A zetetic world.

Imagine if the scientific world wasn't scientific and instead opted for nothing but zeteticism. Speculate on which scientific discoveries and inventions would have not happened.

If possible, also speculate on which zetetic discoveries/inventions we would have had instead.

Why would zeteticism be better?

Remember, this would mean no testing. The only things we can make conclusions about are direct observations.

Go!

All of Quantum Mechanics would be gone.

For instance, would we have the automobile? Would we have planes? Why or why not?

All of Quantum Mechanics would be gone.

And what would be the consequence of that?

Quote from: Rama Set on July 10, 2014, 03:28:15 PM

All of Quantum Mechanics would be gone.

And what would be the consequence of that?

We would not have modern computing since we would not have a framework within which to engineer transistors on the molecular scale.

EDIT: Some components on modern transistors are only 3 atoms wide.

http://www.hoise.com/primeur/01/articles/weekly/AE-PR-07-01-50.html

The church ran the show during the dark ages. About time we start burning that lot at the stake.

No one disagrees that the world would be a worse place without the scientific model. However, it would also be worse without the zetetic model as well. It's meaningless to argue which is better or which is worse. They complement each other in their differences, like ying and yang.

Pongo, you do realize that much of what you like about zeteticism... The part involving empiricism, is a crucial part of the science. It is certainly considered in any scientific query. On the other hand, zeteticism, by definition is the rejection of considering any information that isn't direct. They hardly go hand in hand.

No one disagrees that the world would be a worse place without the scientific model. However, it would also be worse without the zetetic model as well. It's meaningless to argue which is better or which is worse. They complement each other in their differences, like ying and yang.

The zetetic model plays no part in world thinking.

The zetetic model plays no part in world thinking.

I'd go even further and suggest that there's no such thing as the zetetic "model".  There's no mention of any such entity in the accredited science texts of the past 150 years.

The word was hijacked by Samuel Rowbotham in an attempt to make his pseudo-science sound more like science.

And the actual definition of zetetic?  As an adjective, it means "inquiring, investigating" or "proceeding by inquiry or investigation," or, as a noun, "an enquirer"  (fr 17th-century New Latin, to seek).

They hardly go hand in hand.

That's not quite what I said, is it?

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 06:51:25 PM

They hardly go hand in hand.

That's not quite what I said, is it?

I suppose not, which is a good point. How can you appreciate both? A zeteticist can't appreciate the scientific method by definition, yet the scientific method is responsible for so much that zeteticism is destined not to achieve.

Quote from: Pongo on July 11, 2014, 05:15:43 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 06:51:25 PM

They hardly go hand in hand.

That's not quite what I said, is it?

I suppose not, which is a good point. How can you appreciate both? A zeteticist can't appreciate the scientific method by definition, yet the scientific method is responsible for so much that zeteticism is destined not to achieve.

Like germ theory!  Without which we would still suffer from hideous illnesses that have all been eradicated despite the efforts of the great charlatan Jenny McCarthy.

In the same way that one can favor a fork over a spoon.  A fork is better suited for a pasta dish but is horrible for a soup.  This is just the barest of analogies, but illustrates the point that each method is better suited for different tasks.  I, well aware I'm almost alone on in the idea, feel that the scientific method is tailored to fit the hard sciences and some of the soft ones.  However, for things like exploration, cooking, martial arts, and other less well categorizable fields, zetetism is better.

So, while both methods are very different and contradictory when applied simultaneously, they have their places and work in harmony despite being opposite in many ways.  Much like a fork and a spoon or ying and a yang.

Cooking is all about experimentation. There would be no cake!

In all seriousness though, why is the zetetic method better suited for determining the shape of the earth?

Cooking is all about experimentation. There would be no cake!

In all seriousness though, why is the zeteticism method better suited for determining the shape of the earth?

Again, we need to be careful about discussing "zeteticism" as though it's something that actually exists in the real world.  It does NOT.  It's nothing more than a made-up term coined by Samuel Rowbotham to aid in duping the poorly educated population of his time.  It's what made him relatively wealthy.

Flat earthers are more than prone to making up lots of pseudo-scientific stuff to promote their hypotheses, such as "the atmoplane", the "shadow object", "universal acceleration" and the "speed of the sun".  And even "denpressure" LOL.

To support this debunking, one only need check with Encyclopedia Britannica.  Not one of these terms is defined.

The zetetic method although not defined in mainstream literature is an approach that has been defined here.  As such, in the context of this site, we can discuss it productively.

The zetetic method although not defined in mainstream literature is an approach that has been defined here.  As such, in the context of this site, we can discuss it productively.

I'm guessing we see this somewhat differently.  I personally have great difficulty discussing science using pseudo-scientific terminology.  I need to compare apples with apples in order to mount a successful argument.

