A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm

  • 174 Replies
  • 13710 Views
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2010, 04:51:12 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.

And that causes one to be biased or not open to other results?  I think not.

The whole purpose of the hypothesis is give allow one to make an educated guess based on the facts they already know.  These educated guesses are usually based off previous knowledge or one's senses.  In a way, Zeteticism is the first step in the Scientific Method.

The next steps are to determine weather your initial 'guess' was correct.  Results are not affected by the Hypothesis; the Scientific Method would work perfectly fine without the hypothesis.  The reason it's there is because it provides trial-and-error type learning; if your guess was wrong the first time, you guess differently based on previous conclusions, in the hope that you will get better at making hypotheses.

With that in mind, the Scientific Method in NO WAY encourages or requires biased experiments or prematurely drawn conclusions; those are the faults of the people doing the experiments, not the fault of the Scientific Method.

Trolling makes me angry.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39107
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2010, 07:25:59 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.

Well it kinda helps to have a hypothesis so that you have an idea what the experiment is supposed to prove (or disprove).
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: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2010, 09:02:51 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.

Dead wrong. We hypothesis so that we know our experiment is valid, and so we know exactly what we are trying to look for instead of just stringing together processes that seem to have some sort of correlation. Recall that correlation =/= causation.

For example, I might want to ask myself, what happens when I mix compound x with compound y.
You can't just blindly do an experiment based on that. You first need to develop a hypothesis. In this case, it would be:
based on stoichiometry principles, compound Z should form. Or perhaps, based on stoichiometry principles, the compounds shouldn't react. You then test it and whalaa, you have results. If you did proper research (or have enough information to make an educated guess) your hypothesis will probably be right. If it isn't, then you have to figure out why it isn't correct and that's where you either do additional reading, or you design another test to isolate some unknown until you understand what's really occurring. That's how the scientific method works Tom. In fact... that's why scientists exist in the first place, to do research about things in which our understanding is not complete.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 09:30:24 PM by Deceiver »

Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2010, 09:36:14 PM »
So what does zeteticism say about mirrors?
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2010, 11:18:17 PM »
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.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 11:36:10 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2010, 11:52:39 PM »
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.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

When you do not form a hypothesis, your conclusions do not have any explanatory power.

Let's try this again Tom, there is a subtle difference.

You first design your experiment around your question. Your hypothesis is why you think your question has a specific answer. This allows to you to isolate specific parameters within your question, and then test against them. The scientific community doesn't care if your hypothesis is wrong, it only cares that your methods are thorough and repeatable and that your conclusions are solidly backed by data and explanation. You can't just say what happened in your conclusions, you have to explain why, which is the purpose of having a very specific, testable hypothesis. That's the purpose and why it has to be well researched before you can formulate it. Once again, you're missing a very important concept: without a hypothesis, all you can say about your experiment is that there is some numerical relationship with whatever variable/s it is you are testing. Repeat -- correlation does not equate to causation.

Referring back to my experiment about using reactants to form products: If I hypothesize that adding the two compounds will create compound Z for whatever reasons, and something else, compound K is created instead, there isn't a chance in hell that I can prove my hypothesis is correct, because adding the two compounds in any sort of fashion will still create a specific reactant. All my hypothesis did was try to explain why those two compounds should create something else, and what it would be. It works as a basis to make sure that my question is not too general. If it was too general, then you would have to design an experiment with more focus, so that you could safely test the validity of your hypothesis without other factors mucking things up.

The experiment addressed a simple question, what happens when I combine compound x with compound y. My hypothesis predicted the outcome, in addition to explaining why that outcome was expected. Calculations exist alongside your hypothesis so that you can make even more specific, quantitative predictions. Even if it did what I more or less expected it to, but it did not quite have the correct energy release or product proportions than I expected, I would have to redesign a test to figure out why it didn't behave as expected, or show that such variance is expected under experimental error using more calculations.

As an example I'll use Ichi's famous plant torture experiments.
He didn't even get the term experiment right, because he has no idea why moonlight 'hurts' plant tissues. He said that moonlight would harm plants, so he could technically look for results that support that (which he did by not explaining how moonlight interacts with the coechlima(sp?) cells specifically). Anyway, that's not a hypothesis, that's just a flat-out guess because it's too vague to have any sort of interpretation of the results. Had he said that some specific property of moonlight will affect a plant via some process that causes X type of cell damage, then that would be a decent falsifiable hypothesis because you could link your outcome to something very specific. But as it stands, moonlight is harmful because it makes cells grow that are 'metabolically intensive' for the plant. Versus cell damage or something that could be remotely interpreted as actual damage or harm. He may as well have said that drinking milk is harmful because it boosts bone growth, which is an indicator that your body needs more structural support.

