"Zetetic": looking for a simple, clear, concise definition

So, what your saying Tom, is that there is no scientific evidence to support FE?

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat...

you keep posting that. over and over. and yet it has been thoroughly debunked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

So, what your saying Tom, is that there is no scientific evidence to support FE?

I don't see Tom saying that, at least yet, but at the very least, a title of a book "written" by Wallace that probably had none of Wallace's involvement cannot be admitted as scientific evidence.

- Kef

Lol, what I meant was, the evidenc is not scientific, it's Zetetic.

But we've already established that the zetetic method is scientific, haven't we? It just doesn't embrace all of science. But if you paint using only the color blue and refuse to use the other colors, you're still painting. If you do science through empricism alone, it's still science.

The Bedford Level Experiment was a scientific experiment and must be held to the same standards.

- Kef

The title of the book and its attributed authorship on Amazon mean nothing. Wallace might have had nothing to do with the book. Amazon.com lists "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer" as being by "The Goldman Family" and doesn't even list O.J. Simpson, even though the Goldman family did not write the book and O.J. Simpson (and a ghostwriter) did.

I don't care for your conspiracy theories. We have a book written by Alfred Russel Wallace which claims that the earth is not a globe. Therefore we can conclude that he was probably a Flat Earther.

That the phrase "demonstrated by Alfred R. Wallace" in the title also means nothing.

Actually, that phrase means everything.

you keep posting that. over and over. and yet it has been thoroughly debunked.

Thoroughly debunked by a Flat Earther?

But we've already established that the zetetic method is scientific, haven't we? It just doesn't embrace all of science. But if you paint using only the color blue and refuse to use the other colors, you're still painting. If you do science through empricism alone, it's still science.

The Bedford Level Experiment was a scientific experiment and must be held to the same standards.

- Kef

what about independent verification? peer review? prediction and verification? elimination of biases?

what about independent verification? peer review? prediction and verification? elimination of biases?

Russel Wallace independently verifies and peer reviews Rowbotham's results. Track down a copy of his book if Amazon does not have any more in stock.

I don't care for conspiracy theories.

I can't imagine it'll be very long before somebody posts "IRONY" in a 72-point font, but I'll let it slide.

You did not offer a refutation of my point. You merely denied it. I maintain that it is perfectly reasonable that Wallace had no involvement with the writing of the book, just as The Goldman Family had no involvement in writing "If I Did It", and just as I could publish a book called "The Earth is Round as Demonstrated by Tom Bishop". It is up to you to disprove these things. The ball is in your court, Tom.

what about independent verification? peer review? prediction and verification? elimination of biases?

Yes, those are the standards I was talking about.

- Kef

Astronomy, for example, is completely observational ind interpretational. There are no controlled experiments in Astronomy.

just because you are completely ignorant of the methods of astronomy and astrophysics, and apparently incapable of even using google, does not mean "astronomy is completely observational". get your facts straight before opening your gaping, brain vomit-spewing maw.

cpt_bthimes, I again reiterate the need for focus in this discussion. Right now we're talking about whether Wallace's results were disproven. If we need to get back to your point, we'll get back to it then.

I don't see Tom saying that, at least yet, but at the very least, a title of a book "written" by Wallace that probably had none of Wallace's involvement cannot be admitted as scientific evidence.

It's not my responsibility to prove whether or not a man who died before my birth said something you disagree with.

If you are truly interested you'll have to track down a copy of his book. You can read it, compare it to Wallace's writing style, and come to your own conclusion.

I'm not going to go on a goose hunt for you.

Lol classic TB reply.

It's not my responsibility to prove whether or not a man who died before my birth said something you disagree with.

If you are truly interested you'll have to track down a copy of his book. You can read it, compare it to Wallace's writing style, and come to your own conclusion.

I'm not going to go on a goose hunt for you.

Since you cannot prove anything, I think you would do well to leave behind this argument and look for another refutation.

- Kef

Since you cannot prove anything, I think you would do well to leave behind this argument and look for another refutation.

