Flat Earth Theory is Officially Woo

Anyone who is familiar with the modern skeptical movement will recognize the term Woo-woo.  For those not familiar, it is the term that skeptics use as a generic for all manner of snake-oil, pseudo-science, and their ilk. Prime examples of woo? How about Suplementary, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine (acronym intentional). Astrology? Of course. Conspiracy theories.....definitely.

While Flat Earth may seem not to fit with the above list, all of them share some remarkable similarities.  All use logical fallacies to justify their existence.  All refuse to even look at the scientific evidence against them. And all of the above, FET included, have to rely on a conspiracy theory to maintain their viability. 

That being said, FET is just woo.

Lets first define Pseudoscience.

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

"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology"

Now, a cursory overview of the Scientific Method tells us that science requires an experiment for the subject matter to be proven.

What experiments did Aristotile perform before coming to his conclusions for his ball at the center of the universe version of the earth?

What experiments did Copernicus perform for his heliocentric hypothesis?

What experiments did Newton perform for his gravity-as-a-force hypothesis?

What experiments did Einstein perform for his gravity as bends in Aether hypothesis?

What experiments did Dmitrii Blokhintsev perform for gravitons?

What experiments did Stephen Hawking perform to come to his conclusions for the metric expansion of space?

NONE.

With RE'rs it is one unproven hypothesis built upon another in rapid succession.

It appears that only our science is backed by experimentation and fact for our world-model. See: Earth Not a Globe.

We are the scientists. You are not.

What experiments were performed to conclude that the FE is an infinite plane?

What experiments were preformed for the celestial gears hypothesis?

What experiments were preformed for the sub-heavens hypothesis?

What experiments were preformed for the bendy light hypothesis?

What experiments were preformed for the anti-moon/shadow object hypothesis?

What experiments were performed to conclude that the FE is an infinite plane?

What experiments were preformed for the celestial gears hypothesis?

What experiments were preformed for the sub-heavens hypothesis?

What experiments were preformed for the bendy light hypothesis?

What experiments were preformed for the anti-moon/shadow object hypothesis?

None of that is in Earth Not a Globe.

Rowbotham tells us that the only things in science we can depend on is that which has been demonstrated experimentally.

Quote

What experiments were performed to conclude that the FE is an infinite plane?

What experiments were preformed for the celestial gears hypothesis?

What experiments were preformed for the sub-heavens hypothesis?

What experiments were preformed for the bendy light hypothesis?

What experiments were preformed for the anti-moon/shadow object hypothesis?

None of that is in Earth Not a Globe.

Rowbotham tells us that the only things in science we can depend on is that which has been demonstrated experimentally.

Since when is Rowbotham the final authority on FET? 

You yourself have publicly supported most, if not all of the theories that I listed.  Having just said what you did, how can you support any of those theories if there has been no experimental demonstrations for any of them?

Lets first define Pseudoscience.

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

"Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology"

Now, a cursory overview of the Scientific Method tells us that science requires an experiment for the subject matter to be proven.

What experiments did Aristotile perform before coming to his conclusions for his ball at the center of the universe version of the earth?

What experiments did Copernicus perform for his heliocentric hypothesis?

What experiments did Newton perform for his gravity-as-a-force hypothesis?

What experiments did Einstein perform for his gravity as bends in Aether hypothesis?

What experiments did Dmitrii Blokhintsev perform for gravitons?

What experiments did Stephen Hawking perform to come to his conclusions for the metric expansion of space?

NONE.

With RE'rs it is one unproven hypothesis built upon another in rapid succession.

It appears that only our science is backed by experimentation and fact for our world-model. See: Earth Not a Globe.

We are the scientists. You are not.

Since when does the scientific method require that the proponent of a model and the experimenter be the same person?

Assuming that those people you cite (some scientists, some not) never performed an experiment in their lives, they still have done one important step in the scientific method: the formulation of a model.

Somebody did the rest of the work to get their theories through the scientific process. Nobody cares who did that work. And some, like Aristotle, have had much of their work obsoleted by scientists, which is fine since he was a philosopher, not a scientist.

Suddenly you are again declaring yourself a scientist, after you had declared that "modern science = BS". And there is not much science that is not modern, so in essence you say that science is shit. (sorry, your words, not mine). Maybe we have to conclude that by your own thought process you are, yourself, a maker of shit (sorry again). And not like all the rest of us, who use the lower end of the digestive tract for that purpose.

