Scientific method and FE

  • 29 Replies
  • 1976 Views
Scientific method and FE
« on: March 27, 2019, 09:28:20 AM »
1 thing I have noticed about FEs is their refusal to believe in experimental results.
The Scientific method basically says
1) form a hypothesis (i.e. the earth is flat)
2) create an experiment to test your theory (pick a test)
3) analyze the results
4) draw a conclusion

if your test confirms your theory, great.  Share the data so that other people can replicate your results and confirm your theory.
But if your test results disprove your theory.  there are several options, either your theory was wrong, or the test was invalid.
if you believe the test was invalid, you can go back to the test and try to isolate variables and further refine the results.
Or you can come up with another experiment using different criteria.
Or you revise the theory.
but in any case, you have to be open to the possibility that the theory is wrong, which is something i see FEs struggle with.  They are so convinced they are right, they refuse to accept any 'proof' to the contrary.
In the Beyond the Curve film the guy was using a ring laser gyroscope to 'prove' the earth does not rotate.  It found rotation that matched accepted scientific consensus (the earth rotates 15 degrees per hour).  A typical scientist might react with: "Maybe we conducted the test wrong or we didn't account for some variable.  Or maybe our theory that the earth does not rotate is wrong," 
A scientist might believe there was something with the approach to the experiment or idea behind it.
How did the guy in the film react. His response was "we do not accept that result".
The difference in the thought process is subtle but very important and it gives you an insight into the mindset of most FEs.
The film has been brought up in several other threads so i wont say anything more about it here.  I just wanted to point out a very important but overlooked line in the film.

This is why it is so difficult to convince FEs they are wrong.  Even if they do an experiment that proves the earth is round, then the experiment is wrong because they already 'know' the earth is flat.


*

Jamie

  • 1276
  • Number Archivist.
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2019, 09:50:45 AM »
In the Beyond the Curve film the guy was using a ring laser gyroscope to 'prove' the earth does not rotate.  It found rotation that matched accepted scientific consensus (the earth rotates 15 degrees per hour).  A typical scientist might react with: "Maybe we conducted the test wrong or we didn't account for some variable.  Or maybe our theory that the earth does not rotate is wrong," 
A scientist might believe there was something with the approach to the experiment or idea behind it.
How did the guy in the film react. His response was "we do not accept that result".
The difference in the thought process is subtle but very important and it gives you an insight into the mindset of most FEs.
The film has been brought up in several other threads so i wont say anything more about it here.  I just wanted to point out a very important but overlooked line in the film.

This is why it is so difficult to convince FEs they are wrong.  Even if they do an experiment that proves the earth is round, then the experiment is wrong because they already 'know' the earth is flat.

Sure, those flat Earth'ers could've accounted for other variables or a margin of error in conducting the experiment; but did the results match up neatly with what we can observe and experimentally demonstrate to be true about the shape of the Earth, that is a globe?

Yes. And I agree with your point about convincing flat Earth'ers.
There is a preverb in Turkish:  "Do not think everybody have beard is your grandfather".

*

Danang

  • 4178
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2019, 09:52:11 AM »
Please dump your textbooks  8)
(Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2019, 10:30:32 AM »
Motivated reasoning. The most popular kind or reasoning on FE and RE.
Is it possible for something to be both true and unproven?

Are things that are true and proven any different from things that are true but not proven?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2019, 01:12:50 PM »
1 thing I have noticed about FEs is their refusal to believe in experimental results.
The Scientific method basically says
1) form a hypothesis (i.e. the earth is flat)
2) create an experiment to test your theory (pick a test)
3) analyze the results
4) draw a conclusion

if your test confirms your theory, great.  Share the data so that other people can replicate your results and confirm your theory.
But if your test results disprove your theory.  there are several options, either your theory was wrong, or the test was invalid.
if you believe the test was invalid, you can go back to the test and try to isolate variables and further refine the results.
Or you can come up with another experiment using different criteria.
Or you revise the theory.
but in any case, you have to be open to the possibility that the theory is wrong, which is something i see FEs struggle with.  They are so convinced they are right, they refuse to accept any 'proof' to the contrary.
In the Beyond the Curve film the guy was using a ring laser gyroscope to 'prove' the earth does not rotate.  It found rotation that matched accepted scientific consensus (the earth rotates 15 degrees per hour).  A typical scientist might react with: "Maybe we conducted the test wrong or we didn't account for some variable.  Or maybe our theory that the earth does not rotate is wrong," 
A scientist might believe there was something with the approach to the experiment or idea behind it.
How did the guy in the film react. His response was "we do not accept that result".
The difference in the thought process is subtle but very important and it gives you an insight into the mindset of most FEs.
The film has been brought up in several other threads so i wont say anything more about it here.  I just wanted to point out a very important but overlooked line in the film.

