The majority of FET is not zetetic

  • 229 Replies
  • 25674 Views
?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2011, 07:26:34 PM »
So if I release something from my hand, and I observe it fall, how is it that my observation is somehow less credible than your own?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
When you watch someone [or something] else do it it's second hand evidence. When you do it yourself and see the earth rise up to meet you, it's first hand evidence. A first hand experience is more empirical than second hand evidence.
Ok, I've asked why it's less credible when I directly observe myself falling too and you've done nothing about it.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2011, 07:27:56 PM »
ITT: Tom pretends to not understand the definition of the phrase "first-hand evidence".
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #62 on: June 09, 2011, 07:35:17 PM »
What's wrong with claiming that something is true or false based on observation?

An idea of any merit should have something to back it up. What more could you ask for than direct observation?

Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence.



I directly observe that the picture contains two black faces.  

Another may observe that it contains a white vase.

Both have directly observed two different yet equally valid things; one is not more correct than the other.  Direct observation would be "the most powerful evidence" if it weren't for that fact that two people can observe two different, yet equally plausible things and draw completely dissimilar conclusions.

And stop with the "It certainly beats out opposing theories involving invisible space fabrics and sub-atomic puller particles." garbage.  As I mentioned earlier, any idiot can use hyperbole and over-exaggeration to  make either argument seem ludicrous.  You don't wanna be just any idiot, do you?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #63 on: June 09, 2011, 08:35:54 PM »
You're all focussing too much on the empirical aspect of the Zetetic Method, to the exclusion of its other elements. Tom's point (as far as I can tell) is that he is not inferring the existence of anything on the basis of supposition or guess-work. Instead, he is making logical inferences on the basis of incontestable empirical data.


Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point, even if they do not wish to concede that the Earth does indeed accelerate towards him. So the question becomes, what can he logically conclude from such an experience (without being ambushed by the garrison at Fort Solipsism)? Well, if the Earth accelerates towards Tom, then it must either be a property of the Earth that it accelerates, or something else must accelerate it. This is all that he concludes. Without further empirical data, I don't see how the conclusion can be challenged, or how further conclusions can be drawn.


The simple fact is that you cannot observe the Earth attracting you to it, or make observations that are outside your frame of reference. To introduce these arguments (as many RE'ers have in this thread) in order to attack arguments as "not zetetic" is ridiculous, as these forms of 'evidence' are not permitted by the Zetetic Method. At heart they are all hypothetical, and therefore antithetical to Zetetic methodology.


So where does that leave the RE'ers, or those FE'ers who believe in 'gravity'? Well, in my view they must present some kind of repeatable experiment that presents direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is not accelerating towards Tom. At that point, he would have to draw some kind of logical conclusion(s) from the new empirical data. Crucially however, these new conclusions would be based upon empirical evidence, not hypotheses or imaginative speculation.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #64 on: June 09, 2011, 09:32:25 PM »
What's wrong with claiming that something is true or false based on observation?

An idea of any merit should have something to back it up. What more could you ask for than direct observation?

Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence.



I directly observe that the picture contains two black faces.  

Another may observe that it contains a white vase.

Both have directly observed two different yet equally valid things; one is not more correct than the other.  Direct observation would be "the most powerful evidence" if it weren't for that fact that two people can observe two different, yet equally plausible things and draw completely dissimilar conclusions.

And stop with the "It certainly beats out opposing theories involving invisible space fabrics and sub-atomic puller particles." garbage.  As I mentioned earlier, any idiot can use hyperbole and over-exaggeration to  make either argument seem ludicrous.  You don't wanna be just any idiot, do you?
Its not a matter of hyperbole.  Both of those are theories that are not based on direct observational evidence.

The image you posted above highlights one of the many flaws with the scientific method.   Two people can observe two different things mutually exclusive things and they both can be true.  Science as a method and an idealogy is still trying to come to terms with this and horribly failing.  
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 10:58:00 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #65 on: June 09, 2011, 09:49:16 PM »
Two people can observer two different things and they both can be true.

How does Zeteticism, which I presume still relies fundamentally on direct personal observation, address this concern?
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #66 on: June 09, 2011, 11:07:40 PM »
Two people can observer two different things and they both can be true.

