Why do the United Nations and Flat Earth Society have the same Logo?

I don't think he was talking about research.

Wilmore owes us apology for not reading the actual material before speaking on our behalf.

Tom, who the hell is the "us" in this argument? I don't see anyone else leaping to your defence in this Robo-blasphemy argument.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2012, 11:57:08 AM

Wilmore owes us apology for not reading the actual material before speaking on our behalf.

Tom, who the hell is the "us" in this argument? I don't see anyone else leaping to your defence in this Robo-blasphemy argument.

Wilmore owes the aspiring Zetetics on this forum an apology for misinforming them on what the Zetetic beliefs are.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 13, 2012, 11:16:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2012, 11:57:08 AM

Wilmore owes us apology for not reading the actual material before speaking on our behalf.

Tom, who the hell is the "us" in this argument? I don't see anyone else leaping to your defence in this Robo-blasphemy argument.

Wilmore owes the aspiring Zetetics on this forum an apology for misinforming them on what the Zetetic beliefs are.

In other words, imagined people.

I don't think he was talking about research.

If not, then he does not understand what "peer review" means.

Not that that matters, since making up new definitions for old terms is a time-honored tradition around here, as the current discussion exemplifies.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 13, 2012, 11:16:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2012, 11:57:08 AM

Wilmore owes us apology for not reading the actual material before speaking on our behalf.

Tom, who the hell is the "us" in this argument? I don't see anyone else leaping to your defence in this Robo-blasphemy argument.

Wilmore owes the aspiring Zetetics on this forum an apology for misinforming them on what the Zetetic beliefs are.

Wilmore is an aspiring Zetetic.  Does he owe himself an apology?  Is he not allowed to have an opinion of what zeteticism means to him?

Wilmore is an aspiring Zetetic.  Does he owe himself an apology?  Is he not allowed to have an opinion of what zeteticism means to him?

No. He is not allowed to make up what Zeteticism in Earth Not a Globe means. He needs to read the actual source material.

Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2012, 08:03:33 AM

Wilmore is an aspiring Zetetic.  Does he owe himself an apology?  Is he not allowed to have an opinion of what zeteticism means to him?

No. He is not allowed to make up what Zeteticism in Earth Not a Globe means. He needs to read the actual source material.

OK, please be constructive.  Which bit of Wilmore's output do you not agree with?

Lord Wilmore owes me an apology for declaring what I believe without first reading the material.

When have I done that?


I have read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe Tom, but I have to wonder whether or not you have read my Discourse on the Zetetic Method. After all, I was quite clear about the intention and scope of the essay:

I say wish, as I am painfully aware that what I am writing now is little more than a preface to a preface. I do not expect that my discourse will be an absolutely sufficient account of the Zetetic Method, nor that it will be received without dispute or query by my peers, nevermind by our opponents. I only hope to provoke a much needed debate about our methodology; about what Zeteticism is and what it is not. If I can achieve that much, I will consider this essay to have been a success.

I have yet to receive any responses from you, aside from your recent and unjustified demand for an apology. Though at this point I could quite justifiably demand one myself, I will not engage in such churlishness. Rather, I invite you to contribute to the theoretical discourse on the Zetetic Method, and post a thoughtful (if critical) response.

I think it is commendable that Lord Wilmore has gallantly picked up the torch of Zeteticism from where Rowbotham dropped it.  Rigid adherance to dogma can only hold us back.

We're Zeteticists - men of knowledge and self discovery - not zealots that thump musty old tomes and decry all heresy.  There is so much more about this reality we live in that needs to be explored, experienced and discovered.

As it seems there is an impass, perhaps forum user Tom Bishop should form his own online community that more closely aligns with his interpretations?

I think it is commendable that Lord Wilmore has gallantly picked up the torch of Zeteticism from where Rowbotham dropped it.  Rigid adherance to dogma can only hold us back.

We're Zeteticists - men of knowledge and self discovery - not zealots that thump musty old tomes and decry all heresy.  There is so much more about this reality we live in that needs to be explored, experienced and discovered.

As it seems there is an impass, perhaps you should form your own online community that more closely aligns with your interpretations?

