About the "believer", not the "theories"...

Tom, you are missing his point.

You keep referring to details about your belief, when you should be talking about how you have reached that belief.

Your methods are not scientific, but you are claiming that they are.  You are being disingenuous by misrepresenting the basis for your belief.

That's not to say that your reasons for your beliefs are not valid.  They most certainly are.  Only you can judge your own choices and their value to you.

But when you claim to be scientific, you are effectively invalidating your own values by presenting them as something they are not.  In the proper context, you cannot be disputed.  In the world of science, however, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Have some respect for yourself and your own beliefs by calling them what they are.  Not science.

Tom, you are missing his point.

You keep referring to details about your belief, when you should be talking about how you have reached that belief.

Your methods are not scientific, but you are claiming that they are.  You are being disingenuous by misrepresenting the basis for your belief.

That's not to say that your reasons for your beliefs are not valid.  They most certainly are.  Only you can judge your own choices and their value to you.

But when you claim to be scientific, you are effectively invalidating your own values by presenting them as something they are not.  In the proper context, you cannot be disputed.  In the world of science, however, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Have some respect for yourself and your own beliefs by calling them what they are.  Not science.

Probably the most insightful post concerning Tom's personality I've seen on this site yet.  My own take on Tom has been that of an arrested adolescent suffering from some strange form of oppositional defiant disorder, which interferes with his ability to post coherent thought in an online forum.

Very well put!

But when you claim to be scientific, you are effectively invalidating your own values by presenting them as something they are not.  In the proper context, you cannot be disputed.  In the world of science, however, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Have some respect for yourself and your own beliefs by calling them what they are.  Not science.

Wrong. We're the scientists. You guys... you're just fantasizers.

Lets get one thing through your head since you think so highly of the Scientific Method: The Scientific Method requires an experiment to be conducted to demonstrate that a hypothesis is true. Remember that little image I provided on the previous page:



Just compare Rowbotham to Aristotile.

- Rowbotham has conducted a plethora of experimental evidence to demonstrate that his hypothesis was true.

- Aristotile conducted no experiments for his hypothesis'. Aristotile just provided some observations and hypothesis'. He did no experiments to prove that his hypothesis' were true.

Now compare Rowbotham to Einstein.

- Rowbotham has conducted many experiments to come to the truth of the matter. His work has been peer reviewed by independent researchers.

- Einstein never conducted any experiments to prove that the fabric of space-time bends. His observation of "gravitational lensing" did nothing to prove that the fabric of space-time bends. It was an observation, not an experiment.

None of your "pillars of science" in the fields of RE astronomy have conducted a single controlled experiment to demonstrate a hypothesis to be true. Newton never did any experiments to prove that gravity was a force. Copernicus never did any experiments to prove that the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo never did any experiments. Stephen Hawking never did any experiments to prove that the metric of space-time expands. It's all observation and hypothesis. Never once has an experiment been conducted.

The closest thing you guys have to an experiment was when Eratosthenes did his little two stick shadow experiment. And he assumed that the earth was a globe in his calculations. When those calculations assume that the earth is a plane the sun is calculated to be very close to the earth.

That's it. That's all you have. There is no experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is a globe, that stars are far away, that space-time bends, that gravitons exist, that the earth was formed through 'gravity', or any of that. It's all hypothesis. Your "science" does not get past stage one of the Scientific Method.

Round Earth Astronomy is not a science. The Scientific Method is not even attempted. You are not "scientists". You do not conduct experiments. You conduct observations and hypothesis. Fantasizers, pure and simple.

I think we're both right about Tom, Skeptek.

Tom,

You seem intent on teaching us.  That is not debate.

I may have had too much airline water...

Did he seriously just reference Rowbotham?
Did he seriously just say "...astronomy is not science"?

WOW.  Good stuff, man.

Did he seriously just reference Rowbotham?

Rowbotham has provided many experiments which pertain to the subject matter. As have a number of other authors. Please see the resources in my signature link.

Did he seriously just say "...astronomy is not science"?

Uh, it's not. Astronomy is called an "observing science" because it it not a science the way chemistry and biology are a science. With chemistry the researcher can experiment with different elements under controlled conditions and come to the absolute truth of a hypothesis. Chemists can put their subject matter in test tubes and influence it with various types of stimulus. Astronomers can't put the cosmos in the lab, or influence them. No experimentation on the cosmos can be conducted at all. With astronomy the astronomer is stuck here on earth and can only observe and hypothesize.