This is why it is so difficult to convince FEs they are wrong.  Even if they do an experiment that proves the earth is round, then the experiment is wrong because they already 'know' the earth is flat.


I see this constantly in round earth science. If falsification happened as you claim it does, we wouldn't have heliocentric theory in the first place. More than this, how do you think we came to our belief set as it stands now? Do you not think we modified our theory again and again due to falsification?
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2019, 02:28:56 PM »
Can you give me an example of falsification of RE? I have seen that attempted in many FE videos. What is your attempt?
Is it possible for something to be both true and unproven?

Are things that are true and proven any different from things that are true but not proven?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2019, 02:42:40 PM »
Can you give me an example of falsification of RE? I have seen that attempted in many FE videos. What is your attempt?
I don't think falsification exists - or at least is noted and acted upon - historically or in studies I've read around its use in current academia or the wider intellectual community. This would lead me to believe its not very important.

However, here are two examples; one historical and one more modern.

I've mention in the past heliocentric theory having been falsified from the get go, and yet it lived long enough to show its use due to its gained popularity and its appeal to the next generation of thinkers.

A more modern example might be around the big bang. For example in the early to late 2000s, Big Bang theorists had to reject their view due to a number of reasons; rather than do so, they instead reintroduced, sneakily, a preferred coordinate system which by its nature can be seen to undermine a great many other views that must exist for their theory to make sense.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2019, 02:43:38 PM »
There are also the many examples of relativity being falsified, which are open problems. For example the flyby anomaly. Without a model of gravity, a great many round earth arguments start to fall to dust.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2019, 08:12:05 PM »
There are also the many examples of relativity being falsified, which are open problems. For example the flyby anomaly.

Ah, yes. There are tiny, but apparently real, differences between theoretical velocities and actual velocities, measured in parts per billion. That means we aren't accounting for everything that affects near-earth flybys. We don't, for instance, know all of the details about slight variations in the earth's gravity field because we don't know all of the details about the exact distribution of mass inside the earth. Because of this, very small perturbations to orbits compared with what is expected, of sufficient magnitude, are possible. Of greater immediate economic significance, because of this imperfect knowledge of the earth's interior, prospecting for mineral deposits is not easy.

We would have to know a lot more about this and other imperfectly known physical conditions before a we could say this "falsifies relativity" with any confidence whatsoever.

Quote
Without a model of gravity, a great many round earth arguments start to fall to dust.

Even if this were true, it's moot because there's a model for the effects of gravity which works splendidly on the scale of the solar system. But it's not true, so even that is moot.

"But..." you (and at least one other very long-winded poster here) may splutter, "you can't explain exactly what causes mass to exert an attractive force other mass!" This is true, but we do know mass has that effect on other mass in great, even if incomplete, detail.

Believing that not knowing everything is the same as not knowing anything is equivalent to believing that not knowing one's bank balance perfectly, to the exact cent, is the same as having no money at all. Both are preposterous.

You mention "many examples of relativity being falsified" and give one which doesn't do so. Do you actually have any?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2019, 08:57:46 PM »
The way cannot not be named. To not know everything is not the same as not knowing anything. But where can I hold these arguments? Amongst the Toaist and Literalist? No.

There should be higher a higher standard. Have you felt you met it?

How does my example not falsify it? And to you - falsify one idea for me of the round earth.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2019, 09:05:54 PM »
I apologize. I have had too many spirits and must abide for the night. Yet I find it hard to say any examples of relativity have not been falsified.  Very weak fields like those utilized by the standard model fall apart signifying collapse of the overall dialogue. On the larger scale we have the death of aether signifying its beginning of usefulness and its necessity in relativity.

Does anyone know what currency they use in 1809?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2019, 09:37:52 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sokarul

  • 18379
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2019, 09:37:56 PM »
There are also the many examples of relativity being falsified, which are open problems. For example the flyby anomaly. Without a model of gravity, a great many round earth arguments start to fall to dust.
What about all the evidence for relativity?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2019, 09:44:58 PM »
Does it not just take a few for falsification to act?