Though I appreciate your endorsement, it is not my desire or intention to exclude anyone, or to set up my views as a new dogma. I believe that Zeteticism is best served by lively argument, debate and discussion. Indeed, I wrote my Discourse on the Zetetic Method with the explicit intention that my analysis and interpretation (which I described as such) might provoke some debate, both about what Zeteticism was/is, and what it should be. I know that John Davis is writing at some length on the subject, and when he publishes his work I will respond with any thoughts or criticisms (constructive or otherwise) that I have. I have no doubt he will engage with me in discussing any issues raised, and that we will be able to debate with one another in a manner and spirit befitting of Zetetics seeking to further knowledge and understanding.


That is my hope, and though I have been the target of some rather unfair attacks by Tom, nothing would please me more than to see him join such a debate in such a spirit. All that can result is greater methodological rigour.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2012, 08:34:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2012, 08:03:33 AM

Wilmore is an aspiring Zetetic.  Does he owe himself an apology?  Is he not allowed to have an opinion of what zeteticism means to him?

No. He is not allowed to make up what Zeteticism in Earth Not a Globe means. He needs to read the actual source material.

OK, please be constructive.  Which bit of Wilmore's output do you not agree with?

Wilmore says that Zetetics need to see the evidence first hand, aka "if I didn't see it, it didn't happen". That's not what Rowbotham says at all. Rowbotham uses hundreds of pieces of third party citations and references throughout his work.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2012, 11:23:34 AM

Lord Wilmore owes me an apology for declaring what I believe without first reading the material.

When have I done that?


I have read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe Tom, but I have to wonder whether or not you have read my Discourse on the Zetetic Method. After all, I was quite clear about the intention and scope of the essay:

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 06, 2011, 01:19:46 PM

I say wish, as I am painfully aware that what I am writing now is little more than a preface to a preface. I do not expect that my discourse will be an absolutely sufficient account of the Zetetic Method, nor that it will be received without dispute or query by my peers, nevermind by our opponents. I only hope to provoke a much needed debate about our methodology; about what Zeteticism is and what it is not. If I can achieve that much, I will consider this essay to have been a success.

I have yet to receive any responses from you, aside from your recent and unjustified demand for an apology. Though at this point I could quite justifiably demand one myself, I will not engage in such churlishness. Rather, I invite you to contribute to the theoretical discourse on the Zetetic Method, and post a thoughtful (if critical) response.

Here is a thoughtful, critical response: It's crap. You failed to read the book, missing the hundreds of instances where third party citations and references are given across many fields. The philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it".

You are speaking on my behalf, if not explicitly. Your doing is causing me to be assaulted by "YOU DIDN'T TAKE THAT PHOTO," etc.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 14, 2012, 10:14:48 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2012, 08:34:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2012, 08:03:33 AM

Wilmore is an aspiring Zetetic.  Does he owe himself an apology?  Is he not allowed to have an opinion of what zeteticism means to him?

No. He is not allowed to make up what Zeteticism in Earth Not a Globe means. He needs to read the actual source material.

OK, please be constructive.  Which bit of Wilmore's output do you not agree with?

Wilmore says that Zetetics need to see the evidence first hand, aka "if I didn't see it, it didn't happen". That's not what Rowbotham says at all. Rowbotham uses hundreds of pieces of third party citations and references throughout his work.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 14, 2012, 10:17:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2012, 11:23:34 AM

Lord Wilmore owes me an apology for declaring what I believe without first reading the material.

When have I done that?


I have read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe Tom, but I have to wonder whether or not you have read my Discourse on the Zetetic Method. After all, I was quite clear about the intention and scope of the essay:

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 06, 2011, 01:19:46 PM

I say wish, as I am painfully aware that what I am writing now is little more than a preface to a preface. I do not expect that my discourse will be an absolutely sufficient account of the Zetetic Method, nor that it will be received without dispute or query by my peers, nevermind by our opponents. I only hope to provoke a much needed debate about our methodology; about what Zeteticism is and what it is not. If I can achieve that much, I will consider this essay to have been a success.

