#### Tom Bishop

• Moderator
• 2811
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2017, 07:36:56 PM »

#### 3DGeek

• 783
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### 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 »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### Tom Bishop

• Moderator
• 2811
• Flat Earth Believer
##### 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.

#### CriticalThinker

• 159
• Polite and Pragmatic
##### 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

#### 3DGeek

• 783
• Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
##### 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).
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.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

#### AstralSentient

• 71
• Planarist
##### Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #45 on: October 13, 2017, 09:10:19 PM »
I liked Zeteticism as a method, but I really feel it's limitations ruin it, here's my understanding of it:

Zeteticism and the Zetetic Method

Basic explanation found here: https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Zeteticism

The mainstream scientific method involves these main steps:
2.   Do background research
3.   Construct a hypothesis
4.   Test with an experiment
5.   Analyze data and conclusions
6.   Report/communicate results
This would include theories which serve to put data and observations into an explanatory framework with predictive capabilities to determine such success. Any failure in predictions would result in either changing your model or abandoning it altogether. Due to this possibility, it can be abused with bias by altering the model’s parameters that had failed predictive capabilities to fit the data. This is a big problem with the mainstream scientific method; it allows abuse of objective experimental support to fit changeable parameters of a specific developed explanatory framework. A solution to this tendency of bias to corrupt objective inquiry is the Zetetic method.
The Zetetic method is an empirical method of basic scientific inquiry which bases a conclusion on the experiment and observation rather than an adjustable explanatory framework as fit to data (or an initial theory which is to be verified). This removes the potential bias which allows altering of your theory to match and therefore describe reality (the natural world in particular). With Zeteticism, rather than collecting data and adding them to a theory with further predictive capabilities that can be dealt with by adjusting, the conclusion to be derived relies solely on what the experiment was set to determine. Zeteticism is the system of scientific inquiry which is based on the Zetetic method, any person who practices this way of scientific inquiry is a ‘Zeteticist’. There is no ‘hypothesis’ in Zeteticism, such a step is replaced by the results of experimentation/ observation in the Zetetic Method.
The basic Zetetic Method works as follows:
1.   Come up with a question about the world
2.   Design an experiment
3.   Experiment and collect results/data
4.   Draw conclusion from the experiment
5.   Communicate results to others
Such an experiment devised in accordance with the Zetetic method will require the design to include the derivable conclusions planned out. This would count as part of the experiment design, which is included in step #2.

Limitations of Zeteticism
The lack of a hypothesis or theory in Zeteticism will inevitably imply a large limit on explanation and further theoretical based understanding. Zeteticism ignores this; such concepts may likely have no basis in experimentation but rather derived from fitted data or predictions of the theory in use. This means that scientific inquiry is kept inside directly observable phenomena rather than concluding an array of past events from predictive theories.
Zeteticism misses that there may be numerous ways to represent our world. For example, I could presume a flight model that includes a flat and stationary Earth like NASA did, but presume a rotating round earth model in the case of a geosynchronous satellite (whether or not you accept that as real is beside the point). Which is correct? It depends on the purpose. 'Correctness' could only be described in terms of how we represent it, and apply our experimentation and observation.
In Zeteticism, you are faced with an observation/results that require a direct conclusion, but which can be represented distinctly by an alternative framework.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on the 'Zeteticism vs scientific method'.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0