***

I find it particularly striking that not a single FE'r has given any sort of descriptive definition of Zeteticism. Exactly what is their methodology and how is it superior than the scientific method, given that FE'rs have yet to produce any sort of equations or predictive models -- especially models that explain phenomenon that 'RET' cannot explain itself? How can something that is so void of bias or corruption be true when FE'rs have disagreeing viewpoints about literally everything except the flatness of the earth (IE, not even a consensus on the basic geographical layout of the earth)? And how does conspiracy fit into Zeteticism? Anyone care to address these seriously problematic issues?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 01:09:32 AM by Deceiver »

Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2010, 02:51:39 AM »
The hypothesis simply gives purpose to the experiment.  As I said before you, the Scientific Method would work fine without it.  For example, my hypothesis might be "I think the Earth is round because of x.  I will then go test by doing y to see if I was right.

There is no bias; you're simply designing your experiment around your question/hypothesis.  Otherwise, why bother doing the experiment if you have nothing you want proven/answered?

Trolling makes me angry.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39107
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2010, 04:09:32 AM »
When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

That's why you design a falsifiable experiment.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.
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.

Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2010, 04:13:27 AM »
I'm not sure why you're so against the Scientific Method, other than it's impossible to prove a flat Earth if you use it.  It's really just a refined form of Zeteticism; you form a zetetic-like hypothesis, then determine the truth value of that hypothesis.

In fact, it's just like all of your arguments for FET...

...plus evidence, facts, and conclusions.

Trolling makes me angry.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2010, 06:23:13 AM »
The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

But how can you know what's true without the capacity to define the limits of that truth?

I am looking at the sun!
That's dangerous! Are you attempting to establish the shape of the earth?
Don't bias my experiment fool!

*

sokarul

  • 16786
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2010, 06:35:08 AM »
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.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.
You eliminate the possibilities you want to eliminate.  It's not bias is basic science.  If I want to turn ore into product, I'm not going to sprinkle it on the ground and try to run it over until the ore turns into pure product as to not be bias against running shit over with a car.  I'm going to create a setup a pilot plant that would be small scale to a real mill.  I don't want to take into account  every freaking variable as to not be "bias".   
I have a hypotheses, so I am going to test that hypotheses. Adding A to B creates C.  If there are other variables that could cause C without A or B then they will be tested.

Tom is just not a scientist so he just doesn't get it.   
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39107
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #41 on: May 26, 2010, 06:38:15 AM »
I'm not sure why you're so against the Scientific Method, other than it's impossible to prove a flat Earth if you use it.  It's really just a refined form of Zeteticism; you form a zetetic-like hypothesis, then determine the truth value of that hypothesis.

In fact, it's just like all of your arguments for FET...

...plus evidence, facts, and conclusions.

For some odd reason or other, Zetetics seem to think that "hypothesis" and "conclusion" are synonyms.
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.

Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #42 on: May 26, 2010, 07:07:35 AM »
Exactly...

I don't understand why people like James and Tom think Zeteticism is so superior.  Zeteticism is only the first step in the logica and correct way to answer a question...

1)  Ask a Question
    - Is the Earth flat?

2)  Do Background Research
    - I did some research and found out the Earth is round, but I'm gonna do an experiment anyway.  I'm going to prove using Bendy Light.

3)  Construct (Zetetic) Hypothesis
    - My inner-Zeteticism tells me that light bends, which explains {blah blah blah}, which would prove the Earth is flat.

4)  Test Hypothesis with Experiment
    - I'm going to {blah blah blah}, which if successful, using Bendy Light, shows the Earth is flat.

5)  Analyze Results and Draw Conclusions
    - Crap!  It didn't work.  The research was right; the Earth is round.  But I'm stubborn, so I'll make a different hypothesis, and, using the same question and research, shall repeat the Scientific Method until I am right (which, in this case, will never happen).

I'm not sure where you guys see bias or foregone conclusions... at no point did I say "The Earth is flat, so I'm going to do {blah blah} to prove it...". 

Scientific Method rules; Zeteticism is imcomplete, which therefore makes the majority of the FET incomplete/invalid.

Trolling makes me angry.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #43 on: May 26, 2010, 01:34:45 PM »
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.

When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.

The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.