I have yet to receive any responses from you, aside from your recent and unjustified demand for an apology. Though at this point I could quite justifiably demand one myself, I will not engage in such churlishness. Rather, I invite you to contribute to the theoretical discourse on the Zetetic Method, and post a thoughtful (if critical) response.

Here is a thoughtful, critical response: It's crap. You failed to read the book, missing the hundreds of instances where third party citations and references are given across many fields. The philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it".

You are speaking on my behalf, if not explicitly. Your doing is causing me to be assaulted by "YOU DIDN'T TAKE THAT PHOTO," etc.

But Tom, from the book itself:

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

Experiments to "corroborate an already existing state of mind". That sounds awfully like "see for yourself."

Please reread ENAG.

Wilmore says that Zetetics need to see the evidence first hand, aka "if I didn't see it, it didn't happen". That's not what Rowbotham says at all. Rowbotham uses hundreds of pieces of third party citations and references throughout his work.

Actually, I think Rowbotham says precisely that in the first chapter of Zetetic Astronomy. The fact that he elsewhere uses third party accounts as sources does not negate what he says in the first chapter. Moreover, all of those third party accounts are of such a nature that anyone could confirm them independently - precisely what I argue the Zetetic Method is all about.

Here is a thoughtful, critical response: It's crap. You failed to read the book, missing the hundreds of instances where third party citations and references are given across many fields. The philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it".

I have myself cited Rowbotham using third party sources in many posts on this forum, and I maintain that as above, his doing so does not negate what he says in the first chapter of Zetetic Astronomy, nor contradict it.

You are speaking on my behalf, if not explicitly. Your doing is causing me to be assaulted by "YOU DIDN'T TAKE THAT PHOTO," etc.

No, I am not. I explicitly say in the preface that my essay is a work of analysis and interpretation, and I do not necessarily expect other FE'ers to agree with me. It even concludes with a point of disagreement between myself and John Davis. At this point you're embarrassing yourself Tom. I have always emphasised that it is my interpretation, and the section of the preface quoted above clearly states as much. Perhaps if you had bothered to read it, you wouldn't have come in here ludicrously demanding an apology for something that I have not done.

But Tom, from the book itself:

Quote from: ENaG

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

Experiments to "corroborate an already existing state of mind". That sounds awfully like "see for yourself."

Please reread ENAG.

Perhaps you missed the word "not" before your chosen quote. He is saying that experiments should not be conducted to corroborate an already existing state of mind (a specific hypothesis), but of every kind and form bearing on the subject (explore all possibilities), before any conclusion may be drawn.

Rowbotham is deriding the Scientific Method. In the Scientific Method the scientist must ask a question, create a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and if the hypothesis is true, publish your results. You are testing a specific hypothesis rather than competing possibilities.



The flaw in the Scientific Method is that there might be half truths or lesser truths. If you are framing experiments around a single hypothesis you are only testing that specific idea, rather than all ideas.

There are a lot of Zetetic sciences which operate without hypothesis, where experimentation is conducted without working towards a pre-conceived conclusion. 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. When chemists want to know how different chemicals will react to red blood cells, for example, they create rooms and rooms of vials which test each and every result for the desired cause.

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 framing your experiment around whatever you are trying to prove. You might find a half-truth or misdirection. Finding the truth of the matter has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. With the Scientific Method you are attempting to prove your idea (hypothesis) true. In the Scientific Method you're also told to stop experimenting as soon as you get a successful result.

Experimenting without hypothesis = Zetetic Method
Experimenting around a specific hypothesis = Scientific Method

Zeteticism (Empericism) blows the Scientific Method out of the water. While it might not always be the most practical option to test all possibilities before coming to a conclusion, it is certainly the method which will bring the experimenter the closest to truth. The Scientific Method fails because it is based on creating and testing a hypothesis, rather than testing all competing possibilities. Multiple hypothesis' might very well be correct in a particular subject, but the experimenter wouldn't know that, as he was taught in school to publish his result and declare victory as soon as his hypothesis achieves a positive result.

This is what Zeteticism is. It is not "you have to see it to believe it," or any other such nonsense. The text does not say that at all. I am appalled at the poor reading comprehension on this forum.

