A zetetic world.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 14, 2014, 02:29:03 PM

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?

What?

What country are you from?

Quote from: legion on July 14, 2014, 02:32:49 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 14, 2014, 02:29:03 PM

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?

What?

What country are you from?

What?

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 14, 2014, 02:36:23 PM

Quote from: legion on July 14, 2014, 02:32:49 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 14, 2014, 02:29:03 PM

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?

What?

What country are you from?

What?

I think he's referring to things that were discovered by accident, such as penicillin, and saccharine. The others I'm not sure of. However, penicillin was later tested to see if the attributes accidently discovered were true. However, saccharine, the guy accidently licked his finger while doing experiments, discovered it was sweet, wrote down the formula for whatever he had, and sold it. Although, if you define serendipity as an accidental experiment or test, then I guess it wouldn't be zetetic.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 14, 2014, 02:36:23 PM

Quote from: legion on July 14, 2014, 02:32:49 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 14, 2014, 02:29:03 PM

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?

What?

What country are you from?

What?

Never heard of such a country. Do they speak English in "What"?

I see the problem. I meant to say without.

Quote from: legion on July 14, 2014, 02:37:35 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 14, 2014, 02:36:23 PM

Quote from: legion on July 14, 2014, 02:32:49 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 14, 2014, 02:29:03 PM

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?

What?

What country are you from?

What?

Never heard of such a country. Do they speak English in "What"?

That is all.

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

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

Just which claims are you referring to?

When they claim to accurately describe reality.

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

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.

Truth or statement of fact?

Sorry? I've already made that distinction. If you have something to add, please do.

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

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.

What problems with the scientific method are you referring to?

They have been referred to earlier in this thread. See John's posts.

There is no conflation of philosophy and theoretical physics.  No engineer I've ever worked with has mentioned any philosophical precepts when he's been designing a 12-lane multispan suspension bridge.

Have they ever mentioned relativity or quantum mechanics? No? I guess this means that these theories have no bearing whatsover on their 12-lane multispan suspension bridge. Oh sorry - you mean they can do their jobs without knowing anything about those things? I agree, but that doesn't mean those concepts aren't involved does it?


So some scientists do their day-to-day jobs without understanding the philosophical issues involved. Big wow. My binman doesn't know much about communal hygiene, but there you go.

You should have noticed that I was not the one who brought up levels.

So now—prior to mounting an argument—we have to differentiate between your "bringing up" a topic as compared to only "commenting about it"?

Anyway... when you mentioned "the" level, were you in fact referring to the Bedford Level experiment or not?  And if you were referring to it, then were you using its alleged positive results to support the zetetic theory of a flat earth?

Or are you now saying that because it wasn't you who "brought" up the level question, you don't necessarily accept it?

Legion is suffering under the misconception the following stuff wasn't discovered/theorised/manufactured without the aid of the scientific method, and by people with scientific accreditation:

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

At any rate, I'm not quite certain of his connecting saccharine, discovered by a Russian scientist (Fahlberg) Viagra, discovered by three Pfizer scientists (Bell, Terrett and Brown),  radioactivity, discovered by a French scientist (Becquerel), Teflon, discovered by a Ph.D chemist (Plunkett) or penicillin, discovered by a Scottish scientist (Fleming) with zeteticism.

As this thread is purportedly about the zetetic world,  how then do coffee sweeteners and drugs for erectile dysfunction impact it scientifically?   

And, as per usual, legion—like many other flat earthers—is grasping at straws in an ultimately doomed effort to prove that science doesn't have all the answers about our universe, whereas the zetetic method does supply a lot of those answers.  They're trying to make a case for their allegation that a lot of the high-tech stuff we take for granted in the world today isn't due solely to the scientific method—that somehow it all developed spontaneously and possibly aided by the efforts of zeteticism. 

—Which of course is all irrefutably absurd.

Legion is suffering under the misconception the following stuff wasn't discovered/theorised/manufactured without the aid of the scientific method, and by people with scientific accreditation:

Quote

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

At any rate, I'm not quite certain of his connecting saccharine, discovered by a Russian scientist (Fahlberg) Viagra, discovered by three Pfizer scientists (Bell, Terrett and Brown),  radioactivity, discovered by a French scientist (Becquerel), Teflon, discovered by a Ph.D chemist (Plunkett) or penicillin, discovered by a Scottish scientist (Fleming) with zeteticism.

