Flaws in Scientific Method

  • 18 Replies
  • 8203 Views
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Flaws in Scientific Method
« on: April 12, 2007, 06:42:14 AM »
Though this topic relates a little to FET, and although I will use the FE/RE argument as an example in this post, I felt this belonged in Alt. Science since it addresses concerns about theoretic scientific method in general rather than specifically applied to the shape of the Earth.

The major problem with theoretic scientific method which has formulated so much of modern science is the idea of testing a pre-conceived hypothesis. The theoretic scientist will set out with a pre-existing notion of what the truth SHOULD be, and then try to back it up with evidence.

A typical theoretic method might look like this

Hypothesis: The Earth is Round
Method: Collect evidence which supports this hypothesis
Conclusion: The Earth is Round.

The often shunned alternative to Theoretic Scientific Method, the zetetic method, is fundamentally different in that it sets out with no assumptions about what the truth should be, rather tries to establish the truth impartially, based on observable phenomena.

This is one reason why Flat Earthers always seem to be on the defensive when it comes to arguing about the Earth's shape. While Round Earthers set out to prove that the Earth is round, Flat Earthers (zeteticists) seek only to address the existing phenomena with reasoned explanation.

Why should modern science embrace a theory which implicitly has to adopt unfounded claims to start with in order to proceed with enquiry? Surely by predicting what the results of testing and experimentation should be, we set ourselves up to only take into account evidence which supports these predictions.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

HellboundGreaser

  • 95
  • Clever bastard
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2007, 08:14:07 AM »
Quote
The major problem with theoretic scientific method which has formulated so much of modern science is the idea of testing a pre-conceived hypothesis. The theoretic scientist will set out with a pre-existing notion of what the truth SHOULD be, and then try to back it up with evidence.
Scientific problem solving involves two basic types of reasoning, generally called induction and deduction.
Induction involves gathering together a collection of bits of data ,observations, experimental results, whatever kinds of information are available ,and formulating a generalization which reasonably explains all of them. This is analogous to the formation of a hypothesis. You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations.
It's easy to see why some people think that forming a hypothesis is sometimes described as forming an "educated guess." It's a guess in the sense that you are devising an explanation, but it's educated because (1) it gotta be reasonable (ie, sensible) and, (2) it either has to be consistent with what we already think we know, or it has to include a very good justification for deciding that what we think we know is wrong. This is a vital kind of self-policing. One of the most significant strengths of scientific knowledge is the degree to which it is self correcting, and this is one part of that. No matter how good an idea is, if it violates the centuries worth of hard won knowledge we've accumulated(like proof of the earth being round), there must be extremely good reason (based an a lot of evidence) to accept the new idea and throw out all of the old ones.Science progresses through trial and error, mostly error. Every new theory or law must be skeptically and rigorously tested before acceptance. Most fail, and are swept under the rug, even before publication. Others, like the luminiferous ether, flourish for a while, and then their inadequacies accumulate till they are intolerable, and are quietly abandoned when something better comes along. Such mistakes will be found out. There's always someone who will delight in exposing them. Science progresses by making mistakes, correcting the mistakes, then moving on to make new mistakes. If we stopped making mistakes, scientific progress would stop.



« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 08:20:04 AM by HellboundGreaser »
Darling facist bully boy, give me some more you bastard, may seed of your loin be fruitful in the belly of your woman.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2007, 08:21:28 AM »
The aim of most experiments is to try and disprove existing thoeries,after all, you're not going to get fame by saying "Yup, Einstein was right" but if you can prove he was wrong, then the fame comes

?

Bushido

Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2007, 09:15:46 AM »

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2007, 01:38:19 PM »
Scientific problem solving involves two basic types of reasoning, generally called induction and deduction.
Induction involves gathering together a collection of bits of data ,observations, experimental results, whatever kinds of information are available ,and formulating a generalization which reasonably explains all of them. This is analogous to the formation of a hypothesis. You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations.