Zeteticism (Empericism) blows the Scientific Method out of the water.

Zeteticism is not a synonym for empiricism.  In fact, empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2012, 09:24:13 AM

Zeteticism (Empericism) blows the Scientific Method out of the water.

Zeteticism is not a synonym for empiricism.  In fact, empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Quote

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Zeteticism is far more empirical than the Scientific Method. I believe that I just outlined the reasons for why the Scientific Method is limited.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2012, 07:54:02 PM

Wilmore says that Zetetics need to see the evidence first hand, aka "if I didn't see it, it didn't happen". That's not what Rowbotham says at all. Rowbotham uses hundreds of pieces of third party citations and references throughout his work.

Actually, I think Rowbotham says precisely that in the first chapter of Zetetic Astronomy. The fact that he elsewhere uses third party accounts as sources does not negate what he says in the first chapter. Moreover, all of those third party accounts are of such a nature that anyone could confirm them independently - precisely what I argue the Zetetic Method is all about.

Where does Rowbotham say anything like you have to see it for yourself for it to be true? I'm reading the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe right now. I see that Rowbotham is describing Zetetism exactly as I've described, but nothing about the concept of  "you have to see it to believe it" is presented anywhere in the chapter.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2012, 07:54:02 PM

Here is a thoughtful, critical response: It's crap. You failed to read the book, missing the hundreds of instances where third party citations and references are given across many fields. The philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it".

I have myself cited Rowbotham using third party sources in many posts on this forum, and I maintain that as above, his doing so does not negate what he says in the first chapter of Zetetic Astronomy, nor contradict it.

Again, please present the citations where Rowbotham says that you have to see it to believe it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop

You are speaking on my behalf, if not explicitly. Your doing is causing me to be assaulted by "YOU DIDN'T TAKE THAT PHOTO," etc.

No, I am not. I explicitly say in the preface that my essay is a work of analysis and interpretation, and I do not necessarily expect other FE'ers to agree with me. It even concludes with a point of disagreement between myself and John Davis. At this point you're embarrassing yourself Tom. I have always emphasised that it is my interpretation, and the section of the preface quoted above clearly states as much. Perhaps if you had bothered to read it, you wouldn't have come in here ludicrously demanding an apology for something that I have not done.

It does not matter what you insist. It matters how your work is interpreted by others and what happens in reality. In this very thread I was assailed with accusations that I was not following the Zetetic Method and backlinked to your thread, and told to consult you if I didn't like it. So you are speaking for me when you publish what Zeteticism is on this website as an authority figure.

I don't mind you speaking for this forum, I just wish you would get your facts straight.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 16, 2012, 12:30:47 AM

But Tom, from the book itself:

Quote from: ENaG

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

Experiments to "corroborate an already existing state of mind". That sounds awfully like "see for yourself."

Please reread ENAG.

Perhaps you missed the word "not" before your chosen quote. He is saying that experiments should not be conducted to corroborate an already existing state of mind (a specific hypothesis), but of every kind and form bearing on the subject (explore all possibilities), before any conclusion may be drawn.

No, Tom.  You've completely misunderstood what Robo's saying.  "not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind".  In modern terms, he's saying "not only to corroborate an already existing state of mind, but also all other possibilities also."  In other words to both validate existing research and to explore further scenarios.

Please re-read and understand.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2012, 09:24:13 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 16, 2012, 12:30:47 AM

But Tom, from the book itself:

Quote from: ENaG

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

Experiments to "corroborate an already existing state of mind". That sounds awfully like "see for yourself."

Please reread ENAG.

Perhaps you missed the word "not" before your chosen quote. He is saying that experiments should not be conducted to corroborate an already existing state of mind (a specific hypothesis), but of every kind and form bearing on the subject (explore all possibilities), before any conclusion may be drawn.

No, Tom.  You've completely misunderstood what Robo's saying.  "not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind".  In modern terms, he's saying "not only to corroborate an already existing state of mind, but also all other possibilities also."  In other words to both validate existing research and to explore further scenarios.

Please re-read and understand.

