You can't claim evidence purely from observations...

One of the things that's really common to state 'the earth is flat' is because the horizon looks flat. So bear with me and I'll give an example why you can't trust your eyes. 

Ever heard of the stopped clock illusion? Look at a clock with a second hand, quickly look away, and look back. It looks like the second hand stood still for a moment. But we KNOW it didn't. We know that second hand kept moving. Time did not radically stop for a moment.

How is this related to flat earth debates? Well...just because something looks a certain way, doesn't mean it necessarily is.

The larger a circular object is, the more 'flat' it 'looks' anyway. Take a balloon and blow it up - the surface seems to flatten as it expands. As a curve elongates, it becomes closer and closer to a straight line. But it never becomes a straight line, even if it looks so much like one. . The earth is so massive it seems flat - and it's not a perfect sphere.

I only skimmed this article, but if the earth was flat, it wouldn't look like what we see: http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/08/q-if-earth-was-flat-would-there-be-the-horizon-if-so-what-would-it-look-like-if-the-earth-was-flat-and-had-infinite-area-would-that-change-the-answer/

For someone around 5’6″ tall, if the Earth were perfectly flat the horizon would be about 0.04° higher.  That’s about the width of a (mechanical) pencil lead held at arm’s length.  Unless you have short arms, in which case you’ll need to shave down the lead a little.

Even if the Earth were perfectly flat and went on forever, the horizon would still be exactly level: 180° of sky and 180° of ground (instead of the paltry 179.96° of ground we have).  The only difference between a finite flat Earth and an infinite flat Earth is that no matter how tall you are on a flat Earth, the horizon always stays in the same place.

However, even though the horizon of an infinite and flat Earth might actually be in the same place, it wouldn’t appear to be.  An infinite plane has an extremely simple gravitational field; uniform and exactly the same regardless of distance.  Normally the higher you are the weaker the gravity, but for a flat Earth that isn’t the case.

As such, light, which drops only imperceptibly under Earth’s gravity, has an infinitely great distance over which to do its dropping.  The effect would require tremendous distances (as in; interstellar distances), but if you’ve got an infinite plane, that kind of distance is cheap.


Given enough time and distance light will eventually curve back toward an infinite plane of matter. So if you’re standing somewhere on the surface and you look up you’ll see light that started somewhere else on the surface.  Instead of a horizon, the world would look like it rises up on all sides and encloses you.

When you look up from what should be the horizon you’ll just see more of the infinite-flat-Earth.  The one exception is what you’d see if you looked straight up.  Directly above you you’d find the entire horizon bunched up at that point.

Now I'll be fair: I've heard how the flat earth theory disagrees with gravity, and that the earth disk is moving upward into space. If so, how does that affect light?

You don't trust your eyes but you trust your brain. Why? Both are organs come up by evolution. They allow us to grasp enough of reality to survive and breed, but may not be sufficent to understand how reality actually works. Why should the world be logical, just because we need it to be logical in order to understand it with our primitive tools of thought.

You don't trust your eyes but you trust your brain. Why? Both are organs come up by evolution. They allow us to grasp enough of reality to survive and breed, but may not be sufficent to understand how reality actually works. Why should the world be logical, just because we need it to be logical in order to understand it with our primitive tools of thought.

Sure. we could just trust our senses and primitive brain to "understand" the world the same way a monkey does. Or we could use rational thinking. the external brain cortex which is a step further in evolution compared to the brain of other animals.

You don't trust your eyes but you trust your brain. Why? Both are organs come up by evolution. They allow us to grasp enough of reality to survive and breed, but may not be sufficent to understand how reality actually works. Why should the world be logical, just because we need it to be logical in order to understand it with our primitive tools of thought.

How very philosophical. Human perception of reality is limited, but we are a naturally curious species. Throughout history we've devised methods to overcome this limit as best we can.

The Greek philosophers also didn't trust their senses. They theorized that their minds could conclude important truths if they didn't focus too much with what they perceived with their eyes. And they have been credited for making several interesting hypothesis that are still given merit today.

I wouldn't say we're primitive, and we have come up with theories for math, physics, chemistry, etc. to best explain things we cannot see. At the surface, (and how it's taught at schools) it's explained in a basic format that's easy to understand, but when you really dig deep and start dissecting them at the fundamental level, it becomes anything but logical. Yet all the pieces still fit.

