The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: gnnmsf on October 04, 2011, 10:41:53 AM

Title: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: gnnmsf on October 04, 2011, 10:41:53 AM
Posted as an answer inside another thread, but well worth its own thread in the debate section.

RE is NOT a theory. IT IS A DISCOVERY. You should look up the difference...

If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower??? No. Unless you're too blind or stupid to realize its a flower : then I could very well picture you saying something along the lines of : "well wait a minute, i'm not seeing this flower grow nor move right now. Therefore I present to you the theory that it is a rock. Unless you can show me this flower is growing right now, it is a rock". You know how stupid that would sound? obviously you wouldn't say such a thing, because you understand that you can't simply glance at a flower to see it grow, you have to make greater observations then that, that are proportionnal to the time it takes for said flower to grow.

Just like for earth. You can't glance down at your feet and say "this looks flat". you have to make greater observations then that, which are proportionnal to the size of the planet. Observations which have already been made. and verified. And therefore, the DISCOVERY of the fact that the earth is round is NOT a theory.

What you FEers continuously do here on your forums is the equivalent of saying "I won't take the time to sit long enough and watch this flower grow, nor will I carry out any other experiments needed to gather evidence, but I will not believe any evidence presented to me that shows it grows, wether it be video or photos, because i've decided that those can only be faked by you to try and convince me. Also your word or the word of others that claim to have made the necessary observations and experiements is not trustworthy enough, even if those individuals are considered a recognized scientific authority in the field. So given those facts, you can basically NEVER EVER prove to me it is a flower. Therefore it MUST be a rock, since I cannot see it move when i look at it. And since even you have to agree it is not moving when you look at it, then my theory is valid".

You can try to flip it any other way you want, but thats exactly the logic (or lack of) you use to defend FE. Your whole society is based on a sophism.

Spheric earth is a DISCOVERED FACT. Period.

Just because your very small group of individuals refuses the evidence linked to that discovery (out of simple-minded, ignorant stubborness), doesn't mean this discovery suddenly becomes a theory that can be discussed/contradicted. Nor does it make your stupid FET any more valid. It simply exposes you as a bunch of tinfoil lovers who lack common sense.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 04, 2011, 11:24:16 AM
If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower???

You can't glance down at your feet and say "this looks flat".
So when it suits you you take everything at face value, but when it doesn't you concoct some bizarre theory that contradicts what you see.

Classic REer double standards.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 04, 2011, 11:36:54 AM
RE is NOT a theory. IT IS A DISCOVERY.
Incorrect.

You should look up the difference...
Statistically speaking, it is safe to assume that most disagreements do not come from one's lack of understanding of definitions. Having reviewed the definitions myself, I assure you that is the case here.

If you found a flower, would you say that what you found is only "theorically" a flower??? No.
That is correct.

Unless you're too blind or stupid to realize its a flower : then I could very well picture you saying something along the lines of : "well wait a minute, i'm not seeing this flower grow nor move right now. Therefore I present to you the theory that it is a rock. Unless you can show me this flower is growing right now, it is a rock". You know how stupid that would sound? obviously you wouldn't say such a thing, because you understand that you can't simply glance at a flower to see it grow, you have to make greater observations then that, that are proportionnal to the time it takes for said flower to grow.
This is partially correct. However, instead of staring at the flower not growing in my eyes, I would check if it's as hard as rock, if it looks like a rock, if it has a grassy/flowery taste to it, et cetera. Calling something a flower just because it grows slowly is moronic. It implies that trees, chiuauas, and Parsifal are, in fact, flowers.

Just like for earth.
To my best knowledge, the Earth is neither a flower nor just rock, and definitely not a rock.

