The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Catchpa on May 25, 2010, 09:06:00 AM

Title: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on May 25, 2010, 09:06:00 AM
I'm confused what exactly definies zetetisicm. All I've heard is RE'ers explain it, but FE'ers always say they're a zetetic without explaining what it is.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Skeleton on May 25, 2010, 12:37:49 PM
Zeteticism, if properly followed, would lead to disbelief in a flat earth because it's the philosophy of only believing what your senses tell you, and not accepting data from mechanical or electronic or third party sources. Since your senses tell you you can only see a few miles to the horizon at sea that means a true zetetic would conclude the earth could not be flat, as a flat earth would not have a horizon such as that.
Im not a flatearther though but thats what zeticism is as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Johnny Walker on May 25, 2010, 01:30:35 PM
So in short people in denial?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on May 25, 2010, 01:35:08 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Zeteticism
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on May 25, 2010, 01:38:03 PM
A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on May 25, 2010, 01:41:55 PM
A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

But you're ALREADY biased.  All of FET is based on the "Fact" that the Earth is flat and all data must bend to keep that fact.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on May 25, 2010, 01:44:57 PM
A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

How does a conspiracy fit into this definition?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 25, 2010, 01:55:10 PM
The conspiracy is not a part of FET.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on May 25, 2010, 01:56:28 PM
The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

....

This is probably the WORST thing I've ever heard.
Without the conspiracy, every picture NASA has ever sent would crush all of FET.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: The Question1 on May 25, 2010, 01:58:59 PM
A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.
Sure,maybe if you skipped half the steps.
Namely experiments and interpreting the data.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: smaller on May 25, 2010, 02:00:02 PM
The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

....

This is probably the WORST thing I've ever heard.
Without the conspiracy, every picture NASA has ever sent would crush all of FET.
Dont forget the russian, french, chinese and indian space agencies ad well
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on May 25, 2010, 02:00:22 PM
Please explain, Ichi. Why is the conspiracy not a part of FET? From my perspective, it seems the conspiracy is a neccesity for FET.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 25, 2010, 02:00:55 PM
The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

....

This is probably the WORST thing I've ever heard.
Without the conspiracy, every picture NASA has ever sent would crush all of FET.
NASA is not involved in FET. Their pictures do not affect FET. Same with the other space agencies.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on May 25, 2010, 02:03:27 PM
How so?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 25, 2010, 02:04:57 PM
Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on May 25, 2010, 02:09:04 PM
Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

So you're saying NASA is factual (or at least not lying) but you deliberately ignore everything they say?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Deceiver on May 25, 2010, 02:10:10 PM
A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

Since when? There is a big difference between a null hypothesis and conclusions. The null hypothesis is based on predictions and outside data. The conclusions are based on the results of the experiment. Both of which are based on something that has already been established and proven; the null hypothesis is always rejected when the results contradict it.

Saying that the phases of the moon exist because of biological migration isn't backed by anything except for the fact that the moon appears to have discrete phases. Etc, etc.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Thermal Detonator on May 25, 2010, 02:12:12 PM
A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

In other words, it is nothing whatsoever to do with the shape of the earth and is tarnished as a scientific method by being associated with flat earthers. A bit like the way Tom Cruise's film performances are viewed more critically because you know he's a scientologist.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: smaller on May 25, 2010, 02:12:24 PM
Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

Great,

Look at a picture of earth from space

FET disproved

Site can be closed
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on May 25, 2010, 02:29:26 PM
Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

Why is that?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on May 25, 2010, 02:31:35 PM
The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

You should remove it from the FAQ.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 25, 2010, 02:49:53 PM
A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

And how exactly are conclusions drawn prematurely in the Scientific Method?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 25, 2010, 03:04:18 PM
Can anyone seriously answer my question?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Raebodep on May 25, 2010, 03:10:54 PM
Can anyone seriously answer my question?

I can make up another science for FE'ers to answer your question would you like that? Or you wanna wait for them to give a BS answer?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 25, 2010, 03:12:54 PM
I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2010, 03:43:42 PM
I'm confused what exactly definies zetetisicm. All I've heard is RE'ers explain it, but FE'ers always say they're a zetetic without explaining what it is.

Zetetisicm was made up because normal science didn't fit with a flat earth.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 25, 2010, 03:56:45 PM
I'll take this silence as acknowledgement that there is nothing wrong with the Scientific Method, until someone proves otherwise.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2010, 04:19:09 PM
I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Pseudointellect on May 25, 2010, 04:25:03 PM
I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.

So are you saying it's wrong to have initial suspicions about the natural world that compel us to undertake an experiment? The hypothesis is an important step in the scientific method because for the prediction we have to reword it so that it can be demonstrated to objectively match or not match with experimental data.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2010, 04:28:48 PM
I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.

Hypothesize first leads to either showing something or not showing up something.  If we experiment first then we can conclude whatever we want that happened.  
"A precipitate formed when I added bacl2 to a solution. Must be because the earth is flat."
Se what happens when you just guess as to why something happened?  A hypothesis also leads to the correct experiment being set up and preformed.    
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 25, 2010, 04:51:12 PM
I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.

And that causes one to be biased or not open to other results?  I think not.

The whole purpose of the hypothesis is give allow one to make an educated guess based on the facts they already know.  These educated guesses are usually based off previous knowledge or one's senses.  In a way, Zeteticism is the first step in the Scientific Method.

The next steps are to determine weather your initial 'guess' was correct.  Results are not affected by the Hypothesis; the Scientific Method would work perfectly fine without the hypothesis.  The reason it's there is because it provides trial-and-error type learning; if your guess was wrong the first time, you guess differently based on previous conclusions, in the hope that you will get better at making hypotheses.

With that in mind, the Scientific Method in NO WAY encourages or requires biased experiments or prematurely drawn conclusions; those are the faults of the people doing the experiments, not the fault of the Scientific Method.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: markjo on May 25, 2010, 07:25:59 PM
I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.

Well it kinda helps to have a hypothesis so that you have an idea what the experiment is supposed to prove (or disprove).
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Deceiver on May 25, 2010, 09:02:51 PM
I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.

Dead wrong. We hypothesis so that we know our experiment is valid, and so we know exactly what we are trying to look for instead of just stringing together processes that seem to have some sort of correlation. Recall that correlation =/= causation.

For example, I might want to ask myself, what happens when I mix compound x with compound y.
You can't just blindly do an experiment based on that. You first need to develop a hypothesis. In this case, it would be:
based on stoichiometry principles, compound Z should form. Or perhaps, based on stoichiometry principles, the compounds shouldn't react. You then test it and whalaa, you have results. If you did proper research (or have enough information to make an educated guess) your hypothesis will probably be right. If it isn't, then you have to figure out why it isn't correct and that's where you either do additional reading, or you design another test to isolate some unknown until you understand what's really occurring. That's how the scientific method works Tom. In fact... that's why scientists exist in the first place, to do research about things in which our understanding is not complete.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: smaller on May 25, 2010, 09:36:14 PM
So what does zeteticism say about mirrors?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2010, 11:18:17 PM
So are you saying it's wrong to have initial suspicions about the natural world that compel us to undertake an experiment? The hypothesis is an important step in the scientific method because for the prediction we have to reword it so that it can be demonstrated to objectively match or not match with experimental data.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Deceiver on May 25, 2010, 11:52:39 PM
So are you saying it's wrong to have initial suspicions about the natural world that compel us to undertake an experiment? The hypothesis is an important step in the scientific method because for the prediction we have to reword it so that it can be demonstrated to objectively match or not match with experimental data.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

When you do not form a hypothesis, your conclusions do not have any explanatory power.

Let's try this again Tom, there is a subtle difference.

You first design your experiment around your question. Your hypothesis is why you think your question has a specific answer. This allows to you to isolate specific parameters within your question, and then test against them. The scientific community doesn't care if your hypothesis is wrong, it only cares that your methods are thorough and repeatable and that your conclusions are solidly backed by data and explanation. You can't just say what happened in your conclusions, you have to explain why, which is the purpose of having a very specific, testable hypothesis. That's the purpose and why it has to be well researched before you can formulate it. Once again, you're missing a very important concept: without a hypothesis, all you can say about your experiment is that there is some numerical relationship with whatever variable/s it is you are testing. Repeat -- correlation does not equate to causation.

