A Common Language for the Forum

  • 124 Replies
  • 23743 Views
?

Omnipinion

  • 57
  • Truth is interesting. Propaganda is boring.
A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 12, 2011, 09:31:02 PM »
It seems to me there is some confusion on this forum about the treatment of theories, and the completeness and correctness of such.  Particularly for this type of debate, logic has to be followed carefully in order to not only communicate, but to reach correct conclusions.

Theory Creation:
Simply put, here is how a theory is created:
* Make observations.
* Create a theory with a defined scope that can make verifiable predictions, all of which agree with their corresponding known observations.

Verifiable Predictions
A verifiable prediction is one that can be tested, and often requires the prediction to be specific and quantitative.  A theory that offers no verifiable predictions cannot be tested.  Throughout this post, when I speak of predictions, I am referring to the verifiable kind.

Scope and Completeness
Every theory must have a scope, i.e. a defined bound of applicability.  This is defined by the theory creator, and must be constant throughout the theory (i.e. it cannot be different for different parts of the theory).  For questions outside the scope of the theory, the theory offers no verifiable prediction by definition.  To say a theory is incomplete merely says that the theory's creator is targeting a larger scope than the theory can currently handle, and says nothing about correctness of the theory.

Correctness
Here is how a theory is properly tested for correctness:
* Search for observations that the theory DOES NOT predict correctly.  If such an observation is found, the theory is false, and must be rejected or modified to again correctly predict all known corresponding observations.

That is, a theory can never be proven true.  It can only be shown to be more likely to be true by attempting and failing to prove it false.

-----------------------------------

So here's a simple way one could classify theory, more-or-less in order of increasing validity/superiority:
0.  A "theory" that makes no predictions
1.  A theory that makes many incorrect predictions, and few correct predictions
2.  A theory that makes few incorrect predictions, and many correct predictions.
3.  A theory that makes few predictions correctly, and none incorrectly.
4.  A theory that makes many predictions correctly, and none incorrectly.

Theories can only take on three states:
* indeterminate (Type 0)
* false (Type 1-2)
* plausible (Type 3-4)

Some Examples:
* Various flavors of string theory (Type 0:  Untestable because they offer no verifiable predictions).
* Newton's theory of gravity is strictly false (Type 2:  Often right, rarely wrong, heavily tested.)
* Quantum mechanics is in a state of plausibility. (Type 4:  Always right, not wrong yet, heavily tested.)

Note that, a theory that offers no predictions is forever protected from falsehood, but can never achieve plausibility.  One could say such a theory is instead a beliefs.

Final Thoughts
I think it would do well for everyone here to try to speak a common language.  I offer this up for consideration...

Also, I had some trouble finding complete summaries of the various theories (models) people have created.  It would be nice on the forum to see a centralized place where these theories can be completely outlined in their entirety.  Those that are in progress can be labeled as such.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 09:39:22 PM by Omnipinion »

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2011, 11:04:01 PM »
tl;dr.

You really need to lurk moar and realise what a zetetic approach is.
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2011, 08:37:28 AM »
Personally I would include use the word hypothesis rather than theory. You create a hypothesis, not a theory, based off of observations. You then search for observations that disprove it. If you can't find any, then the hypothesis can be regarded as a theory.

Although as previously mentioned, the FEers on this site tend to use a zetetic method. As far as I can tell, this involves making a single observation with your eyes (the world appears flat) and then setting this as an axiom and try to explain everything else under the assumption your initial observation is true.

I've never understood why they use this method, personally. Perhaps there's something about it I'm not getting, but I've yet to see it explained in a way that makes it seem much use.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2011, 08:41:55 AM »
Although as previously mentioned, the FEers on this site tend to use a zetetic method. As far as I can tell, this involves making a single observation with your eyes (the world appears flat) and then setting this as an axiom and try to explain everything else under the assumption your initial observation is true.

Incorrect.

Please read Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe "Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared" -

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm#page_1

Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2011, 09:08:14 AM »
Incorrect.

Please read Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe "Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared" -

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm#page_1

What the book says at the start is rather different to how I see it played out. For example, the Sun and Moon on a FE model should vary considerably in their size and take a far different path across the sky. There's things like the glare caused by the atmosphere and bendy light and other such stuff proposed to explain it. The problem is the only reason to think these things are occurring in a way that solves the issues is that they have to be happening to explain what we're seeing assuming the Earth is flat. There's nothing suggesting that celestial gears exist to explain similar constellations in the southern hemisphere, beyond 'it's the only way to explain what we see if the Earth were flat'.

