[Tom Bishop]

It's easier for me if I keep my notes here and update the thread with content as I go.

Outline:

P1. Define Zetetic: Zetetic method is a method of empiricism where all possibilities considered and all tests tried.

P2. Examples of Zetetc Method in practice. Creation of new medicines is generally based on Zetetic method, for example.

P3. Disclaimer on the meaning of truth and how it generally means the "current truth"

P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.

P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.

P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.

[Thork]

Scientific method is very questionable. Even mainstream media when honest about it, can't justify it.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/10/28/scientific-method-myth/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20AllDiscovermagazinecomContent%20%28All%20DISCOVERmagazine.com%20stories%29#.VkxpSDZOdhE

[Tom Bishop]

Thank you, Thork. I am gathering some notes for this chapter.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1252998#msg1252998

How can you use a "theory" to better understand the universe? 

Universal accelerator theory, bendy light theory, flat earth theory, etc. Which side are you on again?

A theory doesn't help you understand the universe. A theory is a theory, a possible explanation for how things are. How does a possible explanation help you understand anything?

That aside, in the illustration is all wrong.

Scientific Method is

Ask a Question -> Create a Hypothesis -> Perform an Experiment to prove hypothesis true -> Conclusion.

(Note that in the scientific method you never attempt to prove your hypothesis false or competing hypothesis' true)

The Zetetic Method is

Ask a question -> Perform a series of experiments to test and compare known possible results -> Conclusion

The Zetetic Method is clearly superior, as you are testing contradicting possibilities rather than a single possibility and drawing a conclusion the first time you get a positive result. The Scientific Method leads you to half-truths and bad science.

[Tom Bishop]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17811.msg312266#msg312266

The Zetetic method throws out previous theories and starts an inquiry afresh.

I believe it was the Wright Brothers who said:

"Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then did we invent the airplane."

[Tom Bishop]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1252998#msg1252998

Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences and relies upon a knowledge of physics and chemistry to understand the observations and build scientific models of stars, planets and galaxies. The scientific method employed by, and the vast amount of scientific discoveries made by astronomers over thousands of years would suggest that you sir... Are talking out if your arse! Again!

Are you saying that astronomers, because they are not real scientists, are too stupid to notice that everything they observe, everything they can measure and deduce is wrong. And that you are right? In all instances. Is that what you are saying Tom?

I'm saying that astronomers only observe and interpret. Pick up any of Stephan Hawking's works and count the number of controlled experiments performed to confirm any of his theories, such as his hypothesis for the metric expansion of space. He does not do any experiments on the universe before publishing his works. Scientists in other professions are expected to perform controlled experiments to come to the truth of the matter, so why not astronomers?

If I knew nothing of chemistry and only observed and interpreted I could come up with all sorts of assumptions to explain why water is wet, why cyanide kills, why oil doesn't mix with water, and why balloons float. That's where astronomers are, trapped in ignorance and assumption. They cannot perform controlled experiments on the universe to come to the truth of the matter as earthly professions can.

You claim that astronomers employ the scientific method, but you are embarassingly wrong. Look up the scientific method sometime. The scientific method demands that experiments be made to confirm the hypothesis.



Astronomers do not perform experiments. They do not follow the scientific method. They are not scientists and worthy of neither praise or credibility.

[Tom Bishop]

So are you saying it's wrong to have initial suspicions about the natural world that compel us to undertake an experiment? The hypothesis is an important step in the scientific method because for the prediction we have to reword it so that it can be demonstrated to objectively match or not match with experimental data.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

[Dionysios]

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

If this helps any, for what it's worth, although I haven't specifically studied it in depth, my historical understanding is that the 'Elements' of the Zeteticist Euclid who was favorably mentioned by Rowbotham were the pillar of the laws of math and science in ancient Greek, Roman, Arab/Muslim, Latin scholastic, and Ottoman civilizations, and the so-called scientific method which focuses on hypothesis rather than truth is that of Francis Bacon of Elizabethan England. Well funded artificial means including colonialism, ownership of the press by a few wealthy people, mandatory education systems by the nineteenth century is how Euclid's book and zeteticism were largely removed from education by the end of the nineteenth century and how Bacon's hypothetical reasoning became so ubiquitous.