Now, a cursory overview of the Scientific Method tells us that science requires an experiment for the subject matter to be proven.
What experiments did Aristotile perform before coming to his conclusions for his ball at the center of the universe version of the earth?

None. Aristotle was a Philosopher, not a Scientist. His theory was never experimentally proven because it is not scientifically true.

What experiments did Copernicus perform for his heliocentric hypothesis?

None - Copernicus didn't prove Heliocentricity, he merely proposed it. The evidence for it began with observations of the Planets made by Kepler and Galileo, but it wasn't accepted as true until the 18th century.

What experiments did Newton perform for his gravity-as-a-force hypothesis?

None, but Principia was a mathematical formulation of observations made by Kepler. Many, many experiements have been performed to demonstrate Newtonian physics, and you can probably find one in any high-school (or possibly even elementary) text book.

What experiments did Einstein perform for his gravity as bends in Aether hypothesis?

Einstein was a Theoretical physicist. When he first proposed his theory, it was mathematically sound, but unproven. However, it accounted accurately for observed anomilies in Mercury's orbit. It wasn't until 1919 when Eddington made photographs of a solar eclipse that empirical evidence for Einstein's work existed.

What experiments did Dmitrii Blokhintsev perform for gravitons?

None. The graviton is a hypothetical particle. It is not considered "proven" or "fact".

What experiments did Stephen Hawking perform to come to his conclusions for the metric expansion of space?

None. Hawking's theory exists as a possible model to explain the observed expansion of the universe. It is also not "proven".

We are the scientists. You are not.

Sure. As long as you redefine what it means to be a scientist.

See Tom, this is a classic example of what makes you a psuedo-scientist. You argue that Newton, Einstein et al weren't scientists because they didn't do experiments to prove their hypotheses - but that's not how science works. You create the hypothesis after the experiment, not before. All the scientists you listed were following correct scientific method - creating a theory to explain an observed phenomenon. Not as FEers do, which is to come up with a theory they'd like to be true then create an "experiment" designed to give them the answer they want.

You yourself have publicly supported most, if not all of the theories that I listed.  Having just said what you did, how can you support any of those theories if there has been no experimental demonstrations for any of them?

I've never supported them outside of mentioning that some of them were possible as mechanisms, or that they could be trusted as truth above any other. I've never concluded anything of being truth without evidence.

Since when does the scientific method require that the proponent of a model and the experimenter be the same person?

If you're not putting your hypothesis to the test, your hypothesis is untrustworthy.

It's simple as that.

Assuming that those people you cite (some scientists, some not) never performed an experiment in their lives, they still have done one important step in the scientific method: the formulation of a model.

I could create a mathematical model where sub-atomic pusher fairies are the mechanism for "gravity". It doesn't make it so.

Mechanisms must be proven by experimentation. Otherwise it's just a hypothesis as untrustworthy as any other.

Somebody did the rest of the work to get their theories through the scientific process.

Actually, they didn't.

Nobody cares who did that work.

Actually, they do.

And some, like Aristotle, have had much of their work obsoleted by scientists, which is fine since he was a philosopher, not a scientist.

Actually, Aristotle was a scientist. His science went unchallenged in schools for over a thousand years. A portion of it is still taught today verbatim.

Rowbotham tells us that the only things in science we can depend on is that which has been demonstrated experimentally.

Then you should be quite happy with the results of Alfred Wallace who demonstrated, using an experiment designed by Rowbottom, that the earth is round. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2009, 06:19:38 PM

Rowbotham tells us that the only things in science we can depend on is that which has been demonstrated experimentally.

Then you should be quite happy with the results of Alfred Wallace who demonstrated, using an experiment designed by Rowbottom, that the earth is round.  

That wasn't an experiment. It was a wager between two men for a year's worth of pay. Each man walked away claiming that his side had won.

See: "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" by Christine Garwood

Wallace is not the only person to have reproduced the experiment and found roundness. Even if he was, his results cancel out those of Rowbottom and render the Bedford Level Experiment inconclusive, not weighted in favour of a flat earth. I've only told you this about a billion times. Maybe you should clean the wax out of your ears.

We are the scientists. You are not.

Where did you get your degree?  Seminary?

Quote

We are the scientists. You are not.

Where did you get your degree?  Seminary?

He runs a diploma mill, he probably awarded it to himself.