You can't glance down at your feet and say "this looks flat". you have to make greater observations then that, which are proportionnal to the size of the planet.
That is correct. I have pointed it out in your flower-rock "analogy". Similarly to that analogy, "it looks flat" is just a simple clue (much like "this doesn't taste like rock; in fact, it tastes like apple pie" would be a clue that this apple pie is, in fact, not a rock. The "it doesn't grow, therefore it's not a flower" analogy is fallacious for reasons stated before plus the fact that not all flowers grow).

Observations which have already been made. and verified.
And concluded as conclusively... inconclusive.

And therefore, the DISCOVERY of the fact that the earth is round is NOT a theory.
Incorrect.

What you FEers continuously do here on your forums is the equivalent of saying "I won't take the time to sit long enough and watch this flower grow, nor will I carry out any other experiments needed to gather evidence, but I will not believe any evidence presented to me that shows it grows, wether it be video or photos, because i've decided that those can only be faked by you to try and convince me. Also your word or the word of others that claim to have made the necessary observations and experiements is not trustworthy enough, even if those individuals are considered a recognized scientific authority in the field. So given those facts, you can basically NEVER EVER prove to me it is a flower. Therefore it MUST be a rock, since I cannot see it move when i look at it. And since even you have to agree it is not moving when you look at it, then my theory is valid".
No, in fact, it is RE'ers that are doing this.

You can try to flip it any other way you want, but thats exactly the logic (or lack of) you use to defend FE. Your whole society is based on a sophism.
Incorrect.

Spheric earth is a DISCOVERED FACT. Period.
Incorrect. Please refrain from menstruation jokes, too.

Just because your very small group of individuals refuses the evidence linked to that discovery
My argumentum ad populum senses are tingling.

(out of simple-minded, ignorant stubborness)
Sir, the radars are picking up an extreme amount of ad hominems.

doesn't mean this discovery suddenly becomes a theory that can be discussed/contradicted.
And what leads you to this conclusion? It's quite wrong, but I'm simply curious. To make this easier for you, I present an analogous conclusion:
Just because dogs sleep 38 hours a day (because dogs are very stupid and also fat and stupid), doesn't mean the chair I'm sitting on is a chair.

Nor does it make your stupid FET any more valid. It simply exposes you as a bunch of tinfoil lovers who lack common sense.
Ah, and here's the final ad hominem. Please refrain from elementary logical fallacies. They make you look inexperienced.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: gnnmsf on October 04, 2011, 01:57:01 PM

This is partially correct. However, instead of staring at the flower not growing in my eyes, I would check if it's as hard as rock, if it looks like a rock, if it has a grassy/flowery taste to it, et cetera. Calling something a flower just because it grows slowly is moronic. It implies that trees, chiuauas, and Parsifal are, in fact, flowers.

I'll only address this part of your post, since the rest is a waste of my time, and for the most part answers without any explaination (you know, just stating that something is incorrect without any explainantion doesn't make you right. That seems to be a big problem amongst FEers).

I was not implying that everything that grows slowly is a flower, i think you're intelligent enough to know that (aren't you?? are you playing dumb??). I was vulgarizing for the sake of the argument.

So since you do recognize the fact that you need to look at a lot of evidence to come to a conclusion, how do you explain that you believe in a theory which lacks all sorts of evidences and in which there is no consensus even in your own community, as opposed to a discovery that proves this theory wrong, with tons of evidence and a consensus within the scientific community???
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 04, 2011, 03:02:50 PM
I'll only address this part of your post, since the rest is a waste of my time, and for the most part answers without any explaination
If you're not going to take your time here, don't expect to carry anything out of the discussions. You'll just end up being a commonly ridiculed permanoob.

I was not implying that everything that grows slowly is a flower
Yes, you were. You identified slow growth as a descriptor of a flower. Obviously, you made no sense at all, but that is what you claimed. It is very important to keep track of your own claims; otherwise, you may be deemed not worthy of the others' time

i think you're intelligent enough to know that (aren't you?? are you playing dumb??).
Ah, more ad hominems. Is that going to be a recurring theme of your posts? You're very close to hitting my ignore list with all the unsubstantiated insults.