How does Zeteticism, which I presume still relies fundamentally on direct personal observation, address this concern?
Well, I don't really hold it does, but Wilmore believes it does.  From what I understand of his take on zeteticism, since it relies on direct personal observation, each person is right within their own right.  To me, this is not really explicit or implicit in zeteticism and is in the realm of the pluralistic lovin' neozeteticism.  The main concern I have going down this line in zeteticism is that at its heart Rowbotham's work assumes a singular truth - namely a biblical one.  This is clear from his writings both on the zetetic method and on terra.  There is no room for pluralistic views within this framework as everyone is supposedly viewing the same singular 'facts'.  If they contradict, something is wrong with how you are observing the data.

However, to really address this one has to take into account some postmodern concerns as well as pluralistic ones.  This is one of the most important differences in neozeteticism along with the formalization of the 'right to believe's place in zetetic work especially as it relates to what could be called "useful" revelation.  To answer an earlier question, this is also a notable difference between neozet and glob science.

Like I said though, Wilmore , who very well might be right, thinks otherwise and that zeteticism can clearly hold its own in a pluralistic realm without needless defining.   This is a strong and extremely valid point.  

In the end neozeteticism is at its heart zeteticism formalized around its actual use in todays post modern mind coupled with some useful ideas borrowed in from sources varying from classical mainstream science and other notable corollary works like Charles Fort.  All this while still maintaining an epistlemologically superior basis.  
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 11:12:41 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2011, 12:00:45 AM »
In an argument on the existence of ghosts, who has the more powerful argument. The guy mumbling "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" or the skeptic who will not believe in ghosts until a ghost has been detected or observed?

Direct observation is the most powerful of evidence. It certainly beats out opposing theories involving invisible space fabrics and sub-atomic puller particles.

Alas, another schoolboy error.  The mumbling guy is logically correct, therefore he has the more powerful argument (however strange it may seem to your conservative mind)

For example, the "skeptic" concludes ghosts do not exist.  He would have to "directly observe" this, checking all areas of the cosmos instantaneously (those pesky ghosts might move around).  That's a bit silly, isn't it?

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #68 on: June 10, 2011, 12:28:52 AM »
You're all focussing too much on the empirical aspect of the Zetetic Method, to the exclusion of its other elements. Tom's point (as far as I can tell) is that he is not inferring the existence of anything on the basis of supposition or guess-work. Instead, he is making logical inferences on the basis of incontestable empirical data.


Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point, even if they do not wish to concede that the Earth does indeed accelerate towards him. So the question becomes, what can he logically conclude from such an experience (without being ambushed by the garrison at Fort Solipsism)? Well, if the Earth accelerates towards Tom, then it must either be a property of the Earth that it accelerates, or something else must accelerate it. This is all that he concludes. Without further empirical data, I don't see how the conclusion can be challenged, or how further conclusions can be drawn.


The simple fact is that you cannot observe the Earth attracting you to it, or make observations that are outside your frame of reference. To introduce these arguments (as many RE'ers have in this thread) in order to attack arguments as "not zetetic" is ridiculous, as these forms of 'evidence' are not permitted by the Zetetic Method. At heart they are all hypothetical, and therefore antithetical to Zetetic methodology.


So where does that leave the RE'ers, or those FE'ers who believe in 'gravity'? Well, in my view they must present some kind of repeatable experiment that presents direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is not accelerating towards Tom. At that point, he would have to draw some kind of logical conclusion(s) from the new empirical data. Crucially however, these new conclusions would be based upon empirical evidence, not hypotheses or imaginative speculation.

Tom's (and apparently your) inability to understand the equivalence principle and outright rejection of all evidence which proves his theory wrong are of no concern to me.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #69 on: June 10, 2011, 02:12:09 AM »
So where does that leave the RE'ers, or those FE'ers who believe in 'gravity'? Well, in my view they must present some kind of repeatable experiment that presents direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is not accelerating towards Tom. At that point, he would have to draw some kind of logical conclusion(s) from the new empirical data. Crucially however, these new conclusions would be based upon empirical evidence, not hypotheses or imaginative speculation.

We have directly observed that the earth is curved (ships/landmasses, the heavens, curvature at high altitude).  Therefore the earth cannot be accelerating upwards by the nature of its shape.