The initial observation is made, and then all other phenomena are explained using the assumption that the initial observation is true.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2011, 09:21:28 AM »
Thanks for suggesting that we use globularist methods to test our anti-globularist findings. However, we already have our own system of science, called Zeteticism, which was outlined by the great Doctor Samuel Birley Rowbotham in the first chapter of the seminal text of modern science, Earth Not a Globe.

Globular/theoreticist science is an outmoded hangover from the so-called Enlightenment period. We 21st century scientists use significantly improved methods.
"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: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2011, 10:36:48 AM »
Thanks for suggesting that we use globularist methods to test our anti-globularist findings. However, we already have our own system of science, called Zeteticism, which was outlined by the great Doctor Samuel Birley Rowbotham in the first chapter of the seminal text of modern science, Earth Not a Globe.

Globular/theoreticist science is an outmoded hangover from the so-called Enlightenment period. We 21st century scientists use significantly improved methods.

So how does Zeteticism differ from the scientific method? The main differences I see are you make an initial observation (The Earth appears flat) which you assume is true when composing all later hypotheses, and there's little care for the hypotheses you generate needing to be able to predict anything.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2011, 11:11:53 AM »
The hypothesising method of the globularist begins with just that - a hypothesis - which need according to the strictures of globular science be nothing more than the wildest fancy of whosoever dreams it up - from whence the globular scientist proceeds to work backwards from his own hypothesis, doing his best to defend it by whatever means necessary against whatever evidence should be brought to bear by contrarian scientists.

The zetetic method of the planarist, however, begins with no preconditioned or predisposed supposition whatsoever. It begins only with what may be discerned from the plain facts; no room is allowed for some wild hypothetical supposition to be roguishly inserted into the discourse of science, to be defended by its progenitor as true until proven false. No, the zetetic scientist proceeds with the utmost caution and the utmost impartiality from only the barest of observable, verifiable facts, avoid hypothesis altogether, and in this manner he arrives at a more perfect rendition of the truth than the globulating hypothesiser could ever hope to attain.
"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

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2011, 11:15:53 AM »
The scientific method is essentially, "I have an idea about how something works, now I am going to use whatever I can to support it."

This is working backwards. The Zetetic method we first make our observations and collect our data and THEN derive conclusions from it.

Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2011, 12:56:14 PM »
The scientific method is essentially, "I have an idea about how something works, now I am going to use whatever I can to support it."

Calling the scientific method cherry picking is a bit off...


Quote
This is working backwards. The Zetetic method we first make our observations and collect our data and THEN derive conclusions from it.

But there are still things in the flat Earth model that aren't derived this way. Nobody has taken something like a time lapse photo of the Sun or Moon showing them going around above us in a circle. Despite this, flat Earthers still hold that this is what happens.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2011, 01:08:44 PM »
The scientific method is essentially, "I have an idea about how something works, now I am going to use whatever I can to support it."

Calling the scientific method cherry picking is a bit off...

Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't. They only look specifically for things to try and help their ideas. You shouldn't use your conclusion to prove your premise.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2011, 01:11:32 PM »
The scientific method is essentially, "I have an idea about how something works, now I am going to use whatever I can to support it."

Calling the scientific method cherry picking is a bit off...

Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't. They only look specifically for things to try and help their ideas. You shouldn't use your conclusion to prove your premise.
>implying all scientists are dishonest
>implying no scientist has ever changed or just gotten rid of their idea because it was wrong
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2011, 01:39:23 PM »
The scientific method is essentially, "I have an idea about how something works, now I am going to use whatever I can to support it."

Calling the scientific method cherry picking is a bit off...

Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't. They only look specifically for things to try and help their ideas. You shouldn't use your conclusion to prove your premise.
>implying all scientists are dishonest
>implying no scientist has ever changed or just gotten rid of their idea because it was wrong

Globularist scientists that change their theories only do so because they couldn't find any evidence. See what is wrong here? They hold a belief about how the world works before they even have evidence for it, and they only discard is once it is decided none can be found, or it is too bothersome to find it.

Zeticists on the other hand formulate their ideas from what we know.

Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2011, 05:09:51 PM »
Globularist scientists that change their theories only do so because they couldn't find any evidence. See what is wrong here? They hold a belief about how the world works before they even have evidence for it, and they only discard is once it is decided none can be found, or it is too bothersome to find it.

Zeticists on the other hand formulate their ideas from what we know.

Scientists change their theories when evidence arises that suggests their theories are wrong.

Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with forming new ideas about how the world works before you've had a chance to test them. If you don't try coming up with new ideas then you're never going to improve your models.

Plus there's still the point that Zeticists have come to the conclusion that the Sun and Moon orbit in a circle above us, which seems to have nothing to do with what they know about the path across the sky of these two objects.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2011, 05:14:09 PM »
Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't.