No one considers astronomy to be a true science. Since it consists of nothing by observation and hypothesis it is actually not even a science at all. It does not get past stage one of the scientific method. Einstein never experimented with anything. Newton didn't experiment. Galileo and Copernicus never experimented. There has never been controlled experimentation what-so-ever in matters of astronomy.

Quote

Did he seriously just reference Rowbotham?

Rowbotham has provided many experiments which pertain to the subject matter. As have a number of other authors. Please see the resources in my signature link.

Quote

Did he seriously just say "...astronomy is not science"?

Uh, it's not. Astronomy is called an "observing science" because it it not a science the way chemistry and biology are a science. With chemistry the researcher can experiment with different elements under controlled conditions and come to the absolute truth of a hypothesis. With astronomy the astronomer is stuck here on earth and can only observe and hypothesize. The astronomer cannot conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos.

No one considers astronomy to be a true science. Since it consists of nothing by observation and hypothesis it is not even a science at all. It does not get past stage one of the scientific method. Einstein never experimented with anything. Newton didn't experiment. Galileo and Copernicus never experimented. There has never been controlled experimentation what-so-ever in matters of astronomy.

Please go back to school.

Anyone catch the "Please go back to school." before he realized that he is teaching, not debating and deleted it?  I'm glad I did.

Tom,

You must be able to see that you are in the presence of people who will not accept some of the things you are saying.

I think honesty requires you to be up front about what edits you are making to your posts.  You might take a lesson from 30,000 Gauss.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 15, 2009, 12:29:28 PM

Oh but it has:

1. I have hypothesised that The Earth is a spinning globe set in a seamless spherical sky.

The observation of spinning stars is not evidence for a "ball earth". It's evidence for spinning stars.

Ah, but my Round Earth Spherical Sky Model can explain the motion of all stars at all points around The World ...

Wheras your Multiple Layered Counter-Rotating Disc-Like Star Systems cannot.

Therefore my model is better.

Quote

2. I have gathered evidence which agress with this hypothesis - the "star-trail" pictures.

(See http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0)

3. Therefore my hypothesis can be elevated to the status of a theory.

Nope. The Scientific Method requires an experiment to test a hypothesis. What experiment did you conduct?

The experiment was getting somebody else to take star-trail pictures.

Star-trails which support my model, not yours.

An observation is not an experiment. It's an observation.

All experiments are based on careful and meticulous observations so I fail to see your point.

Hey, Tesla,

You know that you are just playing into his game, right?  He doesn't want to debate.  He wants to teach us all how stupid we are.

All experiments are based on careful and meticulous observations so I fail to see your point.

Observations are not experiments. Scientific experiments involve a control and an influence of variables.

See http://www.esse.ou.edu/glossary_st.html :

CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT: A form of scientific investigation in which one variable, termed the independent or control variable, is manipulated to reveal the effect on another variable, termed the dependent or responding variable, while all other variables in the system are held fixed

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that astronomy does not follow the scientific method and is stuck at the hypothesis stage.

When a science is stuck at hypothesis, guess what? That makes it a pseudoscience. Astronomers observe and hypothesize their "gravitons" the same way people of religion observe and hypothesize that "god did it" or when ESP believers imagine that "brain waves" can influence daily events. It's the same thing. No valid experiments are conducted. The need for experimentation is denied. The "researchers" just have their ideas and that's it. None of their ideas follow, or attempts to follow, the Scientific Method.

It's not a science, and you're not "scientists".

You're right, Tom.  I am stupid.  It's a good thing I've got you to educate me.

Just make sure that you don't address the actual topic of this thread.  Keep talking about the details of each part of your beliefs.

I wonder how long a rat can run around a maze before he realizes that HE is the rat and not the researcher.  LOL.

Einstein never experimented with anything.

But Arthur Eddington did observe that the orbit of the planet Mercury was better explained by Einstein's Relativity than Newtonian Mechanics.

Although this wasn't a true experiment in a lab. with as control it is still science.

Astronomers observe The Universe, make hypotheses and then see if further observations continue to fit their models or not - all perfectly part of the scientific method.

Eddington also acquired the first pictures of star-light bending around The Sun (during an eclipse) which proved that Einstein's curved space-time exists.

And the latter is a proper experiment even though it isn't in a lab. - Eddington effectively used The Sun to bend the star-light.

So there: an astronomer performing a proper experiment with a control - stars at night no Sun - versus the experiment - stars with Sun in the way, Sun being eclipsed.

All good and proper science, in my professional opinion!