EDIT: At this point I will be told (for some inexplicable reason) to read EnaG.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 02:30:02 AM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #70 on: June 10, 2011, 02:49:01 AM »
Unfortunately, Wilmore, I feel that conclusions based on empirical evidence are bunk because "empirical evidence" depends so much on frame of reference, etc.  I think the fact that TB observes the Earth accelerating to meet him and RE'ers observing themselves being pulled by gravity (both of which describe and "explain" the same phenomenon) shows that empirical evidence is weak and only valid in the eye of the beholder.  It's useless to anyone but the observer.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #71 on: June 10, 2011, 04:11:34 AM »
Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point

No one should concede this point because it is false. 

When he steps down from a chair to the ground beneath, he does not observe the Earth move towards him in any way whatsoever.  He moves towards the Earth, and that is what is observed by he or anyone else who sees him step down.  To insist that he does observe the Earth rise is to understand less than what even any small child naturally understands.  It is foolishness and not philosophy.


Show me any principle that says otherwise (even if it is allegedly zetetic), and I will show you a lie reguardless of what it calls itself.

in my view they must present some kind of repeatable experiment that presents direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is not accelerating towards Tom.

We each have a free will and cannot force each other to believe anything, but we can adopt attitudes and ideologies that buttress false ideas enough to convince us we are right when we are actually not.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39310
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2011, 06:30:15 AM »
Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point, even if they do not wish to concede that the Earth does indeed accelerate towards him.

From Tom's personal frame of reference, this is true.  However, you and Tom must also concede the fact that from the frame of reference of the earth, Tom is accelerating towards the earth.  From another frame of reference, it could appear that both Tom and the earth are accelerating towards each other.  This simple fact makes the whole experiment inconclusive so I really don't know why Tom keeps insisting that it proves anything (actually, I do, but that's another rant).
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.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #73 on: June 10, 2011, 06:39:33 AM »
What I'm gathering is that my direct observation of falling toward Earth isn't as good as Tom's because I don't believe the Earth is flat. Noted.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #74 on: June 10, 2011, 06:44:04 AM »
Well, I don't really hold it does, but Wilmore believes it does.  From what I understand of his take on zeteticism, since it relies on direct personal observation, each person is right within their own right.  To me, this is not really explicit or implicit in zeteticism and is in the realm of the pluralistic lovin' neozeteticism.  The main concern I have going down this line in zeteticism is that at its heart Rowbotham's work assumes a singular truth - namely a biblical one.  This is clear from his writings both on the zetetic method and on terra.  There is no room for pluralistic views within this framework as everyone is supposedly viewing the same singular 'facts'.  If they contradict, something is wrong with how you are observing the data.

However, to really address this one has to take into account some postmodern concerns as well as pluralistic ones.  This is one of the most important differences in neozeteticism along with the formalization of the 'right to believe's place in zetetic work especially as it relates to what could be called "useful" revelation.  To answer an earlier question, this is also a notable difference between neozet and glob science.

Like I said though, Wilmore , who very well might be right, thinks otherwise and that zeteticism can clearly hold its own in a pluralistic realm without needless defining.   This is a strong and extremely valid point.  

In the end neozeteticism is at its heart zeteticism formalized around its actual use in todays post modern mind coupled with some useful ideas borrowed in from sources varying from classical mainstream science and other notable corollary works like Charles Fort.  All this while still maintaining an epistlemologically superior basis.  


John's pretty much right here, however I do believe Zeteticism still aims at an objective truth. However, for philosophical reasons, it makes the search for objective truth subject orientated. If people have conflicting experiences, then they must use logic to reconcile those experiences. The point is, Zeteticism never dismisses experiential evidence as 'wrong', 'illusory', or in any other pejorative fashion. Those experiences need to be reconciled or understood through logic, but they are all recognised as part of the objective truth.


Take the image posted above (though it's not a great example, as it doesn't really challenge Zeteticism). Person A sees a white vase. Person B sees two black faces. Person A says to Person B, "It's a picture of a white vase", and B responds "I thought it was a picture of two black faces". They can then return to the picture, and both can confirm that both forms are present within the image. Zeteticism will not invalidate either experience, but rather recognises that both form part of a larger truth. The methodolgy does not abitrarily validate some experiences over others.


That said, I do think there is scope for a more radical reformalisation of the Zetetic Method. However, until I an explicit rendering of Neozeteticism, it's hard for me to make any serious comments.