- Kef

Why should I need to prove anything when you cannot prove that the book was not written by Alfred Russel Wallace?

Why would Amazon lie to us? It clearly says right there: written by Alfred Russel Wallace.

It's not my responsibility to prove whether or not a man who died before my birth said something you disagree with.

If you are truly interested you'll have to track down a copy of his book. You can read it, compare it to Wallace's writing style, and come to your own conclusion.

I'm not going to go on a goose hunt for you.

Why would Amazon lie to us? It clearly says right there: written by Alfred Russel Wallace.

Why would they claim "If I Did It" was written by The Goldman Family? I also personally know somebody who had a book on Amazon misattributed to her. You're acting as if it's impossible for the book to be misattributed when we already have examples of misattributed books.

It's not that I think Amazon is lying to us, but perhaps they misunderstood the nature of the book or they simply made a clerical error in entering the information. These things happen.

My point is you cannot merely assume that Wallace was involved until proven otherwise, especially since it's unlikely that Wallace would go out of his way to debunk his own claims. Weren't you talking about how the whole idea of the zetetic method lies in not making conjectures and assumptions? Perhaps you should apply that principle here.

If you are truly interested you'll have to track down a copy of his book. You can read it, compare it to Wallace's writing style, and come to your own conclusion.

I'm not going to go on a goose hunt for you.

You shouldn't need to lead me on a goose hunt. An inaccessible source is as good as no source. Also, if there really was a flaw in Wallace's experiment, there should be more sources than a single unavailable book.

- Kef

This page cites the book in question as a secondary source and cites William Carpenter as the sole author. Also, if you google for "Water Not Convex", none of the four google hits even mention Wallace. I'm sorry, but Wallace had no part in writing that book. I also find it improbable that there is anything earth-shattering (heh) in there if it only gets four google hits. True, there could be, but it's improbable, and certainly not probable enough to just take it for granted. Remember, your own zetetic method forbids you from taking a guess and presenting it as fact.

Moreover, what Wallace has said and done outside his experiment is irrelevant. The results of his experiment speak for themselves. Even if later on he changed his mind and became a flat earther, it has no bearing on the validity of his results. The validity of the results of an experiment are independent of who conducts it. If Wallace later changed his own mind, it means nothing. Only if he proved that there was a problem with his earlier experiment will it become relevant, and we can't know whether or not he did without a copy of the book, now, can we?

Therefore, you're going to have to find a different line of argument, Tom. It's that simple.

- Kef

Basically, zetetic is scientific method minus the hypotheses and past experiments.


~D-Draw

So, the zetetic method is based purely on experimentation, not observation or hypothesis.

Tom, I'm still awaiting a response. We don't even know if copies of the book in question even exist anymore. The book has no ISBN. eBay has no copies. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been out of print for over a century. And again, the title only gets four google hits. There's no use in either of us trying to hunt it down because there may well be nothing to hunt down. Unless one of us procures a copy, which is very improbable, it is entirely inadmissable as evidence. Inaccessible source equals no source, period.

So I reiterate my question: where have Wallace's results been proven false? You cannot just take somebody's word for it; that would be against the zetetic method.

- Kef

Tom, I'm still awaiting a response. We don't even know if copies of the book in question even exist anymore. The book has no ISBN. eBay has no copies. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been out of print for over a century. And again, the title only gets four google hits. There's no use in either of us trying to hunt it down because there may well be nothing to hunt down. Unless one of us procures a copy, which is very improbable, it is entirely inadmissable as evidence. Inaccessible source equals no source, period.

So I reiterate my question: where have Wallace's results been proven false? You cannot just take somebody's word for it; that would be against the zetetic method.

- Kef

If we don't have his original work, what makes you think that the Wikipedia article is correct? Alfred Russel Wallace didn't write that. He died in 1913. Why should we blindly assume that a word-of-mouth story which has been passed down for over a century is correct?

All those Google hits clearly say "Earth Not a Globe" ... "as demonstrated by Alfred Russel Wallace." This puts considerable doubt on your unreferenced claim that Russel Alfred Wallace was a Round Earther.