@ skeptek: i think this is a highly interesting topic you brought up here. i'm no expert on this field but i think you're right with everything you said. the problem with the topic is, that a fe'er posting here would be like someone telling his psychaitrist what's wrong with him. as many fe'ers (as well as any other persons in a similar situation) won't see anything wrong in their own behaviour this topic begged for going off topic

Hey, Tesla,

You know that you are just playing into his game, right?  He doesn't want to debate.  He wants to teach us all how stupid we are.

I am beginning to appreciate that fact.

How fortunate that you showed up when you did to highlight this!

@ skeptek: i think this is a highly interesting topic you brought up here. i'm no expert on this field but i think you're right with everything you said. the problem with the topic is, that a fe'er posting here would be like someone telling his psychaitrist what's wrong with him. as many fe'ers (as well as any other persons in a similar situation) won't see anything wrong in their own behaviour this topic begged for going off topic

Thanks for the post.  You are absolutely correct.  But then, I'm not here to educate or cure them.

But Arthur Eddington did observe that the orbit of the planet Mercury was better explained by Einstein's Relativity than Newtonian Mechanics.

OBSERVE is right. That's all they can ever do. Einstein made up some stuff about space bending and tied the variables of his equations to observations of astronomical events. No one observed "space bending" in any experiment. The idea of bending space is a complete hypothesis. Einstein might well have said that his equations were caused by subatomic fairies. It would have led to the same road.

Although this wasn't a true experiment in a lab. with as control it is still science.

Nope. Observation is not science. Anyone can observe something and attribute it to a miracle, or an act of god. That doesn't make it a science. If no controlled experimentation is performed it does not follow the scientific method and is therefore not a science.

Astronomers observe The Universe, make hypotheses and then see if further observations continue to fit their models or not - all perfectly part of the scientific method.

Uh, that's not what the scientific method says at all. Please dig up your elementary school text books.

The Scientific Method: hypothesis -> experiment -> refinement of the idea ->experiment -> final conclusion

Astronomy: hypothesis -> conclusion

Eddington also acquired the first pictures of star-light bending around The Sun (during an eclipse) which proved that Einstein's curved space-time exists.

Another "observation" which doesn't prove anything about the fabric of space-time bending. Did Eddington see the fabric of space-time bend, or did he see some light bending?

And the latter is a proper experiment even though it isn't in a lab. - Eddington effectively used The Sun to bend the star-light.

Nope. What he did was make an observation which could come to any number of interpretations and hypothesis'. Did gravitons influence those photons? How about sub atomic fairies? There was no controlled experimentation or an influence of variables.

So there: an astronomer performing a proper experiment with a control - stars at night no Sun - versus the experiment - stars with Sun in the way, Sun being eclipsed.

No. It was an observation of a stellar event. It was not an experiment. There was no control. Please revise the concept of a controlled experiment.

CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT: A form of scientific investigation in which one variable, termed the independent or control variable, is manipulated to reveal the effect on another variable, termed the dependent or responding variable, while all other variables in the system are held fixed

All good and proper science, in my professional opinion!

Hypothesis which directly leads to conclusion is never good science. It's the very opposite of good science.

Please dig up your elementary school text books.

Why do you feel the need to continually make insinuations about our (poor) level of intelligence?

You just come across as a fanatic, and not in a good way.

The Scientific Method: hypothesis -> experiment -> refinement of the idea ->experiment -> final conclusion

Astronomy: hypothesis -> conclusion

OK - I actually find your denigration of "observational science" interesting and worthy of debate.

Why? Because, as a physicist, I am used to having experimental controls (as Rutherford once said: "In science, all is physics; the rest is stamp-collecting!).

But ...

And it's a big but ...

I would suggest that "observational science" can still stay true to the scientific method.

You just have to have a flexible mind in order to appreciate that which, as a fanatic, I fear you do not possess.

This is my take on astronomy, which I would like you to think about rationally rather than just firing back a zealous response:

1. Observe something (e.g. rotation of stars above the UK)

2. Make a model that explains the observations (e.g. Round Earth Spherical Sky)

3. Make a fresh observation (e.g rotation of stars above Australia)

And this fresh observation is sufficiently like an "experiment" for it to be science, IMHO.

Why?

Because it gives us fresh data / information - which is all that experimenation is, the acquisition of fresh data.

4. Assess if the model still fits the new data.

If yes, model holds; if not, get a new model!

5. Repeat step 3.

6. Repeat step 4.

And so on.

So again I suggest that acquiring "fresh observations" is equivalent to doing "experiments" ...