Wallace is not the only person to have reproduced the experiment and found roundness. Even if he was, his results cancel out those of Rowbottom and render the Bedford Level Experiment inconclusive, not weighted in favour of a flat earth. I've only told you this about a billion times. Maybe you should clean the wax out of your ears.

How does a wager which both men claimed to have won cancel out any other experiment?  

He runs a diploma mill, he probably awarded it to himself.

Actually it's a place most of you RE'ers won't be getting into any time soon considering the quality of your posts.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 23, 2009, 04:41:11 PM

Wallace is not the only person to have reproduced the experiment and found roundness. Even if he was, his results cancel out those of Rowbottom and render the Bedford Level Experiment inconclusive, not weighted in favour of a flat earth. I've only told you this about a billion times. Maybe you should clean the wax out of your ears.

How does a wager which both men claimed to have won cancel out any other experiment?  

Quote

He runs a diploma mill, he probably awarded it to himself.

Actually it's a place most of you RE'ers won't be getting into considering the quality of your posts.

the quality of our posts? Tom in the last 2 days, you have lost the argument about celestial poles, and an hour ago was claiming parabolic motion is diagonal.
You simply disappear from threads when your theories fail.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 06:22:52 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 23, 2009, 04:41:11 PM

Wallace is not the only person to have reproduced the experiment and found roundness. Even if he was, his results cancel out those of Rowbottom and render the Bedford Level Experiment inconclusive, not weighted in favour of a flat earth. I've only told you this about a billion times. Maybe you should clean the wax out of your ears.

How does a wager which both men claimed to have won cancel out any other experiment?  

Quote

He runs a diploma mill, he probably awarded it to himself.

Actually it's a place most of you RE'ers won't be getting into considering the quality of your posts.

the quality of our posts? Tom in the last 2 days, you have lost the argument about celestial poles, and an hour ago was claiming parabolic motion is diagonal.
You simply disappear from threads when your theories fail.

I leave when RE'er arguments degrade into elementary school babble.

Quote from: Sutekh on December 23, 2009, 06:36:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 06:22:52 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 23, 2009, 04:41:11 PM

Wallace is not the only person to have reproduced the experiment and found roundness. Even if he was, his results cancel out those of Rowbottom and render the Bedford Level Experiment inconclusive, not weighted in favour of a flat earth. I've only told you this about a billion times. Maybe you should clean the wax out of your ears.

How does a wager which both men claimed to have won cancel out any other experiment?  

Quote

He runs a diploma mill, he probably awarded it to himself.

Actually it's a place most of you RE'ers won't be getting into considering the quality of your posts.

the quality of our posts? Tom in the last 2 days, you have lost the argument about celestial poles, and an hour ago was claiming parabolic motion is diagonal.
You simply disappear from threads when your theories fail.

I leave when RE'er arguments degrade into elementary school babble.

Tom you claimed in the southern hemisphere we cant see a north celestial pole due to perspecive effects you were asked why we can't see this on the horizon, instead we see star density similar to the density above, no crushing up.

You have ignored this. your theory has failed.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 06:38:07 PM

Quote from: Sutekh on December 23, 2009, 06:36:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 06:22:52 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 23, 2009, 04:41:11 PM

Wallace is not the only person to have reproduced the experiment and found roundness. Even if he was, his results cancel out those of Rowbottom and render the Bedford Level Experiment inconclusive, not weighted in favour of a flat earth. I've only told you this about a billion times. Maybe you should clean the wax out of your ears.

How does a wager which both men claimed to have won cancel out any other experiment?  

Quote

He runs a diploma mill, he probably awarded it to himself.

Actually it's a place most of you RE'ers won't be getting into considering the quality of your posts.

the quality of our posts? Tom in the last 2 days, you have lost the argument about celestial poles, and an hour ago was claiming parabolic motion is diagonal.
You simply disappear from threads when your theories fail.

I leave when RE'er arguments degrade into elementary school babble.

Tom you claimed in the southern hemisphere we cant see a north celestial pole due to perspecive effects you were asked why we can't see this on the horizon, instead we see star density similar to the density above, no crushing up.

You have ignored this. your theory has failed.

The concept of perspective is actually all explained in Earth Not a Globe. Read it.

It's explained, but incorrectly and against observations.

The concept of perspective is actually all explained in Earth Not a Globe. Read it.

Why haven't you quoted the appropriate section in the thread then Tom?

The concept of perspective is actually all explained in Earth Not a Globe. Read it.

the stars arent there on the horizon. no amount of perspective is going to explain away the lack of many constellations.