That's exactly what I said. Zeteticism is a form of inquiry where not only one possibility is investigated, but all possibilities are investigated, to arrive to the ultimate truths of our universe.

Addition or removal of the word "only" does not change the concept conveyed. Your arguments are reaching.

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2012, 09:36:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2012, 09:24:13 AM

Zeteticism (Empericism) blows the Scientific Method out of the water.

Zeteticism is not a synonym for empiricism.  In fact, empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Quote

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Zeteticism is far more empirical than the Scientific Method. I believe that I just outlined the reasons for why the Scientific Method is limited.

That doesn't change the fact that Zeteticism is not the same thing as empiricism as you had just implied.  Zeteticism uses empiricism in the same way that the scientific method uses empiricism.  I would contend that empiricism is equally important to the scientific method as it is to zeteticism.  The primary difference is lack of a hypothesis in zeteticism which has nothing to do with the empirical nature of the experiments in both methods.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 16, 2012, 09:52:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2012, 09:24:13 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 16, 2012, 12:30:47 AM

But Tom, from the book itself:

Quote from: ENaG

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

Experiments to "corroborate an already existing state of mind". That sounds awfully like "see for yourself."

Please reread ENAG.

Perhaps you missed the word "not" before your chosen quote. He is saying that experiments should not be conducted to corroborate an already existing state of mind (a specific hypothesis), but of every kind and form bearing on the subject (explore all possibilities), before any conclusion may be drawn.

No, Tom.  You've completely misunderstood what Robo's saying.  "not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind".  In modern terms, he's saying "not only to corroborate an already existing state of mind, but also all other possibilities also."  In other words to both validate existing research and to explore further scenarios.

Please re-read and understand.

That's exactly what I said. Zeteticism is a form of inquiry where not only one possibility is investigated, but all possibilities are investigated, to arrive to the ultimate truths of our universe.

Addition or removal of the word "only" does not change the concept conveyed. Your arguments are reaching.

No (again), the word "only" changes the meaning.  He's saying (in other words) "not only re-validate what others have told you, but do other experiments that arrive at an answer".  I've highlighted the key phases:

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

You are saying that existing accounts are part of the Zetetic process.  Robotham is saying don't trust them, check it yourself.  Simple.

That doesn't change the fact that Zeteticism is not the same thing as empiricism as you had just implied.  Zeteticism uses empiricism in the same way that the scientific method uses empiricism.  I would contend that empiricism is equally important to the scientific method as it is to zeteticism.  The primary difference is lack of a hypothesis in zeteticism which has nothing to do with the empirical nature of the experiments in both methods.

Yes, Zeteticiscm is the same thing as Empiricism. You just quoted the definition for Empiricism yourself:

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments."

So, is Zeteticiscm Empiricism? The answer is an unequivocal "yes". I do not see how Zeteticism merely "uses" Empiricism, when the very definition you gave us steps perfectly in line with what it is.

No (again), the word "only" changes the meaning.  He's saying (in other words) "not only re-validate what others have told you, but do other experiments that arrive at an answer".  I've highlighted the key phases:

Quote from: ENaG

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

You are saying that existing accounts are part of the Zetetic process.  Robotham is saying don't trust them, check it yourself.  Simple.

What are you talking about? I did not say anything about existing accounts being a part of the Zetetic Process.

In Rowbotham's quote he is specifically speaking of hypothesis', not prior accounts. How can "an existing state of mind" possibly mean an "existing account"? To not conduct trials with "an existing state of mind" means to do it without framing it around a specific hypothesis.

Your "other words" rephrasing of Rowbotham is completely defunct. "Check for yourself" does not follow from anything which Rowbotham is saying. "Do it yourself" or "Don't trust others" is not stated or implied anywhere at all, anywhere. You are clearly backed into a corner and talking gibberish now.

The fact that hundreds of third party citations are made in Earth Not a Globe demonstrates rather conclusively that this notion of "if you didn't see it, it didn't happen" is not what Zeteticism is about. Rowbotham does not state that concept anywhere in his work, or use it.