People have already researched this issue. If you pick up a copy of Christine Garwood's book "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" you will read that, yes, Russel's experiments did demonstrate a Flat Earth. Historian Christie Garwood has already done the research for us. Pick up a copy of her book and you will see.

All those Google hits clearly say "Earth Not a Globe" ... "as demonstrated by Alfred Russel Wallace."

Out of the four google hits for "Water, not Convex" in quotes, only one of them mentions Wallace and, again, it cites the book as a secondary source about Wallace, does not mention Wallace in the title of the book, and does not credit him as an author of the book. Where are you getting this from? Can you give me screenshots of these google hits that you're obviously getting and I'm not?

This puts considerable doubt on your unreferenced claim that Russel Alfred Wallace was a Round Earther.

1. No, because there's still nothing preventing somebody from using Wallace's experimental results against him and putting such in the title of a book.
2. Why would Wallace try to prove the earth was round if he was a flat earther?
3. Your claim that he was a flat earther isn't exactly well-referenced. You're still conjecturing, which violates the tenets of the zetetic method.

People have already researched this issue. If you pick up a copy of Christine Garwood's book "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" you will read that, yes, Russel's experiments did demonstrate a Flat Earth. Historian Christie Garwood has already done the research for us. Pick up a copy of her book and you will see.

I'll have to check out the book sometime, though I very strongly doubt that Garwood has disproven Wallace's results, or that she's a flat earther at all, for that matter. Anyway, I don't have any money right now... can anybody cite a relevant portion of Garwood's book?

- Kef

Trying to prove the earth is round is not zetetic, since you hypothesise that the earth is round.

Darth Bishop, Tom's arguments are distorted enough without needing you to distort them further. He doesn't argue against starting with a hypothesis and testing it, but rather against admitting anything but experimental evidence as proof.

- Kef

Tom Bishop, are you Christine Garwood?

There is experimental evidence that proves the Earth is round. Rowbothams experiments, to start with.

So, Zetetic methods only use experimental data, not observation?

Zetetic Method is as follows.

Make no observations. Make no hypotheses. Experiment. Draw conclusions solely based on experiment.

Because no observations are drawn and no hypotheses made, the Zetetic method is flawed because it doesn't know what it is looking for. It tries to find reason in chaos by testing chaos. Which won't work.

So, for example, if I were Zetetic, I would wake up one day and randomly decide to drop a ball. The ball moves towards the ground. All I can draw from this experimental evidence is that when I drop a ball, it moves towards the ground.

Since I have no hypothesis, I have no context in which to place this evidence, so it means nothing.

Wheras, the scientific method, I would observe, say a raindrop fall from a leaf. I would hypothesise that some as yet unknown force is pulling that raindrop to the ground. I would predict that if I dropped a ball from the same height, it would take the same amount of time to hit the ground (Obviously air resistance would make the time differ a bit). I would go out, knowing how long it took a drop of water to fall x feet to the ground, drop a ball from x feet and time it. The time is the same, so my hypothesis has at least one element of truth.
My hypothesis has allowed me to place the evidence in context, so it has meaning and can be related to an actual theory.

So, for example, if I were Zetetic, I would wake up one day and randomly decide to drop a ball. The ball moves towards the ground. All I can draw from this experimental evidence is that when I drop a ball, it moves towards the ground.

Since I have no hypothesis, I have no context in which to place this evidence, so it means nothing.

Wheras, the scientific method, I would observe, say a raindrop fall from a leaf. I would hypothesise that some as yet unknown force is pulling that raindrop to the ground. I would predict that if I dropped a ball from the same height, it would take the same amount of time to hit the ground (Obviously air resistance would make the time differ a bit). I would go out, knowing how long it took a drop of water to fall x feet to the ground, drop a ball from x feet and time it. The time is the same, so my hypothesis has at least one element of truth.
My hypothesis has allowed me to place the evidence in context, so it has meaning and can be related to an actual theory.

You have it essentially correct.