Does FET Follow the Zetetic Method?

There have been a few threads on the zetetic method lately, including some that seek to show it is better than the typical scientific method. Certainly, FEers commonly say they're following the zetetic method.

So what is the zetetic method? Summed up:

• Ask a question about the world: that is, know what it is you want to know about
• Design and conduct an experiment based on said question, and note the results
• Form a possible explanation for the results of said experiment

This varies from the typical scientific method, in that steps 2 and 3 are reversed. The normal scientific method would involve coming up with a hypothesis, a prediction for the experiment, beforehand. FEers say the zetetic method is favoured because you avoid going in with preconceptions.

Ignoring the debate on which method is better, for now, do you believe FEers follow the standard of inquiry they champion?

From my perspective, it seems to be selectively applied. They may have no preconceptions for basic experiments, such as looking at the window, but as soon as you get to anything much more advanced than that, they rely on a pre-established hypothesis of a flat Earth and thus do away with what was claimed to be the core of the zetetic method.

There have been a few threads on the zetetic method lately, including some that seek to show it is better than the typical scientific method. Certainly, FEers commonly say they're following the zetetic method.

So what is the zetetic method? Summed up:

• Ask a question about the world: that is, know what it is you want to know about
• Design and conduct an experiment based on said question, and note the results
• Form a possible explanation for the results of said experiment

This varies from the typical scientific method, in that steps 2 and 3 are reversed. The normal scientific method would involve coming up with a hypothesis, a prediction for the experiment, beforehand. FEers say the zetetic method is favoured because you avoid going in with preconceptions.

Ignoring the debate on which method is better, for now, do you believe FEers follow the standard of inquiry they champion?

From my perspective, it seems to be selectively applied. They may have no preconceptions for basic experiments, such as looking at the window, but as soon as you get to anything much more advanced than that, they rely on a pre-established hypothesis of a flat Earth and thus do away with what was claimed to be the core of the zetetic method.

Yawn.

All flat earthers by definition have an initial hypothesis, that the earth is flat. Ask them to prove that the sun accelerates upwards, they will say that it has to because if the earth is an accelerating disk, the sun will have to be accelerating with it. That's not Zetetic, they have an inital hypothesis that the earth is flat and it's accelerating.

All flat earthers by definition have an initial hypothesis, that the earth is flat. Ask them to prove that the sun accelerates upwards, they will say that it has to because if the earth is an accelerating disk, the sun will have to be accelerating with it. That's not Zetetic, they have an inital hypothesis that the earth is flat and it's accelerating.

Agreed, if you start off by asking "Is the earth flat?" and then go about formulating experiments to show the earth is flat, you've started from a position where you've already established a hypothesis that the earth is flat. Going down this path you're hardly going to create experiments that might show the earth is anything but flat, results that may accidentally show anything but a flat a flat earth are discounted as aberration or erroneous.

If one were to approach the Zetetic Method with any degree of honesty one would have to ask "what shape is the earth?" and conduct experiments accordingly without bias to flat or round or any other shape.

What one cannot claim while following either the scientific or zetetic method, is that YouTube or fora are acceptable forms of experimentation 

What one cannot claim while following either the scientific or zetetic method, is that YouTube or fora are acceptable forms of experimentation 

Amen to that.

I suppose it could be claimed that if a flat Earth is established by a previous zetetic experiment (ie: looking out the window) then it can be taken as an assumption. However, then the method seems to be running on dumb luck. After all, if we looked at, say, sunsets or a ship going over a horizon first, then one valid, immediately available explanation of those would be a spherical Earth.
In that case, the zetetic method would support RET, and that would be taken as a starting point.

The problem is that we can't truly be free of biases.

From what I have noticed, most supporters of FE, tend not to follow any method.

They just have an imagined ideology and a lack of understanding of reality. This is often derived from a belief that anybody who does not believe in FE is conspiring against them, or is indoctrinated so deeply into the RE model that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

Question the world: that is, know what it is you are being lied to about. (see youtube videos - proofs of flat earth)
Check online and see if anyone shares your belief then this belief is parroted.
Try to make a globe earth reality fit a flat earth theory. physics and math that don't fit the model are ignored/ miss interpenetrated.
Call "shill" to anyone who critically questions you.

There have been a few threads on the zetetic method lately, including some that seek to show it is better than the typical scientific method. Certainly, FEers commonly say they're following the zetetic method.

So what is the zetetic method? Summed up:

• Ask a question about the world: that is, know what it is you want to know about
• Design and conduct an experiment based on said question, and note the results
• Form a possible explanation for the results of said experiment

This varies from the typical scientific method, in that steps 2 and 3 are reversed. The normal scientific method would involve coming up with a hypothesis, a prediction for the experiment, beforehand. FEers say the zetetic method is favoured because you avoid going in with preconceptions.

Ignoring the debate on which method is better, for now, do you believe FEers follow the standard of inquiry they champion?

From my perspective, it seems to be selectively applied. They may have no preconceptions for basic experiments, such as looking at the window, but as soon as you get to anything much more advanced than that, they rely on a pre-established hypothesis of a flat Earth and thus do away with what was claimed to be the core of the zetetic method.

Let's set up an experiment using the zetetic method.

1. Ask a question: is the earth flat?
2. Design an experiment: go to a small island where the sea can be seen all around. Point a theodolite at the horizon and see what the elevation is.
3. Form a possible explanation for the results: The results show the horizon to be below zero degrees of elevation in every direction. A flat earth doesn't fit this, and is therefore not a possible explanation. A round earth (or a toroidal one) DOES explain these results.

Oh look, the zetetic method does not support flat earth.
However, we forgot the "FE modification" step!

4. If the experiment was not conducted by yourself, but by someone else, refuse to believe it unless it fits with the preconception you shouldn't have in the first place.