For an (admittedly) extreme example, sceptimatic has repeatedly defined "denpressure" as a combined effect of density plus atmospheric force.  As of yet, no other flat earther has disabused him of this notion.  But... there is NO way I can argue this definition with him using accredited scientific methodology, and utilising its appropriate terminology.

More generally, there's flat earth terms such as "atmoplane" and "atmolayer" which are meaningless outside of the flat earth society.  Ask the next 100 people you pass in the street what either of these terms mean, and you'll be greeted by 100 blank looks.  But... as soon as you say they're synonymous with "atmosphere" and both words mean the same thing, they'll look confused for a moment and then say yep, OK, but why do you do that?

And if the "zetetic method" were genuine, and debatable, then surely it would be defined in mainstream literature? 

How can you argue zeteticism scientifically?  It is an alternative to the SM.  You can discuss it from an epistemological point of view, but to deny that the method exists is actually delusional.  It is not something whose existence can be debated, but you can criticize its value or usefulness.  Perhaps you should read some more about the method so you understand exactly what you are criticizing. 

How can you argue zeteticism scientifically?  It is an alternative to the SM. 

We can only argue things of a scientific nature from a purely scientific standpoint.  How else can I prove that the flat earthers' "ice wall" doesn't exist for example?

And again, I can't agree that "zeteticism" is an "alternative" to the scientific method.  That's like saying that a genuinely held belief in Santa Claus is a viable alternative as to how kids' Christmas presents appear under the tree.  Or that a genuinely held belief in the existence of unicorns illustrates the truth of the bible as a viable alternative compared to animal evolution (see Psalms 92:10).

We know for a fact that Santa Claus and unicorns don't exist, just as we know the flat earth doesn't—and cannot—exist as posited on this site.  Just as we can debunk Santa Claus and unicorns so can we debunk the flat earth hypothesis—by using science.

 

Quote from: Rama Set on July 11, 2014, 08:01:07 AM

How can you argue zeteticism scientifically?  It is an alternative to the SM. 

We can only argue things of a scientific nature from a purely scientific standpoint.  How else can I prove that the flat earthers' "ice wall" doesn't exist for example?

Facts are not scientific, they are facts.  Zeteticism is a way to rationalize and explain facts, just like the scientific method.  One is an alternative to the other since they are mutually exclusive.

And again, I can't agree that "zeteticism" is an "alternative" to the scientific method.  That's like saying that a genuinely held belief in Santa Claus is a viable alternative as to how kids' Christmas presents appear under the tree.  Or that a genuinely held belief in the existence of unicorns illustrates the truth of the bible as a viable alternative compared to animal evolution (see Psalms 92:10).

We know for a fact that Santa Claus and unicorns don't exist, just as we know the flat earth doesn't—and cannot—exist as posited on this site.  Just as we can debunk Santa Claus and unicorns so can we debunk the flat earth hypothesis—by using science.

What?  The existence of the zetetic method cannot be disputed, it can only be criticized.  You analogy fails because you are comparing an epistemological method to an observation.

The existence of the Zetetic method is a fact.  Also, it has nothing to do with the FE hypothesis per se.

We know for a fact that Santa Claus and unicorns don't exist, just as we know the flat earth doesn't—and cannot—exist as posited on this site.  Just as we can debunk Santa Claus and unicorns so can we debunk the flat earth hypothesis—by using science.

Why do you come here then?  This was a perfectly nice discussion until you came in and insisted it's all make believe.  If you're so sure the earth is round and we are all dead wrong why do you come and slather our boards with your venomous rebukes? 

What exactly do you think that you're adding to our discussions?

rottingroom: for this discussion to be in any way useful, it would be nice to have the zetetic and scientific methods defined. Then we can see where they agree and where they disagree.

As you started the thread, you are (probably) the best person to do this.

Edit: I'm surprised you didn't do this in your initial post. An oversight, hopefully.

Why do you come here then?  This was a perfectly nice discussion until you came in and insisted it's all make believe.  If you're so sure the earth is round and we are all dead wrong why do you come and slather our boards with your venomous rebukes? 

What exactly do you think that you're adding to our discussions?

It's of interest that too many flat earthers get overly defensive or offended when their hypotheses are seriously questioned by round earthers.  It can only mean one thing; that even they have hidden doubts about the veracity of some of their claims.  And when those doubts are brought out in public, they invariably go on the offensive, as Pongo has just done here.

"Slather" the boards with "venomous rebukes"?  Oh dear Pongo; is that really your best defence?  Ad hominem attacks and blatant, intentionally pejorative comments.  Pretty sad rebuttal in my opinion mate.

