readily use Rowbotham's definition of "zetetic".
I suppose we'll have to wait for Rowbotham to chime in, then, since you're clearly not interested in using the word in the same sense as everyone else currently does.
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 Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetics Deserve Better
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2014, 01:52:57 PM »
I enjoy a healthy balance of Zetetic (observation-based) thought and the theoretical.  I recognize that my forays into the theoretical could be construed as undermining the principle of Zeteticism, but my thought-experiments are never presented as conjectures claiming to be truth; they are simply (and nominally) that: experiments in thought.

Were I more cell-phone dependent (I am not) I would make an effort to snap more photos whenever I observe something that seems to confirm FET.  I did so during my recent trip to the beach, and made some lovely observations based on the relative positions of the sun and moon, and those results are here.  Of course, as many of us are fond of saying, photos aren't direct evidence.  The direct evidence, unfortunately, was lost as soon as the image left my retina.

I guess the lesson here is "go outside and look at the earth."  It's why I'm a Flat Earth Theorist!