As this thread is purportedly about the zetetic world,  how then do coffee sweeteners and drugs for erectile dysfunction impact it scientifically?   

And, as per usual, legion—like many other flat earthers—is grasping at straws in an ultimately doomed effort to prove that science doesn't have all the answers about our universe, whereas the zetetic method does supply a lot of those answers.  They're trying to make a case for their allegation that a lot of the high-tech stuff we take for granted in the world today isn't due solely to the scientific method—that somehow it all developed spontaneously and possibly aided by the efforts of zeteticism. 

—Which of course is all irrefutably absurd.

1. You need to go back and re-read what Legion was responding to.  You are interpreting it wrong.

2. Legion has never said he was a FEer.

3. You are painting all FEers with the same brush which is totally inaccurate.

1. You need to go back and re-read what Legion was responding to.  You are interpreting it wrong.

Nope.  The discussion went thusly:

•  Lord Wilmore claimed:  "A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved..."
•  Rottingroom asked:  "What discoveries were made without the scientific method?"
•  Legion answered:  "Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite..."

I then produced evidence that proved that this claim (of both Lord Wilmore and legion) was demonstrably wrong.  No misinterpretation evident.

2. Legion has never said he was a FEer.

Nor did he claim to be a round earther.  Unless you have any viable evidence to the contrary, then all his comments indicate that he's a flat earther.

3. You are painting all FEers with the same brush which is totally inaccurate.

Yep.  As I do for all round earthers.  The divide is simple—one either accepts the round earth model or rejects it.  Those who reject it are flat earthers.  Or are you maybe suggesting (as I did in the past) that there are some flat earth "agnostics" here, or as I call then, fence-sitters?

Quote from: Rama Set on July 15, 2014, 10:22:42 AM

1. You need to go back and re-read what Legion was responding to.  You are interpreting it wrong.

Nope.  The discussion went thusly:

•  Lord Wilmore claimed:  "A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved..."
•  Rottingroom asked:  "What discoveries were made without the scientific method?"
•  Legion answered:  "Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite..."

I then produced evidence that proved that this claim (of both Lord Wilmore and legion) was demonstrably wrong.  No misinterpretation evident.

Firstly you provided the names of the scientists responsible for the discovery, which is not evidence of the method used to discover them. Second, discovering something by accident is hardly evidence of the scientific method in practice.

2. Legion has never said he was a FEer.

Nor did he claim to be a round earther.  Unless you have any viable evidence to the contrary, then all his comments indicate that he's a flat earther.[/quote]

This is a ridiculous statement.  You are saying that if someone questions the scientific orthodoxy then they are instantly Flat-Earthers.  Do you understand how retarded that is?

3. You are painting all FEers with the same brush which is totally inaccurate.

Yep.  As I do for all round earthers.  The divide is simple—one either accepts the round earth model or rejects it.  Those who reject it are flat earthers.  Or are you maybe suggesting (as I did in the past) that there are some flat earth "agnostics" here, or as I call then, fence-sitters?
[/quote]

No, I am suggesting that your comment about FEers and their relationship zetetic method is not ubiquitous, and possibly not even a majority view. 

It really feels like you let your desire to grandstand interfere with being thoughtful in your replies.  Lest all REers be painted with the same brush, I would encourage you to be more specific in dealing with other people.

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 15, 2014, 11:45:05 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 15, 2014, 10:22:42 AM

1. You need to go back and re-read what Legion was responding to.  You are interpreting it wrong.

Nope.  The discussion went thusly:

•  Lord Wilmore claimed:  "A lot of great discoveries were made without the scientific method being involved..."
•  Rottingroom asked:  "What discoveries were made without the scientific method?"
•  Legion answered:  "Penicillin, the microwave oven, velcro, teflon, viagra, radioactivity, safety glasses, saccharine, the pacemaker, dynamite..."

I then produced evidence that proved that this claim (of both Lord Wilmore and legion) was demonstrably wrong.  No misinterpretation evident.

Firstly you provided the names of the scientists responsible for the discovery, which is not evidence of the method used to discover them. Second, discovering something by accident is hardly evidence of the scientific method in practice.

Quote

2. Legion has never said he was a FEer.

Nor did he claim to be a round earther.  Unless you have any viable evidence to the contrary, then all his comments indicate that he's a flat earther.

This is a ridiculous statement.  You are saying that if someone questions the scientific orthodoxy then they are instantly Flat-Earthers.  Do you understand how retarded that is?