A hundred years ago, the atheist muckraker Upton Sinclair wrote a series of excellent six non-fiction books which severely criticized corrupt institutions in the United States particularly exposing how the love of money is at the root of the corruption of these   The 'Goose Step' is about universities. He has another book about grade schools, an outstanding one about fiction in the press, yet another entitled 'The Profits of Religion', etc.

It is my perspective that such books by muckrakers like Upton Sinclair accurately depict the context in which such falsehoods as modern space trips are propagated and widely believed.

George Seldes hard hitting non-conformist 1942 book 'The Facts Are a Guide to Falsehood and Propaganda in the Press and Radio' is based upon and an update of Upton Sinclair's equally severe 1920 expose of the American press.

Albeit not in any sense as politically aware as Sinclair and Seldes, Arthur Koestler's 1950's classic 'Sleepwalkers: Man's Changing Vision of the Universe' may give some insight into the earlier influence of Bacon's flawed philosophy. It's also one of the few books published in the twentieth century which affirms that flat earth teaching was dominant in the Roman Empire from before Constantine's time until the Muslim conquest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleepwalkers

[a187satire]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1252998#msg1252998

Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences and relies upon a knowledge of physics and chemistry to understand the observations and build scientific models of stars, planets and galaxies. The scientific method employed by, and the vast amount of scientific discoveries made by astronomers over thousands. .

Hey check this video out 8 min in.

It shows the way flat earth was actually created due to new understanding in physics! Watch the whole series and this new understanding of physics will explain so many things beyond the flat earth. This is the irrefutable proof we needed.

[Tom Bishop]

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40016.30

The Scientific Method says that one must hypothesize first and then create an experiment around that hypothesis.

The Zetetic Method says that one must experiment first, letting the results speak for themselves.

Medical chemists certainly use the Zetetic Method for creating drugs. See the Folding at Home project. The project goes through a rapid series of different configurations to see what works and what does not.

Experiment first, conclude after. That's how the truth is found.

When you hypothesize first and create an experiment around that hypothesis your experiment is fallacious because you are deliberately proving whatever you are trying to prove. Finding the absolute truth of the matter has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. With the Scientific Method you are attempting to prove your idea true.

[Tom Bishop]

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45469.0

Huh, what has modern science ever done for us? Apart from the aqueduct. And sanitation. And the roads. And irrigation... medicine... education... polio vaccinations... lasers... microchips... aircraft... the internet... funny how all that stuff works flawlessly... except when it proves the Earth is a sphere and then suddenly "nooo, thats a NASA microchip <hushed voice>you can't trust it...</hushed voice>".

Some of those things may have been developed using Zetetic methodology without the person aware that they were using it.

[Tom Bishop]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45714.35

then made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work.

Rowbotham's explanations for the sun and moon are based on direct empirical observation. Rowbotham does not guess at what he cannot observe. For example, Rowotham freely admits that he cannot guess at what causes the sun to move in its particular North-South patterns throughout the year because to guess without evidence - to hypothesize - is against the Zetetic Philosophy. Empirical evidence is required for all explanations

TB the book is all opinion after chapter 2 not fact :/ but when you believe something strongly you see what you want to see

Rowbotham presents two kinds of evidence in Earth Not a Globe. He presents experimental evidence and he presents empirical evidence. His water-convexity tests are experimental in nature while the rest of his work beyond Chapter 2 is empirical in nature.

For example; Rowbotham notes that deep coal mines tend to get hotter with depth. The deepest mines in Britain have steam pouring out of them constantly; as it gets hot enough for the air to condense. It is not possible to go into the mines without heavy protective gear and masks.

From this Rowbotham concludes, empirically, that the earth gets hotter with depth, as the weight of the earth causes compression and heat. Rowbotham further concludes that at some deeper depth the compression must be so great that rock liquefies; into a substance akin to the fiery magma which has been seen to erupt from volcanoes. Hence, the earth must be riding atop a great ocean of liquid magma, and there must be great quantities of liquid rock beneath us; an unprecedented notion for Rowbotham's time.

this is what i wanted to discuss before with you i found the first champter very intresting but he makes many presumtions after that.

Rowbotham backs up his conclusions about the workings of the world with empirical evidence, not mere presumption.

[Algebraist]

This is a better representation of the ongoing scientific method. I think there is a lot of misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the scientific method in the above thread.

