A zetetic world.

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 02:19:09 PM

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.

That seems reasonable to me. Now we need a definition of the scientific method.

That seems reasonable to me. Now we need a definition of the scientific method.

Definition of SCIENTIFIC METHOD
:  principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 12, 2014, 09:38:39 PM

What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.

Why don't you just look it up. I gave you some sources. If I had to guess, you don't care enough about the issue to use anything further than a dictionary or google search and yet still want to think of yourself as correct.

There is no doubt that a method is taught and divided out neatly into compartments; there is even less doubt that this is not indeed the method actually practiced. Not only that, but since the field of Science of Philosophy is alive and well, it can be easily taken that there is dispute in and around problems still in said field.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 12, 2014, 09:38:39 PM

What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.

Why don't you just look it up. I gave you some sources. If I had to guess, you don't care enough about the issue to use anything further than a dictionary or google search and yet still want to think of yourself as correct.

There is no doubt that a method is taught and divided out neatly into compartments; there is even less doubt that this is not indeed the method actually practiced. Not only that, but since the field of Science of Philosophy is alive and well, it can be easily taken that there is dispute in and around problems still in said field.

Quote from: J Davis on July 13, 2014, 05:38:00 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 12, 2014, 09:38:39 PM

What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.

Why don't you just look it up. I gave you some sources. If I had to guess, you don't care enough about the issue to use anything further than a dictionary or google search and yet still want to think of yourself as correct.

There is no doubt that a method is taught and divided out neatly into compartments; there is even less doubt that this is not indeed the method actually practiced. Not only that, but since the field of Science of Philosophy is alive and well, it can be easily taken that there is dispute in and around problems still in said field.

dispute in and around problems???

Quote from: J Davis on July 13, 2014, 05:38:00 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 12, 2014, 09:38:39 PM

What are you talking about? The zetetic method is the method that needed clarification because it is only defined here on this site. We got it now and that is fine. Stop acting like the scientific method isn't well defined and agreed upon. Just look it up. Use a dictionary, use google, you can even use bing for this one.

Why don't you just look it up. I gave you some sources. If I had to guess, you don't care enough about the issue to use anything further than a dictionary or google search and yet still want to think of yourself as correct.

There is no doubt that a method is taught and divided out neatly into compartments; there is even less doubt that this is not indeed the method actually practiced. Not only that, but since the field of Science of Philosophy is alive and well, it can be easily taken that there is dispute in and around problems still in said field.

You are being ridiculous. Legion wanted a definition for a methodology that is already well defined. Why are you telling me to look things up? If you think there is a dispute then you provide the sources to that claim. He asked me to define it. I said that I am fine with what was stated in wikipedia. /inquiry

Stop making guesses about what you think I care about too. You're basically having a conversation with yourself.

Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...

Quote from: inquisitive on July 13, 2014, 11:57:36 PM

Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...

When did you do this?  Please, post your data.  Thanks.

Quote from: jroa on July 14, 2014, 12:01:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 13, 2014, 11:57:36 PM

Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...

When did you do this?  Please, post your data.  Thanks.

Have you done this to prove the shape of the earth?

Quote from: inquisitive on July 14, 2014, 12:04:27 AM

Quote from: jroa on July 14, 2014, 12:01:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 13, 2014, 11:57:36 PM

Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...

When did you do this?  Please, post your data.  Thanks.

Have you done this to prove the shape of the earth?

Plenty of data available to show a round earth. Where is the proof for a flat earth that has been tested in the last 10 years?

I am not the one making the claim; you are.

Please don't misquote me to make me sound like the uneducated RE noobs.  Thanks.

J Davis,

To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.

In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.

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.

Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do.

And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.

The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 13, 2014, 11:57:36 PM

Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...

When did you do this?  Please, post your data.  Thanks.

Quote from: jroa on July 14, 2014, 12:01:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 13, 2014, 11:57:36 PM

Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...

When did you do this?  Please, post your data.  Thanks.

You're the one claiming that the Bedford Level experiment proves the earth is flat jroa.  Therefore it's entirely appropriate—and logical—that it's your responsibility to repeat the experiment yourself at some local waterway.  The Bedford Level experiment is an interwoven part of the Zetetic theory, therefore you should do this experiment if for no other reason than further supporting the theory.  Your claim; your proof.

We round earthers dispute the results of that experiment, and obviously we're unable to replicate any experimental results that we disagree with.  In fact, if we were to repeat it with a laser theodolite, we'd actually disprove the results of the experiment.

So...the onus of proving the veracity of the experiment is yours jroa.  Or are you happy to accept the experimental results without confirming them yourself?  You seem very keen on ensuring that round earthers carry out themselves, and observe personally, all the experimental data we produce here.

Or are you saying that flat earthers don't have to comply with this?  And if not, then why not?

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 12, 2014, 09:03:08 AM

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.

This is quite demonstrably false. If you're making claims about truth and reality, there are philosophical issues at stake. This is like engineers claiming there is no theoretical physics involved in engineering. It's there, even if they don't have much direct contact with it on a day-to-day basis.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 13, 2014, 11:57:36 PM

Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...

When did you do this?  Please, post your data.  Thanks.

Quote from: jroa on July 14, 2014, 12:01:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on July 13, 2014, 11:57:36 PM

Like testing the levels experiment and measuring the angle of the sun...