Tom observes the Earth accelerating towards him. I believe RE'ers must concede this point, even if they do not wish to concede that the Earth does indeed accelerate towards him.

From Tom's personal frame of reference, this is true.  However, you and Tom must also concede the fact that from the frame of reference of the earth, Tom is accelerating towards the earth.  From another frame of reference, it could appear that both Tom and the earth are accelerating towards each other.  This simple fact makes the whole experiment inconclusive so I really don't know why Tom keeps insisting that it proves anything (actually, I do, but that's another rant).


Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?


I don't have time to reply to everyone right now, as I'm heading off to Dublin to meet with a philosopher, but I promise to address your points come Monday/Tuesday.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39310
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #75 on: June 10, 2011, 07:05:55 AM »
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 07:08:26 AM by markjo »
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.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #76 on: June 10, 2011, 08:52:23 AM »
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.

And that's just really silly.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17522
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #77 on: June 10, 2011, 09:11:03 AM »
So if I release something from my hand, and I observe it fall, how is it that my observation is somehow less credible than your own?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
When you watch someone [or something] else do it it's second hand evidence. When you do it yourself and see the earth rise up to meet you, it's first hand evidence. A first hand experience is more empirical than second hand evidence.
Ok, I've asked why it's less credible when I directly observe myself falling too and you've done nothing about it.

It's less credible because when you step off a chair you don't observe yourself being pulled to the ground. You don't see that at all. That's not what you see. You don't see anything pulling you, or that you are being pulled. Sure, you can imagine that some invisible undetectable phenomena is pulling you to the ground (ie. gravitons, bendy space), but that's an absurd notion.

When you step off a chair and become inert you see that the ground rushes upwards to meet you. This is a direct observation. There is no direct observation suggesting that you are being pulled.

Zeteticism is against absurd notions and hypothetical conjecture. Empirically, when you step off the edge of a chair you see the earth rising upwards. Nothing pulling you is observed.

I'm not saying anything anything about the equivalence principal being wrong.

I'm not saying anything about the impossibility of something pulling you.

I am pointing out that we have something observed vs. something not observed. Empirical evidence vs. absurd hypothesis. Visible vs. invisible.

Why should I believe in the imagined when I have reality staring me right in the face?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 09:29:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #78 on: June 10, 2011, 09:34:02 AM »
It's less credible because when you step off a chair you don't observe yourself being pulled to the ground. You don't see that at all. That's not what you see. You don't see anything pulling you, or that you are being pulled. Sure, you can imagine that some invisible undetectable phenomena is pulling you to the ground (ie. gravitons, bendy space), but that's an absurd notion.

When you step off a chair and become inert you see that the ground rushes upwards to meet you. This is a direct observation. There is no direct observation suggesting that you are being pulled.

Zeteticism is against absurd notions and hypothetical conjecture. Empirically, when you step off the edge of a chair you see the earth rising upwards. Nothing pulling you is observed.

I'm not saying anything anything about the equivalence principal being wrong.

I'm not saying anything about the impossibility of something pulling you.

I am pointing out that we have something observed vs. something not observed. Empirical evidence vs. absurd hypothesis. Visible vs. invisible.

How do know what others do and don't observe? ???

Sure, to you, "gravitons/bendy space" may seem absurd.  Yet to us, who observe ourselves being pulled toward the Earth, such a theory is most certainly not absurd; what we find absurd is your wild claim that the Earth is being accelerated endlessly through space by an unknown force.  Yet again I've shown that either theory can be presented as absurd.

No, you.  Not "we".

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #79 on: June 10, 2011, 09:34:40 AM »
It's pretty amazing that you know what I see. I saw myself falling to the ground. I didn't see anything raise up at me. You are being ridiculous in stating that I somehow didn't properly see what I saw. I fell to the ground. The Earth didn't come up at me, I'm not implying that I saw "invisible particles pull me", I fell. That's it.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39310
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #80 on: June 10, 2011, 10:05:53 AM »
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.

And that's just really silly.

As long as you are in direct, physical contact with the earth, you are in the same frame of reference as the earth.  Nothing at all silly about that.
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.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #81 on: June 10, 2011, 10:16:01 AM »
Thomas certainly loves to invoke reductiones ad ridiculum, ironically enough.  ::)
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #82 on: June 12, 2011, 06:27:47 AM »
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.