3. You are painting all FEers with the same brush which is totally inaccurate.

Yep.  As I do for all round earthers.  The divide is simple—one either accepts the round earth model or rejects it.  Those who reject it are flat earthers.  Or are you maybe suggesting (as I did in the past) that there are some flat earth "agnostics" here, or as I call then, fence-sitters?
[/quote]

No, I am suggesting that your comment about FEers and their relationship zetetic method is not ubiquitous, and possibly not even a majority view. 

It really feels like you let your desire to grandstand interfere with being thoughtful in your replies.  Lest all REers be painted with the same brush, I would encourage you to be more specific in dealing with other people.
[/quote]

Maybe Mr. Bloomington is correct and ausgeoff has a (weird) agenda. His stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theory, you are a flat earther." How strange!

As I have no time for confirmed idiots or Agents of the Strange, I'll be ignoring all of his posts from now on.

As I have no time for confirmed idiots or Agents of the Strange, I'll be ignoring all of his posts from now on.

Please feel free to ignore my posts legion.  Of course it's your prerogative (and don't forget to add me to you IGNORE list as well).

At least I can gain some satisfaction knowing that you've been unable to successfully refute any of my arguments.  And unlike you, I don't have the need to resort to ad hominem attacks to reinforce my claims, as you've done so often on these forums.

You all need to learn how to quote properly.

His stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theory

In reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory".  That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that).  There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.

There are, of course, hundreds of theories and models that incorporate a round earth (how could they not?).  Weirdly, they all work.

You all need to learn how to quote properly.

Quote from: legion

His stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theory

In reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory".  That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that).  There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.

There are, of course, hundreds of theories and models that incorporate a round earth (how could they not?).  Weirdly, they all work.

Excellent point.  The flat earthers simply try to reinforce their own cause by implying that the actuality of the spherical earth is simply a "theory".  Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions, whereas flat earth hypotheses do not.  In fact, there is no such thing as a flat earth "theory".

Most flat earthers use the word "theory" as per the common usage of the word—which implies that something is simply a guess, speculative, conjectural or unsubstantiated.

Have they ever mentioned relativity or quantum mechanics? No? I guess this means that these theories have no bearing whatsover on their 12-lane multispan suspension bridge. Oh sorry - you mean they can do their jobs without knowing anything about those things? I agree, but that doesn't mean those concepts aren't involved does it?

Yes it does mean those concepts aren't involved. Just as ornithology isn't involved, astronomy isn't involved and medicine isn't involved.
The link is to an engineering mathematics book which covers just about all the mathematics an engineer would need.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Advanced-Engineering-Mathematics-K-Stroud/dp/0230275486/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405510573&sr=1-3#reader_0230275486


Scroll down to the index; no mention of relativity or quantum mechanics.

You all need to learn how to quote properly.

Quote from: legion

His stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theory

In reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory".  That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that).  There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.

Well, there kinda, sort is.  In fact, there is a whole branch of earth science dedicated to measuring the size and form of the earth.  It's called geodesy.

Well, there kinda, sort is.  In fact, there is a whole branch of earth science dedicated to measuring the size and form of the earth.  It's called geodesy.

Whatever the shape of the earth, you could still have geodetics.  Geodesy is no more "round earth theory" than geology, geography, astronomy etc.

Those scientists will treat the shape of the earth as an incontrovertible fact, not a theory.

You all need to learn how to quote properly.

Quote from: legion

His stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theory

In reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory".  That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that).  There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.

There are, of course, hundreds of theories and models that incorporate a round earth (how could they not?).  Weirdly, they all work.

When, exactly, was the time that everybody converted from the flat earth (belief) to the round earth (fact)?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 16, 2014, 02:10:49 AM

You all need to learn how to quote properly.

Quote from: legion

His stance seems to be "unless you believe unquestioningly in the round earth theory

In reality (ie not here) there isn't any such thing as "round earth theory".  That the earth is a sphere is taken as a incontrovertible fact by scientists (and anyone else come to that).  There are no journals of Round Earth Studies or Round Earth depts at universities and nobody ever graduates with a degree in Round Earthism.

There are, of course, hundreds of theories and models that incorporate a round earth (how could they not?).  Weirdly, they all work.

When, exactly, was the time that everybody converted from the flat earth (belief) to the round earth (fact)?

I'd say shortly after the time that people started taking more than just a passing interest in the workings of the universe.

Why do you think there was some kind of mass conversion?