I was vulgarizing for the sake of the argument.
No, you were making a claim that made no sense. Whether or not you forgot to mention a few incredibly crucial facts is none of my concern. You said what you said. If you want to correct it, feel free to try.

So since you do recognize the fact that you need to look at a lot of evidence to come to a conclusion, how do you explain that you believe in a theory which lacks all sorts of evidences and in which there is no consensus even in your own community, as opposed to a discovery that proves this theory wrong, with tons of evidence and a consensus within the scientific community???
In a very simple way: It does not lack evidence.
Now, how do you explain the existence of gravitation as a therory?
Compulsory reading for this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Also, the next time you ignore a major part of my post and only choose to contradict the arguments that are convenient to you, I'm going to stop treating you seriously. You may or may not care about this - it's entirely up to you,
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 04, 2011, 04:59:38 PM
So when it suits you you take everything at face value, but when it doesn't you concoct some bizarre theory that contradicts what you see.

Classic REer double standards.

No double standard at all.  For the most part, real world observations match exactly what you would expect to see on a 7900 mile diameter sphere.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: General Disarray on October 04, 2011, 06:16:08 PM
So when it suits you you take everything at face value, but when it doesn't you concoct some bizarre theory that contradicts what you see.

Funny, this accurately describes FET.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: rooster on October 04, 2011, 06:32:26 PM
Darwin discovered finches, but evolution is still just a theory. The word fact does not exist in the realm if science. You were too busy thinking about girls to pay attention in middle school, weren't you?
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 05, 2011, 02:02:55 AM
So when it suits you you take everything at face value, but when it doesn't you concoct some bizarre theory that contradicts what you see.

Classic REer double standards.

No double standard at all.  For the most part, real world observations match exactly what you would expect to see on a 7900 mile diameter sphere.
Like the fact that the surface of water is flat?  ???
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 05, 2011, 06:14:10 AM
So when it suits you you take everything at face value, but when it doesn't you concoct some bizarre theory that contradicts what you see.

Classic REer double standards.

No double standard at all.  For the most part, real world observations match exactly what you would expect to see on a 7900 mile diameter sphere.
Like the fact that the surface of water is flat?  ???

Is that a fact?
(http://clarigard.com/images/img_windshields2.jpg)
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Ski on October 05, 2011, 10:38:59 AM
You are the first person to my knowledge, Markjo, to propose that surface tension results in hills of water on a plane. At least you provided photographic evidence for your absurdity.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 05, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
ITT: Pedantic bickering over semantics, wording, and logical failings in debate structure.

OP's Point: There is no theory needed, nor is there any confusion about the shape of the earth. This issue has been so over solved in so many different ways by science, that any discussion about it is completley trivial and isolated only to forrums like these.


Any discussion about the similarity between rock, flowers, and how they can determine the shape of the earth are useless. The point to the flower illustration is to show that there is no need to debate the nature of a commonly known thing. We all know what flowers are. We all know one when we see one.


Regular science is not perfect. There are things we can not yet explain. there are parts of gravity that are as yet not known. That does not make gravity invalid. Modern science is convergent in nature and is always moving toward better understanding of all physical things. FE theory is Divergent in nature and has not gotten any closer to having supporting evidence that puts the peices together.

Can we get back to the point now?
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 05, 2011, 12:57:20 PM
You are the first person to my knowledge, Markjo, to propose that surface tension results in hills of water on a plane. At least you provided photographic evidence for your absurdity.

When did I say that surface tension was responsible for hills of water?  Wave action does that quite nicely.
(http://blogs.informatica.com/perspectives/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tidal-wave-surf-surfers-surfing.jpg)
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 05, 2011, 01:05:49 PM
You are the first person to my knowledge, Markjo, to propose that surface tension results in hills of water on a plane. At least you provided photographic evidence for your absurdity.