Tom,

You cannot have an experiment without a hypothesis.   It's one of the biggest myths you peddle.  Otherwise it's an observation.  Now there's nothing wrong with observations, but there is when they are called "experiments".

Rowbothem attempts to demonstrate that the earth is not a globe.  He is testing the idea that the earth is not a globe, because that is what he suspects.  He dresses it up in Zetetic pseudocrap (or "inquiry" as he puts it), but he's still testing an idea.   He didn't just wake up one morning and say "I wonder what shape the earth is".  Instead he woke up and said, "the earth looks flat, now how can I proved it".
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2010, 01:55:14 PM »
   He didn't just wake up one morning and say "I wonder what shape the earth is".  Instead he woke up and said, "the earth looks flat, now how can I proved it".


Haha this is win. Even though I want to believe in the FET their whole how to make your own theory thing is BS to me.
   He didn't just wake up one morning and say "I wonder what shape the earth is".  Instead he woke up and said, "the earth looks flat, now how can I proved it".

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #45 on: May 26, 2010, 06:24:46 PM »
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #46 on: May 26, 2010, 07:05:59 PM »
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

Mind sharing your ideas on the flaws of Scientific Method?  Because I'm pretty sure we ruled them all out...

Trolling makes me angry.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2010, 07:19:45 PM »
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?
Come on, Ichi.  Answer this one, please!

Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #48 on: May 27, 2010, 04:16:17 AM »
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

Mind sharing your ideas on the flaws of Scientific Method?  Because I'm pretty sure we ruled them all out...

^  Ditto on this one.  Your stupid Zeteticism pisses me off.  ^

Trolling makes me angry.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #49 on: May 27, 2010, 04:56:47 AM »
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

This is an admission that Zeteticism is useless, then.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8771
  • Semper vigilans
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #50 on: May 27, 2010, 05:08:24 AM »
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?
Come on, Ichi.  Answer this one, please!

What he is asking has nothing to do with what I said. NASA IS lying.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

The Question1

  • 390
  • Your logic is inferior to my logic.
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #51 on: May 27, 2010, 05:12:28 AM »
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.
You said here that the conspiracy is not involved with FET.Except it HAS to be otherwise the photos are real and FET is disporven.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8771
  • Semper vigilans
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #52 on: May 27, 2010, 05:16:02 AM »
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.
You said here that the conspiracy is not involved with FET.Except it HAS to be otherwise the photos are real and FET is disporven.
Again, what effect does their photos have on FET? None. Does any FE er change his ideas and model of the Earth because of NASA? No. Is NASA a factor at all when FE ers experiment or come up with new theories? No. Is NASA or their claims taken into account when detailing the FE? No.
The conspiracy simply wants to claim different than FET. It is not a part of FET.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #53 on: May 27, 2010, 05:18:25 AM »
Again, what effect does their photos have on FET? None.

You are totally right. Apart from the bit where they disprove the whole idea.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #54 on: May 27, 2010, 05:24:12 AM »
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?
Come on, Ichi.  Answer this one, please!

What he is asking has nothing to do with what I said. NASA IS lying.
I got it.  You say NASA has nothing to do with FET because you simply ignore everything the put out there by calling it a lie.  Now, since you've branded it a lie, you do not have to address it in any way.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8771
  • Semper vigilans
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #55 on: May 27, 2010, 05:34:20 AM »
If something/someone has an opposing viewpoint in regards to a theory it is still separate from the theory itself.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #56 on: May 27, 2010, 05:49:34 AM »
If something/someone has an opposing viewpoint in regards to a theory it is still separate from the theory itself.
Even if they have evidence that proves your theory wrong?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #57 on: May 27, 2010, 05:55:31 AM »
If something/someone has an opposing viewpoint in regards to a theory it is still separate from the theory itself.

A. Sickness is transmitted by bad smells! We must douse ourselves in lavender oil!
B. No sickness is transmitted by airborne viruses and bacteria. Cleanliness and hygiene are required!
A. Your opposing viewpoint in regards to my theory is still separate from my theory!
B. ???

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8771
  • Semper vigilans
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #58 on: May 27, 2010, 06:01:43 AM »
Correct, the theory of sickness caused by viruses and bacteria is separate and different than the theory of sickness caused by bad smells.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

sokarul

  • 16786
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A FE'er please explain Zetetisicm
« Reply #59 on: May 27, 2010, 06:32:37 AM »
I haven't had time to respond, but Tom is spot on with all his observations and responses.

Mind sharing your ideas on the flaws of Scientific Method?  Because I'm pretty sure we ruled them all out...

Yes username please do. 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run