Zetecism

For this ideology my understanding is that you don't respect anything you can't observe with your own senses. Dogplatter has previously stated that much research into photoelectric suspension has been performed. It all appears to be conjecture without evidence. DP states that string theory, gravitons etc are "crap" made up to explain the unknown. While I agree they are made up to explain the unknown, I don't agree they are crap. What alternatives are there? While we are aware that there are limitations in our understanding and gaps in our knowledge, should we not attempt to fill them to the best of our ability?

Anyway, how do zetectics explain light or heat or properties such as mass and temperature without using information they can't observe. I don't believe anyone here has observed first hand the increased vibration of atoms with the application of heat.

Where do you draw the line?

While we are aware that there are limitations in our understanding and gaps in our knowledge, should we not attempt to fill them to the best of our ability

Not if all you have is one hypothesis built upon another, mumbled off in rapid succession.

While we are aware that there are limitations in our understanding and gaps in our knowledge, should we not attempt to fill them to the best of our ability?

Absolutely not. Doing so is what exactly led the ancient Greeks, for example, to suppose that storm clouds were manipulated by Zeus instead of looking for an ACTUAL empirical explanation. It's a fine procedure for producing mythology, it's a terrible one for producing science, which is why we now find ourselves with a population which believes invisible, undetectable particles are floating around telling massive objects to push towards one another.

Anyway, how do zetectics explain light or heat or properties such as mass and temperature without using information they can't observe. I don't believe anyone here has observed first hand the increased vibration of atoms with the application of heat.

I don't think you understand what it is for something to be observable. Observable things don't have to be visible to the naked eye, the can be examined in other ways and it still constitutes a form of observation.

Gravitons are not "observable" by this or any criteria.

I know what constitutes observable to most but from the various arguments I have seen from FE's, if they can't see it, it doesn't exist. I've seen the existence of atoms and electrons challenged in these forums because they aren't observable to the person making the argument. If I recall correctly, atomic force microscopy was alluded to be part of the conspiracy.

Not if all you have is one hypothesis built upon another, mumbled off in rapid succession.

Sounds like FET.

Gravitons are not "observable" by this or any criteria.

Have you observed the UA? You can say you observed the effect (accelerating earth), but we can say the same about gravitation.