The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate

  • 196 Replies
  • 26256 Views
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2010, 07:58:07 PM »
Yes, I appreciate that you respect logical syllogism, yet do not respect zetetic meditation. Can you please elaborate on why you suppose that zetetic meditations produce garbage rather than infallible truths?
"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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42604
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #61 on: May 24, 2010, 08:07:18 PM »
???  Where did I say that Zetetic meditations produce garbage results?  Perhaps you should read the entire GIGO wiki entry.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #62 on: May 25, 2010, 06:24:40 AM »
I am aware of the meaning of the acronym Garbage In, Garbage Out. I am telling you that the "garbage" which I am putting "in" to logical operations is the content of Zetetic Meditations. Now, why is it garbage?
"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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42604
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #63 on: May 25, 2010, 09:26:28 AM »
I was under the impression that Zetetic Meditation was the process by which the data was processed (the logical operations, if you will), not the data itself.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #64 on: May 25, 2010, 09:18:24 PM »
I am aware of the meaning of the acronym Garbage In, Garbage Out. I am telling you that the "garbage" which I am putting "in" to logical operations is the content of Zetetic Meditations. Now, why is it garbage?

Like Markjo, I'm a bit confused myself.

Are you saying that your 'garbage in' does not consist of facts already established beyond doubt with scientific evidence, but is instead consists of facts that have their basis in Zetetic meditation/methodology? In addition to the Zetetic 'in' you are saying that you use Zetetic meditation as the process which leads you to get the 'out' facts? These 'out' facts are then used to get additional 'out' facts through more Zetetic meditation/methodology?

In other words your process of increasing knowledge is similar to scientists, but with different methodology. We use the scientific method to establish fundamentals, whereas we also use the scientific method to expand upon those fundamentals and so on.

I'm sure that could be worded better somehow, anyway, could you clarify?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 09:26:15 PM by Deceiver »

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #65 on: May 26, 2010, 04:03:20 AM »
This dog is golden, all dogs are golden until I see one that is not.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #66 on: May 26, 2010, 03:09:35 PM »
I was under the impression that Zetetic Meditation was the process by which the data was processed (the logical operations, if you will), not the data itself.

Theoretic (globular) Method:
Invented Hypothesis (made up by scientist) -> Testing to Corroborate Hypothesis -> Conclusion (modified version of original hypothesis to fit evidence)

Zetetic Method:
Zetetic Meditations reveal either
The "immediate and demonstrable causes" of the phenomena in question (i.e., no a priori theorising) - no further investigation
OR
a set of "manifest and undeniable facts" of the matter, in which case:

Facts derived from ZM -> stringent logical analysis ("what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom").

More info available at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Theoretic method is the process of attempting to bolster a preconceived hypothesis, with selective attention to evidence which supports the case (this is how globularism came about).

Zetetic method provides direct access to the actual truth, through the dual procedure: Zetetic Meditation followed by Logical Analysis.
 (This is how the true shape of the Earth was discovered).

The difference in method is important!
"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

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42604
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #67 on: May 26, 2010, 04:23:02 PM »
Zetetic Method:
Zetetic Meditations reveal either
The "immediate and demonstrable causes" of the phenomena in question (i.e., no a priori theorising) - no further investigation

I'm so very glad that the Zetetic process is not used in investigating crimes or accidents as"immediate causes" are often not the "root causes".

OR
a set of "manifest and undeniable facts" of the matter, in which case:

And by what process are these "manifest and undeniable facts" falsified?

As near as I can tell, Zetetic meditations conclude that something must be true because it seems to be true.  The scientific method realizes that things are not always as they seem.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #68 on: May 26, 2010, 10:39:49 PM »
I don't get it. What's wrong with a hypothesis? You can't just go about with your daily lives and then suddenly make a bunch of experiments for no reason whatsoever, without making at least a vague hypothesis. You can't skip that part.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #69 on: May 26, 2010, 10:56:36 PM »
Idk. The hypothesis is what you test in an experiment, but some people here seem to think that in that experiment, you bias the experiment to find that the hypothesis is true even if it may not be. But in any college science course they stress the simple idea that you must not do this. You get the data you get and try to makes sense of it.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #70 on: May 28, 2010, 09:51:33 AM »
I don't get it. What's wrong with a hypothesis? You can't just go about with your daily lives and then suddenly make a bunch of experiments for no reason whatsoever, without making at least a vague hypothesis. You can't skip that part.

What do you think we have done?
"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

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #71 on: May 28, 2010, 11:42:47 AM »
I don't get it. What's wrong with a hypothesis? You can't just go about with your daily lives and then suddenly make a bunch of experiments for no reason whatsoever, without making at least a vague hypothesis. You can't skip that part.

What do you think we have done?


You...skip the hypothesis?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #72 on: May 28, 2010, 02:45:12 PM »
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #73 on: May 28, 2010, 02:54:21 PM »
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #74 on: May 28, 2010, 04:48:06 PM »
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #75 on: May 28, 2010, 05:55:08 PM »
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?

Not only do you basically need a hypothesis to gather data, to construct a model, but the model itself is also just a hypothesis which you then also need to further test.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42604
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #76 on: May 28, 2010, 09:36:47 PM »
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?
How do you construct a model if you have no idea of what the model is supposed to look like?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #77 on: June 05, 2010, 01:16:13 PM »
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?
How do you construct a model if you have no idea of what the model is supposed to look like?

How do you construct an accurate and fair model by knowing what it is supposed to look like before you start?
Of course in attempt at being bias.  Truth cannot be found by first assuming it.  One must seek the truth and then accept it and study it to discern its nature.