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2012, 10:07:43 AM

That doesn't change the fact that Zeteticism is not the same thing as empiricism as you had just implied.  Zeteticism uses empiricism in the same way that the scientific method uses empiricism.  I would contend that empiricism is equally important to the scientific method as it is to zeteticism.  The primary difference is lack of a hypothesis in zeteticism which has nothing to do with the empirical nature of the experiments in both methods.

Yes, Zeteticiscm is the same thing as Empiricism. You just quoted the definition for Empiricism yourself:

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments."

If you accept that zeteticism is the same as empiricism, then you must accept that zeteticism is at the heart of the scientific method because of the scientific method's requirement for empirical experimentation to validate a hypothesis. 

As it is, however, zeteticism and empiricism are not the same because zeteticism is a method of skeptical inquiry while empiricism is philosophy of gaining knowledge through experience.  Zeteticism may use empiricism as a method of inquiry, but the fact that you say that not all zetetic knowledge must come from first hand experience means that empiricism is not the only method of inquiry allowed by zeteticsm.

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2012, 10:07:43 AM

That doesn't change the fact that Zeteticism is not the same thing as empiricism as you had just implied.  Zeteticism uses empiricism in the same way that the scientific method uses empiricism.  I would contend that empiricism is equally important to the scientific method as it is to zeteticism.  The primary difference is lack of a hypothesis in zeteticism which has nothing to do with the empirical nature of the experiments in both methods.

Yes, Zeteticiscm is the same thing as Empiricism. You just quoted the definition for Empiricism yourself:

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments."

So, is Zeteticiscm Empiricism? The answer is an unequivocal "yes". I do not see how Zeteticism merely "uses" Empiricism, when the very definition you gave us steps perfectly in line with what it is.

Quote from: Moon squirter on May 16, 2012, 10:12:19 AM

No (again), the word "only" changes the meaning.  He's saying (in other words) "not only re-validate what others have told you, but do other experiments that arrive at an answer".  I've highlighted the key phases:

Quote from: ENaG

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

You are saying that existing accounts are part of the Zetetic process.  Robotham is saying don't trust them, check it yourself.  Simple.

What are you talking about? I did not say anything about existing accounts being a part of the Zetetic Process.

I refer you to a previous quote:

Wilmore says that Zetetics need to see the evidence first hand, aka "if I didn't see it, it didn't happen". That's not what Rowbotham says at all. Rowbotham uses hundreds of pieces of third party citations and references throughout his work.

You're quite clearing saying that using first hand accounts (citations) is part of Zetetics, because Robothem uses them in ENaG.

Yes, Zeteticiscm is the same thing as Empiricism. You just quoted the definition for Empiricism yourself:

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments."

If you accept that zeteticism is the same as empiricism, then you must accept that zeteticism is at the heart of the scientific method because of the scientific method's requirement for empirical experimentation to validate a hypothesis. 

As it is, however, zeteticism and empiricism are not the same because zeteticism is a method of skeptical inquiry while empiricism is philosophy of gaining knowledge through experience.  Zeteticism may use empiricism as a method of inquiry, but the fact that you say that not all zetetic knowledge must come from first hand experience means that empiricism is not the only method of inquiry allowed by zeteticsm.

Where does Rowbotham say anything like you have to see it for yourself for it to be true? I'm reading the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe right now. I see that Rowbotham is describing Zetetism exactly as I've described, but nothing about the concept of  "you have to see it to believe it" is presented anywhere in the chapter.

Where do I claim that he says "you have to see it to believe it"? Who exactly are you quoting? Because I have never said that. All I have claimed is that Rowbotham's criteria for what constitutes evidence is as follows:

At this point I must return to an issue I left unresolved earlier, as I wished to lay out the largely incontestable aspects of my thesis first. I have mentioned "evidence" and "empirical data" several times in the last few paragraphs, but the former is a highly ambiguous term, and the latter is never used by Rowbotham himself. The most explicit phrase he uses to describe the kind of data required by practioners of the Zetetic Method is "experience and observation" (Rowbotham 1), and even this description is so vague as to require interpretation. I believe that the use of the word "observation" indicates that Rowbotham means something quite different to traditional globularist notion of 'empirical data', which includes photographs, fanciful accounts and all manner of 'evidence' that may not have been observed nor experienced by the person 'verifying' the imaginative theory that has been constructed.


