On the notion of Zetetic Inquiry and Flat Earth "Theory"

FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

Boondoggle.

FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

Your reasons are understandable. We have to discuss this.

Your point when discuss this important issue in general forum and open the issue for insults from angry globirds is suspicious.

FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

From what I have seen, both in Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham) [1881] and on this site:
Zetetism applied to the flat earth is no more than "The earth looks flat, therefore the earth is "Earth Not a Globe" then hypothesise explanations for everything else.

Flat Earthers make claims like:

The Setting of the Sun
Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective.

Then one off, very old, observations like these:

The following sections contain experimental evidence in favor of a Flat Earth.

• It is proven that the ship does not sink behind a hill of water, but that it is actually perspective which hides it. This demonstrates that the earth is not a globe. There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes, showing that they are not actually hiding behind "hills of water": Ships appear to sink as they recede past the horizon
  
  
• Further references of ships being restored are available in the book The Cellular Cosmogony: Experiments on Lake Michigan

Where are any well documented modern observations complete with photographs of hidden ships "re-appearing"?

FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

So the most prolific proponent of the 'Zetetic method' is purported to be Rowbotham and the subsequent followers of his doctrine, exemplified in 'Earth Not a Globe'. But if you scratch the surface, one finds a very specific 'bible science' that is neither Zetetic, nor scientific.

In ENAG, Rowbotham lays out his flat earth theory, findings, experiments, conjecture and otherwise. However, he cleverly leaves the best for last. Chapter 15. Now I have nothing against anyone's scripture belief. But to pass Rowbotham and his followers off as Zeteticists is an absolute and utter misnomer.

Chapter 15 traces back to 'scripture' as everything he purports in the first 14 chapters with dozens and dozens of scriptural references that either back his claims or he backs into them.

According to Rowbotham, "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” According to his bible interpretation, the scriptures are the hypothesis, the initial theory, that the world is flat. As he continually cites biblical quotes to prove such. That is a preconceived notion, a bias. Seemingly counter to how Zeteticism is described.

Lady Blount and her cronies do no better with their society in this regard. From The Universal Zetetic Society founded in 1892:

OUR MOTTO
For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.

OUR OBJECT

The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation.

RULES

1.  Everything extraneous to “Our Object” to be avoided.

2.  The so-called “sciences,” and especially Modern Astronomy, to be dealt with from practical data in connection with the Divine system of Cosmogony revealed by the Creator.

So how is this anything like what Zeteticism is really about? It is certainly not: “...using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.”

https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Zeteticism

For these so-called Zeteticists they operated entirely with an initial theory, that theory being the bible.

Quote from: markjo on October 23, 2018, 09:46:40 AM

FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

From what I have seen, both in Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham) [1881] and on this site:
Zetetism applied to the flat earth is no more than "The earth looks flat, therefore the earth is "Earth Not a Globe" then hypothesise explanations for everything else.

Rab, this thread is not so much to discuss the merits of FET or zeteticism.  Rather, it's to discuss an alternative name for FET that better reflects its zetetic heritage (i.e., the disdain of scientific theory).

Quote from: rabinoz on October 23, 2018, 06:44:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 23, 2018, 09:46:40 AM

FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

From what I have seen, both in Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham) [1881] and on this site:
Zetetism applied to the flat earth is no more than "The earth looks flat, therefore the earth is "Earth Not a Globe" then hypothesise explanations for everything else.

Rab, this thread is not so much to discuss the merits of FET or zeteticism.  Rather, it's to discuss an alternative name for FET that better reflects its zetetic heritage (i.e., the disdain of scientific theory).

That is true.
However, once everyone has stopped using the term for it, it would be helpful if they would stop doing it.
For example:
"What is on the other side (of the earth)?"
"Probably just rocks".
If that's not theorizing, what is?

Quote from: markjo on October 24, 2018, 08:37:27 AM

Rab, this thread is not so much to discuss the merits of FET or zeteticism.  Rather, it's to discuss an alternative name for FET that better reflects its zetetic heritage (i.e., the disdain of scientific theory).

That is true.
However, once everyone has stopped using the term for it, it would be helpful if they would stop doing it.
For example:
"What is on the other side (of the earth)?"
"Probably just rocks".
If that's not theorizing, what is?

In the proper scientific terminology that's hypothesising".

To be called "theorizing" there has to be some experimental basis for it and there is no experimental basis for many of the flat earth hypotheses.

Quote from: Didymus on October 25, 2018, 03:56:38 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 24, 2018, 08:37:27 AM

Rab, this thread is not so much to discuss the merits of FET or zeteticism.  Rather, it's to discuss an alternative name for FET that better reflects its zetetic heritage (i.e., the disdain of scientific theory).

That is true.
However, once everyone has stopped using the term for it, it would be helpful if they would stop doing it.
For example:
"What is on the other side (of the earth)?"
"Probably just rocks".
If that's not theorizing, what is?

In the proper scientific terminology that's hypothesising".

To be called "theorizing" there has to be some experimental basis for it and there is no experimental basis for many of the flat earth hypotheses.

I guess you are correct
Collins has them as synonymous, but under "guess" only mentions "hypothesize".
Maybe we should refer to Flat Earth Guessing!

FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

This is a great point, futhermore using science you can make a prediction and then get that exact same result for example calculating how long it would take for a ball to hit the ground if it were droped from 100 ft. I challenge flat earthers to give me a method which can do this.

Quote from: markjo on October 23, 2018, 09:46:40 AM

FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

This is a great point, futhermore using science you can make a prediction and then get that exact same result for example calculating how long it would take for a ball to hit the ground if it were droped from 100 ft. I challenge flat earthers to give me a method which can do this.

9.8 m/s^2

Quote from: Dirty Globalist on October 25, 2018, 08:21:31 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 23, 2018, 09:46:40 AM

FE'ers like to go on about how the Zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.  However, one of the tenets of Zeteicism is the rejection of working from theory.  Therefore, does it not stand to reason that it's quite inappropriate to refer to the Zetetic investigation of the shape of the earth as Flat Earth Theory?  Surely it must be time to remedy this insult to the dedicated Zetetic community by removing the word "theory" from FET and finding a better alternative.

This is a great point, futhermore using science you can make a prediction and then get that exact same result for example calculating how long it would take for a ball to hit the ground if it were droped from 100 ft. I challenge flat earthers to give me a method which can do this.

9.8 m/s^2

Tee Hee!
Fair play.

I for one don’t see any problem using the Zetetic method if you adhere to its methodology. The problems start not because of the method used but by the interpretation of any results.

I think this is a fair explanation of the method;
-Come up with a question about the world.
-Design an experiment.
-Experiment and collect the data.
-Draw conclusions from the experiment.
-Formulate a hypothesis
Deliver findings.

For example let’s say we want to find out about the moon and it’s shape and nature, is it self illuminating or does it reflect light from another source. That’s the question.

My experiment, as I can’t actually go there, is to observe the moon and take a series of images like these ones taken by Damien Peach. If I had adhered strictly to the method I would have shot them myself, but for now the fact they were taken by a guy and not an agency will just have to suffice for just now.







It’s the drawing conclusions stage that we have a problem. If I look at Damien’s images I draw the following conclusions.

The moon is not self illumination but appears to reflect light from another source.
The moon is not a flat plane but looks spherical.
The moon appears to have been struck many times by objects given the number and nature of the craters

This is the stage where opinion would split as I am sure that those of a FE persuasion would possibly  draw different conclusions.