The hypothesis is what you are testing. You assume something and then test to see if it's true or not, you try and test one thing at a time, otherwise you will never "discern the truth." A hypothesis is extremely vital for finding anything out about the universe, using experimentation.
Its not vital at all.  How is gathering data objectively then constructing a model bunk?

Not only do you basically need a hypothesis to gather data, to construct a model, but the model itself is also just a hypothesis which you then also need to further test.
No, you don't need a hypothesis to gather data.  People gathered data about the heavens for thousands of years before the scientific revolution or before knowing why.  A model can be constructed from a dataset.  At the point when you test it you move into the second phase of true holy science and test.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42604
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #78 on: June 05, 2010, 02:09:43 PM »
How do you construct an accurate and fair model by knowing what it is supposed to look like before you start?

???  Is this a serious question?  You build your model based on what you think that it's supposed look like and then test it to see how it compares to reality. 

Perhaps we need to step back for a moment to see if we can even agree as to what a model is and what it's used for.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling#Model
A model is a simplified abstract view of the complex reality. A scientific model represents empirical  objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical way. Attempts to formalize the principles of the empirical sciences, use an interpretation to model reality, in the same way logicians axiomatize the principles of logic. The aim of these attempts is to construct a formal system for which reality is the only interpretation. The world is an interpretation (or model) of these sciences, only insofar as these sciences are true.[1]

John, would you agree that this is a fair definition of a scientific model?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #79 on: June 05, 2010, 04:08:10 PM »
How do you construct an accurate and fair model by knowing what it is supposed to look like before you start?

???  Is this a serious question?  You build your model based on what you think that it's supposed look like and then test it to see how it compares to reality. 

Perhaps we need to step back for a moment to see if we can even agree as to what a model is and what it's used for.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling#Model
A model is a simplified abstract view of the complex reality. A scientific model represents empirical  objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical way. Attempts to formalize the principles of the empirical sciences, use an interpretation to model reality, in the same way logicians axiomatize the principles of logic. The aim of these attempts is to construct a formal system for which reality is the only interpretation. The world is an interpretation (or model) of these sciences, only insofar as these sciences are true.[1]

John, would you agree that this is a fair definition of a scientific model?

Why not just look and see what it looks like (gather data) and then build your model based off that.  From there you can test.

Glancing over that, it seems a fair enough definition.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42604
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #80 on: June 05, 2010, 05:20:33 PM »
Why not just look and see what it looks like (gather data) and then build your model based off that.  From there you can test.

Gathering data is most certainly a part of building and validating any scientific model.  I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.  After all, you need to make sure that your model reflects reality as well as possible.  However, a well designed model will allow you to test for things that you can't see.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Overman1977

Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2010, 12:10:57 AM »
I'm new here (obviously) and have been reading alot about formal logic and how this 'logic' has led some to believe the earth is flat, and have been trying to search out the premises that lead to this conclusion with little success.  could someone perhaps direct me to a place on the web where I might actually see these premises?

Also, I truly fail to see the logic in this: 'The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter...'  I would also very much like to see the premises of this argument.

I would like the premises in clear and distinct language with no use of double-talk, criticism, or assumption; and it must be succinct.

TY


*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2010, 05:19:46 AM »
I'm new here (obviously) and have been reading alot about formal logic and how this 'logic' has led some to believe the earth is flat, and have been trying to search out the premises that lead to this conclusion with little success.  could someone perhaps direct me to a place on the web where I might actually see these premises?

Also, I truly fail to see the logic in this: 'The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter...'  I would also very much like to see the premises of this argument.

I would like the premises in clear and distinct language with no use of double-talk, criticism, or assumption; and it must be succinct.

TY


The sun and moon are said to be that size by some due to experiments done by Eratosthenes of Cyrene and the use of trig.  You can read about in Earth not a Globe.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #83 on: June 17, 2010, 06:07:45 AM »
It should be stressed that Erastothenes' celestial measurements have only been retained selectively based on our own independent confirmation of their efficacy. Erastothenes himself was a globularist who regularly consorted with all manner of alcoholics and indulged in every kind of vice and deception, we would be fools to take anything he said at face value without our own rigorous investigation.
"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: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #84 on: June 17, 2010, 07:02:27 AM »
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #85 on: June 17, 2010, 07:08:01 AM »
First Order Logic is fundamentally mathematical, it consists in the manipulation of binary operators and truth tables. I have been outlining the systematic use of formal propositional logic by those who correctly apply the zetetic method. Thus, the discovery of the Flat Earth by zetetic science is grounded in mathematical truth.
"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

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #86 on: June 17, 2010, 08:33:53 AM »
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #87 on: June 17, 2010, 08:39:20 AM »
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #88 on: June 17, 2010, 09:03:28 AM »
What's the point of the thread? What means logic? Logic is the study of reasoning. How can you prove something is true with logic. This is a complete nonsense. You need math to prove something, not logic. In logic, if your domain is wrong you arrive at wrong conclusions. And this is just the case.
You can't use math or logic to prove anything in reality.  However, they are useful tools towards such a more reasonable end.

Complete nonsense. So, how can you know what is the true reality? What are the tools to understand the world? You claim, for example, that we are constantly accelerating upwards (dunno what upwards mean): i think we are not accelerating in any way, because i don't feel it. Who's right?
I've made no such claim. 

Mathematics and Logic are some of the tools used to understand the world, as I just said.

If you don't think you are accelerating why not just look at a gravimeter?

The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42604
Re: The only legitimate FET - A call to end debate
« Reply #89 on: June 17, 2010, 11:40:48 AM »
Erastothenes himself was a globularist who regularly consorted with all manner of alcoholics and indulged in every kind of vice and deception, we would be fools to take anything he said at face value without our own rigorous investigation.

Please refrain from ad hominems in the debate forums.  As a mod, you should know better.  >:(
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.