Because both give you new data with which to teast your model / theory.

No. It was an observation of a stellar event. It was not an experiment. There was no control. Please revise the concept of a controlled experiment.

CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT: A form of scientific investigation in which one variable, termed the independent or control variable, is manipulated to reveal the effect on another variable, termed the dependent or responding variable, while all other variables in the system are held fixed

Re Eddington's eclipse experiment:-

The "independent variable" was the mass of the intervening object (Sun, or no Sun)

The "dependent variable" was the angular separation of the star near the Sun compared to a star far away.

The angular separation was measured at night with no Sun - the "control" - and during the eclipse; so two observations, not one.

Edit:

And the only thing that changed was the presence of The Sun so "all other variables in the system [were] held fixed".

So it meets your definition of a "controlled experiment" perfectly, IMHO.

I would suggest that "observational science" can still stay true to the scientific method.

Absolutely not. Observing something and then making up an explanation, observing some more, and then making up some more, can never constitute true science. You have never demonstrated or proved your fundemental assumptions in the first place. You are just "making it up" as you go along, which is exactly how astronomers came up with 'Dark Energy' and 'Quintessence'. Since their observations didn't fit their ideas of gravity, they just made up a bunch of stuff to fill in the areas where gravity failed.

Never once is it considered that their gravity, general relativity/gravitons are incorrect. They just built upon their hopothesis' with increasingly elaborate ones.

Re Eddington's eclipse experiment:-

The "independent variable" was the mass of the intervening object (Sun, or no Sun)

The "dependent variable" was the angular separation of the star near the Sun compared to a star far away.

The angular separation was measured at night with no Sun - the "control" - and during the eclipse; so two observations, not one.

Edit:

And the only thing that changed was the presence of The Sun so "all other variables in the system [were] held fixed".

So it meets your definition of a "controlled experiment" perfectly, IMHO.

All of that is observation of a stellar event. All we can tell from his observation was that light bends in the presence of the sun. Nowhere is the bending of space-time suggested or demonstrated.

It's an observation. Not an experiment. Why light behaves in the presence of the sun is a complete mystery. There is no way for Eddington to tell why light bends in the presence of the sun. Gravitons, fairies, bending-space, who can say?

Absolutely not. Observing something and then making up an explanation, observing some more, and then making up some more, can never constitute true science.

So taking observations, forming a hypothesis based off of them, and then testing that hypothesis with more observations is not science? It's all well and good calling things like dark energy made up, but unless you can propose a better hypothesis to take it's place, I see little reason to dismiss it.

All of that is observation of a stellar event. All we can tell from his observation was that light bends in the presence of the sun. Nowhere is the bending of space-time suggested or demonstrated.

It's an observation. Not an experiment. Why light behaves in the presence of the sun is a complete mystery. There is no way for Eddington to tell why light bends in the presence of the sun. Gravitons, fairies, bending-space, who can say?

You could say something similar for any kind of scientific experiment. You can't tell exactly what is happening, you can only observe it's effects. This doesn't make it stop being science.

Observers may notice that this thread is entirely about the study of how the believer chooses to believe, and how it affects their debating styles, rather than the debate of any actual theory.

And yet, the theorist happily demonstrates for us the very behaviors this topic has been setup to study, as though on cue.  The desire to preach to anyone who is willing to engage them in their way of "debating" is overwhelming to the point where they have begun to completely ignore the fact that they are performing under a spotlight.

This affords us an interesting opportunity to inject test arguments into the stream to observe the resulting behavioral response.  Any takers?  Other FE advocates would be good too, believer or not.

So taking observations, forming a hypothesis based off of them, and then testing that hypothesis with more observations is not science?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

You guys don't know the first thing about "real" science. I don't know what substandard schools you attended, because the Scientific Method is required in all sciences. Astronomy is not a science. Here's another image displaying the steps of the Scientific Method:



See that? Astronomy fails right where the "test with an experiment" part comes in. Newton never did any experiments to prove his hypothesis of gravity as a force. Copernicus never did any experimentation to prove his hypothesis of the earth is revolving around the sun. No experimentation is ever attempted. The need for it is denied entirely.

The steps in Astronomy are just Observe -> Interpret, just like any religion or pseudoscience.  

It's all well and good calling things like dark energy made up, but unless you can propose a better hypothesis to take it's place, I see little reason to dismiss it.

You don't see a reason to dismiss a made up hypothesis without evidence what-so-ever to back it up? When science remains at the hypothesis stage, it is not a science. Science requires, you know, actual "experiments" to be conducted to come to the truth of the matter.

