Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.

  • 35 Replies
  • 7590 Views
?

Mbecks

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« on: January 15, 2016, 12:16:17 PM »
The game is simple, choose which you believe to be better then from your decision write a 5 word or less way that this method has improved life for you and others.

rule 1)Please 5 words or less, I know it will be irresistible for some of you to follow this.
rule 2)Don't dispute someone else's claims, it will jumble the thread and make it a waste.
I realise these rules probably wont hold up because of a lack of maturity but a man can dream.

?

Mbecks

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2016, 12:17:34 PM »
scientific method:
I'm using a computer.

?

celadon

  • 5
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2016, 01:05:22 PM »
scientific method:
Didn't die from smallpox.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2016, 01:15:05 PM »
Zetetic: Allowed us to independently think.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • +0/-0
  • Well rounded character
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2016, 01:19:01 PM »
Scientific method:
I can predict what happens
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2016, 01:38:59 PM »
Zetetic: I assume nothing.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3736
  • +9/-8
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2016, 04:40:37 PM »
Scientific method:

I can prove things myself.
Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Trans rights are human rights.

?

Mbecks

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2016, 05:12:10 PM »
Scientific method:
We're all using a computer.

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • +0/-0
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2016, 05:19:03 PM »
Scientific method: Create Electricity
« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 05:29:33 PM by getrealzommb »

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3736
  • +9/-8
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2016, 05:21:42 PM »
Scientific method: I build the machines that provide us with power.

Cool.
Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Trans rights are human rights.

?

Mbecks

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2016, 05:23:56 PM »
Scientific method:
Antibiotics

Scientific method: I build the machines that provide us with power.

Please 5 words or less. Let's carry on its fun but really try to follow the rules.

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • +0/-0
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2016, 05:32:11 PM »
Scientific method: Tested hypothesis

?

Mbecks

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2016, 05:37:07 PM »
Scientific method:
architecture.

*

FlatOrange

  • 2458
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2016, 06:11:31 PM »
Scientific method

Progress
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3736
  • +9/-8
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2016, 06:16:30 PM »
Scientific method:

DUH!!!
Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Trans rights are human rights.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2016, 09:50:25 PM »
I found this quote from someone who seems an expert in Zetectically (is that a word?) gained knowledge.
There seems to be a lot of topics saying that a flat earth contradicts astronomy, but no one has tried making a working of the stars, or asking how they work.
So instead of saying stars can't work on your model. I want to ask you how do they work on your model. How do they move, do they increase in distance, how near do stars need to be for you to see them. How do you get around the SCP problem.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm
There you have it!

?

Mbecks

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2016, 10:15:41 PM »
I found this quote from someone who seems an expert in Zetectically (is that a word?) gained knowledge.
There seems to be a lot of topics saying that a flat earth contradicts astronomy, but no one has tried making a working of the stars, or asking how they work.
So instead of saying stars can't work on your model. I want to ask you how do they work on your model. How do they move, do they increase in distance, how near do stars need to be for you to see them. How do you get around the SCP problem.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm
There you have it!
\
I think you may have misunderstood what the thread is about. read my original post please.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2016, 11:49:39 PM »
Appreciate celestial wonders!  So, there.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2016, 02:36:34 AM »
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

?

Brouwer

  • 830
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2016, 03:53:38 AM »
Zetetic:

Parot Rowbotham's pseudo-scientific methods.

?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2016, 08:15:21 AM »
Science:
Isn't bullshit.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2016, 08:54:18 AM »
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Yendor

  • 1676
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2016, 12:28:40 PM »
Zetetic method:
Using logic to question science
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2016, 12:51:35 PM »
Zetetic Method:

Ignoring evidence to prove preconceptions
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2016, 01:24:52 PM »
Zetetic method:
Using logic to question science

Scientific method:
Using logic to question science.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45141
  • +92/-136
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2016, 01:25:31 PM »
Scientific method: where preconceptions meet verification.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2016, 01:27:53 PM »
Zetetic method:
Explanations that fit are ignored.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2016, 01:45:00 PM »
Since this has become a free for all by the trolls, allow me to inject some logic in to the thread. Most of the claimed victories of the scientific method were nothing of the kind. Architecture? Computers? Electricity?

Get real, idiots. Unless you can present peer reviewed papers outlining the "scientific method" being used, you are talking shit like usual. Most of what you claim is thanks to the "scientific method" is actually thanks to the zetetic method.

Trial and error, usually. By engineers. Not scientists. Read the definition below, and try to understand it ffs.

Quote
The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out.

Some feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

Then you will realise that the scientific method which you so adore produces:

NOTHING.

Engineers are responsible for all of the technology you enjoy.

If you wish to exclaim, "but without the scientists doing their work, the engineers would have nothing to work with!"

That is bullshit as well. Engineers, engineer. Scientists, theorize and produce...

NOTHING!


« Last Edit: January 16, 2016, 02:01:20 PM by legion »
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2016, 03:13:36 PM »
Since this has become a free for all by the trolls, allow me to inject some logic in to the thread. Most of the claimed victories of the scientific method were nothing of the kind. Architecture? Computers? Electricity?

Get real, idiots. Unless you can present peer reviewed papers outlining the "scientific method" being used, you are talking shit like usual. Most of what you claim is thanks to the "scientific method" is actually thanks to the zetetic method.

Trial and error, usually. By engineers. Not scientists. Read the definition below, and try to understand it ffs.

Quote
The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out.

Some feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

Then you will realise that the scientific method which you so adore produces:

NOTHING.

Engineers are responsible for all of the technology you enjoy.

If you wish to exclaim, "but without the scientists doing their work, the engineers would have nothing to work with!"

That is bullshit as well. Engineers, engineer. Scientists, theorize and produce...

NOTHING!

Why so upset?

Are you an Engineer?

?

Empirical

  • 1307
  • +0/-0
Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2016, 03:44:54 PM »
Since this has become a free for all by the trolls, allow me to inject some logic in to the thread. Most of the claimed victories of the scientific method were nothing of the kind. Architecture? Computers? Electricity?

Get real, idiots. Unless you can present peer reviewed papers outlining the "scientific method" being used, you are talking shit like usual. Most of what you claim is thanks to the "scientific method" is actually thanks to the zetetic method.

Trial and error, usually. By engineers. Not scientists. Read the definition below, and try to understand it ffs.

Quote
The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A scientist following the zetetic method formulates the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be before testing it out.

Some feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the early formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

Then you will realise that the scientific method which you so adore produces:

NOTHING.

Engineers are responsible for all of the technology you enjoy.

If you wish to exclaim, "but without the scientists doing their work, the engineers would have nothing to work with!"

That is bullshit as well. Engineers, engineer. Scientists, theorize and produce...

NOTHING!
Only use five words idiot.