When, exactly, was the time that everybody converted from the flat earth (belief) to the round earth (fact)?

As somebody else said here, there was no instantaneous mass conversion.  Even more than 2,000 years ago the bible implied that the earth was some sort of sphere, suspended in the firmament.  Job 26:7 says; He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.  And Isaiah 40:22 says; It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.

One of the most prominent changes occurred during the middle of the 16th century when Galileo propounded his theory of heliocentrism.  This was the first time the massive world power of the Roman Catholic church was confronted with any credible scientific opposition to its long-held theory of geocentricity.  The rest—as they say—is history.

The first contemporary, absolute proof of the sphericity of the earth was illustrated by this image captured on 24 October, 1946. 






PS:  Early last year, a guest (?) named "Thork" posted exactly the same image to support his claim that the earth was flat LOL.  Needless to say, his subsequent illogical justifications and rationale in using this image for that purpose were totally invalidated.


EDIT:  Corrected [img] coding. 

PS:  Early last year, a guest (?) named "Thork" posted exactly the same image to support his claim that the earth was flat LOL.  Needless to say, his subsequent illogical justifications and rationale in using this image for that purpose were totally invalidated.

lol.  Thork is worth 10 times you and I combined.  It is amusing to see noobs refer to Thork as a "Guest".  Thork was a legend and he can be found talked about in all kinds of forums not related to TFES.  He schooled me at one time.  He is a jerk, and a pompous ass, but he had an answer to every noob question you could think of.  Just because he shows up as a "Guest" now, that does not mean that he did not contribute immensely to this society. 

He is now, sadly, only on the other site. 

Thork is worth 10 times you and I combined.

Don't underestimate your own capabilities that readily jroa (or mine too for that matter).  If Thork truly accepted a flat earth model without even considering the alternative of a spherical earth, then he's certainly not worth 10 times my intellectual capacity.  Sorry.

The mere fact that he incorrectly interpreted both the origin and the subject matter of this image is proof of that.  And if it was willful misrepresentation, then it's even worse on his part.

It is amusing to see noobs refer to Thork as a "Guest".

Well, that's simply because this site refers to him as a "guest".  I could well say it's even more amusing that this site calls him that—seeing as you seem to regard him as some sort of flat earth "legend".

Thork was a legend and he can be found talked about in all kinds of forums not related to TFES.

Never heard of the guy.  Can you please link me to a few other sites that "talk about him"?

He is a jerk, and a pompous ass, but he had an answer to every noob question you could think of.

Personally, I have no time for "jerks" and "pompous asses" because usually they're so far up themselves they can't construct a rational argument to save themselves.  Those who patronise others and consider themselves God's gift to mankind usually fall the hardest when confronted with someone who doesn't have those impeding constraints.
 

He is now, sadly, only on the other site.

Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass?  And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.

Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass?  And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.

I showed him my post and he liked it.  He is also a narcissist and enjoys it when people talk about him.  By the way, he shows up as Guest because his account was deleted. 

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 20, 2014, 12:29:52 AM

Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass?  And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.

I showed him my post and he liked it.  He is also a narcissist and enjoys it when people talk about him.  By the way, he shows up as Guest because his account was deleted.

In that case, it makes his viewpoint even more worthless (if that's possible LOL).

According to DSM-IV-TR, narcissistic personality disorder symptoms include expectations of being recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments; envy of others and a belief others envy him; a preoccupation with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence; arrogance in attitudes and behaviour.

—Why would anybody treat the opinions of someone like this with respect?

That definition is Thork to the letter. 

Quote from: jroa on July 20, 2014, 03:30:36 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 20, 2014, 12:29:52 AM

Maybe it's just as well if he is a jerk and a pompous ass?  And you'd better hope he doesn't see your character assassination LOL.

I showed him my post and he liked it.  He is also a narcissist and enjoys it when people talk about him.  By the way, he shows up as Guest because his account was deleted.

In that case, it makes his viewpoint even more worthless (if that's possible LOL).

According to DSM-IV-TR, narcissistic personality disorder symptoms include expectations of being recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments; envy of others and a belief others envy him; a preoccupation with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence; arrogance in attitudes and behaviour.

—Why would anybody treat the opinions of someone like this with respect?

I'm not sure anyone does.  He had his moderator status stripped from here and threw a tantrum - that's why he's down as guest.

That definition is Thork to the letter.

Uh... you said earlier that:  "He schooled me at one time."

Methinks you should be thankful it only happened the once jroa.