[Algebraist]

From the above diagram you can see how many scientific processes work. In astronomy the large part of the work is observation and documenting those observations. This in isolation isn't the scientific method but it is a vital part of it. The science method is completed when you make theories to interpret what you've observed and then test those to determine if they are correct. I'm fine if you want to call the observation part of this also the Zetetic method but it's really not science without the testing and refinement of theories. The test or experiment crucially needs to have the power to either prove or disprove the theory.

An example is, I theorise that the Stars I observe are like our sun but a lot further away. This theory could originate from observations already made. Experiments to test this include methods to determine the distance to the star and analysis of the starlight etc. They would need to be replicable so others can verify your results.

[Tom Bishop]

From the above diagram you can see how many scientific processes work. In astronomy the large part of the work is observation and documenting those observations.

Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology.

[Algebraist]

I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

[Tom Bishop]

I had accidentally edited your post instead of creating a new one. I restored your comment.

I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Astronomers were certainly not putting the universe under controlled conditions when coming up with their theories. Chemists can put their subject matter under controlled experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomers cannot. That is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

It is said that Astronomy is an "observing science," but an observing science is not really a science at all. We need actual experiments that demonstrate theories to be true. Otherwise they are just stories, no different than the stories African tribes have for the nature of the stars above them.

[Algebraist]

I had accidentally edited your post instead of creating a new one. I restored your comment.

I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Astronomers were certainly not putting the universe under controlled conditions when coming up with their theories. Chemists can put their subject matter under controlled experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomers cannot. That is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

It is said that Astronomy is an "observing science," but an observing science is not really a science at all. We need actual experiments that demonstrate theories to be true. Otherwise they are just stories, no different than the stories African tribes have for the nature of the stars above them.

Although you can't put the planets or stars physically in the lab you can carry out experiments on them. Most experiments are observations carried out in a controlled way. It may be easier to observe something in a lab but observations and therefore experiments can in reality be carried out on virtually anything if you have the right equipment and opportunity. It's true in the outside world it's more difficult to control the conditions however instead you need to monitor and record detail what you have done to take the observations and the conditions under which it has been done so others can replicate what you've done and critique your experiment. Take this example (which I have some part experience with from my school and university days)

1. "Burn" samples of different known elements or compounds. Observe the spectra of the light given off by each (the strength of the light given off at different wave lengths, this can be visible and non visible spectrum). This gives a fingerprint for light emitted by each element (based on certain absorption and emission lines at certain wave lengths). Actually this fingerprint can now be determined theoretically by quantum mechanics!
2. Burn an unknown substance and analyse the spectrum of the light and use the known light fingerprints to determine the composition of the substance.
3. You can double check the results of 2 by using other chemical methods to analyse the compound - this confirms or disproves the veracity of method 2
4. You can detect and analyse the spectrum of light from a star using a powerful telescope and use method 2 to determine the composition of the star. It's true that as not in a lab, 4 needs greater thought. For example the star moving in relation to the earth and light travelling through the atmosphere can effect results so you need to also understand how that effect influences what you see. This can be checked by other experiments.

Anyway that's just one example of an astronomical experiment there are many many more you can read about if you so wish.

Actually surely one good thing about astronomy is that virtually anyone can get involved. All you really need is a good telescope and some dedication to do observations. Thus it's good for the Zetetic method for one.

[Tom Bishop]

Although you can't put the planets or stars physically in the lab you can carry out experiments on them. Most experiments are observations carried out in a controlled way.

Observations are not experiments. They are observations. The very purpose of experimentation is to reveal the truth behind an observation. To experiment is to isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence. It is entirely different than a mere observation.

Take this example (which I have some part experience with from my school and university days)

1. "Burn" samples of different known elements or compounds. Observe the spectra of the light given off by each (the strength of the light given off at different wave lengths, this can be visible and non visible spectrum). This gives a fingerprint for light emitted by each element (based on certain absorption and emission lines at certain wave lengths). Actually this fingerprint can now be determined theoretically by quantum mechanics!
2. Burn an unknown substance and analyse the spectrum of the light and use the known light fingerprints to determine the composition of the substance.
3. You can double check the results of 2 by using other chemical methods to analyse the compound - this confirms or disproves the veracity of method 2
4. You can detect and analyse the spectrum of light from a star using a powerful telescope and use method 2 to determine the composition of the star. It's true that as not in a lab, 4 needs greater thought. For example the star moving in relation to the earth and light travelling through the atmosphere can effect results so you need to also understand how that effect influences what you see. This can be checked by other experiments.