Agreed. A perfect example of why the scientific method, and theoretical science in general, is bunk.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2011, 05:22:46 PM »
The scientific method is essentially, "I have an idea about how something works, now I am going to use whatever I can to support it."

This is working backwards. The Zetetic method we first make our observations and collect our data and THEN derive conclusions from it.
The zetetic method is not useful whatsoever. So you made some observation, collected your data (in some cases) and now you derive a conclusion. The reason it fails is because you don't consider all the solutions. Sometimes for the experiment you conducted (or logic you put forth) allows for more than one explanation.

What about with the UA? You used the premise that the Earth is flat, to derive that a UA exists, to prove that the Earth is flat. You feel the Earth accelerating upwards (observation), but how did you know that the Earth was flat (data collecting) because you most certainly didn't go to the underside of the Earth to see UA for yourself.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2011, 05:28:35 PM »
Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't.

Agreed. A perfect example of why the scientific method, and theoretical science in general, is bunk.
His "example" isn't an example. Scientists research to see if they are wrong or right. And how come the scientific method has worked for the last 300 years or so?
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2011, 05:37:03 PM »
Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't.

Agreed. A perfect example of why the scientific method, and theoretical science in general, is bunk.
I could've said the exact same thing about FET. Will you ever consider your theory is wrong? No, you'll continue to concoct crackpot explanations that contradicts itself when trying to explain various phenomena, just to keep afloat.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment was a great means of Scientific discovery, and it didn't matter that the theory was proven wrong. Oh but wait, light is bendy so the conclusion that the aether doesn't exist is false, eh?  ;)
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2011, 05:49:21 PM »
The scientific method is essentially, "I have an idea about how something works, now I am going to use whatever I can to support it."

You keep saying that as if it's true.  It isn't.  It's closer to, "I have an idea about how something works, let's design an experiment to see if I'm right.  If I'm right, then great.  If I'm wrong, let me try to figure out where I went wrong."
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.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2011, 06:29:09 PM »
Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't.

Agreed. A perfect example of why the scientific method, and theoretical science in general, is bunk.
His "example" isn't an example. Scientists research to see if they are wrong or right. And how come the scientific method has worked for the last 300 years or so?

Really? I seeing thousands of failed experiments and theories due to the scientific method, and probably thousands more that we have never heard of. It does not surprise me that a small percent of the theories have come true. Take enough shots in the dark and every once in a while you might hit something.

If the scientific method was so praise worthy, surely using this method would create correct conclusions every time, but it doesn't! Must I cite the numerous times that NASA has claimed to have found evidence of bacteria of meteors, or that DNA can be created using Arsenic? They all derived their conclusions using the "scientific" method, yet they were dead wrong each time!
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 06:31:18 PM by EnglshGentleman »

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2011, 06:32:00 PM »
Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't.

Agreed. A perfect example of why the scientific method, and theoretical science in general, is bunk.
His "example" isn't an example. Scientists research to see if they are wrong or right. And how come the scientific method has worked for the last 300 years or so?

Really? I seeing thousands of failed experiments and theories due to the scientific method, and probably thousands more that we have never heard of. It does not surprise me that a small percent of the theories have come true. Take enough shots in the dark and every once in a while you might hit something.
The scientific method is based on being wrong. You refine your theory or experiment so that the observations meet the theory. Try to understand that.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2011, 06:33:36 PM »
Take enough shots in the dark and every once in a while you might hit something.
If the room is dark, then yeah, what else can we do besides shooting into the dark? The zetetic method is like thinking the target is at some place in that dark room, taking the shot, and sticking by it till death do you part.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2011, 06:42:17 PM »
The scientific method is based on being wrong.
This, by principle, is more true than you dare think.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2011, 07:01:19 PM »
The hypothesising method of the globularist begins with just that - a hypothesis

Incorrect.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2011, 03:50:21 AM »
Cast your eyes into the pages of history if you wish to see the difference between globular reasoning at work, and true science at work.  See ye Newton there, idling in his apple orchard; says he, "I fancy that the Earth is a whirling space ball", and from that moment on he thinks himself a grand scientist, and obliged to demonstrate his grandeur at all times and at any cost by preserving whatever fanciful proclamations he cared to make (in this instance the Earth's ballhood). So now suppose that some body encounters Newton, saying, "Newton, you are a liar and a fool", well he can hardly be expected to concede this, as it would be a great embarrassment.  Thus he will stop at nothing to make good his initial claims no matter how ridiculous they are, when questioned as to why on (flat) Earth he might suspect such a nonsensical thing - say we ask him, "Newton, how on Earth could the Earth be a great whirling space ball?", he will readily claim, "why, because there is an invisible, intangible power pervading all across the universe which happens to crumple all things into great whirling space balls". This is the procedure of science according to the Round Earther. And if we should ask him "Wherefore this invisible power? Whither its source?", he might say, "from an invisible, intangible particle, called a graviton, which is completely undetectable by any method". And if we should scrunch our brows at this invisible, undetectable thing which Newton has detected, and voice our concerns, asking how we might discover the existence of something which utterly belies detection, he may readily say, "it must exist, because of my hypothesis", by which he really means to say that he detected it with his own imagination, so the whole of this science lies precariously on the imaginary detections of a self-proclaimed scientist.  You may make what you will of the verisimilitude of such detections.