Referring back to my experiment about using reactants to form products: If I hypothesize that adding the two compounds will create compound Z for whatever reasons, and something else, compound K is created instead, there isn't a chance in hell that I can prove my hypothesis is correct, because adding the two compounds in any sort of fashion will still create a specific reactant. All my hypothesis did was try to explain why those two compounds should create something else, and what it would be. It works as a basis to make sure that my question is not too general. If it was too general, then you would have to design an experiment with more focus, so that you could safely test the validity of your hypothesis without other factors mucking things up.

The experiment addressed a simple question, what happens when I combine compound x with compound y. My hypothesis predicted the outcome, in addition to explaining why that outcome was expected. Calculations exist alongside your hypothesis so that you can make even more specific, quantitative predictions. Even if it did what I more or less expected it to, but it did not quite have the correct energy release or product proportions than I expected, I would have to redesign a test to figure out why it didn't behave as expected, or show that such variance is expected under experimental error using more calculations.

As an example I'll use Ichi's famous plant torture experiments.
He didn't even get the term experiment right, because he has no idea why moonlight 'hurts' plant tissues. He said that moonlight would harm plants, so he could technically look for results that support that (which he did by not explaining how moonlight interacts with the coechlima(sp?) cells specifically). Anyway, that's not a hypothesis, that's just a flat-out guess because it's too vague to have any sort of interpretation of the results. Had he said that some specific property of moonlight will affect a plant via some process that causes X type of cell damage, then that would be a decent falsifiable hypothesis because you could link your outcome to something very specific. But as it stands, moonlight is harmful because it makes cells grow that are 'metabolically intensive' for the plant. Versus cell damage or something that could be remotely interpreted as actual damage or harm. He may as well have said that drinking milk is harmful because it boosts bone growth, which is an indicator that your body needs more structural support.

***

I find it particularly striking that not a single FE'r has given any sort of descriptive definition of Zeteticism. Exactly what is their methodology and how is it superior than the scientific method, given that FE'rs have yet to produce any sort of equations or predictive models -- especially models that explain phenomenon that 'RET' cannot explain itself? How can something that is so void of bias or corruption be true when FE'rs have disagreeing viewpoints about literally everything except the flatness of the earth (IE, not even a consensus on the basic geographical layout of the earth)? And how does conspiracy fit into Zeteticism? Anyone care to address these seriously problematic issues?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 26, 2010, 02:51:39 AM
The hypothesis simply gives purpose to the experiment.  As I said before you, the Scientific Method would work fine without it.  For example, my hypothesis might be "I think the Earth is round because of x.  I will then go test by doing y to see if I was right.

There is no bias; you're simply designing your experiment around your question/hypothesis.  Otherwise, why bother doing the experiment if you have nothing you want proven/answered?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2010, 04:09:32 AM
When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

That's why you design a falsifiable experiment.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 26, 2010, 04:13:27 AM
I'm not sure why you're so against the Scientific Method, other than it's impossible to prove a flat Earth if you use it.  It's really just a refined form of Zeteticism; you form a zetetic-like hypothesis, then determine the truth value of that hypothesis.

In fact, it's just like all of your arguments for FET...

...plus evidence, facts, and conclusions.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on May 26, 2010, 06:23:13 AM
The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

But how can you know what's true without the capacity to define the limits of that truth?

I am looking at the sun!
That's dangerous! Are you attempting to establish the shape of the earth?
Don't bias my experiment fool!
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on May 26, 2010, 06:35:08 AM
So are you saying it's wrong to have initial suspicions about the natural world that compel us to undertake an experiment? The hypothesis is an important step in the scientific method because for the prediction we have to reword it so that it can be demonstrated to objectively match or not match with experimental data.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.
You eliminate the possibilities you want to eliminate.  It's not bias is basic science.  If I want to turn ore into product, I'm not going to sprinkle it on the ground and try to run it over until the ore turns into pure product as to not be bias against running shit over with a car.  I'm going to create a setup a pilot plant that would be small scale to a real mill.  I don't want to take into account  every freaking variable as to not be "bias".   
I have a hypotheses, so I am going to test that hypotheses. Adding A to B creates C.  If there are other variables that could cause C without A or B then they will be tested.

Tom is just not a scientist so he just doesn't get it.   
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2010, 06:38:15 AM
I'm not sure why you're so against the Scientific Method, other than it's impossible to prove a flat Earth if you use it.  It's really just a refined form of Zeteticism; you form a zetetic-like hypothesis, then determine the truth value of that hypothesis.

In fact, it's just like all of your arguments for FET...

...plus evidence, facts, and conclusions.

For some odd reason or other, Zetetics seem to think that "hypothesis" and "conclusion" are synonyms.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 26, 2010, 07:07:35 AM
Exactly...

I don't understand why people like James and Tom think Zeteticism is so superior.  Zeteticism is only the first step in the logica and correct way to answer a question...

1)  Ask a Question
    - Is the Earth flat?

2)  Do Background Research
    - I did some research and found out the Earth is round, but I'm gonna do an experiment anyway.  I'm going to prove using Bendy Light.

3)  Construct (Zetetic) Hypothesis
    - My inner-Zeteticism tells me that light bends, which explains {blah blah blah}, which would prove the Earth is flat.

4)  Test Hypothesis with Experiment
    - I'm going to {blah blah blah}, which if successful, using Bendy Light, shows the Earth is flat.

5)  Analyze Results and Draw Conclusions
    - Crap!  It didn't work.  The research was right; the Earth is round.  But I'm stubborn, so I'll make a different hypothesis, and, using the same question and research, shall repeat the Scientific Method until I am right (which, in this case, will never happen).

I'm not sure where you guys see bias or foregone conclusions... at no point did I say "The Earth is flat, so I'm going to do {blah blah} to prove it...". 

Scientific Method rules; Zeteticism is imcomplete, which therefore makes the majority of the FET incomplete/invalid.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Moon squirter on May 26, 2010, 01:34:45 PM
So are you saying it's wrong to have initial suspicions about the natural world that compel us to undertake an experiment? The hypothesis is an important step in the scientific method because for the prediction we have to reword it so that it can be demonstrated to objectively match or not match with experimental data.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

Tom,

You cannot have an experiment without a hypothesis.   It's one of the biggest myths you peddle.  Otherwise it's an observation.  Now there's nothing wrong with observations, but there is when they are called "experiments".

Rowbothem attempts to demonstrate that the earth is not a globe.  He is testing the idea that the earth is not a globe, because that is what he suspects.  He dresses it up in Zetetic pseudocrap (or "inquiry" as he puts it), but he's still testing an idea.   He didn't just wake up one morning and say "I wonder what shape the earth is".  Instead he woke up and said, "the earth looks flat, now how can I proved it".
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Raebodep on May 26, 2010, 01:55:14 PM
   He didn't just wake up one morning and say "I wonder what shape the earth is".  Instead he woke up and said, "the earth looks flat, now how can I proved it".


Haha this is win. Even though I want to believe in the FET their whole how to make your own theory thing is BS to me.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on May 26, 2010, 06:24:46 PM
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 26, 2010, 07:05:59 PM
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

Mind sharing your ideas on the flaws of Scientific Method?  Because I'm pretty sure we ruled them all out...
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Sliver on May 26, 2010, 07:19:45 PM
Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

So you're saying NASA is factual (or at least not lying) but you deliberately ignore everything they say?
Come on, Ichi.  Answer this one, please!
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 27, 2010, 04:16:17 AM
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

Mind sharing your ideas on the flaws of Scientific Method?  Because I'm pretty sure we ruled them all out...

^  Ditto on this one.  Your stupid Zeteticism pisses me off.  ^
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Thermal Detonator on May 27, 2010, 04:56:47 AM
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

This is an admission that Zeteticism is useless, then.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 27, 2010, 05:08:24 AM
Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

So you're saying NASA is factual (or at least not lying) but you deliberately ignore everything they say?
Come on, Ichi.  Answer this one, please!