We're in an era where we can make robots, build skyscrapers, manipulate energy, smash particles together, help people live longer and healthier lives, and own a handheld devise that connects to a world wide web. And when we take those into context and question why we cannot at least construct a machine to determine for us something as basic as checking to see if the earth is round or flat...I don't know. It's not because we don't have the know-how; we do. Time and resources are what limits us the most, but we have other methods of devising ideas based on the tools we've been able to create. It just comes down to being able to understand how to use and apply those tools.

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 20, 2013, 08:03:05 PM

You don't trust your eyes but you trust your brain. Why? Both are organs come up by evolution. They allow us to grasp enough of reality to survive and breed, but may not be sufficent to understand how reality actually works. Why should the world be logical, just because we need it to be logical in order to understand it with our primitive tools of thought.

How very philosophical. Human perception of reality is limited, but we are a naturally curious species. Throughout history we've devised methods to overcome this limit as best we can.

The Greek philosophers also didn't trust their senses. They theorized that their minds could conclude important truths if they didn't focus too much with what they perceived with their eyes. And they have been credited for making several interesting hypothesis that are still given merit today.

I wouldn't say we're primitive, and we have come up with theories for math, physics, chemistry, etc. to best explain things we cannot see. At the surface, (and how it's taught at schools) it's explained in a basic format that's easy to understand, but when you really dig deep and start dissecting them at the fundamental level, it becomes anything but logical. Yet all the pieces still fit.

We're in an era where we can make robots, build skyscrapers, manipulate energy, smash particles together, help people live longer and healthier lives, and own a handheld devise that connects to a world wide web. And when we take those into context and question why we cannot at least construct a machine to determine for us something as basic as checking to see if the earth is round or flat...I don't know. It's not because we don't have the know-how; we do. Time and resources are what limits us the most, but we have other methods of devising ideas based on the tools we've been able to create. It just comes down to being able to understand how to use and apply those tools.

Great, we know how to build tools that work. That's exactly what our brains are good for. But again, that doesn't mean, that the universe is logical. 'Course you could argue like: if our understanding of reality wouldn't fit with how reality actually works, than our tools wouldn't work. As in this case, if RE physics wouldn't be right, we couldn't send rockets to the moon. But if it's true that we can't trust neighter our senses nor our brain (this you deny), than that doesn't proof anything. You only know your experience, not as proof for anything else, but as just that: your experience. Your life. You do not know if reality couldn't be such,  that earth, for example, could be round and flat at the same time.
Don't say that is rubbish! It's the FES. At least it's well thought out rubbish.
EDIT: At least it is well thought out rubbish not the usual denialist shit.

RET Astronomy is purely an observational science.

Who observed stellar fusion?

nuclear fusion reaserch reactor
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

nuclear fusion bomb
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

as for astronomy. yes its observational but its all coherent and matches current scientific understanding. FE cant even shows us a model of the solar system the matches observations. its laughable.

RET Astronomy is purely an observational science.

Who observed nuclear fusion?

What science is not observational?

the only observation FE uses is a relatively flat horizon from your perspective. beyond that all FE relies on things that contradict observations and all known sciences. and usually contradict other fields of FE.

RET Astronomy is purely an observational science.

Who observed nuclear fusion?

This for example is typical denialist s...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 06:25:13 AM

RET Astronomy is purely an observational science.

Who observed nuclear fusion?

What science is not observational?

And round and round it goes.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 06:25:13 AM

RET Astronomy is purely an observational science.

Who observed nuclear fusion?

This for example is typical denialist s...

Quote from: Rama Set on March 21, 2013, 06:44:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 06:25:13 AM

RET Astronomy is purely an observational science.

Who observed nuclear fusion?

What science is not observational?

And round and round it goes.

I just do not understand why a science being observational would discredit it. All science is based on observation and so is Zeteicism. It seems to be the primary way of accumulating knowledge in these endeavors.

I don't know what Zetetism really is supposed to mean. As I understand it, it would mean to refrain from building up theories at all.It wouldn't mean refrain from working out mathematical models that describe the observed data, just from making a particular world view out of it. But seen this way Zetetism would rather prevent you from being a FE.
BTW Tom Bishop is a bot. He has no memory.