If you are content with hypothesis, you may as well join some cult.

You could say something similar for any kind of scientific experiment.

No. Other sciences are conducted fundamentally different to Astronomy.

For example, it's believed that water is a molecule made from H20. Two hydrogens and one oxygen. To test this we can use the electrolysis of water to come to the absolute truth of the matter. Electricity separates the elements into sealed of flasks. One element comes out twice as much as the other.

If there is any question such as "maybe it's not really oxygen", the hypothesis can be put to the test (important!) by conducting an experiment like lighting it on fire, mixing it with another element, or airing into a sealed container with an insect. The experimenter can try all sorts of different things to come to the truth of the matter. If there's another question it can always be put to the test to see if the hypothesis has merit. Whatever the question might be, it can be put to the test. Each and every variable can be controlled and modified for whatever the experiment is testing. In the end, after many successive hypothesis' and experimental trials, the experimenter can come to the concrete conclusion that the oxygen in water is the same oxygen known elsewhere.

Astronomy cannot come to conclusions of any sort. Nothing can be put to the test. It cannot be studied in such a manner. It exists as one hypothesis built on another, rambled off in mumbling pretension.

You can't tell exactly what is happening, you can only observe it's effects. This doesn't make it stop being science.

Yes, actually it does. If you only observe and hypothesize, it is not a science. Observation and hypothesis is what religions do.

What astronomy does is not "science". It doesn't even pretend to be. Astronomers are not "scientists".

Observers may notice that this thread is entirely about the study of how the believer chooses to believe, and how it affects their debating styles, rather than the debate of any actual theory.

If you've been following along you would realize that it is actually the REer who "chooses to believe".

When a "science" remains at hypothesis and its users neglect to put their ideas to the test it's called a "belief," and is therefore a faith issue.

And yet, the theorist happily demonstrates for us the very behaviors this topic has been setup to study, as though on cue.  The desire to preach to anyone who is willing to engage them in their way of "debating" is overwhelming to the point where they have begun to completely ignore the fact that they are performing under a spotlight.

Please recall that you started this thread and said

"A scientific theorist will always adhere strictly to rigid debate structure and will only use actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides)."

Your science does not follow, or attempt to follow, the Scientific Method. You've been defeated. You are not a "scientific theorist". Stop pretending that you are.

By the way, your signature also says "Claiming to be scientific while not following The Scientific Method makes one a liar".

This affords us an interesting opportunity to inject test arguments into the stream to observe the resulting behavioral response.

That would a first for you guys, to actually test something.

Quote

I would suggest that "observational science" can still stay true to the scientific method.

Absolutely not.

It is obvious that you have very fixed ideas about what does or does not constitute science ...

Therefore we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

So here is another point which I am sure that you will enjoy having a good old rant about:

1. Hypothesis = The Earth is a sphere.
2. Hypothesis = Things stick to the Earth because of a force called gravity.
3. Hypothesis = Things can escape The earths gravity if they are sent upwards with sufficient velocity.

4. Experiment = build a super-fast machine that can travel upwards with sufficient velocity (rocket).

5. Result = rocket no. 1 (Soveiet Union) goes into orbit around The Earth.

6. Is result repeatable? Yes: rocket no. 2 goes into orbit too (USA).

7. Is result independently verfiable? Yes: several amateurs are able to intercept radio signals from the sattelites (rocket nose cones).

Would you care to discuss how the above fails the scientific method?

I.e. is the science of rocketry not a real science in any way?

The Scientific Method: hypothesis -> experiment -> refinement of the idea ->experiment -> final conclusion

Astronomy: hypothesis -> conclusion

Tom:

Would you please post your objections to the "science" of astronomy in my star-trails thread?

That way your comments will sit in the most appropriate thread, and out-siders will be able to match your objections to my observations/model in a clear, logical and ordered way.

By objecting to astronomy in a thread about belief you are rather avoiding taking me on head-to-head.

By not raising your objections in my star-trails thread it appears that you are conceding defeat there - agreeing with me that your Flat earth Model cannot explain all observations.

Or to put it another way:

I have "falsified", disproven or rubbished your model with my observations - which is good science - so you need to come and fix it (if you can)!

I.e. is the science of rocketry not a real science in any way?

Rocketry might actually constitute a valid experiment to demonstrate the existence of the earth's orbit if it were true. Too bad the people who run space agencies have been shown to be fundamentally dishonest.

