A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm

I'm confused what exactly definies zetetisicm. All I've heard is RE'ers explain it, but FE'ers always say they're a zetetic without explaining what it is.

Zeteticism, if properly followed, would lead to disbelief in a flat earth because it's the philosophy of only believing what your senses tell you, and not accepting data from mechanical or electronic or third party sources. Since your senses tell you you can only see a few miles to the horizon at sea that means a true zetetic would conclude the earth could not be flat, as a flat earth would not have a horizon such as that.
Im not a flatearther though but thats what zeticism is as far as I can tell.

So in short people in denial?

A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

But you're ALREADY biased.  All of FET is based on the "Fact" that the Earth is flat and all data must bend to keep that fact.

A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

How does a conspiracy fit into this definition?

The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

....

This is probably the WORST thing I've ever heard.
Without the conspiracy, every picture NASA has ever sent would crush all of FET.

A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

Sure,maybe if you skipped half the steps.
Namely experiments and interpreting the data.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 25, 2010, 01:55:10 PM

The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

....

This is probably the WORST thing I've ever heard.
Without the conspiracy, every picture NASA has ever sent would crush all of FET.

Dont forget the russian, french, chinese and indian space agencies ad well

Please explain, Ichi. Why is the conspiracy not a part of FET? From my perspective, it seems the conspiracy is a neccesity for FET.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 25, 2010, 01:55:10 PM

The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

....

This is probably the WORST thing I've ever heard.
Without the conspiracy, every picture NASA has ever sent would crush all of FET.

NASA is not involved in FET. Their pictures do not affect FET. Same with the other space agencies.

How so?

Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

So you're saying NASA is factual (or at least not lying) but you deliberately ignore everything they say?

A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

Since when? There is a big difference between a null hypothesis and conclusions. The null hypothesis is based on predictions and outside data. The conclusions are based on the results of the experiment. Both of which are based on something that has already been established and proven; the null hypothesis is always rejected when the results contradict it.

Saying that the phases of the moon exist because of biological migration isn't backed by anything except for the fact that the moon appears to have discrete phases. Etc, etc.

A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

In other words, it is nothing whatsoever to do with the shape of the earth and is tarnished as a scientific method by being associated with flat earthers. A bit like the way Tom Cruise's film performances are viewed more critically because you know he's a scientologist.

Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

Great,

Look at a picture of earth from space

FET disproved

Site can be closed

Their claims and ideas do not affect how we view the world in FET.

Why is that?

The conspiracy is not a part of FET.

You should remove it from the FAQ.

A 'Zetetic' is  "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker."  We seek data and from there draw conclusions that are not biased.  The accepted scientific method is flawed because it attempts to draw conclusions before ever seeing the data.

And how exactly are conclusions drawn prematurely in the Scientific Method?

Can anyone seriously answer my question?

Can anyone seriously answer my question?

I can make up another science for FE'ers to answer your question would you like that? Or you wanna wait for them to give a BS answer?

I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

I'm confused what exactly definies zetetisicm. All I've heard is RE'ers explain it, but FE'ers always say they're a zetetic without explaining what it is.

Zetetisicm was made up because normal science didn't fit with a flat earth.

I'll take this silence as acknowledgement that there is nothing wrong with the Scientific Method, until someone proves otherwise.

I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 25, 2010, 03:12:54 PM

I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.

So are you saying it's wrong to have initial suspicions about the natural world that compel us to undertake an experiment? The hypothesis is an important step in the scientific method because for the prediction we have to reword it so that it can be demonstrated to objectively match or not match with experimental data.

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 25, 2010, 03:12:54 PM

I'll ask a third time: Can anyone seriously tell me why the Scientific Method supposedly causes people to be biased/draw conclusions before experimentation?

In the Scientific Method we're told to hypothesize first, experiment later.

Hypothesize first leads to either showing something or not showing up something.  If we experiment first then we can conclude whatever we want that happened.  
"A precipitate formed when I added bacl2 to a solution. Must be because the earth is flat."
Se what happens when you just guess as to why something happened?  A hypothesis also leads to the correct experiment being set up and preformed.