And that's just really silly.

As long as you are in direct, physical contact with the earth, you are in the same frame of reference as the earth.  Nothing at all silly about that.

And we have to lie down on the floor because...?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39310
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #83 on: June 12, 2011, 06:38:18 AM »
Has anyone ever observed anything from the frame of reference of the Earth? Don't you see that's impossible?

That's just silly.  Lie down on the floor.  Presto!  You are observing from the earth's frame of reference.

And that's just really silly.

As long as you are in direct, physical contact with the earth, you are in the same frame of reference as the earth.  Nothing at all silly about that.

And we have to lie down on the floor because...?

To make it easier to observe the object falling to meet you.
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.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #84 on: June 12, 2011, 06:42:35 AM »
Like I said, that's siwwy.  ;D

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #85 on: June 12, 2011, 10:53:25 AM »
To be fair, it's not as silly as Tom's argument.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #86 on: June 12, 2011, 01:10:05 PM »
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.
But, this is not what the Universal Accelerator is:
Quote
Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #87 on: June 12, 2011, 04:35:50 PM »
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.
But, this is not what the Universal Accelerator is:
Quote
Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.
Dark energy has been proven? Huzzah!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17522
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #88 on: June 13, 2011, 08:31:08 AM »
It's less credible because when you step off a chair you don't observe yourself being pulled to the ground. You don't see that at all. That's not what you see. You don't see anything pulling you, or that you are being pulled.[/color] Sure, you can imagine that some invisible undetectable phenomena is pulling you to the ground (ie. gravitons, bendy space), but that's an absurd notion.

When you step off a chair and become inert you see that the ground rushes upwards to meet you. This is a direct observation. There is no direct observation suggesting that you are being pulled.

Zeteticism is against absurd notions and hypothetical conjecture. Empirically, when you step off the edge of a chair you see the earth rising upwards. Nothing pulling you is observed.

I'm not saying anything anything about the equivalence principal being wrong.

I'm not saying anything about the impossibility of something pulling you.

I am pointing out that we have something observed vs. something not observed. Empirical evidence vs. absurd hypothesis. Visible vs. invisible.

How do know what others do and don't observe? ???

Sure, to you, "gravitons/bendy space" may seem absurd.  Yet to us, who observe ourselves being pulled toward the Earth, such a theory is most certainly not absurd; what we find absurd is your wild claim that the Earth is being accelerated endlessly through space by an unknown force.  Yet again I've shown that either theory can be presented as absurd.

No, you.  Not "we".

It's absurd because you claim to be observing the invisible. You can't see anything pulling you or that you are being pulled. You can, however, see the earth rise upwards towards you when you step off the edge of a chair. Why should we imagine invisible, undetectable phenomena when we have something visual and observable?

Which is more empirical, something we can observe, or something which we cannot?

Quote from: sillyrob
It's pretty amazing that you know what I see. I saw myself falling to the ground. I didn't see anything raise up at me. You are being ridiculous in stating that I somehow didn't properly see what I saw. I fell to the ground. The Earth didn't come up at me, I'm not implying that I saw "invisible particles pull me", I fell. That's it.

How do you know that something is pulling you if you can't see it?

The excuse "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" is a lame excuse that some mumbling shut-in would use to argue for the existence of ghosts.

I can see the earth rise upwards towards me. That's how I know that the earth is rising upwards. I make no speculation about what is pushing it, only affirming its visual movement.

When you step off a chair there is absolutely nothing suggesting that you are being pulled or that something is pulling you. There is nothing to compel one to believe in the invisible and phenomenal.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 08:36:33 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: The majority of FET is not zetetic
« Reply #89 on: June 13, 2011, 08:35:51 AM »
When you step off a chair there is absolutely nothing suggesting that you are being pulled or that something is pulling you. There is nothing to compel one to believe in the invisible and phenomenal.
Except the fact that I saw myself fall to the Earth. The other day I dropped my window AC unit, and I watched it fall to Earth. It would be stupid to think that it stayed there while the Earth came up at it. I watched it go from my window to the ground. Sounds like it fell to Earth to me. There is absolutely nothing suggesting that the Earth is being pushed up at you. There is nothing to compel one to believe in the invisible and phenomenal. And don't come at me with, "That's not first hand experience," because I was there and it happened.