But inductive reasoning hardly ever precedes a hypothesis - the gathering of evidence tends to be done IN ORDER to support the hypothesis. This is the problem.

It's easy to see why some people think that forming a hypothesis is sometimes described as forming an "educated guess." It's a guess in the sense that you are devising an explanation, but it's educated because (1) it gotta be reasonable (ie, sensible) and, (2) it either has to be consistent with what we already think we know, or it has to include a very good justification for deciding that what we think we know is wrong. This is a vital kind of self-policing. One of the most significant strengths of scientific knowledge is the degree to which it is self correcting, and this is one part of that.

How can you correct and police yourself when all you're trying to do is prop up your original hypothesis?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

HellboundGreaser

  • 95
  • Clever bastard
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2007, 02:26:46 PM »
The inductive method is the deductive method "turned upside down". The deductive method starts with a few true statements (axioms) with the goal of proving many true statements (theorems) that logically follow from them. The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works (laws and theories).
In the deductive method, logic is the authority. If a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, it must be true. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.

Quote
How can you correct and police yourself when all you're trying to do is prop up your original hypothesis?
If the original Hypothesis is shown to be wrong or incorrect, it's abandon and science moves on. That's the way science is.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 02:30:03 PM by HellboundGreaser »
Darling facist bully boy, give me some more you bastard, may seed of your loin be fruitful in the belly of your woman.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2007, 03:43:50 PM »
Dogplatter, you act like the experiments in Earth Not A Globe were done without an aim in mind and accidentally prove that the earth is flat.  THIS IS NOT THE CASE, and it is a gross misrepresentation of what is found therein.  Tell me how it is not true that every experiment in there was done with the intent of proving the earth flat.  I see passages where he MAKES STUFF UP to allow for the earth being flat rather than round.  A perfect example is the "shadow object", or invisible moon that causes lunar eclipses.  IF HE HADN'T ALREADY HAD THE PRECONCEIVED NOTION THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT, HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD REASON TO EVEN THEORIZE ON THIS.  End of story.

I think your account of how zetetic science differs from the scientific method is bullshit.  But if you buy it, hey, more power to you.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2007, 04:00:44 PM »
Interesting.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2007, 08:09:28 PM »
Dogplatter, you act like the experiments in Earth Not A Globe were done without an aim in mind and accidentally prove that the earth is flat.  THIS IS NOT THE CASE, and it is a gross misrepresentation of what is found therein.  Tell me how it is not true that every experiment in there was done with the intent of proving the earth flat.  I see passages where he MAKES STUFF UP to allow for the earth being flat rather than round.  A perfect example is the "shadow object", or invisible moon that causes lunar eclipses.  IF HE HADN'T ALREADY HAD THE PRECONCEIVED NOTION THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT, HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD REASON TO EVEN THEORIZE ON THIS.  End of story.

I think your account of how zetetic science differs from the scientific method is bullshit.  But if you buy it, hey, more power to you.

Well the experiments are published in a book claiming that the Earth is flat because that's the conclusion they yielded. Clearly Parallax set out with the intention of FINDING OUT the shape of the Earth rather than proving a Flat Earth.

