... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.
True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorise about it.
"Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among 'multiple working hypotheses,' has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you simply run with the idea that caught your fancy." -Carl Sagan The Demon Haunted World
Many round Earth proponents think like this. They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance. They do not think of other explanations. They ignore evidence to the contrary and stick to their notions. Interestingly, here is the footnote to this exurb...
"This is a problem that effects jury trials. Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early -- perhaps during the opening arguments -- and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence. The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads."
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.
Before testing, there's a research step. All too often, FEers don't do the research to understand what others have done.
Then experimental design requires the construction of tests that test each working hypothesis. So let's say you hypothesize that what you experience as gravity is actually the UA. What tests would you run to determine if UA is the cause? How about the Cavendish result? How about this guy's ideas:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/. And this:
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2005/2005-07-01/feature1/index.html.
It sure seems to me that there's plenty of ways to move ahead with testing FET.
The recent "Where is the accurate FE map?" thread points to another test. If FE is right and the NP is the center of the map, then certain distances should vary between FE and RE. Why not measure them and see which is correct?
The hypothesis that a telescope restores the 'sunken hull' effect should be easy enough to test with nothing more than a borrowed pair of binoculars. Why is it FEers either lie about the results or can't afford to perform the experiment? If you follow Sagan's advice, you'd be eager. Heck, if you can't get to the seashore, then just have someone take a photograph of the event for you. Then if a magnifying glass restores the hull in the picture for you then this wild idea is correct. If not, well, you know.