Since most of the lasts posts were off-topic, I feel obliged to repost my last relevant argument, hoping that Erasmus and the rest of the community reads and understands it:
False dichotomy. There are also "zetetic" theories.
By definition, a zetetic theory is an example of a circular argument, and therefore a good example of a logical fallacy, which is precisely what I said in my hypothesis. The following is an extract from the introduction to Samuel Birley Rowbotham's book by John Bruno Hare (
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm):
To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).
Further comments:
1) The author, Samuel Birley Rowbotham, conveniently "invented" a new type of "theory" when he came up with his "flat earth" description(hence his characterization "eccentric English inventor" on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society). As you can see, this theory was proved to be inconsistent, and therefore "zetetic" came to refer to
just the FE "theory".
2) We can conclude that whether the FE model is defined to be scientific or zetetic, it is still employing logical fallacies as means of debate, and therefore fails to make a statement. FE'ers, for your sake you should try to argue that the FE model was scientific, not zetetic; at least in that case you could still find some arguments, however poor they are.
With regards to your method of arguing, Erasmus, you've been proven wrong: once you called the FE model "scientific", then you re-evaluated your position and called the model "zetetic" in a different post. I would suggest a little more consistency, otherwise you will not be taken seriously by your readers.
An exception to what?
An exception to the scientific method, of course.