What he is asking has nothing to do with what I said. NASA IS lying.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: The Question1 on May 27, 2010, 05:12:28 AM
The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

....

This is probably the WORST thing I've ever heard.
Without the conspiracy, every picture NASA has ever sent would crush all of FET.
NASA is not involved in FET. Their pictures do not affect FET. Same with the other space agencies.
You said here that the conspiracy is not involved with FET.Except it HAS to be otherwise the photos are real and FET is disporven.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 27, 2010, 05:16:02 AM
The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

....

This is probably the WORST thing I've ever heard.
Without the conspiracy, every picture NASA has ever sent would crush all of FET.
NASA is not involved in FET. Their pictures do not affect FET. Same with the other space agencies.
You said here that the conspiracy is not involved with FET.Except it HAS to be otherwise the photos are real and FET is disporven.
Again, what effect does their photos have on FET? None. Does any FE er change his ideas and model of the Earth because of NASA? No. Is NASA a factor at all when FE ers experiment or come up with new theories? No. Is NASA or their claims taken into account when detailing the FE? No.
The conspiracy simply wants to claim different than FET. It is not a part of FET.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on May 27, 2010, 05:18:25 AM
Again, what effect does their photos have on FET? None.

You are totally right. Apart from the bit where they disprove the whole idea.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Sliver on May 27, 2010, 05:24:12 AM
Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

So you're saying NASA is factual (or at least not lying) but you deliberately ignore everything they say?
Come on, Ichi.  Answer this one, please!

What he is asking has nothing to do with what I said. NASA IS lying.
I got it.  You say NASA has nothing to do with FET because you simply ignore everything the put out there by calling it a lie.  Now, since you've branded it a lie, you do not have to address it in any way.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 27, 2010, 05:34:20 AM
If something/someone has an opposing viewpoint in regards to a theory it is still separate from the theory itself.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Sliver on May 27, 2010, 05:49:34 AM
If something/someone has an opposing viewpoint in regards to a theory it is still separate from the theory itself.
Even if they have evidence that proves your theory wrong?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on May 27, 2010, 05:55:31 AM
If something/someone has an opposing viewpoint in regards to a theory it is still separate from the theory itself.

A. Sickness is transmitted by bad smells! We must douse ourselves in lavender oil!
B. No sickness is transmitted by airborne viruses and bacteria. Cleanliness and hygiene are required!
A. Your opposing viewpoint in regards to my theory is still separate from my theory!
B. ???
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 27, 2010, 06:01:43 AM
Correct, the theory of sickness caused by viruses and bacteria is separate and different than the theory of sickness caused by bad smells.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on May 27, 2010, 06:32:37 AM
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

Mind sharing your ideas on the flaws of Scientific Method?  Because I'm pretty sure we ruled them all out...

Yes username please do. 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 27, 2010, 07:11:33 AM
Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

So you're saying NASA is factual (or at least not lying) but you deliberately ignore everything they say?
Come on, Ichi.  Answer this one, please!

What he is asking has nothing to do with what I said. NASA IS lying.

About that...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39153.60

Mind carrying on the discussion about NASA there?  The FE'ers must've stopped responding when they realized I was right.  I'd be delighted to carry on debating with you.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 27, 2010, 07:15:00 AM
Carry on debating with me? I dont think I even posted in that thread. Besides it looks like Vongeo is entertaininng your questions just fine.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 27, 2010, 07:36:10 AM
Carry on debating with me? I dont think I even posted in that thread. Besides it looks like Vongeo is entertaininng your questions just fine.

No, he stopped, and all his arguments were not thought out and completely wrong.  I'd rather pick up the conversation with you to see what you have to say.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Thermal Detonator on May 27, 2010, 07:43:20 AM
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

Mind sharing your ideas on the flaws of Scientific Method?  Because I'm pretty sure we ruled them all out...

Yes JOHN DAVIS please do. 

Fixed.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on May 27, 2010, 09:32:52 AM
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

Mind sharing your ideas on the flaws of Scientific Method?  Because I'm pretty sure we ruled them all out...

Yes JOHN DAVIS please do.  
Fixed.
He was correct.  I'd quit using one word posts trying to be clever if I were you.

I'm leaving ofr a meeting and will respond to the quoted post when I return.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on May 27, 2010, 09:59:58 AM
Correct, the theory of sickness caused by viruses and bacteria is separate and different than the theory of sickness caused by bad smells.

Uh huh. One has supporting evidence, the other doesn't.

Idiotic denial get you nowhere.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 27, 2010, 12:49:46 PM
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

Mind sharing your ideas on the flaws of Scientific Method?  Because I'm pretty sure we ruled them all out...

Yes JOHN DAVIS please do.  
Fixed.
He was correct.  I'd quit using one word posts trying to be clever if I were you.

I'm leaving ofr a meeting and will respond to the quoted post when I return.

I'll be counting the moments.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: brathearon on May 27, 2010, 02:03:56 PM
its nearly impossible, if not useless, to experiment without a hypothesis.  Although it is possible, it rarely happens, and im not sure people would call those hypothesisless experiments.

would anyone here experiment to see if lets say, copper was a superconductor?  Well, thats a hypothesis right there.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: The Question1 on May 27, 2010, 02:10:16 PM
The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

....

This is probably the WORST thing I've ever heard.
Without the conspiracy, every picture NASA has ever sent would crush all of FET.
NASA is not involved in FET. Their pictures do not affect FET. Same with the other space agencies.
You said here that the conspiracy is not involved with FET.Except it HAS to be otherwise the photos are real and FET is disporven.
Again, what effect does their photos have on FET? None. Does any FE er change his ideas and model of the Earth because of NASA? No. Is NASA a factor at all when FE ers experiment or come up with new theories? No. Is NASA or their claims taken into account when detailing the FE? No.
The conspiracy simply wants to claim different than FET. It is not a part of FET.
Thier photos prove the earth is round,in direct opposition to FET.Of course no FE er is going to change because of NASA,they BELIEVE its a conspiracy,otherwise they wouldn't think the earth is flat.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 27, 2010, 03:17:40 PM
Make a link outta this everyone, we win...

...until a FE'er responds?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on May 28, 2010, 02:44:05 PM
The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 28, 2010, 03:02:35 PM
The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

In what way are they compromised due to money?  The Scientific Method is the only way to prove something indefinitely.  Zeteticism, however, allows for huge margins of error and seriously blurs the line between guessing and reality.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on May 28, 2010, 03:20:25 PM
The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

A biased?
More like a condition.

Science:
IF X show Y then Z else not Z

Zet:
X show Y so Z
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on May 28, 2010, 04:57:08 PM
The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.
Here is a simple question.

A supermarket is out of apples.  How is zetetiscm going to figure out why they are out of apples better than the scientific method? 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: markjo on May 28, 2010, 09:19:41 PM
The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

Not at all.  In fact, scientists tend to learn more when their experiments fail.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on May 29, 2010, 05:18:41 AM
The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

Oh, I see you're confusing bias with hypothesis.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: onetwothreefour on May 30, 2010, 12:24:55 AM
ZETETICISM DOESN'T EXIST.

All the "research" FEer's do is done with a hypothesis in mind. The hypothesis??? "The earth must be flat therefore..."

Fill in the blank with any number of the ridiculous things done on this website without any evidence, but rather with the BIAS of FET.

-The FET map
-Rowbotham's Canal studies
-The cycle of the sun
-UA
-Sky Mirror
-Anti-moon
-The moon as a flat disc
-The Ice Wall
-How GPS works
-Flight Times

It's insanity. You guys are literally insane to think that WE are the ones without evidence. You contradict all the things that are imperial and true in this world with NON-evidence.

There is no such thing as Zeteticism because there is no such thing as a person without bias. At least the scientific method tries to account for bias by using checks and balances.

If I have to start with one thing, FE has to admit that their map isn't zetetic. It's a complete farce.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on May 30, 2010, 07:25:59 AM
And the FE'ers say that we make more assumptions then them.  What a load of crap.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: onetwothreefour on May 30, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
Please show me the zetetic evidence supporting the FE map.

Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Ellipsis on May 30, 2010, 11:09:49 PM
In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.

Without a hypothesis, how do you know what you're testing for?