So... can I take it that you consider that only people who totally refute the round earth model should be posting on these forums?  And do you understand that were it not for the membership of the round earthers, this forum in all likelihood would cease to exist due to lack of interest?

You also sound as though you're trying to quash fair and reasonable debate here.  Why is this?  Do you lack the confidence to defend your own beliefs from attack?  I don't go off in a huff whenever flat earthers accuse me of being delusional or mentally retarded, or full of shit (as they've done many times).  Nor have I reacted as you have when those same people have claimed unequivocally that the round earth model does not and cannot exist, or that conventional science is based on lies, deliberate deceptions, or government conspiracies.

If you really want to partake in controversial discussions on-line my friend, you need to develop a much thicker skin to ward off the inevitable slings and arrows that opposing opinion will hurl your way.

What you should be trying to do here is to provide us with empirical evidence that support your zetetic theories, rather than wasting time attacking me for my opinions.  The burden of proof lies with you.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 11, 2014, 08:01:07 AM

How can you argue zeteticism scientifically?  It is an alternative to the SM. 

We can only argue things of a scientific nature from a purely scientific standpoint.  How else can I prove that the flat earthers' "ice wall" doesn't exist for example?

And again, I can't agree that "zeteticism" is an "alternative" to the scientific method.  That's like saying that a genuinely held belief in Santa Claus is a viable alternative as to how kids' Christmas presents appear under the tree.  Or that a genuinely held belief in the existence of unicorns illustrates the truth of the bible as a viable alternative compared to animal evolution (see Psalms 92:10).

We know for a fact that Santa Claus and unicorns don't exist, just as we know the flat earth doesn't—and cannot—exist as posited on this site.  Just as we can debunk Santa Claus and unicorns so can we debunk the flat earth hypothesis—by using science.

This would be all well and nice if only we could trust the foundations of science - its philosophical and logical claim to truth. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Time upon time we have built upon both nonlogically founded axiom as well as non empirically strong method to the point that the trees fruit is indeed as poison as the earth it rests its roots within.

It is of no small effort to see the inevitability of such a case within science, and as such relegating science to its proper place - not of a an authority on truth and religion, but instead a point of view - precarious as it is. At some point - and again later on many decision points - we come to a demarcation in any scientific philosophy that is made on convenience or faith and of course the current dialogue and context.

This would be all well and nice if only we could trust the foundations of science - its philosophical and logical claim to truth.

Unless you have any empirical evidence that supports your implied claim that science is largely fraudulent, then you're arguing from personal opinion only.  And unevidenced personal opinions are worth nothing in any meaningful debate.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Personal opinion again.  Evidence please.

At some point - and again later on many decision points - we come to a demarcation in any scientific philosophy that is made on convenience or faith and of course the current dialogue and context.

Sounds good at first glance, but is ultimately without meaning.  Modern science and philosophy are now two totally different disciplines.  There is currently no contemporary philosophy involved in the sciences, which are purely theoretical.   You need to go back to the periods of Democritus, Lucretius, or Diderot to find any evidence of philosophical input into science.

No scientific theory relies for its provenance on "faith".  That's for the religionists alone.  Faith is defined as belief without evidence, whereas science demands empirical evidence.

Interestingly, the flat earth hypothesis relies largely on the faith of its proponents; there is no irrefutable, viable evidence supporting it.  No maps, no diagrams, no photographic images, no text books, no eye-witness accounts, no accredited scientific support.  Whereas every observable and replicable phenomena and mechanism in the known spherical world complies absolutely with scientific theorems dating back—in some cases—thousands of years.

Occam's Razor will explain why this is so.

John Davis,

Garbage in, garbage out? Well of course and since you want to suggest that garbage goes in then I take it you are willing to accept the burden of backing up that claim

 So staying on topic here, the point of the OP is to speculate on what would be different about the world in terms of mankind's progress if it were a zeteticism world. As a flat earther you are probably not keen on admitting the many things we wouldn't enjoy without the scientific method so maybe you can show us what would be better if we opted for the zetetic method?

rottingroom: for this discussion to be in any way useful, it would be nice to have the zetetic and scientific methods defined. Then we can see where they agree and where they disagree.

As you started the thread, you are (probably) the best person to do this.

Edit: I'm surprised you didn't do this in your initial post. An oversight, hopefully.

There really isn't much confusion or debate about the scientific method. So no need for that. As far as the zetetic method goes my definition is shaky at best. My interpretations come from how it's used and described on this site so actually, someone like you is probably more suited for a definition than me.

These pages from Rowbotham's pamphlet, ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED are probably the most concise explanation of the zetetic method.

These pages from Rowbotham's pamphlet, ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED are probably the most concise explanation of the zetetic method.

Does not explain why the world is flat.  And science has moved on since it was written.