When did I say that surface tension was responsible for hills of water?  Wave action does that quite nicely.
(http://blogs.informatica.com/perspectives/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tidal-wave-surf-surfers-surfing.jpg)

So the sinking ship effect is caused by waves then? Gotcha.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 05, 2011, 01:08:53 PM
So the sinking ship effect is caused by waves then? Gotcha.

When did I suggest that? ???
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 05, 2011, 01:15:31 PM
So the sinking ship effect is caused by waves then? Gotcha.

When did I suggest that? ???

You said that waves were responsible for the "hills of water" people experience.

I agree. It's easy for something to shrink behind a series of waves and troths on the ocean's surface from the bottom up via perspective.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 05, 2011, 02:55:02 PM
So the sinking ship effect is caused by waves then? Gotcha.

When did I suggest that? ???

You said that waves were responsible for the "hills of water" people experience.

I agree. It's easy for something to shrink behind a series of waves and troths on the ocean's surface from the bottom up via perspective.

Except when the water is calm and there are no waves to make hills of water.  BTW, tidal action can also cause water to bulge and make a hill.  But thanks for agreeing that water isn't necessarily flat.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 05, 2011, 02:57:08 PM
So the sinking ship effect is caused by waves then? Gotcha.

When did I suggest that? ???

You said that waves were responsible for the "hills of water" people experience.

I agree. It's easy for something to shrink behind a series of waves and troths on the ocean's surface from the bottom up via perspective.

Except when the water is calm and there are no waves to make hills of water.

The ocean is never calm.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 05, 2011, 03:01:35 PM
The ocean is never calm.

And therefore is never flat and therefore is inappropriate for water convexity experiments.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 05, 2011, 03:02:24 PM
The ocean is never calm.

And therefore is never flat and therefore is inappropriate for water convexity experiments.

Which is why Rowbotham did his experiment on a canal and I did my experiment in a bay.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 05, 2011, 03:22:07 PM
The ocean is never calm.

And therefore is never flat and therefore is inappropriate for water convexity experiments.

Which is why Rowbotham did his experiment on a canal and I did my experiment in a bay.

Do you mean Rowbotham's experiment that produced conflicting results when repeated and your experiment that you have never provided any photographic documentation that it had ever been performed, despite repeated requests?
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 05, 2011, 05:00:11 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The ocean is never calm.

Please provide evidense for this claim
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2011, 06:59:17 PM
The ocean is never calm.

And therefore is never flat and therefore is inappropriate for water convexity experiments.

Which is why Rowbotham did his experiment on a canal and I did my experiment in a bay.

Do you mean Rowbotham's experiment that produced conflicting results when repeated and your experiment that you have never provided any photographic documentation that it had ever been performed, despite repeated requests?

Repeated results weren't conflicting. Lady Bount verified Rowbotham's findings.

Photographic documentation isn't necessary. I gave a detailed firsthand account of my experiences. I don't carry a telescope mount and camera with me wherever I go. It's difficult to take a picture through the little lens hole of a telescope.

Why are you more willing to trust my pictures than my words? What next? Do I need to make sure a physics teacher from a local Monetey community college is there to sign off on the results?

Please provide evidense for this claim

Please visit an ocean.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 06, 2011, 07:27:57 PM
What next? Do I need to make sure a physics teacher from a local Monetey community college is there to sign off on the results?
Don't feed them ideas...
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 06, 2011, 07:29:02 PM
Repeated results weren't conflicting. Lady Bount verified Rowbotham's findings.

Alfred Russel Wallace and Ulysses Grant Morrow repeated the experiment and found results that conflicted with Rowbotham and Lady Blount.

Why are you more willing to trust my pictures than my words? What next? Do I need to make sure a physics teacher from a local Monetey community college is there to sign off on the results?