We have no idea what exotic substances the star may be made of. We need an experiment, not a jump to a conclusion.

Thomas Winship speaks about Spectrum Analysis in his book Zetetic Cosmogony:

https://archive.org/stream/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog#page/n20/mode/2up

SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

is relied upon as proving this. A prism is placed in position
so as to intercept the sun's rays, and the colours seen through
this instrument, red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the
result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of
fusion, emitting their several colours in the combined sun-
light, which total light is decomposed into its component
colours by the prism.

With the object of testing the conclusions arrived at by
the learned relative to spectrum analysis, several experiments
were made by the writer. The light of the sun on a clear
day, about noon, seen through the prism disclosed the various
colours that can be seen through this instrument. On a hazy
day before sunset the colours seen were the same but very
faint. Light from a lighthouse and a star seen through the
prism, showed the colours to be the same, the colour from
the light of the star being much less brilliant than that from
the lighthouse. Light from a parafine street lamp gave the
same result as light from a star or the sun, only much fainter.
Then the electric light was tried. A large street lamp of
great power and several others of less power gave the same
result as the sun, star, lighthouse, and street lamp, but in
various degrees of brilliancy according to the power of the
light. Even a candle gave a very faint yellow-blue tinge, so
slight that it had to be looked at for some time before any-
thing but blue was apparent.

If, therefore, it be argued that spectrum analysis proves
that the sun is made of the same metals as we find in the
earth, and that, therefore, the earth is a product of evolution
then it is equally clear that the electric light and the glass
shade of the lamp which encases it are really composed of
iron and various other metals in a state of fusion, constituting
indeed, a globe of glowing vapour, and not glass, carbon,
etc, at all. It is also as reasonable to conclude that the
paraffine lamp and the candle are composed of metals in a
state of fusion and that there is in reality no paraffine, no
glass, no tallow, and no wick. That is to say, known facts be
thrown aside, common sense stultified, and reason
dethroned in order to bolster up the unprovable assumptions
of modern science relative to the doctrine of evolution
as applied to the earth and the heavenly bodies.

[garygreen]

SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

is relied upon as proving this. A prism is placed in position
so as to intercept the sun's rays, and the colours seen through
this instrument, red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the
result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of
fusion, emitting their several colours in the combined sun-
light, which total light is decomposed into its component
colours by the prism.

that a very poor description of how spectral analysis works.  there are three kinds of spectra: continuous, emission, and absorption.  astronomers study the photosphere of the sun using absorption spectra.  an absorption spectrum is produced when light emitted by hot, dense material passes through a cooler, less dense medium before being broken up by a prism.  when it passes through the cooler medium, some wavelengths of the light are 'absorbed' by atoms the medium; these wavelengths will be 'missing' from the spectrum produced by the prism.  which wavelengths are absorbed depends only on the chemical composition of the medium.

in other words, astronomers are interested in the missing wavelengths, not the continuous spectrum of colors.  the colors one sees from the prism are not the result of the fusion of metals in the core.  hot, dense material emits light at all wavelengths, and that's where the colors come from.  it has nothing to do with fusion.  it only has to do with the source of light being very hot.  see: blackbody radiator.

the relationship between chemical composition and spectral features most certainly can be, and has been, verified experimentally in laboratory settings.

side note: the sun isn't made of metals.  the mass fraction of all the elements in the sun that aren't hydrogen and helium is only ~2%.

[Tom Bishop]

that a very poor description of how spectral analysis works.  there are three kinds of spectra: continuous, emission, and absorption.  astronomers study the photosphere of the sun using absorption spectra.  an absorption spectrum is produced when light emitted by hot, dense material passes through a cooler, less dense medium before being broken up by a prism.  when it passes through the cooler medium, some wavelengths of the light are 'absorbed' by atoms the medium; these wavelengths will be 'missing' from the spectrum produced by the prism.  which wavelengths are absorbed depends only on the chemical composition of the medium.

in other words, astronomers are interested in the missing wavelengths, not the continuous spectrum of colors.

You're talking nonsense. With three primary colors red, blue, and yellow, mixing red and blue makes magenta. You can call magenta a combination of red and blue or you can call it an absence of yellow.