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

Stop lying.  It ISN'T attempting to prove a hypothesis true.  It accepts both evidence for and against the hypothesis.  Stop projecting your own confirmation bias onto the method that cures your illnesses.

The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

You need to stop lying too--or learn what the word "bias" means.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on May 31, 2010, 12:52:08 AM


The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

You need to stop lying too--or learn what the word "bias" means.

All username did was repeat what tom said and then ran away.  They can't prove anything. 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Thermal Detonator on May 31, 2010, 03:03:08 AM


The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

You need to stop lying too--or learn what the word "bias" means.

All username did was repeat what tom said and then ran away.  They can't prove anything. 

That's all JOHN DAVIS did too.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on May 31, 2010, 03:52:39 AM
That's all JOHN DAVIS did too.

I think sokarul is subtly pointing out that "username" used to be an alias of "John Davis".
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: markjo on May 31, 2010, 08:29:11 AM
*sigh*  John Davis used to be Username.  James used to be Dogplatter.  Parsifal used to be RoboSteve.  Some old timers around here still use their older usernames.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: onetwothreefour on June 01, 2010, 04:14:24 AM
So...the FE map isn't Zetetic?

 ??? ??? ??? ::) ::) ::) ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on June 01, 2010, 04:38:14 AM
Nothing here is zetetic, except from the "I look out my window- whoops, it's flat outside! The earth is flat!!". Everything else is based on that assumption, and therefore not zetetic.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 01, 2010, 06:32:07 AM
I posted this in another thread:

The only part of FET which seems to be "zetetic" is that the ground appears flat in your own small viewing area.

Everything else (The UA, antimoon, sub-moon, bendy light, bioluminescent sun and moon, the ice wall, the conspiracy even though they state that it isn't actually part of the theory, harmful moonlight, the earth magically not producing a gravitational field, electrostatic repulsion keeping the stars planets and sun aloft, any map they can come up with, etc.) are theories with not even observational evidence to back them up, therefore are anti-zetetic. To make any of these predictions, you must first assume that the earth is flat, and that the RE explanations are wrong, which zeteticism forbids.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Thermal Detonator on June 01, 2010, 07:32:23 AM
Nothing here is zetetic, except from the "I look out my window- whoops, it's flat outside! The earth is flat!!". Everything else is based on that assumption, and therefore not zetetic.

Even that isn't zetetic because the earth doesn't look like a flat plane out of the window. The sea horizon would be a lot further away and gradually fade out rather than being a sharp line like it is if it looked flat.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: onetwothreefour on June 02, 2010, 06:53:06 AM
So...the FE map isn't Zetetic?

 ??? ??? ??? ::) ::) ::) ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 02, 2010, 06:55:18 AM
So...the FE map isn't Zetetic?

 ??? ??? ??? ::) ::) ::) ??? ??? ???

Smiley face overload. 

And no, it's not Zetetic.  Because the FE map doesn't even exist yet.  Better yet, it's not even possible.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: onetwothreefour on June 03, 2010, 09:46:28 PM
The Zetetic proof for the FE map, please.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 04, 2010, 03:22:47 PM
The Zetetic proof for the FE map, please.

"Zetetic proof" is an oxymoron.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 04, 2010, 03:31:59 PM


The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

You need to stop lying too--or learn what the word "bias" means.

All username did was repeat what tom said and then ran away.  They can't prove anything. 
I'm sorry that Tom's beliefs concerning the method align with my own.  Really it should be no surprise.  I'd hardly call it running away though, but if that makes you feel better about using a sub-par epistemologically flawed method so be it.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 04, 2010, 03:32:57 PM
The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

You need to stop lying too--or learn what the word "bias" means.
It seems anytime you get in over your head you resort to just calling me a liar.  Do you have any evidence to back up your outlandish claims?

Choosing a hypothesis clearly gets in the way of looking at the data objectively. 

We have yet to hear one good reason why one should choose their bias before looking at the appropriate data gathered.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 04, 2010, 03:35:20 PM
The Zetetic proof for the FE map, please.

"Zetetic proof" is an oxymoron.
As is a scientific proof.  Proof applies only to mathematics or other non-"real" constructs that we use largely as tools.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 04, 2010, 03:38:53 PM
*sigh*  John Davis used to be Username.  James used to be Dogplatter.  Parsifal used to be RoboSteve.  Some old timers around here still use their older usernames.
Indeed, I have no qualms about being called either name.  I don't understand why this is still a point of discussion or why it ever was.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 04, 2010, 03:42:10 PM
The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

In what way are they compromised due to money?  The Scientific Method is the only way to prove something indefinitely.  Zeteticism, however, allows for huge margins of error and seriously blurs the line between guessing and reality.
Money invariably affects what globs research, what globs report when globs research, and where that leads.  In zeteticism this is not an issue due to gathering data first and then seeing what use or useful information it has.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 04, 2010, 03:43:46 PM
   He didn't just wake up one morning and say "I wonder what shape the earth is".  Instead he woke up and said, "the earth looks flat, now how can I proved it".


Haha this is win. Even though I want to believe in the FET their whole how to make your own theory thing is BS to me.
Hardly.  In fact, I "just woke up one day" and asked that very same question and it lead me to the Flat Earth movement after a great time doing search and research in many different areas.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: onetwothreefour on June 05, 2010, 07:20:01 AM
Wow. It's a new record. Six responses in a row and you STILL managed to avoid my question. Good job John.

Zetetic reasoning for/proof of the FE map?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on June 05, 2010, 10:33:08 AM


The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

You need to stop lying too--or learn what the word "bias" means.

All username did was repeat what tom said and then ran away.  They can't prove anything. 
I'm sorry that Tom's beliefs concerning the method align with my own.  Really it should be no surprise.  I'd hardly call it running away though, but if that makes you feel better about using a sub-par epistemologically flawed method so be it.
Read the first page and answer the real question.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 01:04:39 PM
Wow. It's a new record. Six responses in a row and you STILL managed to avoid my question. Good job John.

Zetetic reasoning for/proof of the FE map?
I don't hold the FE map is true.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 01:05:37 PM


The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.

You need to stop lying too--or learn what the word "bias" means.

All username did was repeat what tom said and then ran away.  They can't prove anything.  
I'm sorry that Tom's beliefs concerning the method align with my own.  Really it should be no surprise.  I'd hardly call it running away though, but if that makes you feel better about using a sub-par epistemologically flawed method so be it.
Read the first page and answer the real question.

Read the first page where I answered the question.
A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on June 05, 2010, 02:38:39 PM
My bad, I meant the fourth page. 

The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.
Here is a simple question.

A supermarket is out of apples.  How is zetetiscm going to figure out why they are out of apples better than the scientific method? 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on June 05, 2010, 02:50:26 PM
Zetetiscm would observe that people buy apples and conclude that the store is out of apples because people buy them.

Science would observe the same thing, then make a hypothesis as to why.  Then prove or disprove said hypothesis by asking customers why they are buying apples or not buying apples.
Science would also look at the store record to see how many apples were bought at various times vs how many are being purchased to see if there is a correlation between time of year, # of apples sold, and amount of apples the store buys.

After several separate experiments, they'd find a conclusion that has a 95% chance of being the correct one.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2010, 03:18:07 PM
Zetetiscm would observe that people buy apples and conclude that the store is out of apples because people buy them.

Science would observe the same thing, then make a hypothesis as to why.  Then prove or disprove said hypothesis by asking customers why they are buying apples or not buying apples.
Science would also look at the store record to see how many apples were bought at various times vs how many are being purchased to see if there is a correlation between time of year, # of apples sold, and amount of apples the store buys.

After several separate experiments, they'd find a conclusion that has a 95% chance of being the correct one.

You can see, based on this example, how much more useful zeteticism is than the scientific method.  Look at all that wasted effort the scientist must undergo!
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 05, 2010, 03:19:52 PM
Zetetiscm would observe that people buy apples and conclude that the store is out of apples because people buy them.

Science would observe the same thing, then make a hypothesis as to why.  Then prove or disprove said hypothesis by asking customers why they are buying apples or not buying apples.
Science would also look at the store record to see how many apples were bought at various times vs how many are being purchased to see if there is a correlation between time of year, # of apples sold, and amount of apples the store buys.