Great, we know how to build tools that work. That's exactly what our brains are good for. But again, that doesn't mean, that the universe is logical. 'Course you could argue like: if our understanding of reality wouldn't fit with how reality actually works, than our tools wouldn't work. As in this case, if RE physics wouldn't be right, we couldn't send rockets to the moon. But if it's true that we can't trust neighter our senses nor our brain (this you deny), than that doesn't proof anything. You only know your experience, not as proof for anything else, but as just that: your experience. Your life. You do not know if reality couldn't be such,  that earth, for example, could be round and flat at the same time.
Don't say that is rubbish! It's the FES. At least it's well thought out rubbish.
EDIT: At least it is well thought out rubbish not the usual denialist shit.

I'd argue that logical perception of the universe is never 100% correct - scientists won't call things to be perfect facts, because they could be wrong. Best we can do is come up with theories that explain phenomenons. Just that these theories are supported by what we have observed.

I think what I said was confusing (since this thread is getting derailed). When we observe an event we make up a theory why it happens. If the theory doesn't uphold to other observations, then we have to make a new theory. the REALITY is that we didn't observe things that could falsify the theory, so we accept it to be the current theory (and consider it true), without knowledge that it's not entirely correct. We've never seen it disproven, so we can't say it's wrong.

Our bodies are organic machines, so they're not perfect. We can make an extension of machines to accommodate what our body lacks. (i.e computer memories and telescopes) And what data is gathered from those observations are compared to other people's observation. How we observe something compared to another person could be a unique event, but there would still be an underlying similarity that allows an exchange of ideas.

Now, let's say our mind and senses cannot perceive true reality. How many people can think in four dimensions? Just because it's not daily logic doesn't mean it's untrue. Someone was able to come up with it, and more were able to understand it. It's confusing and mind-boggling, and at first doesn't even make sense, but if you can take the time to study it and understand it at a different perspective, then it begins to make sense. But if our minds cannot perceive true reality, and four dimensions is nonexistent, then...yeah, we would be stuck. There's no way we'd be able to reach this true reality point. Although it's not going to stop us from trying. Because maybe we can reach it, we just need to try something different.

I did say you can't claim evidence 'purely' from observation. Observations could be wrong. There needs to be logical and constructive thought behind it. To someone who doesn't understand the logical and constructive thoughts behind the theories formed from observations, it's going to be called magic or crazy, because it just doesn't make sense. If you want to dispute something, you have to try to understand it from the other person's point of view.



...This is turning out into a really interesting philosophical debate. But I feel like only a small handful of people on this forums would understand it.

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 20, 2013, 10:41:43 PM

Great, we know how to build tools that work. That's exactly what our brains are good for. But again, that doesn't mean, that the universe is logical. 'Course you could argue like: if our understanding of reality wouldn't fit with how reality actually works, than our tools wouldn't work. As in this case, if RE physics wouldn't be right, we couldn't send rockets to the moon. But if it's true that we can't trust neighter our senses nor our brain (this you deny), than that doesn't proof anything. You only know your experience, not as proof for anything else, but as just that: your experience. Your life. You do not know if reality couldn't be such,  that earth, for example, could be round and flat at the same time.
Don't say that is rubbish! It's the FES. At least it's well thought out rubbish.
EDIT: At least it is well thought out rubbish not the usual denialist shit.

I'd argue that logical perception of the universe is never 100% correct - scientists won't call things to be perfect facts, because they could be wrong. Best we can do is come up with theories that explain phenomenons. Just that these theories are supported by what we have observed.

I think what I said was confusing (since this thread is getting derailed). When we observe an event we make up a theory why it happens. If the theory doesn't uphold to other observations, then we have to make a new theory. the REALITY is that we didn't observe things that could falsify the theory, so we accept it to be the current theory (and consider it true), without knowledge that it's not entirely correct. We've never seen it disproven, so we can't say it's wrong.

Our bodies are organic machines, so they're not perfect. We can make an extension of machines to accommodate what our body lacks. (i.e computer memories and telescopes) And what data is gathered from those observations are compared to other people's observation. How we observe something compared to another person could be a unique event, but there would still be an underlying similarity that allows an exchange of ideas.