    In contrast, that Zetetics "[learn] from experience and observation" (Rowbotham 1) implies that they make logical deductions based on data they have themselves experienced or observed, and that there must be a direct connection between the data and the person drawing logical conclusions from it. Otherwise, Zetetics would not be making logical deductions on the basis of "experience and observation", but rather from reported experiences or reported observations. In short, the Zetetic Method requires that logical deduction be based upon direct sensorial evidence. This is what separates 'observation' from the globularist notion of empirical data, and it accords with our intuitive understanding of Zeteticism, which sees individual Zetetics conducting experiments and drawing conclusions on that basis, rather than making assumptions or accepting as given the opinions of those with vested interests.

Not only is this not the same as saying "you have to see it to believe it", but moreover it is only one of the three key elements that I believe define the Zetetic Method. In short, I did not say that, and even if I had, it is certainly not all that I said. There is not a single experiment in Zetetic Astronomy that does not satisfy the above criteria. Rowbotham most often uses reported speech to make his claims seem more plausible and to rhetorically strengthen his arguments. However, the experiments themselves all seek to provide direct sensorial evidence that leads logically to the conclusion that the Earth is flat.

Again, please present the citations where Rowbotham says that you have to see it to believe it.

I have never claimed that he said any such thing. Can you provide any quotes of me doing so?

It does not matter what you insist. It matters how your work is interpreted by others and what happens in reality. In this very thread I was assailed with accusations that I was not following the Zetetic Method and backlinked to your thread, and told to consult you if I didn't like it. So you are speaking for me when you publish what Zeteticism is on this website as an authority figure.

I don't mind you speaking for this forum, I just wish you would get your facts straight.

Tom, I frequently deal with RE'ers who present your quotes to me, pointing out that they contradict what I have said about whatever. I also have to deal with people who claim that you said something when in fact you did not. Yet I do not go around demanding apologies from you as a result. Indeed, I have spent the last few days pointing out what you did and didn't say in another thread where your comments were used to attack the society as a whole.


When I speak for this society in a public capacity, I always try to be representative of all FE'ers. However, I am entitled to post my own views in a personal capacity, and I usually clearly mark them as being my views. In this instance I have not only done that, but I have explicitly pointed out that other FE'ers probably disagree with me. It is simply not my fault or responsibility if you or others fail to read my posts and misinterpret their content or nature.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2012, 09:50:02 AM

Where does Rowbotham say anything like you have to see it for yourself for it to be true? I'm reading the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe right now. I see that Rowbotham is describing Zetetism exactly as I've described, but nothing about the concept of  "you have to see it to believe it" is presented anywhere in the chapter.

Where do I claim that he says "you have to see it to believe it"?

Check me if I'm wrong, but isn't "you have to see it to believe it" more or less the basis for empiricism?

Check me if I'm wrong, but isn't "you have to see it to believe it" more or less the basis for empiricism?

Sort of, though that is a gross over-simplification. What's important to note is that empiricism is not a complete methodology, but rather an epistemological theory. In contrast the Zetetic Method is a practical methodology, and it also borrows some elements of rationalism and synthesises them with empiricism. Thus from a combination of these two epistemological frameworks comes a practical methodology. So the Zetetic Method (as I have interpreted it) is clearly a lot more than "you have to see it to believe it".


For example, the scientific method is also grounded in empiricism, but many of its methodological elements have nothing to do with empiricism whatsoever (for example, forming hypotheses). The fact that the scientific method is grounded in empiricism does not mean one can sum it up with the phrase "you have to see it to believe it", because there are other components that make up the methodology. In short, epistemological theories and practical methodologies are two distinct categories.

Spot on Wilmore. 

I often do experiments and research without an hypothesis. Is that not still the scientific method?

There are occasions where we need to have a direction to our research to save money and to reduce the chance of missing something important.

For instance, someone discovers a drug that cures cancer in mice. Should we not test that drug for its possible use in humans?

To do that I have to use a preconceived hypothesis that the drug might work in humans because it worked in mice.