When did you do this?  Please, post your data.  Thanks.

I assumed you were talking about the Bedford Level experiment when you asked about "testing the levels".  What "levels" were you referring to?

Quote from: rottingroom on July 13, 2014, 07:38:39 PM

J Davis,

To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.

Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do. And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.

The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 13, 2014, 07:38:39 PM

In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.

It's really impossible to answer this question. A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved, or even the testing of hypotheses. On thing I believe we can say is that there would be a lot less overturning and scrapping of models.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 14, 2014, 09:35:03 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 13, 2014, 07:38:39 PM

J Davis,

To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.

Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do. And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.

The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.

Science doesn't make claims concerning truth. A theory is an approximation of the truth and the theory most regarded by the scientific community has that status because it is more correct or "works" better than any alternatives.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 14, 2014, 09:35:03 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 13, 2014, 07:38:39 PM

In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.

It's really impossible to answer this question. A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved, or even the testing of hypotheses. On thing I believe we can say is that there would be a lot less overturning and scrapping of models.

Such as what? This is the main question of the thread. What discoveries were made without the scientific method? I think that the fact that models are scrapped in favor of better models goes to show the power of science.

If we just assumed that the earth was flat because it seems so, then that would be zetetic. We would avoid all experiments that would indicate otherwise because they would be considered a waste of time and that would be zetetic... but as soon as you take in more information things change and we get a new theory such as, "the earth is round". Is the theory that the earth is flat wrong? No, it isn't because it nearly is on some scales. Is the theory that the earth is flat WRONGER than the the theory that the earth is round? Quite.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 14, 2014, 12:17:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 14, 2014, 09:35:03 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 13, 2014, 07:38:39 PM

J Davis,

To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.

Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do. And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.

The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.

Science doesn't make claims concerning truth. A theory is an approximation of the truth and the theory most regarded by the scientific community has that status because it is more correct or "works" better than any alternatives.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 14, 2014, 09:35:03 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 13, 2014, 07:38:39 PM

In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.

It's really impossible to answer this question. A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved, or even the testing of hypotheses. On thing I believe we can say is that there would be a lot less overturning and scrapping of models.

Such as what? This is the main question of the thread. What discoveries were made without the scientific method? I think that the fact that models are scrapped in favor of better models goes to show the power of science.

If we just assumed that the earth was flat because it seems so, then that would be zetetic. We would avoid all experiments that would indicate otherwise because they would be considered a waste of time and that would be zetetic... but as soon as you take in more information things change and we get a new theory such as, "the earth is round". Is the theory that the earth is flat wrong? No, it isn't because it nearly is on some scales. Is the theory that the earth is flat WRONGER than the the theory that the earth is round? Quite.

Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.

Quote from: legion on July 14, 2014, 01:51:06 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 14, 2014, 12:17:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 14, 2014, 09:35:03 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 13, 2014, 07:38:39 PM

J Davis,

To be honest I do find almost all fields of philosophy to be interesting. I dabbled in courses on western philosophies and pragmatism in college. I do understand that there is large field of philophy that deals with the implications of science and what constitutes science. However, those fields, while fascinating, have no real impact on science itself. Science is driven by its pragmatic qualities. We adopt a scientific theory because it works and that is what a scientist worries about. Not the philosophy of.

Yes, well, that's all well and good until the scientific community makes claims concerning truth, which they frequently do. And of course, if by "because it works" you in fact mean 'because it describes the universe accurately', then that is a claim to to truth, obviously.

The bolded point is precisely the problem. Everyone talks about the superiority of the scientific method, except there are problems with the method as defined, and on top of that it is rarely practised as defined.

Science doesn't make claims concerning truth. A theory is an approximation of the truth and the theory most regarded by the scientific community has that status because it is more correct or "works" better than any alternatives.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 14, 2014, 09:35:03 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 13, 2014, 07:38:39 PM

In any case, this thread isn't about dissecting science. It is about the results of science such as the inventions and discoveries we enjoy today, and how those results would compare with a zetetic world, where testing a hypothesis is avoided at all costs.

It's really impossible to answer this question. A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved, or even the testing of hypotheses. On thing I believe we can say is that there would be a lot less overturning and scrapping of models.

Such as what? This is the main question of the thread. What discoveries were made without the scientific method? I think that the fact that models are scrapped in favor of better models goes to show the power of science.

If we just assumed that the earth was flat because it seems so, then that would be zetetic. We would avoid all experiments that would indicate otherwise because they would be considered a waste of time and that would be zetetic... but as soon as you take in more information things change and we get a new theory such as, "the earth is round". Is the theory that the earth is flat wrong? No, it isn't because it nearly is on some scales. Is the theory that the earth is flat WRONGER than the the theory that the earth is round? Quite.

Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.

Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items with doing a single test?

Quote from: rottingroom

Quote from: legion

Quote from: rottingroom

What discoveries were made without the scientific method?

Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.

Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items without doing a single test?

What?

Maybe you do have difficulties with the english language?

Quote from: legion

Quote from: rottingroom

Quote from: legion

Quote from: rottingroom

What discoveries were made without the scientific method?

Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite, etc.

Now then. I think you are making all of that up. How would it be possible to make any of these items with doing a single test?

What?

Is it easier to understand with less words in your way?