Now, let's say our mind and senses cannot perceive true reality. How many people can think in four dimensions? Just because it's not daily logic doesn't mean it's untrue. Someone was able to come up with it, and more were able to understand it. It's confusing and mind-boggling, and at first doesn't even make sense, but if you can take the time to study it and understand it at a different perspective, then it begins to make sense. But if our minds cannot perceive true reality, and four dimensions is nonexistent, then...yeah, we would be stuck. There's no way we'd be able to reach this true reality point. Although it's not going to stop us from trying. Because maybe we can reach it, we just need to try something different.

I did say you can't claim evidence 'purely' from observation. Observations could be wrong. There needs to be logical and constructive thought behind it. To someone who doesn't understand the logical and constructive thoughts behind the theories formed from observations, it's going to be called magic or crazy, because it just doesn't make sense. If you want to dispute something, you have to try to understand it from the other person's point of view.



...This is turning out into a really interesting philosophical debate. But I feel like only a small handful of people on this forums would understand it.

I have a question: Can two theories be true that contradict each other?

Quote from: Lunia on March 21, 2013, 06:18:19 PM

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 20, 2013, 10:41:43 PM

Great, we know how to build tools that work. That's exactly what our brains are good for. But again, that doesn't mean, that the universe is logical. 'Course you could argue like: if our understanding of reality wouldn't fit with how reality actually works, than our tools wouldn't work. As in this case, if RE physics wouldn't be right, we couldn't send rockets to the moon. But if it's true that we can't trust neighter our senses nor our brain (this you deny), than that doesn't proof anything. You only know your experience, not as proof for anything else, but as just that: your experience. Your life. You do not know if reality couldn't be such,  that earth, for example, could be round and flat at the same time.
Don't say that is rubbish! It's the FES. At least it's well thought out rubbish.
EDIT: At least it is well thought out rubbish not the usual denialist shit.

I'd argue that logical perception of the universe is never 100% correct - scientists won't call things to be perfect facts, because they could be wrong. Best we can do is come up with theories that explain phenomenons. Just that these theories are supported by what we have observed.

I think what I said was confusing (since this thread is getting derailed). When we observe an event we make up a theory why it happens. If the theory doesn't uphold to other observations, then we have to make a new theory. the REALITY is that we didn't observe things that could falsify the theory, so we accept it to be the current theory (and consider it true), without knowledge that it's not entirely correct. We've never seen it disproven, so we can't say it's wrong.

Our bodies are organic machines, so they're not perfect. We can make an extension of machines to accommodate what our body lacks. (i.e computer memories and telescopes) And what data is gathered from those observations are compared to other people's observation. How we observe something compared to another person could be a unique event, but there would still be an underlying similarity that allows an exchange of ideas.

Now, let's say our mind and senses cannot perceive true reality. How many people can think in four dimensions? Just because it's not daily logic doesn't mean it's untrue. Someone was able to come up with it, and more were able to understand it. It's confusing and mind-boggling, and at first doesn't even make sense, but if you can take the time to study it and understand it at a different perspective, then it begins to make sense. But if our minds cannot perceive true reality, and four dimensions is nonexistent, then...yeah, we would be stuck. There's no way we'd be able to reach this true reality point. Although it's not going to stop us from trying. Because maybe we can reach it, we just need to try something different.

I did say you can't claim evidence 'purely' from observation. Observations could be wrong. There needs to be logical and constructive thought behind it. To someone who doesn't understand the logical and constructive thoughts behind the theories formed from observations, it's going to be called magic or crazy, because it just doesn't make sense. If you want to dispute something, you have to try to understand it from the other person's point of view.



...This is turning out into a really interesting philosophical debate. But I feel like only a small handful of people on this forums would understand it.

I have a question: Can two theories be true that contradict each other?

Yes.

One of the things that's really common to state 'the earth is flat' is because the horizon looks flat. So bear with me and I'll give an example why you can't trust your eyes. 

Ever heard of the stopped clock illusion? Look at a clock with a second hand, quickly look away, and look back. It looks like the second hand stood still for a moment. But we KNOW it didn't. We know that second hand kept moving. Time did not radically stop for a moment.

How is this related to flat earth debates? Well...just because something looks a certain way, doesn't mean it necessarily is.