After several separate experiments, they'd find a conclusion that has a 95% chance of being the correct one.

You can see, based on this example, how much more useful zeteticism is than the scientific method.  Look at all that wasted effort the scientist must undergo!

So that means proven, well-defined and clearly-drawn conclusions aren't worth one's time and effort, but vague, poorly-drawn conclusions are adequate?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2010, 03:23:26 PM
Zetetiscm would observe that people buy apples and conclude that the store is out of apples because people buy them.

Science would observe the same thing, then make a hypothesis as to why.  Then prove or disprove said hypothesis by asking customers why they are buying apples or not buying apples.
Science would also look at the store record to see how many apples were bought at various times vs how many are being purchased to see if there is a correlation between time of year, # of apples sold, and amount of apples the store buys.

After several separate experiments, they'd find a conclusion that has a 95% chance of being the correct one.

You can see, based on this example, how much more useful zeteticism is than the scientific method.  Look at all that wasted effort the scientist must undergo!

So that means proven, well-defined and clearly-drawn conclusions aren't worth one's time and effort, but vague, poorly-drawn conclusions are adequate?

No, it means the zeteticist adequately answered the question without the extra effort.

q: Why are there no apples in the store?
a: The store sold out.

What more information is necessary to answer the question accurately?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on June 05, 2010, 03:28:46 PM
Zetetiscm would observe that people buy apples and conclude that the store is out of apples because people buy them.

Science would observe the same thing, then make a hypothesis as to why.  Then prove or disprove said hypothesis by asking customers why they are buying apples or not buying apples.
Science would also look at the store record to see how many apples were bought at various times vs how many are being purchased to see if there is a correlation between time of year, # of apples sold, and amount of apples the store buys.

After several separate experiments, they'd find a conclusion that has a 95% chance of being the correct one.

You can see, based on this example, how much more useful zeteticism is than the scientific method.  Look at all that wasted effort the scientist must undergo!

They didn't answer the question. 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on June 05, 2010, 03:34:29 PM
Or the store didn't buy any.
Or the apples were all stolen out of the back so no new ones could be put out.
Or they all went rotten and customers complained after buying them.
Or they had some other problem that required a recall.
Or they're out of season and no one can stock them.
....


Yeah, that REALLY answers the question...  ::)
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 05, 2010, 03:37:27 PM
Why do you need an accurate answer when a quick false one works just fine?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2010, 03:38:23 PM
Or the store didn't buy any.
Or the apples were all stolen out of the back so no new ones could be put out.
Or they all went rotten and customers complained after buying them.
Or they had some other problem that required a recall.
Or they're out of season and no one can stock them.
....


Yeah, that REALLY answers the question...  ::)

Yes, you're right.  Explain to me why zeteticism couldn't reasonably lead to the same conclusions?  It seems that for such a question, formulating a hypothesis is completely unnecessary.  Or maybe you could explain what purpose a hypothesis would serve, when the only thing you really need to do is question the store owner and perhaps some employees for an answer to the question.

Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 05, 2010, 03:42:43 PM
Yes, you're right.  Explain to me why zeteticism couldn't reasonably lead to the same conclusions?  It seems that for such a question, formulating a hypothesis is completely unnecessary.  Or maybe you could explain what purpose a hypothesis would serve, when the only thing you really need to do is question the store owner and perhaps some employees for an answer to the question.

The problem is, Zeteticism doesn't require any additional research.  Zeteticism stops at "Because the store was sold out." The Scientific Method, however, essentially digs deeper.

Relating to the Earth, a Zetetic might say, "Hey, the Earth looks flat; it must be flat."  Anyone following the Scientific Method, however, would ask (hypothesize) "Why does it look flat?"  From there, they would do experiments, etc, and eventually find out that it looks flat because of perspective.  It won't look curved until adequate altitude is reached.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Yes, you're right.  Explain to me why zeteticism couldn't reasonably lead to the same conclusions?  It seems that for such a question, formulating a hypothesis is completely unnecessary.  Or maybe you could explain what purpose a hypothesis would serve, when the only thing you really need to do is question the store owner and perhaps some employees for an answer to the question.

The problem is, Zeteticism doesn't require any additional research.  Zeteticism stops at "Because the store was sold out." The Scientific Method, however, essentially digs deeper.

Right, but there's no need for the question to be dug deeper than zeteticism is able to do.  Zeteticism does not stop at "Because the store was sold out".  Zeteticism would probably stop at (as I indicated above) questioning the store's owner and employees for an answer to the question.  If we apply the scientific method, now we must start out not with the obvious path, outlined above, but by forming a hypothesis, and testing the hypothesis, etc.  I really don't understand sokarul's point in bringing this up, because employing the scientific method to answer the simple question of why there are no apples in the store is a total waste of time.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on June 05, 2010, 03:57:52 PM
Or the store didn't buy any.
Or the apples were all stolen out of the back so no new ones could be put out.
Or they all went rotten and customers complained after buying them.
Or they had some other problem that required a recall.
Or they're out of season and no one can stock them.
....


Yeah, that REALLY answers the question...  ::)

Yes, you're right.  Explain to me why zeteticism couldn't reasonably lead to the same conclusions?  It seems that for such a question, formulating a hypothesis is completely unnecessary.  Or maybe you could explain what purpose a hypothesis would serve, when the only thing you really need to do is question the store owner and perhaps some employees for an answer to the question.


Zeteticsm can't check for one answer at a time because that would be bias.  Only the scientific method can. 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on June 05, 2010, 04:02:18 PM
I had a big post about questions and how science tests one specific possibility at a time but sokarul summed it up nicely.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 05, 2010, 04:09:20 PM
Right, but there's no need for the question to be dug deeper than zeteticism is able to do.  Zeteticism does not stop at "Because the store was sold out".  Zeteticism would probably stop at (as I indicated above) questioning the store's owner and employees for an answer to the question.  If we apply the scientific method, now we must start out not with the obvious path, outlined above, but by forming a hypothesis, and testing the hypothesis, etc.  I really don't understand sokarul's point in bringing this up, because employing the scientific method to answer the simple question of why there are no apples in the store is a total waste of time.

"Is the Earth flat?" is not as simple a question as "Why is the store out of applels?"

It requires more time, in-depth study, and experimentation that Zeteticism requires. 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 04:11:19 PM
Yes, you're right.  Explain to me why zeteticism couldn't reasonably lead to the same conclusions?  It seems that for such a question, formulating a hypothesis is completely unnecessary.  Or maybe you could explain what purpose a hypothesis would serve, when the only thing you really need to do is question the store owner and perhaps some employees for an answer to the question.

The problem is, Zeteticism doesn't require any additional research.  Zeteticism stops at "Because the store was sold out." The Scientific Method, however, essentially digs deeper.

Hrm I don't think you understand zeteticism.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 04:12:19 PM
My bad, I meant the fourth page. 

The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.
Here is a simple question.

A supermarket is out of apples.  How is zetetiscm going to figure out why they are out of apples better than the scientific method? 
Simply enough by gathering all the data available and then seeing what model would fit the data set.  Then they would test this.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on June 05, 2010, 04:23:28 PM
My bad, I meant the fourth page. 

The simple nature of choosing first a bias, then testing against that bias, and finally interpreting the data against that bias pollutes the fruits of the scientific method.  Its no wonder non-zet. studies and research are compromised due to money.
Here is a simple question.

A supermarket is out of apples.  How is zetetiscm going to figure out why they are out of apples better than the scientific method? 
Simply enough by gathering all the data available and then seeing what model would fit the data set.  Then they would test this.
So the opposite of what roundy siad? 
The data gathered will not be correct because unknown factors will not be removed in the data gathering process.  This is why the scientific method has a hypothesis and then tests it.  Unknown error will be removed when testing for one thing.   
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 05, 2010, 04:29:28 PM
Simply enough by gathering all the data available and then seeing what model would fit the data set.  Then they would test this.

Except Zeteticism in in practice when applied to FET gathers a very small amount of data, reaches the conclusion that the earth is flat, rejects all other data as being part of a conspiracy, and invents all sorts of unobserved and increasingly improbable things to explain observed phenomena.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on June 05, 2010, 04:38:22 PM
I don't hold the FE map is true.