Well, a competent, neutral third party review would go a long way in improving the credibility of your claims.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Ski on October 06, 2011, 08:21:40 PM
I cannot believe you brought the charlatan A.R. Wallace in to boost your argument.
And whatever Morrow's conclusion from his evidence/experiment, the results were completely contradictory to round earth claims.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Moon squirter on October 06, 2011, 11:07:53 PM
Photographic documentation isn't necessary. I gave a detailed firsthand account of my experiences.

Enough anecdotes Tom. Show us the images. We've shown you countless pictures of distant sunken objects. We simply don't believe you, it's as simple as that. 
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2011, 05:32:48 AM
I cannot believe you brought the charlatan A.R. Wallace in to boost your argument.

I see that you like to use the Hampden defense: if you can't refute the evidence, then slander/libel the man.

And whatever Morrow's conclusion from his evidence/experiment, the results were completely contradictory to round earth claims.

They were also completely contradictory to FE claims.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Ski on October 07, 2011, 07:29:09 AM
It's not libel if it's true.

Morrow's conclusion was contradictory to FE, but the results entirely possible. If the earth were a sphere, it would not be possible for Morrow to achieve his result. It is a distinction with great meaning in this context.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2011, 08:21:40 AM
It's not libel if it's true.

As I recall, a court decided that it wasn't true, therefore it was libel.

Morrow's conclusion was contradictory to FE, but the results entirely possible. If the earth were a sphere, it would not be possible for Morrow to achieve his result. It is a distinction with great meaning in this context.

It could also mean that there were errors or unaccounted phenomena (such as atmospheric refraction) occurring during the observation.  That seems to be something that Zetetics don't seem to want to consider.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Ski on October 07, 2011, 08:46:31 AM
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology? Which part exactly are you contesting?


I find your refraction argument as compelling as you would find my arguing for sunken ships by refraction, I'd wager.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 07, 2011, 09:49:19 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The ocean is never calm.

Please provide evidense for this claim

Please visit an ocean.

Lucky for me and the rest of the world living in the modern age Lots of people do this all the time, and then they return with evidence.  Please Learn to google.



Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2011, 11:47:32 AM
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

I find your refraction argument as compelling as you would find my arguing for sunken ships by refraction, I'd wager.

That depends on the evidence you have to support your version of refraction.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: hoppy on October 07, 2011, 12:11:59 PM

Why are you more willing to trust my pictures than my words? What next? Do I need to make sure a physics teacher from a local Monetey community college is there to sign off on the results?

.
No but the results should be notarized.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Ski on October 08, 2011, 07:12:21 PM
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

I refuse to believe that in your many years on the forum you have conveniently not read any of this.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 08, 2011, 07:29:22 PM
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

I refuse to believe that in your many years on the forum you have conveniently not read any of this.

I've heard allegations.  I'm asking for evidence.  There is a difference.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Ski on October 08, 2011, 07:31:06 PM
Which issue is in serious dispute?
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: markjo on October 08, 2011, 09:28:09 PM
Which issue is in serious dispute?

Whether or not Wallace fairly won the bet.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Ski on October 08, 2011, 10:17:29 PM
Well, I'd say the judge's decision to return the money to Hampden suggests that he did not.
Title: Re: RE is NOT a theory, it is a DISCOVERY.
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2011, 01:16:41 PM
Which part was untrue? That he was ordered by the court to return the money to Hampden? That the Wallace's referee didn't bother to show and so was replaced by Wallace's friend, Martin Coulcher? That the deciding vote in the wager was cast by Wallace's original referee and good friend? That Wallace was penniless after wasting away most of his inherited wealth? It's easy to believe in light of Wallace's horrendous monetary mismanagement that he and his referees conspired to defraud Hampden and besmirch the movement. Small wonder Hampden was bitter to the point of exhaustion.
Is it untrue that Wallace's most "scientific" of "research" was on the subject of spiritualism, seances and phrenology?

What evidence to you have to support these allegations?

Read "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" by historian Christine Garwood