I see the southern cross constellation, it moves to the horizon, one by one stars from it disappear, as they do the cross maintains its useual shap it is not being effects by perspective effects.

Tom, You have decided to beleive in something, and you've made it non falsifiable to the point where any evidence is either fake or lies if it disagrees with your faith in a flat earth. How do you expect to learn some anything if when you argue something or believe something wrong you can never ever accept it?

The vanishing point is a finite distance away. Perspective causes limitation to the viewable sky above you.

Read Earth Not a Globe for more.

The vanishing point is a finite distance away. Perspective causes limitation to the viewable sky above you.

Read Earth Not a Globe for more.

Tom the constellations don't deform as they appraoch the horizon and disappear. they don't crush up with perspective.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 08:38:08 PM

The vanishing point is a finite distance away. Perspective causes limitation to the viewable sky above you.

Read Earth Not a Globe for more.

Tom the constellations don't deform as they appraoch the horizon and disappear. they don't crush up with perspective.

Why? You never see the stars just above the horizon, do you? Same with the ship's vanishing poing at the infinite distance away.

You know what? Telling people to read Earth Not a Globe is the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

Why?

Because in a nutshell, you don't even have to read beyond the first chapter:
"ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED"

This very specifically describes the Zetetic method and philosophy. It also points out in a multitude of ways how 'theories' are not acceptable when compared to 'experiment', or 'observation', etc.

The heel here is that 'Parallax' himself describes the following:
"Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed."

Yet by the end of the chapter he states:
"If, to ascertain the true figure and condition of the earth, we adopt the "Zetetic" process, which truly is the only one sufficiently reliable, we shall find that instead of its being a globe--one of an infinite number of worlds moving on axes and in an orbit round the sun, it is the directly contrary--a Plane, without diurnal or progressive motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the firmament analogous to itself; or, in other words, that it is the only known material world."

He makes a declarative statement of theory, claiming that the only end result of the Zetetic process *SHALL* be that the Earth is flat and the only known material world.

In a nut shell, the entire book is full of contradictory anecdotes (so far - I am only half way through it. OMG it is like eating my spinach as a kid) and shoddy math.

Which is another *fact* that is quite predominant throughout ENaG: The math that 'Parallax' proclaims to be all powerful and enlightening, he skews and uses in such vagaries as to be almost laughable in a few places so far.

All this from someone that makes such astounding philosophical claims?

To top it all off, Tom constantly referring to this book is really enjoyable as he himself disputes the Zetetic method by not entertaining other ideas and possibilities just for starters... and picks and chooses what he likes or dismisses from it the rest of the time.

Whatever. I now deem ENaG completely and utterly PHAIL. I will finish it because I started it, and promised myself I would for the sake of the FE forums, but I say now that this book although interesting from a certain standpoint is just one man's viewpoint and philosophy, NOT some sort of scientific authority. Zetetic, Theoretic, Psychotic, or  otherwise.

Take care,
- Optimus

I don't see any perspective here (near the horizon), just a rotating stars, unencumbered by the horizon.

I don't see any perspective here (near the horizon), just a rotating stars, unencumbered by the horizon.

It's because flat earthers are able to look at a photo like that, yet still pretend the earth is flat, that makes me think it's simply a form of scizophrenia, a despirate need to feel dark forces are conspiring to fool us all.

Quote from: Moon squirter on December 24, 2009, 03:05:37 AM

I don't see any perspective here (near the horizon), just a rotating stars, unencumbered by the horizon.

It's because flat earthers are able to look at a photo like that, yet still pretend the earth is flat, that makes me think it's simply a form of scizophrenia, a despirate need to feel dark forces are conspiring to fool us all.

You're pretending that that picture in motion is a proof of Round Earth? How come?

Quote from: Sutekh on December 24, 2009, 03:20:52 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on December 24, 2009, 03:05:37 AM

I don't see any perspective here (near the horizon), just a rotating stars, unencumbered by the horizon.

It's because flat earthers are able to look at a photo like that, yet still pretend the earth is flat, that makes me think it's simply a form of scizophrenia, a despirate need to feel dark forces are conspiring to fool us all.

You're pretending that that picture in motion is a proof of Round Earth? How come?

You're pretending that they're using that picture in motion as sole proof of a Round Earth, rather than just commenting on the issue of perspective? How Come?

Thats the whole point: I don't see any perspective, which I surely would in a FE sky. This is strong evidence the earth cannot be flat.