The larger a circular object is, the more 'flat' it 'looks' anyway. Take a balloon and blow it up - the surface seems to flatten as it expands. As a curve elongates, it becomes closer and closer to a straight line. But it never becomes a straight line, even if it looks so much like one. . The earth is so massive it seems flat - and it's not a perfect sphere.

I only skimmed this article, but if the earth was flat, it wouldn't look like what we see: http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/08/q-if-earth-was-flat-would-there-be-the-horizon-if-so-what-would-it-look-like-if-the-earth-was-flat-and-had-infinite-area-would-that-change-the-answer/

Quote

For someone around 5’6″ tall, if the Earth were perfectly flat the horizon would be about 0.04° higher.  That’s about the width of a (mechanical) pencil lead held at arm’s length.  Unless you have short arms, in which case you’ll need to shave down the lead a little.

Even if the Earth were perfectly flat and went on forever, the horizon would still be exactly level: 180° of sky and 180° of ground (instead of the paltry 179.96° of ground we have).  The only difference between a finite flat Earth and an infinite flat Earth is that no matter how tall you are on a flat Earth, the horizon always stays in the same place.

However, even though the horizon of an infinite and flat Earth might actually be in the same place, it wouldn’t appear to be.  An infinite plane has an extremely simple gravitational field; uniform and exactly the same regardless of distance.  Normally the higher you are the weaker the gravity, but for a flat Earth that isn’t the case.

As such, light, which drops only imperceptibly under Earth’s gravity, has an infinitely great distance over which to do its dropping.  The effect would require tremendous distances (as in; interstellar distances), but if you’ve got an infinite plane, that kind of distance is cheap.


Given enough time and distance light will eventually curve back toward an infinite plane of matter. So if you’re standing somewhere on the surface and you look up you’ll see light that started somewhere else on the surface.  Instead of a horizon, the world would look like it rises up on all sides and encloses you.

When you look up from what should be the horizon you’ll just see more of the infinite-flat-Earth.  The one exception is what you’d see if you looked straight up.  Directly above you you’d find the entire horizon bunched up at that point.

Now I'll be fair: I've heard how the flat earth theory disagrees with gravity, and that the earth disk is moving upward into space. If so, how does that affect light?

You are ignoring the aether in infinite earth theory. 

Constructive thought behind observation?

Sounds more like you are creating truth, eh?

Constructive thought behind observation?

Sounds more like you are creating truth, eh?

That is how I see Zetetic method as laid out by Lord Wilmore here.

i) Experimentation and the collection of facts

ii) Their arrangement into a logical order

iii) Drawing conclusions on that basis

"i)Experimentation and collection of facts" is a formal process of observing how a subject behaves.

"ii) Their arrangement into a logical order" is a constructive form of thought.

"iii) Drawing conclusions on that basis" sounds like you could be creating truth.

Any human endeavor can fall in to the pitfall of creating self-reflective truth.  To create meaning, I would say, is a fundamental impulse of humans to deal with their environment.  An evolutionary survival reflex.

I have no doubt we create our own truths and our reaction to others truths is a self defense mechanism.

Scientific method:

1. Make an observation
2. Create a hypothesis
3. Design a controlled experiment to test hypothesis
4. Conduct experiment to test the Hypothesis
5. Gather and analyze data
6. Accept or reject hypothesis
7. Draw conclusion, revise hypothesis, or create a new one and repeat step 3
8. Share results

Zetetic Method:

1. Make an observation
2. Ask a question
3. Design a controlled experiment to answer question
4. Conduct experiment to formulate data to answer question
5. Gather and analyze data
6. Create a hypothesis based on data (answer question?)
7. Share results

(*Definition of a hypothesis: a proposed explanation of the observation*)

Difference between the two methods are what the experiment is testing, and when the hypothesis is created. Scientific method creates a hypothesis first, and the experiment tests to see if it's correct or not. Zetetic method has an experiment to gather data, and then creates the hypothesis based on the data.

the 'truths' we gather are the data and facts from experiments. We cannot superfluously create them. We can misinterpret them, or not fully understand them, but not create them.

These 'truths' are then used to create a hypothesis (zetetic) or prove/disprove the previous hypothesis (scientific).

And we can't jump from 'observation' to 'gather and analyze data' in either methods....there has to be a controlled experiment in the middle....

I have a question: Can two theories be true that contradict each other?

