Why do you hold zeteticism in such high regard?

Quote from: Thork on October 24, 2011, 03:22:46 PM

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892

You may be surprised to find out, we don't have an equivalent of this in the UK.

I can think of a nation that had something similar though. It went like this.

"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934

Fixed for pedantic reasons.

That says 'under God' so it can only be the version from after 1952. What exactly are you being pedantic about? Also you should watch the content of your posts. Your performance is under the microscope. Rumour has it you aren't a very good mod and rumblings are afoot to have you demodded.

That says 'under God' so it can only be the version from after 1952. What exactly are you being pedantic about?

The fact that the pledge was originally composed more than 40 years before the Hitler oath.

And this makes the thinking behind it different because ...

The main difference is that the Hitler oath is an oath to a man, not to a country or government.

But the President represents the country/government. If he says go to war, off you all go.

As required of newly registered or naturalised citizens, the UK Oaths of Allegiance reads:

Citizenship Oath of Allegiance:
I... swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law.
  Citizenship Pledge:

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.[3]

Of course nothing more than a bow or a curtsy to the sovereign is now required of natural born born British citizens, a leftover from ideas of fealty and allegiance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)

You say it once when you join the country (tiny percentage done for ceremony). Not every day, children chanting loyalty to a flag as part of their school day.

Well it's voluntary, much like your bowing if you happen to meet the Queen on the street.  You're the one, I think, who made such a gesture of fealty an issue.

The Wright Brithers were Zetetics. They started from inquiry, not hypothesis. They did not "build on the shoulders of giants" like a disreputable scientician. They did their own experiments and let reality do the talking.

Their first powered flight used a gasoline engine. Are they credited with inventing this too?

If you start off on the biases and misconceptions of others you are doing a disservice to your work. It should not be assumed that the research of others is valid.

And yet when anyone suggests that Rowbotham may have been wrong about the shape of the Earth it is tantamount to sacrilege.

The correct way to proceed is to start off on a clean slate, make no assumptions, do the experiments, account for every possibility, and let the results do the talking.

Didn't Rowbotham already believe that the Earth was flat because it says so in the bible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society#Origins.E2.80.94the_Zetetic_societies

Many inventors are Zetetics. They do not start off by creating a hypothesis and then try to prove it true. They do not build their work off of the card house theories of others. They start off by inquiry, doing a series of basic experiments to explore all possibilities until they discover what is true and what is false.

Most "inventions" today are simply better versions of what is already in existence, e.g. faster computers, more fuel efficient engines, more powerful weapons, etc.

Zeteticiscm is superior to the scientific method because it brings us to the certain truth rather than just a truth. For more information 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

That sounds pretty religious right there. I could just as easily argue that the problem with zeteticism is that once it has been used to "prove" something, all conflicting evidence is ignored as it disagrees with "the certain truth". In science there are no certain truths - that is the realm of religion.

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 24, 2011, 11:11:07 AM

Quote from: John Davis on October 24, 2011, 10:10:15 AM

Quote from: flat_earth_really? on October 24, 2011, 09:25:16 AM

Thread derailing aside, what has zeteticism given us? Please post a link to where this info came as well.

So far there is the as yet unsubstantiated claim regarding electricity. Anything else?

The field of human chronobiology, for one.

Interesting. Any chance of a link or explanation?

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/30/foer.php
His methodology as he describes it epitomizes, at least to me, a zetetic pursuit.

It does seem zetetic in nature, I agree. I'm not so sure that it has provided anything groundbreaking to society, though.

I'm not sure I understand you.  The creation of a new branch of study is almost by definition 'ground-breaking.'  Are you just concerned about the lack of impact this field has?

I'm sure I can dig up other modern and historical figures that are zetetic.  Much of those from before the age of reasoning (ha) are zetetic.  Many scientists are also zetetic but don't know it.  This would usually lead me into a length discussion of the failures of modern science, but I'll save you it this time.