But there must be some sort of map that you believe is an accurate representation of the world.

A supermarket is out of apples.  How is zetetiscm going to figure out why they are out of apples better than the scientific method? 

The zetetic method will look at the absence of apples and conclude that this is evidence for the absence of pineapples. The zetetic method would suggest that it is impossible to count something which does not exist anyway. Anyone who suggests that there is an absence of apples is clearly part of a huge global conspiracy. The zetetic method would then order a truck full of pineapples.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: onetwothreefour on June 05, 2010, 05:10:27 PM
FLAT EARTH IS A HYPOTHESIS YOU'RE ALL BIASED BY.

You're all a victim of your own definition of hypothesis.

All of your "testing" (as well as your ridiculous pontification on any number of things) is done to prove your pre-conceived notion that the Earth is flat.

It makes me feel like I'm going slightly insane when you guys seriously insist that you are without bias. EVERYONE IS BIASED.

As I've already said, the Scientific Method admits that bias is unavoidable and in doing so insists on checks and balance to eliminate influence from bias.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2010, 06:11:25 PM
Zeteticsm can't check for one answer at a time because that would be bias.  Only the scientific method can. 

I'm sorry to make what's essentially a low-content post, but wut?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on June 05, 2010, 07:07:24 PM
Zeteticsm can't check for one answer at a time because that would be bias.  Only the scientific method can. 

I'm sorry to make what's essentially a low-content post, but wut?

What he means is, how do you know one reason is correct over another unless you test both reasons?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 05, 2010, 07:11:36 PM
Zeteticsm can't check for one answer at a time because that would be bias.  Only the scientific method can. 

I'm sorry to make what's essentially a low-content post, but wut?

What he means is, how do you know one reason is correct over another unless you test both reasons?

Why do you presume that if presented with multiple possibilities, a zeteticist wouldn't test them all?  My point is that for this question, testing itself is meaningless.  It's not a question for which testing is the least bit necessary if you have the testimony of those involved (unless you for some reason mistrust that testimony, but nothing about such a circumstance has been presented as part of the question).
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: James on June 05, 2010, 08:11:39 PM

Theoretic (globular) Method:
Invented Hypothesis (made up by scientist) -> Testing to Corroborate Hypothesis -> Conclusion (modified version of original hypothesis to fit evidence)

Zetetic Method:
Zetetic Meditations reveal either
The "immediate and demonstrable causes" of the phenomena in question (i.e., no a priori theorising) - no further investigation
OR
a set of "manifest and undeniable facts" of the matter, in which case:

Facts derived from ZM -> stringent logical analysis ("what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom").

More info available at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Theoretic method is the process of attempting to bolster a preconceived hypothesis, with selective attention to evidence which supports the case (this is how globularism came about).

Zetetic method provides direct access to the actual truth, through the dual procedure: Zetetic Meditation followed by Logical Analysis.
 (This is how the true shape of the Earth was discovered).

The difference in method is important!

NB: The Zetetic Process, in full, is a two-fold investigative method. Unresolved classes of facts revealed by Zetetic Meditations are subjected to the second part of the proecdure, logical analysis.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on June 05, 2010, 08:50:59 PM

Theoretic (globular) Method:
Invented Hypothesis (made up by scientist) -> Testing to Corroborate Hypothesis -> Conclusion (modified version of original hypothesis to fit evidence)
This is not what scientists do. If you are going to attack a whole group of people you need to provide evidence.  Other wise it's just "Sokarul James, I think you will find that you are the only one who believes that you have "disproven [anyone's] entire belief" anything in less than 30 minuteswithout even posting one sentence of evidence.
Quote
Zetetic Method:
Zetetic Meditations reveal either
The "immediate and demonstrable causes" of the phenomena in question (i.e., no a priori theorising) - no further investigation
OR
a set of "manifest and undeniable facts" of the matter, in which case:

Facts derived from ZM -> stringent logical analysis ("what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom").
Translation, Guessing


Quote
Theoretic method is the process of attempting to bolster a preconceived hypothesis, with selective attention to evidence which supports the case (this is how globularism came about).
Once again no evidence present.  Scientists don't always have successful experiments.  
Quote
Zetetic method provides direct access to the actual truth, through the dual procedure: Zetetic Meditation followed by Logical Analysis.
 (This is how the true shape of the Earth was discovered).
"Meditation is a holistic discipline  by which the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind into a deeper state of relaxation or awareness-wiki" Relaxing proves the earth is flat how?  

Quote
The difference in method is important!

NB: The Zetetic Process, in full, is a two-fold investigative method. Unresolved classes of facts revealed by Zetetic Meditations are subjected to the second part of the proecdure, logical analysis.
IE guessing again.

 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on June 05, 2010, 10:06:46 PM
Zeteticsm can't check for one answer at a time because that would be bias.  Only the scientific method can. 

I'm sorry to make what's essentially a low-content post, but wut?

What he means is, how do you know one reason is correct over another unless you test both reasons?

Why do you presume that if presented with multiple possibilities, a zeteticist wouldn't test them all?  My point is that for this question, testing itself is meaningless.  It's not a question for which testing is the least bit necessary if you have the testimony of those involved (unless you for some reason mistrust that testimony, but nothing about such a circumstance has been presented as part of the question).

If you test them all, then congratulations, you're using the Scientific Method.

Also:
By using a hypothesis, you limit yourself to answering one very simple question that can be statistically analyzed, resulting in you, the person, having no say in if it's right or wrong. 
That's kinda the point really: Take the scientist's biased out of the equation.

But with ZE the investigator is free to interpret the data however he/she wishes.

Here's another:

Elementary kids have different reading levels. 
Fact:
Kids with bigger shoe sizes have better reading scores.

What's the ZE conclusion?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Tech on June 06, 2010, 01:01:04 AM


Zetetic Meditations reveal either
The "immediate and demonstrable causes" of the phenomena in question (i.e., no a priori theorising) - no further investigation

Did any one else read that and laugh?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on June 06, 2010, 06:07:23 AM
I think I laughed throughout his entire post.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on June 06, 2010, 08:48:38 AM
Zetetic method provides direct access to the actual truth, through the dual procedure: Zetetic Meditation followed by Logical Analysis.
 (This is how the true shape of the Earth was discovered).

This is something you all (James, John, Tom) seem to struggle with.

You can't have a truth without a frame for that truth. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 06, 2010, 09:39:47 AM
Quote
Why do you presume that if presented with multiple possibilities, a zeteticist wouldn't test them all?  My point is that for this question, testing itself is meaningless.  It's not a question for which testing is the least bit necessary if you have the testimony of those involved (unless you for some reason mistrust that testimony, but nothing about such a circumstance has been presented as part of the question).

If you test them all, then congratulations, you're using the Scientific Method.

Not unless you uselessly formulate a hypothesis first.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on June 06, 2010, 10:52:10 AM
Quote
Why do you presume that if presented with multiple possibilities, a zeteticist wouldn't test them all?  My point is that for this question, testing itself is meaningless.  It's not a question for which testing is the least bit necessary if you have the testimony of those involved (unless you for some reason mistrust that testimony, but nothing about such a circumstance has been presented as part of the question).

If you test them all, then congratulations, you're using the Scientific Method.

Not unless you uselessly formulate a hypothesis first.
Can why drop this "hypothesis being worthless" crap already?  If scientists can't formulate hypothesizes then nothing would ever get done. 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 06, 2010, 11:38:45 AM
Quote
Why do you presume that if presented with multiple possibilities, a zeteticist wouldn't test them all?  My point is that for this question, testing itself is meaningless.  It's not a question for which testing is the least bit necessary if you have the testimony of those involved (unless you for some reason mistrust that testimony, but nothing about such a circumstance has been presented as part of the question).

If you test them all, then congratulations, you're using the Scientific Method.

Not unless you uselessly formulate a hypothesis first.
Can why drop this "hypothesis being worthless" crap already?  If scientists can't formulate hypothesizes then nothing would ever get done. 

