The majority of FET is not zetetic

It must be granted that among Zetetics some speculative accounts of certain phenomona are occasionally proposed where insufficient evidence presents itself, and many globularists cry 'hypocrisy' when this occurs. However, this is quite unfair. It is of course in man's nature to speculate, and minds large enough to recognise the epistemological strength of the Zetetic method are of course equally capable of bold thought and great feats of imagination. They cannot be expected to simply 'turn off' the instinctively speculative aspect of the mind. Furthermore, in the absence of sufficient empirical data upon which to draw logical inferences, such speculation is of course permitted, as long as we recognise that such speculation is not in accordance with the Zetetic Method. For an explanation to hold up to scrutiny, it must logically procede from empirical data.

So let's go over a list of the aspects of FET for which no verifiable empirical evidence has been presented (or in some cases experimental evidence directly contradicts):

• The Universal Accelerator
• Bendy Light
• "Aetheric Eddification"
• Tom Bishop's version of perspective
• The conspiracy
• Luminescent moon/sun life
• The anti-moon
• The sub-moon
• The "greater ice wall" (or whatever contains the air)
• Celestial gears
• Whatever causes the celestial bodies to remain above the earth and moving as they do
• Dinosaurs building boats to cross the oceans
• "Stratelites" which produce GPS signals

That's just all I could think of off the top of my head, feel free to add to the list. It is entirely fair to accuse these self-proclaimed "zetetics" of hypocrisy when the vast majority of what they believe has no more observational evidence behind it than "it looks flat".

Don't forget the atmolayer, that's what protects us..

moonshrimp!

Any "theory" at all is not strictly zetetic.  Zeteticism deals with facts.  Neozeteticism allows theories.  Most members here are neozetetics and don't even know it.

For example, a zetetic statement about the heavens may say something like "the appearance of the heavens seems to shift over time" whereas a neozetetic statement may go on to explain this as "currently, the heavens seem to shift over time much like that of a geared system."

Then it'd be nice if FE'ers didn't go around calling themselves Zetetcists, but rather "Neozetetcists"/random BS-spewers.

I agree that some of the ideas you list have not been formulated using Zetetic methodology. However, most of them are based on empirical evidence of the kind supported by the Zetetic Method. To suggest otherwise is totally disingenuous.

I agree that some of the ideas you list have not been formulated using Zetetic methodology. However, most of them are based on empirical evidence of the kind supported by the Zetetic Method. To suggest otherwise is totally disingenuous.

I suggest you are being a bit disingenuous also. None of the things I listed have any evidence for them specifically. The only support for these theories is generally "we know the earth is flat so xxx must be true!"

Any "theory" at all is not strictly zetetic.  Zeteticism deals with facts.  Neozeteticism allows theories.  Most members here are neozetetics and don't even know it.

For example, a zetetic statement about the heavens may say something like "the appearance of the heavens seems to shift over time" whereas a neozetetic statement may go on to explain this as "currently, the heavens seem to shift over time much like that of a geared system."

What, then, is the difference between this "neozeteticism" and science?

I agree that some of the ideas you list have not been formulated using Zetetic methodology. However, most of them are based on empirical evidence of the kind supported by the Zetetic Method. To suggest otherwise is totally disingenuous.

Please write the list and tell us which have Zetetic something, which have neo-Zetetic anything and which are pure science, to be compared with other scientific theories on their scientific merits.

That word "some" makes the whole statement worthless.

Any "theory" at all is not strictly zetetic.  Zeteticism deals with facts.  Neozeteticism allows theories.  Most members here are neozetetics and don't even know it.

For example, a zetetic statement about the heavens may say something like "the appearance of the heavens seems to shift over time" whereas a neozetetic statement may go on to explain this as "currently, the heavens seem to shift over time much like that of a geared system."

Don't forget that some of the zetetics/neozetetics are also pseudoskeptics.  Pseudoskepticism allows them to deny any and all evidence (no matter how damning) that contradicts their own theories without any proper refutation.

Zeteticism is the easy way out. It's a way of getting around the fact that you don't really have anything to support your claims. The only person who has any real idea of what it is, is John and he doesn't even call himself one.

I believe I asked Wilmore to explain something to me and his response was something along the lines of, "Have you forgotten that I'm a Zetetic? I'm not just going to throw around hypotheses." Yes, having to explain why you think something is, is such a bother on people who are supposedly trying to be scientific, be it mainstream or Zetetic.

can you just give a simple explanation of zeteticsm?

can you just give a simple explanation of zeteticsm?

Observation.

Wilmore gives a pretty good overview of how it is supposed to work in his post in the believers section. Unfortunately, no one here actually does it that way.

Zeteticism deals with facts oversvations which they prematurely claim are facts before testing/observing further to verify said observation-based facts.

Fixed, by the way.  You had it wrong.

How can Zeteticism be peer reviewed? How can someone else verify what your observation is? Also, what does a color-blind Zetetic do? Or a blind one?

The Universal Accelerator is Zetetic.

When I get up on a chair and walk off the edge I can see that the earth rises up towards me. I can directly observe that the earth is moving upwards. This is an empirical observation.

I cannot see graviton particles or bendy space. There is no direct empirical evidence that sub-atomic particles are pulling me towards the surface of thee earth or that the fabric of space is bending. Hence, there is no reason to support those ideas over one which is directly observable.

Have you observed anything that makes the Earth move upwards? I think not.

  nobody gives a simple explanation

Second question: Has anyone ever observed zeteticism?

nobody gives a simple explanation

Second question: Has anyone ever observed zeteticism?

