A typical behaviour rampant in modern science

I read with some amusement mikeman/namekims post about his genius plan to expose flat earthers as gullible which resulted in him being rumbled straight away and banned,

Mikeman describes the endeavour as a failed test but was it? it delivered some eye opening (for roundies) raw data about how roundy science works.
   
 If  performing an experiment results in convincingly disproving the point you were trying to argue, declare the test a failure and discard data.  Do not, under any circumstances accept data as valid, review your theory or contemplate the connotations of having devoted so much time and energy arguing a widely accepted theory without realising it was based on a fundamentally flawed concept.
 

As the only person gullible enough to treat the "gullibility test" as a genuine post was another prolific round earther, its a shame the thread was locked because it had great comedic potential.

interesting. Can you give a link to the now dead thread. Would be interesting to read what her tried to do.

HAHAHA, that was funny. Well done scepti for picking that up so fast.

it delivered some eye opening (for roundies) raw data about how roundy science works. 

I am not sure if what he did was performing science.
Unless his hypothesis was to see if Sceptimatic was actually skeptical of people saying sketical things. If so, his hypothesis returned positive results.

  If  performing an experiment results in convincingly disproving the point you were trying to argue, declare the test a failure and discard data.  Do not, under any circumstances accept data as valid, review your theory or contemplate the connotations of having devoted so much time and energy arguing a widely accepted theory without realising it was based on a fundamentally flawed concept. 

I am not sure if I am reading what you are saying correctly. But If data is collected correctly and the results of the test where invalid, then the test is your point of failure. Not the data. If you bust a car tire, you dont through the entire car away, only the tire.

There are two ways of interpreting the results,

1 The test failed to prove all flatties are gullible therefore proves not all flatties are gullible 

2 The test failed to prove all flatties are gullible therefore proves all flatties are gullible but testing was a failure

why are the results of the test invalid, just because he set out to make flatties look stupid but failed to do so and made a fool of himself? does falling on your own sword mean your sword was faulty?

Well I am not sure what the hell he was trying to do. In all honesty it was stupid. I am not a fan of deception. He showed exactly how NOT to do science.

If you manage to prove that one FEér is not gullible it does not equate that all FEérs are not gullible.
Also, if you manage to prove that some FEér are indeed gullible it still does not prove that all FEérs are gullible.
His Method was terrible, and his Hypothesis that all FEérs are Gullible stand on fragile ground.

The only conceivable result in his test was to show dishonesty. I think a month long suspension of his account was necessary for him too cool off.

Dont equate actual science to what he did. Science allowed you to voice your opinion on TFES

Dont equate actual science to what he did.

i don't

Scepti! - colour me impressed