That sounds like Schrödinger's Cat.

Scientific method:

1. Make an observation
2. Create a hypothesis
3. Design a controlled experiment to test hypothesis
4. Conduct experiment to test the Hypothesis
5. Gather and analyze data
6. Accept or reject hypothesis
7. Draw conclusion, revise hypothesis, or create a new one and repeat step 3
8. Share results

Zetetic Method:

1. Make an observation
2. Ask a question
3. Design a controlled experiment to answer question
4. Conduct experiment to formulate data to answer question
5. Gather and analyze data
6. Create a hypothesis based on data (answer question?)
7. Share results

(*Definition of a hypothesis: a proposed explanation of the observation*)

Difference between the two methods are what the experiment is testing, and when the hypothesis is created. Scientific method creates a hypothesis first, and the experiment tests to see if it's correct or not. Zetetic method has an experiment to gather data, and then creates the hypothesis based on the data.

the 'truths' we gather are the data and facts from experiments. We cannot superfluously create them. We can misinterpret them, or not fully understand them, but not create them.

These 'truths' are then used to create a hypothesis (zetetic) or prove/disprove the previous hypothesis (scientific).

And we can't jump from 'observation' to 'gather and analyze data' in either methods....there has to be a controlled experiment in the middle....

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 22, 2013, 07:03:42 AM

I have a question: Can two theories be true that contradict each other?

That sounds like Schrödinger's Cat.

Agreed, except the process in either does not end there. Once the results of an experiment come in, you have to rethink your initial assumptions, adjust your initial conditions, adjust your experiment. I think the difference between a question and a hypothesis is not very big either. If your hypothesis is, "Light bends due to gravity." Your experiment is still attempting to answer a question,"Does gravity bend light?"

I won't speak for the Zetetic method, although I think the following applies: the Scientific Method was conceived to allow people to make focused inquiries in to the world around them, and to give a way of methodically eliminating falsehoods.

I have a question: Can two theories be true that contradict each other?

No, because a theory does not deal with the truth.

Also, why does the scientific method need an hypothesis?

A theory does not deal with truth, but a theory can be true.  Theories are truth ripped apart and reorganized to probablistic paths.

Thank you, the hypothesis are one thing in the scientific method that needs reworking.  Honestly, the whole thing is a mess.   Hence you have string theorists being silly cause they like ignoring how their tools are supposed to work.  I dont care if they want to do what they are doing, but I do care when its misrepresented to people who don't know better.

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 22, 2013, 07:03:42 AM

I have a question: Can two theories be true that contradict each other?

No, because a theory does not deal with the truth.

Also, why does the scientific method need an hypothesis?

A hypothesis is merely a positive starting point for a line of inquiry, and a way to provide a framework around which to design an experiment. 

A theory does not deal with truth, but a theory can be true.  Theories are truth ripped apart and reorganized to probablistic paths.

Thank you, the hypothesis are one thing in the scientific method that needs reworking.  Honestly, the whole thing is a mess.   Hence you have string theorists being silly cause they like ignoring how their tools are supposed to work.  I dont care if they want to do what they are doing, but I do care when its misrepresented to people who don't know better.

What do you think is flawed about the process of hypothesizing in general?  I understand and quite agree with what you are saying about String "Theory".  Its not even a theory, its a hypothesis. 

A hypothesis is merely a positive starting point for a line of inquiry, and a way to provide a framework around which to design an experiment. 

I agree with that, but you don't need an hypothesis to do a scientific experiment. The scientific method can just as easily be based on an experiment that does not have an hypothesis. 

A theory does not claim to be true or deal with it, because it can't. If a theory is true then there's no need to do an experiment to test it in the first place.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 27, 2013, 10:16:00 AM

A hypothesis is merely a positive starting point for a line of inquiry, and a way to provide a framework around which to design an experiment. 

I agree with that, but you don't need an hypothesis to do a scientific experiment. The scientific method can just as easily be based on an experiment that does not have an hypothesis. 

A theory does not claim to be true or deal with it, because it can't. If a theory is true then there's no need to do an experiment to test it in the first place.

Of course you don't need an explicit hypothesis to design an experiment, that is just the formal structure of the method. It formed create a framework by which you can attempt to evaluate the process, which is valuable for peer-reviewing.