Mine was the simplest possible explanation.

No, no one has because no one on this site actually follows it correctly.

Tom is aware, of course, that the Earth does not "rise up" at the same rate over the entire planet.

The Universal Accelerator is Zetetic.

When I get up on a chair and walk off the edge I can see that the earth rises up towards me. I can directly observe that the earth is moving upwards. This is an empirical observation.

Unfortunately this completely ignores the equivalence principle that clearly states that this experiment is inconclusive.

I cannot see graviton particles or bendy space. There is no direct empirical evidence that sub-atomic particles are pulling me towards the surface of thee earth or that the fabric of space is bending. Hence, there is no reason to support those ideas over one which is directly observable.

You can not see the universal accelerator that pushes the earth up to meet you either, yet you seem to be convinced that it exists.

Zeteticism is observation and nothing else (as sillyrob, etc have already said):

1. The moment you start reasoning it is no-longer zeteticism, because you are formulating a hypothosis.
2. The moment you start experimenting it is no-longer zeteticism, because you are testing a hypothosis.

Tom has reasoned (hypothesised) that the earth is accelerating upwards.  I think this is wrong because:

1. Acceleration is a vector quantity - It could be Tom or the earth doing the accelerating.
2. He has used the fact that graviton have not been observed in his reasoning.  This is irrelevant.
2. Hypothetically, gravity may be discovered by Tom later on. There are other observable forces of attraction that cannot be easily explained (electromagnetism), so we cannot rule out another.

Tom demonstrates just how easy it is for a zetetic to misunderstand their own methodology.

Tom demonstrates just how easy it is for a zetetic to misunderstand their own methodology.

As punishment, He shall be made to wear the "Roman helmet"

Have you observed anything that makes the Earth move upwards? I think not.

No. I make no claim regarding what pushes up the earth. I can only make the empirical observation that when I walk off the edge of a chair the earth rises up towards me.

Tom is aware, of course, that the Earth does not "rise up" at the same rate over the entire planet.

The variations of g at different locations is so slight that the difference is well within experimental error. Accelerometers aren't exactly known to be perfectly accurate.

Unfortunately this completely ignores the equivalence principle that clearly states that this experiment is inconclusive.

It's not ignoring it at all. The equivalence principal might say that imaginary graviton puller particles are indistinguishable from an upwardly rising earth. But of those two options only an upwardly rising earth is directly observable. When I step off the edge of a chair I can see, directly, that the earth rises upwards. No one can observe graviton puller particles. Graviton puller particles are a complete and utter fantasy which no one has observed or experienced.

This is why an upwardly moving earth is the stronger opponent. There is empirical, observable evidence behind it.

But tom, myself and others have observed falling when walking out of a chair, so explain that.

The exact phrase I used was "The Universal Accelerator", as in the force that supposedly accelerates the earth in FET. You may think you have observed its effects, but you have not observed it directly.

When I step off the edge of a chair I can see, directly, that the earth rises upwards. No one can observe graviton puller particles. Graviton puller particles are a complete and utter fantasy which no one has observed or experienced.

This is why an upwardly moving earth is the stronger opponent. There is empirical, observable evidence behind it.

Gravitons are irrelevant in you observation. You are using lack of evidence for gravitons as evidence that the earth it accelerating upwards.

Zeteticism is observation and nothing else (as sillyrob, etc have already said):

1. The moment you start reasoning it is no-longer zeteticism, because you are formulating a hypothosis.
2. The moment you start experimenting it is no-longer zeteticism, because you are testing a hypothosis.

Incorrect, you can gather data.  This takes the place of experimentation and removes any bias introduced by the sm.

Tom has reasoned (hypothesised) that the earth is accelerating upwards.  I think this is wrong because:

1. Acceleration is a vector quantity - It could be Tom or the earth doing the accelerating.
2. He has used the fact that graviton have not been observed in his reasoning.  This is irrelevant.
2. Hypothetically, gravity may be discovered by Tom later on. There are other observable forces of attraction that cannot be easily explained (electromagnetism), so we cannot rule out another.

Perhaps, but all we can say is that either Tom accelerates downwards for an unknown reason or that the Earth accelerates upwards.  In the end, that is where zeteticism ends until one spends the proper time to gather more evidence.  There is the supposed fact that this phenomenae occurs.  A zeteticist should not worry about which is true nor should he go around inventing wild explanations on why this is true no more than a greek shepherd should speculate that a god's chariot carries the sun across the heavens.  It may, to the fanciful youth, be more enjoyable and fun to imagine the universe is bending around itself to cause this to happen or that some invisible undetectable particles are the cause, but its not a theory that can said to have any validation in regards to truth beyond its appeal to curiosity.  Once we can gather data on these supposedly undetectable particles or gather it on whatever causes the universe to bend around itself - then we can sit back and say with a small amount of certainty that we are moving in the correct direction.  To do otherwise would be to simply inflate ones own ego and quench the thirst man has to imagine explanations out of nowhere.  The road science takes leads the unwary scientist inevitably two steps forward and three back.

However, that said, by viewing this data on the whole we see the Earth cannot be round.  That was the point of Rowbothams experiments, not to formulate a theory on Earth.  He was already content in his biblical explanation.

Many so called "scientists" are actually in reality zeteticists.  I have mentioned a few in the past but it seems the globularist community here wants to dismiss them out of hand simply because they fail to recognize the method they are following.

I don't have time to respond in detail right now, but John has basically said everything that needs to be said. Ultimately, Zetetics prefer to have the right answer to some questions rather than some answer to every question.