And now conceive of the zetetic scientist, Doctor Rowbotham being the paradigm of this noble profession, who enters his investigations on the question of the shape of the Earth without the bold pride to suppose it to be any shape whatsoever prior to his performing a great many experiments on it, which he does not to support some wild and fanciful hypothesis which has fallen onto his head out of thin air, but in order quite sincerely to find out just what shape the Earth is.

Now who is more likely, in these two examples, to be accurately describing the state of affairs: Newton, who will defend his original bold claim no matter if it is true or false, and will go to any lengths to substantiate it with whatever bizarre lies he can fathom and fancy, so as to avoid humiliation; or Rowbotham, who did not make any bold claim in the first place, and will simply describe what he sees before him by his own eyes, and which I see with mine own eyes, and you with your own eyes?
"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

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2011, 07:11:14 AM »
Cast your eyes into the pages of history if you wish to see the difference between globular reasoning at work, and true science at work
...

...James then invents a scenario that involves Newton and his "theory" of gravitons.  I know it's a fictitious scenario, but it cannot be used to compare science with zetetics, because it is just too fanciful.

It just ends up sounding like  propaganda, which is what James goes on about quite a bit.   Also, it only serves to demonstrate the RE community's strange obsession with the theoretical graviton particle.

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 Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2011, 07:21:38 AM »
Cast your eyes into the pages of history if you wish to see the difference between globular reasoning at work, and true science at work...

...


...Now who is more likely, in these two examples, to be accurately describing the state of affairs: Newton, who will defend his original bold claim no matter if it is true or false, and will go to any lengths to substantiate it with whatever bizarre lies he can fathom and fancy, so as to avoid humiliation; or Rowbotham, who did not make any bold claim in the first place, and will simply describe what he sees before him by his own eyes, and which I see with mine own eyes, and you with your own eyes?

This is a key thing I don't understand about this whole zetetic thing. Why is an otherwise undetectable force that attracts things together considered nonsense, but an otherwise undetectable force that pushes the underside of the planet up, along with an otherwise undetectable force that pushes the Sun, Moon and superior planets in circles, along with an otherwise undetectable force that holds Mercury and Venus close to the Sun, along with an otherwise undetectable force that holds the moons of Jupiter in orbit around it, along with an otherwise undetectable force that causes the superior planets to go in the opposite direction for a short period of time are all considered perfectly fine?

It seems to be much the same as 'globular reasoning', with the exception that you simply hold that the Earth being flat is an absolute truth.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2011, 11:19:58 AM »
Cast your eyes into the pages of history if you wish to see the difference between globular reasoning at work, and true science at work
...

...James then invents a scenario that involves Newton and his "theory" of gravitons.  I know it's a fictitious scenario, but it cannot be used to compare science with zetetics, because it is just too fanciful.

It just ends up sounding like  propaganda, which is what James goes on about quite a bit.   Also, it only serves to demonstrate the RE community's strange obsession with the theoretical graviton particle.

Actually, Newton never said anything about gravitons.  In fact, he plainly said that he didn't know, and wasn't even going to speculate as to, the cause of gravitation.  His only intent was to describe its effects, which he did remarkably well for his time.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2011, 05:22:14 PM »
Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't.

Agreed. A perfect example of why the scientific method, and theoretical science in general, is bunk.
His "example" isn't an example. Scientists research to see if they are wrong or right.

Incorrect. Scientists don't spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong.

Quote
And how come the scientific method has worked for the last 300 years or so?

It hasn't. People still think that cough syrup stops coughs, flouride is good for you, antibiotics help ear infections, back and joint surgeries work, and that beta blockers prevent heart attacks.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28085.0

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2011, 06:36:16 PM »
His "example" isn't an example. Scientists research to see if they are wrong or right.

Incorrect. Scientists don't spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong.
But other scientists would spend years on research to prove Newton wrong. And guess what happened...

Quote
And how come the scientific method has worked for the last 300 years or so?

It hasn't. People still think that cough syrup stops coughs, flouride is good for you, antibiotics help ear infections, back and joint surgeries work, and that beta blockers prevent heart attacks.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28085.0
Since my mum's hip replacement surgery helped her immensely, I'm going to dismiss all your other claims too.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.