I never said hypotheses were worthless.  ::)
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: James on June 06, 2010, 11:46:48 AM
Quote
Why do you presume that if presented with multiple possibilities, a zeteticist wouldn't test them all?  My point is that for this question, testing itself is meaningless.  It's not a question for which testing is the least bit necessary if you have the testimony of those involved (unless you for some reason mistrust that testimony, but nothing about such a circumstance has been presented as part of the question).

If you test them all, then congratulations, you're using the Scientific Method.

Not unless you uselessly formulate a hypothesis first.
Can why drop this "hypothesis being worthless" crap already?  If scientists can't formulate hypothesizes then nothing would ever get done. 

But clearly the scientists at the FES do not formulate hypotheses, yet we get a tremendous amount of work done.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 06, 2010, 11:49:19 AM
But clearly the scientists at the FES do not formulate hypotheses, yet we get a tremendous amount of work done.

Let me know when you decide to post some of it.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 06, 2010, 11:50:41 AM
But clearly the scientists at the FES do not formulate hypotheses, yet we get a tremendous amount of work done.

Let me know when you decide to post some of it.

Have you not seen James' work on the dinosaurs?  It's truly groundbreaking stuff.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on June 06, 2010, 11:57:53 AM
His work on satanism is groundbreaking on the same level as well.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Moon squirter on June 06, 2010, 12:28:13 PM

Theoretic (globular) Method:
Invented Hypothesis (made up by scientist) -> Testing to Corroborate Hypothesis -> Conclusion (modified version of original hypothesis to fit evidence)


James, you missed out PEER REVIEW, arguably the most important stage of Theoretic (globular) Method.  Please do not mislead people into thinking the scientific method is just people dictating theories.  It is self regulating and self correcting over time.

As Zetetisicm deals with old idea of absolute "truth", this stage is clearly not necessary.  But how do we know when we've found "truth"?  Ask a priest.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on June 06, 2010, 01:24:00 PM
But clearly the scientists at the FES do not formulate hypotheses, yet we get a tremendous amount of work done.

I've not seen any work done at all. :(
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on June 06, 2010, 01:27:21 PM
But clearly the scientists at the FES do not formulate hypotheses, yet we get a tremendous amount of work done.

I've not seen any work done at all. :(

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30418.0

Zetetic work at best.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on June 06, 2010, 01:34:23 PM
How was Ichi's moonlight experiment zetetic? It seems he researched about moonlight and therefore interpreted that was harmful, then later made further experiments to see if it was true. His hypothesis being "Moonlight is harmful to plants".
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 06, 2010, 04:59:45 PM
Here's an example of how zetetic observation might truly arrive at a RE conclusion.

I see the sun and the moon, and observe that the sun is lit completely all the time that I can see it, but the moon is not, and wonder why this is. I then observe the changing patterns of light on the moon over a period of time.

I observe that more of the moon's surface is lit when it is at a farther angular distance from the sun in the sky, that it is not lit at all when the sun is directly behind it, and that it is lit completely when it is at the zenith exactly half a day after the sun is.

From all these, I can reasonably conclude that the sun is lighting the moon, and that some kind of rotation is taking place. Upon further inspection and comparing my observations with those from other parts of the world, I would conclude that the moon is rotating around the earth and that either the earth was spinning around its own axis, or the sun was rotating around the earth in a larger orbit.

I fail to see how true zetetic observations could conclude that the moon could be lit by bioluminescent organisms in exactly the pattern we would expect from the rotation system I describe above.

Also, how could someone see the sun sink below the horizon and conclude that light must be bending? A true zetetic's response would be that the sun is doing exactly what it appears to be doing, sinking below the horizon.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: sokarul on June 06, 2010, 05:02:19 PM
How was Ichi's moonlight experiment zetetic? It seems he researched about moonlight and therefore interpreted that was harmful, then later made further experiments to see if it was true. His hypothesis being "Moonlight is harmful to plants".

Don't bring logic into this thread.  I was actually going to point out the FET is full of hypotheses but i didn't think it was worth it. 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 06, 2010, 06:47:42 PM
But clearly the scientists at the FES do not formulate hypotheses, yet we get a tremendous amount of work done.

I've not seen any work done at all. :(

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30418.0

Zetetic work at best.

I read through that, and it makes me wonder why the omnipotent being in the sky allows James to breathe our precious air.

That is some of the most worthless shit I have ever had the displeasure to read.   He asociates the many aeronautical corporations, etc with Satanism to illicit fear; thousands of companies use the 5-pointed star as part of their logo.  It also happens to be a Satatin symbol.  That makes them Satanists?  That's probably the stupidest, most fallicious thing I've ever heard.  That entire block of text means nothing.  James, you are truly a sick individual.

Please see Glenn Beck and his references to Nazi Germany.  He did the same thing; at the Nuclear Proliferation Sumit, he tried to link the logo to Nazi Germany.  His fear tactics are meaningless and irrational, as are all of your findings, James.  Someone needs to slap you across the face with cold, hard reality.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on June 06, 2010, 08:02:08 PM
I just realized that FEers are NOT followers of Zetetisicm!

The moon's lit facing appears towards the sun during the day.  Always.
The moon moves in the sky similar to the sun.
The moon's lit face appears to point towards the day area of the Planet (and the sun) all the time.

According to Zetetisicm, there is enough evidence to say that the moon is lit by the sun.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 06, 2010, 08:30:56 PM
I just realized that FEers are NOT followers of Zetetisicm!

The moon's lit facing appears towards the sun during the day.  Always.
The moon moves in the sky similar to the sun.
The moon's lit face appears to point towards the day area of the Planet (and the sun) all the time.

According to Zetetisicm, there is enough evidence to say that the moon is lit by the sun.

Thanks for repeating what I just said...
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on June 07, 2010, 03:37:02 AM
I just realized that FEers are NOT followers of Zetetisicm!

The moon's lit facing appears towards the sun during the day.  Always.
The moon moves in the sky similar to the sun.
The moon's lit face appears to point towards the day area of the Planet (and the sun) all the time.

According to Zetetisicm, there is enough evidence to say that the moon is lit by the sun.

Thanks for repeating what I just said...

sorry. I knew I heard it from somewhere, just wasn't sure where. 
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 07, 2010, 07:12:35 AM
The point is, FE'ers have to use the proven-correct Scientific Method to be taken seriously by anyone.  It's not flawed, as you think it is.  Zeteticism is incomplete, so is FET.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 07, 2010, 07:19:24 AM
The point is, FE'ers have to use the proven-correct Scientific Method to be taken seriously by anyone.  It's not flawed, as you think it is.  Zeteticism is incomplete, so is FET.

More than that, FET does not even meet Zetetic standards, much less scientific ones. Most aspects of FET require you to already make the assumption that the earth is flat, and blatantly contradict observed evidence.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 07, 2010, 07:22:40 AM
The point is, FE'ers have to use the proven-correct Scientific Method to be taken seriously by anyone.  It's not flawed, as you think it is.  Zeteticism is incomplete, so is FET.

More than that, FET does not even meet Zetetic standards, much less scientific ones. Most aspects of FET require you to already make the assumption that the earth is flat, and blatantly contradict observed evidence.

And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.  Imagine if they tried to publish their Zetetic findings in a scientific journal.  It'd be laughable.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: trig on June 07, 2010, 08:07:20 PM
Also, how could someone see the sun sink below the horizon and conclude that light must be bending? A true zetetic's response would be that the sun is doing exactly what it appears to be doing, sinking below the horizon.
In my opinion, this is the best ever demonstration that Zeteticism implies that the Sun does not hover over Earth.

I did the Zetetic meditation exercise and found out that nobody can ever find out the shape of the Earth, and that everyone who really cleans out his/her memory of all preconceptions and previous knowledge has to agree with me when I say that the shape of the Earth is unknowable, because I cannot see all of it at once.

Now, tell me why my Zetetic meditation is bad and Rowbotham's or James' meditation is right. I say mine is better, because it is better cleansed of all preconceptions.