Would you please post your objections to the "science" of astronomy in my star-trails thread?

I've shown you your deficiencies here. That's good enough.

I have "falsified", disproven or rubbished your model with my observations - which is good science - so you need to come and fix it (if you can)!

Observations are not "good science". Please refrain from espousing those heinous lies.

An observation is an observation and nothing more. An observation can come under any number of different interpretations. An interpretation is not considered valid unless it follows the Scientific Method. The hypothesis needs to be put to the test (important!) in a controlled environment before one can proceed with further inquiry. Variables need to be adjusted and multiple trials need to be conducted in order for the researcher to come to a deductive truth.

When one merely observes and interprets he is not conducting "science". When Christians try their lame "the banana was formed perfectly to fit the human hand, therefore god exists" argument they are laughed right out of the room.

The Christian Scientist is structuring his "scientific process" exactly as Astronomers do. Observe -> Interpret.

Quote

I.e. is the science of rocketry not a real science in any way?

Rocketry might actually constitute a valid experiment to demonstrate the existence of the earth's orbit if it were true. Too bad the people who run space agencies have been shown to be fundamentally dishonest.

So we arrive back at The Conspiracy?

Sigh ...

The Soviets, US, UK, China, France and India have independent evidence that rockety works.

If The Flat earth society wishes to dispute / disprove this ...

Then they (you!) need to come up with some evidence of your own.

Just lamely citing the existence of an un-proved Conspiracy just makes you sound like a mad-man.

If you are so keen on "the scientific method", where is your experimental evidence that rocketry doesn't work?

You are statring to appear like a hypocrite, I'm afraid.

Quote

Would you please post your objections to the "science" of astronomy in my star-trails thread?

I've shown you your deficiencies here. That's good enough.

Not so, old chap - you need to address my star-trail hypothesis directly in an open, honest, fair, logical and ordered way.

If not, then you are just being evasive - one of the traits of a "consiracy theorist" that Skeptak has suggested.

If you do not address my hypothesis directly, then a newbie in a month's time is going to read my thread and deduce that I have won the debate by your lack of response - you can't expect people to search through all of the threads in order to piece together your dis-jointed and erratic arguments.

What are you scared of anyway?

See that? Astronomy fails right where the "test with an experiment" part comes in. Newton never did any experiments to prove his hypothesis of gravity as a force. Copernicus never did any experimentation to prove his hypothesis of the earth is revolving around the sun. No experimentation is ever attempted. The need for it is denied entirely.

So why is watching the heavens not an experiment? You can control the time and place you watch from and thus the position of everything when you start, so lack of control is hardly a problem.

The steps in Astronomy are just Observe -> Interpret, just like any religion or pseudoscience.

Isn't this what the Zetetic method is all about? You observe the local area being flat, and interpret that as meaning the entire planet is the flat.

You don't see a reason to dismiss a made up hypothesis without evidence what-so-ever to back it up?

Distant galaxies having higher than expected red-shift is not evidence?

For example, it's believed that water is a molecule made from H20. Two hydrogens and one oxygen. To test this we can use the electrolysis of water to come to the absolute truth of the matter. Electricity separates the elements into sealed of flasks. One element comes out twice as much as the other.

If there is any question such as "maybe it's not really oxygen", the hypothesis can be put to the test (important!) by conducting an experiment like lighting it on fire, mixing it with another element, or airing into a sealed container with an insect. The experimenter can try all sorts of different things to come to the truth of the matter. If there's another question it can always be put to the test to see if the hypothesis has merit. Whatever the question might be, it can be put to the test. Each and every variable can be controlled and modified for whatever the experiment is testing. In the end, after many successive hypothesis' and experimental trials, the experimenter can come to the concrete conclusion that the oxygen in water is the same oxygen known elsewhere.

But you still can't say with absolute certainty that it is oxygen. Simply observing something that behaves like oxygen doesn't mean that it is oxygen. Don't jump onto the assumption that if something behaves similar to one thing, it must be that thing.

Observations are not experiments.

Nope. Observation is not science. Anyone can observe something and attribute it to a miracle, or an act of god. That doesn't make it a science.

Nope. What he did was make an observation which could come to any number of interpretations and hypothesis'.

Hypothesis which directly leads to conclusion is never good science. It's the very opposite of good science.

Absolutely not. Observing something and then making up an explanation, observing some more, and then making up some more, can never constitute true science.

So the whole "When I look out my window, I see a flat earth" argument has no real place in any scientific debate, Tom?

How about the multiple, gear driven, counter-rotating star systems?