It's important to note that not the whole book is zetetic method. You'll notice that when Rowbotham performs actual scientific experiments he correctly uses zetetic method, but when he's just conjecturing in the chapters which follow the experimentation, he is anything but zetetic. This is because the conjecture is just that - conjecture. Upon discovering the shape of the Earth through rigorous scientific examination, Rowbotham then conjectures on certain other phenomenom in light of this discovery.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2007, 09:19:39 PM »
Definitely an interesting topic. I find the reason why the zetetic method is so rarely used and so sparsely revered is because it's impossible to an extent. When you begin an experiment, I don't think that you can help having an idea on what's going to happen. Of course, you can push the hypothesis back more and more, but subconsciously, you've got to be leaning one way or the other. Of course, the Scientific Method just embraces that hypothesis instead of pushing it back, which I think is okay as long as the experiment retains objectivity. If the hypothesis always comes out right, you're probably fudging results accidentally (or looking at something that's incredulously obvious). However, I don't think that it's right to assume that the hypothesis ALWAYS creates bias in an experiment. It is simply acknowledging what one thinks will happen in the experiment. In fact, whenever I conduct an experiment, I make a hypothesis of what I assume is going to happen, and then try to prove myself wrong. It creates a balance in such a way. Even better would be to have two scientists who are running the experiment to have polar views. There are ways to counter the bias in the Scientific Theory due to a hypothesis, and honestly I don't think the zetetic method helps all too much to remove the bias--it just doesn't acknowledge it.

~D-Draw

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2007, 10:15:25 PM »
Oh no, I wasn't saying that it will create a bias in every case. My problem is that a general attitude of "I must try to prove X", encouraged by theoretic ("deductive") method, can't be particularly helpful towards impartiality, and is more likely to cause bias-related errors than a generally zetetic attitude of "There's a phenomenom. Why does that happen?"
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Bushido

Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2007, 01:56:52 AM »
How can the zetetic method be used in discovering whether the molecular structure of substances is real or not?

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2007, 02:19:54 AM »
I love the conjecture part. Dangerously close to a negative FE stance. :o
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2007, 04:38:07 AM »
Zetetic method isn't addressing phenomenon and observations with reasoned explanation. FE'rs have NEVER been able to present a single piece of evidence that shows the earth is flat, and not round. Thus, anyone observing the earth could believe it was both flat and round by Zetetic reasoning.

Zetetic method is not science. It's just taking each piece of evidence and fitting it into your model.

A parallel can be drawn to scientists who believed that the sun and planets revolved around the earth. In order to account for the trajectories and orbits, they had to compose immensely complicated solar system structured. This is ad hoc science. It's adding to your theory just so you can keep it. It's not science. It's blind, unreasonable faith.

FE'rs do the same thing.

The FE model is NOT scientific by any regard, and the methods people have used to arrive at this conclusion are equally as unscientific.
It was decided that Tom's abuse of his suspiciously acquired mod powers was too much to let continue.  His account was deleted.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2007, 08:52:30 AM »
How can the zetetic method be used in discovering whether the molecular structure of substances is real or not?

In wondering how matter is stuck together and what it's made of, you examine it using a series of experiments, finding matter to be composed of atoms.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2007, 11:01:21 AM »
My problem is, maybe Earth: Not a Globe isn't the best representative of zetetic science.  It may very well be true that the initial experiments conducted were done without bias and without an end conclusion in mind.

Although I have to say, when a belief is so widely accepted to be fact (the earth is round), conducting experiments to find out the shape of the earth can only be done with one goal in mind.  I still believe that Rowbotham conducted even the initial experiments with the intention of proving the earth flat.

Even assuming the experiments are real, not having ever been verified by a trusted source (which unfortunately doesn't exist in your FE world, as anybody suggested to have any authority on the matter is in on the Conspiracy) it's tough to judge the veracity of his claims.  One of the beautiful things about science is that a theory is not accepted until it's gone through rigorous testing by several sources.  Newton merely discovered gravity; it wasn't accepted until it was verified by other sources.

But at any rate, it is still clear to me that the bulk of the book is dedicated entirely to backing up the claim that the earth is flat.  Every experiment and hypothesis after the beginning is there for the explicit purpose of proving the earth flat.  The bias is clear: for example, instead of using real experimentation and observation to find out what causes a lunar eclipse, he appeals to folklore and supposition.

Just because he could predict with accuracy when a lunar eclipse would occur doesn't give his claim of a shadow object any credence.  An invisible moon, that even to this day and age we still have never seen or detected, just a shadow occasionally when there is an eclipse?