Of course, as a real scientist, I give no relevance to my Zetetic Meditation, whatsoever. It only serves to show how unreliable Zetetic Meditation is. Each person that honestly tries it will get a different result for the same problem.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Thermal Detonator on June 08, 2010, 05:16:47 AM
The flat guys have deserted this thread. I think we can stop disproving them now.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 08, 2010, 07:07:36 AM
The flat guys have deserted this thread. I think we can stop disproving them now.

It's just too easy sometimes.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 08, 2010, 08:00:55 AM
Or, you're all making mind-numbingly stupid arguments that expose your ignorance regarding the Zetetic method. I mean, seriously, FAQ, Earth Not a Globe. This is fundamental stuff guys.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on June 08, 2010, 08:03:18 AM
Or, you're all making mind-numbingly stupid arguments that expose your ignorance regarding the Zetetic method.

Expose our ignorance oh master.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 08, 2010, 08:05:21 AM
Or, you're all making mind-numbingly stupid arguments that expose your ignorance regarding the Zetetic method. I mean, seriously, FAQ, Earth Not a Globe. This is fundamental stuff guys.

How can one see the sun sinking below the horizon, conclude that their senses must be wrong, and make up something that must be deceiving their senses to explain it according to the Zetetic method?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Catchpa on June 08, 2010, 08:06:57 AM
It seems we're going off James, apparently wrong, definition. Please enlighten us what the real definition is, Wilmore.


Theoretic (globular) Method:
Invented Hypothesis (made up by scientist) -> Testing to Corroborate Hypothesis -> Conclusion (modified version of original hypothesis to fit evidence)

Zetetic Method:
Zetetic Meditations reveal either
The "immediate and demonstrable causes" of the phenomena in question (i.e., no a priori theorising) - no further investigation
OR
a set of "manifest and undeniable facts" of the matter, in which case:

Facts derived from ZM -> stringent logical analysis ("what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom").

More info available at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Theoretic method is the process of attempting to bolster a preconceived hypothesis, with selective attention to evidence which supports the case (this is how globularism came about).

Zetetic method provides direct access to the actual truth, through the dual procedure: Zetetic Meditation followed by Logical Analysis.
 (This is how the true shape of the Earth was discovered).

The difference in method is important!

NB: The Zetetic Process, in full, is a two-fold investigative method. Unresolved classes of facts revealed by Zetetic Meditations are subjected to the second part of the proecdure, logical analysis.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lord Wilmore on June 08, 2010, 08:14:45 AM
Funny how you assume James is the one who is wrong.


How can one see the sun sinking below the horizon, conclude that their senses must be wrong, and make up something that must be deceiving their senses to explain it according to the Zetetic method?


How would you reach the conclusion that the Earth is round based on that? One piece of data is just one piece of data. It should not lead to several assumptions which are all used to support one another.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 08, 2010, 08:17:50 AM
Funny how you assume James is the one who is wrong.


How can one see the sun sinking below the horizon, conclude that their senses must be wrong, and make up something that must be deceiving their senses to explain it according to the Zetetic method?


How would you reach the conclusion that the Earth is round based on that? One piece of data is just one piece of data. It should not lead to several assumptions which are all used to support one another.

It would lead me to believe that the sun is actually sinking below the horizon, exactly what it appears to be doing.

If I investigated further, from different spots on the earth at the same time of day, I would find that the sun rises at one location as it is setting at another. The only configuration I know of that can accomplish this is a round earth that is either spinning, or the sun is rotating around it.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Pseudointellect on June 08, 2010, 08:55:10 AM
How would you reach the conclusion that the Earth is round based on that? One piece of data is just one piece of data. It should not lead to several assumptions which are all used to support one another.

One would not conclude that the earth is round based on that. What I'm wondering is why you would conclude that the light is deceiving you. Apparently you believe that the sun never goes "below" the earth, and yet you have seen this phenomenon thousands of times. What part of the zetetic method allows you to assume your senses are deceiving you? Great meditation about what things are deceptive and what things aren't?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: General Disarray on June 08, 2010, 09:02:04 AM
To me, the "immediate and demonstratable cause" of the sun appearing to sink below the horizon is that it is sinking below the horizon. It is a "manifest and undeniable fact".

"Stringent logical analysis" of the fact that the sun rises in other parts of the world at the same time that it sets here lead me to believe that the earth is round and spinning. Direct access to the actual truth led me to discover the true shape of the earth.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2010, 01:25:33 PM
How can one see the sun sinking below the horizon, conclude that their senses must be wrong, and make up something that must be deceiving their senses to explain it according to the Zetetic method?

How would you reach the conclusion that the Earth is round based on that? One piece of data is just one piece of data. It should not lead to several assumptions which are all used to support one another.

Well, since the sun can not possibly sink below the horizon of a flat earth, then one can logically conclude that the earth must be some other shape.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Skeleton on June 08, 2010, 04:01:31 PM
I assert it might be a cube. Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 08, 2010, 04:35:43 PM
I assert it might be a cube. Prove me wrong.

Lurk moar?  Conspiracy?  Irrelevant?  That sums it up.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Lorddave on June 08, 2010, 05:14:34 PM
It should not lead to several assumptions which are all used to support one another.

I'm quoting this because this is pure, absolute Hippocratic.

FET is based on several assumptions which are all used to support one another.  One being "The Earth is Flat", which is used to support "Sky Mirror", "UA", "Bendy Light", "Celestial Gears", "Conspiracy", ect....

All of which can't be proven by FE standards BTW.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: jackofhearts on June 08, 2010, 05:52:59 PM
I can't believe I missed that... explain yourself, Willy?
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: markjo on June 08, 2010, 07:29:46 PM
I assert it might be a cube. Prove me wrong.

Actually, it's your obligation to support your assertion.  I have no obligation to prove you wrong.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: trig on June 09, 2010, 03:29:42 AM
I assert it might be a cube. Prove me wrong.
If you did your Zetetic meditation and came to that conclusion, and have an observation that supports your meditated assertion, like "the mountains seem like corners of a cube", for example, then that is your Zetetic truth.

I will stay with science, if you don't mind.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on June 09, 2010, 03:36:26 AM
Actually, it's your obligation to support your assertion.  I have no obligation to prove you wrong.

You are the one coming here with your claims. The burden of proof is on you. It is you who must prove to us that the earth is not a cube as accepted by the majority of scientists. Etc etc.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: markjo on June 09, 2010, 04:31:16 AM
Actually, it's your obligation to support your assertion.  I have no obligation to prove you wrong.

You are the one coming here with your claims. The burden of proof is on you. It is you who must prove to us that the earth is not a cube as accepted by the majority of scientists. Etc etc.

Nope.  I just said that the earth can't be flat.  You're the one claiming that it's a cube.  You have made an assertion completely unrelated to mine, therefore I have no obligation to support or refute it whatsoever.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Thermal Detonator on June 09, 2010, 04:52:30 AM
Actually, it's your obligation to support your assertion.  I have no obligation to prove you wrong.

You are the one coming here with your claims. The burden of proof is on you. It is you who must prove to us that the earth is not a cube as accepted by the majority of scientists. Etc etc.

Instant fail triggered.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: Crustinator on June 09, 2010, 03:55:37 PM
I just said that the earth can't be flat.

Please provide evidence for this assertion. Use ships logs if required. You may also claim to have data supporting your case but refuse to show it. The burden of proof is on you. This is not the "the earth can't be flat" site. You are the one coming here with your outlandish claims. Here it is defacto that the earth is flat. The burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: zork on July 04, 2010, 11:52:34 AM
How was Ichi's moonlight experiment zetetic? It seems he researched about moonlight and therefore interpreted that was harmful, then later made further experiments to see if it was true. His hypothesis being "Moonlight is harmful to plants".
  I really wonder if he researched the effects of the moonlight. It seems to me that he researched the effects of the absence of the sunlight.
Title: Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
Post by: markjo on July 05, 2010, 10:22:31 AM
I just said that the earth can't be flat.

Please provide evidence for this assertion. Use ships logs if required. You may also claim to have data supporting your case but refuse to show it. The burden of proof is on you. This is not the "the earth can't be flat" site. You are the one coming here with your outlandish claims. Here it is defacto that the earth is flat. The burden of proof is on you.

Watch the sun set.  Since the sun cannot move below the surface of a flat earth, that is direct evidence that the earth can not be flat.