*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2017, 07:36:56 PM »
Please stay on topic.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #41 on: July 17, 2017, 09:10:40 PM »
Quote
It it entirely on-topic.  I was explaining how in the Zetetic method, one is (evidently) allowed to cherry-pick just the experiments you want to prove your pet theory - ignoring the others that have been performed since...where in the Scientific method one must explain ALL of the experiments...not just the ones you like the results of.

It it entirely on-topic.  I was explaining how in the Zetetic method, one is (evidently) allowed to cherry-pick just the experiments you want to prove your pet theory - ignoring the others that have been performed since...where in the Scientific method one must explain ALL of the experiments...not just the ones you like the results of.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 09:14:37 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #42 on: July 18, 2017, 03:19:53 AM »
That has nothing to do with the definition or procedures for those methods. Please refrain from making things up.

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #43 on: September 13, 2017, 04:20:59 PM »
It seems that there's just a basic misunderstanding about the scientific method early in this thread.

1: Make an interesting observation
2: Create a hypothesis that could potentially explain said observation
3: Identify variables that would be testable for said hypothesis
4: Create an experiment that tests the effects of as many variables as you are able to control
5: Assume the null hypothesis (that your initial guess is wrong)
6: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion
7: Accept or reject the null hypothesis and report your findings

Truth isn't in science, it's in philosophy.  Word salads are hard to digest.

CT
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #44 on: September 13, 2017, 08:37:57 PM »
It seems that there's just a basic misunderstanding about the scientific method early in this thread.

1: Make an interesting observation
2: Create a hypothesis that could potentially explain said observation
3: Identify variables that would be testable for said hypothesis
4: Create an experiment that tests the effects of as many variables as you are able to control
5: Assume the null hypothesis (that your initial guess is wrong)
6: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion
7: Accept or reject the null hypothesis and report your findings
8. Try to Publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
9. If peer reviewers agree that you followed the steps properly - then everyone in your field gets to read about it.  If not, then back to steps (1)...(4).
10. Ask other people to attempt to reproduce your experiment.
11. If they agree with your findings - then you're on to something.
12. If they disagree with your findings - then you have to understand why that was.  So back to step (1), (2) or maybe (4).
13. If enough people support your findings - then there will probably be a "meta-study", which (if it agrees with you) will result in widespread acceptance of your hypothesis.
14. People start using the word "Theory" and "Law" with your name in front of it.

These additional steps are crucial.  They are what failed with the Rowbotham experiment.  Even if he did steps 1..9 correctly, he skipped steps 10 through 14.   When people decided to reproduce his experiment - they mostly disagreed (step 12!)...and at this point, he should have gone back to step (1):

HYPOTHESIS: The world is flat.
EXPERIMENT: Dover Level experiment.
RESULT: The world is flat!
PUBLICATION: Hey everybody!  It seems from this one experiment that the world may be flat!

REPRODUCTION:  FAIL!  MAYBE!  FAIL! FAIL! SUCCESS! THE OPPOSITE!
CONCLUSION: There is something wrong with the experimental technique - or else the hypothesis is incorrect.


Those last two processes never happened...hence nobody who follows the scientific method can possibly believe that Rowbotham was correct.

A bigger problem comes from another scientific principle - which should have kicked in at about step (2).

Any new hypothesis has to perfectly explain all of the known facts that are explained by preceding theories and laws that would be overturned by it.

In this case, Rowbotham should have asked how his hypothesis can explain many of the things in this thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0 - and if his hypothesis could not explain them (and it cannot) - then he need not even have bothered doing the experiment because any conclusions that come from it are not remotely credible.