Please.  That's not science.  It is science-fiction at its most obvious. 

It's easy to say "Look at the book.  Look at the FAQs."  But you are a fringe group that nobody, and I mean nobody, takes seriously.  If there was any reason to believe that Earth: Not a Globe is accurate, or even worth taking a second look at, it would have caught the attention of the mainstream scientific community by now.

Unless the entire mainstream scientific community is part of the Conspiracy.  And just the fact that you would need to make that claim is enough reason for any intelligent, rational person to reject the theory out of hand.

Be honest, Dogplatter.  You know there's no real reason to believe in this Conspiracy, other than that you "know" the earth is flat.  It's just a scapegoat, a convenient way to explain how even though we have all of this evidence, coming from all these disparate, unconnected sources, of the roundness of the earth, the earth can still be flat.

"Anybody who's proven it wrong is part of the Conspiracy."  It's just too convenient, and you can cite weak circumstantial evidence all you want (I did a search for "Scott" and "Antarctic" and didn't get anything, by the way, so maybe you can post a link to the thread you mentioned in my thread), but it doesn't make it true, anymore than simply having means and motive makes something true. 

If means and motive = proof, then every woman in history who had a rich husband die is guilty of murder, QED.  Just the fact that your group tries to use this (means and motive) as evidence of a Conspiracy shows how weak your case really is.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 12:16:24 PM by Round Earth Conspiracist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2007, 12:09:17 PM »
RE Conspiracist:

You're partly right about E:NaG. It's not completely wrong, and the actual experiments are fully zetetic all the way through, but in the second half of his book Rowbotham departs from zetetic method completely.

Personally I shy away from religiously pointing to the FAQ and to Rowbotham. The FAQ is just fully wrong on a lot of issues, Round and Flat Earthers have pointed out huge problems.

As for Rowbotham, inspired as he was, the post-experimentation section of his book (where he bullshits explanations for pretty much every phenomenon he can think of) is not some sort of Bible. It's wrong in plenty of places too, a good example being his speculation on the nature of space and what is beyond the ice wall. Rowbotham guessed that the universe outside Earth was basically just a huge frozen ocean. We now know about Universal Acceleration and that this is not the case.

By appealing to the authority of Rowbotham's book or screaming conspiracy at every point, Flat Earthers sometimes neglect legitimate criticisms of parts of their theory (bear in mind there is more than one FET). They also neglect zetetic method by attempting to prop up FET using these resources instead of investigating the matter open-mindedly and arriving at a reasonable conclusion.

Of course, on the other hand there are obvious cases where "conspiracy" IS the correct answer because it's actually true, and likewise the experiments of the book are useful evidence.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2007, 07:49:13 PM »
No, the Method involves *testing* the hypothesis.

Hypothesis: Sharks only use their senses of sight and smell to navigate.
Experiment: Take shark away from home, block its vision and nasal passages, release it.
Result: Using its other senses, it still finds its way home, thus proving the hypothesis wrong, thus gaining knowledge about the shark. Gaining knowledge is the goal of science.

Einstein used to believe in a Young Universe, but proved himself wrong when composing his Theory.

Then again, rather than believing that Earth used to be one continent that slowly drifted apart, you assert that dinosaurs built giant barges and traveled around and that's how the bones of the same species can be found on opposite sides of the world, so it may be too much to expect you to follow common lines of logic.

It's not perfect, sometimes people do set out to prove themselves right and not learn the truth, but those are, by far, the exceptions and not the rule.

Re: Flaws in Scientific Method
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2007, 06:06:59 AM »
Doggy you have it completely the wrong way round. Theoretical science takes observations and then trys to theorise as to what causes those observations. Zetetic science takes an assumption (the Earth is flat) and then "creates" evidence to support it. Science is not about proving facts it is about disproving one theory and replacing it with another until such time as a better theory comes along which can disprove the previous.

Could your faith in FET have been down to this simple misunderstanding all along?