Of course not. You can drone on for ages writing off discrepancy after displacency,

What of it? It will be lost like that of those fought against the last view. And that before it, and every astronomy I might cite. They are but the wind on the seat of advance.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2019, 09:46:16 PM »
I will objectively say though relativity is pretty nice in those regards. But yeah - tomorrow. The Tao that can be named...
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22984
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2019, 09:50:37 PM »
1 thing I have noticed about FEs is their refusal to believe in experimental results.
The Scientific method basically says
1) form a hypothesis (i.e. the earth is flat)
2) create an experiment to test your theory (pick a test)
3) analyze the results
4) draw a conclusion


1) Hypothesis: NASA says lie about planets.
2) Experiment: Disappearing the Pluto.
3) Nasa agreed pluto's not being planet.
4) conclusion: NASA is a liar.

I've disproved you.


this workplace is on strike

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2019, 09:51:47 PM »
Thank you wise for getting back in the conversation, You are one of the most valuable people on this forum.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sokarul

  • 18379
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2019, 09:51:57 PM »
Does it not just take a few for falsification to act?
Theories can be falsified. General Relativity is no different. There is plenty of evidence for and against it.

Quote
Of course not. You can drone on for ages writing off discrepancy after displacency,
Something about a pot and kettle.

Quote
What of it? It will be lost like that of those fought against the last view. And that before it, and every astronomy I might cite. They are but the wind on the seat of advance.

right.....
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2019, 09:53:07 PM »
The evidence against it falsifies it. Method, as we are taught, should pivot. History does not. Yet teleological nonsense really doesn't support either historically.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sokarul

  • 18379
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2019, 10:00:46 PM »
The evidence against it falsifies it. Method, as we are taught, should pivot. History does not. Yet teleological nonsense really doesn't support either historically.
You have some learning to do.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2019, 10:03:29 PM »
Always.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2019, 10:03:58 PM »
Explain, specifically?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sokarul

  • 18379
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2019, 10:14:56 PM »
Well for starters you don't really have evidence against a theory. Your experiments try to show something, they don't try to not show something. If you actually posted one of "the evidence against general relativity" we could break it down and see what it really shows.



And yes this means what I said in my last post is wrong.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16666
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2019, 10:16:16 PM »
Which experiments?

Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2019, 11:11:15 PM »
There are also the many examples of relativity being falsified, which are open problems. For example the flyby anomaly.
  • Why is "the flyby anomaly" one of the "examples of relativity being falsified"? There are far more likely explanations than that.
    Who knows it might really provide further verification of GR?
    See General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, A flyby anomaly for Juno? Not from standard physics - just possibly it was the post-Newtonian gravitomagnetic (GM) Lense-Thirring effect.
    The term "gravitomagnetic" is unfortunate because the effect is not a magnetic effect but just a gravitational analog of a "magnetic effect".

  • Do you have the slightest idea of the magnitude of the "flyby anomaly"? Try about 1 part in a million.
    Has anything about the flat earth, such as the distance of any of the sun, moon, planets or stars above the earth, been measured with a precision ten thousand times worse than that?
Quote from: John Davis
Without a model of gravity, a great many round earth arguments start to fall to dust.
Possibly, but there is a model of gravitation. It's called, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Whether you accept it or not is of no import.

But why would these "great many round earth arguments start to fall to dust" without "a model of gravitation"?
Before that was Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation why described how gravitation behaved but made no attempt to explain why.
That is why Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is a scientific law and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a  scientific theory.

Would you claim that "a great many electric or magnetic field arguments started to fall to dust" before the quantum theory provided an explanation, that few probably really understand anyway?
« Last Edit: March 30, 2019, 02:59:53 AM by rabinoz »

*

Danang

  • 4178
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2019, 05:16:52 AM »
Motivated reasoning. The most popular kind or reasoning on FE and RE.

After seeing the sun "arrives" obviously some degrees above the horizon at official time of 'sunrise' - as we are used to see such view in Jakarta - what would you do?
(Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2019, 05:34:03 AM »
Motivated reasoning. The most popular kind or reasoning on FE and RE.

After seeing the sun "arrives" obviously some degrees above the horizon at official time of 'sunrise' - as we are used to see such view in Jakarta - what would you do?
Think that there are clouds along your horizon preventing you from seeing the true sunrise.

*

Danang

  • 4178
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2019, 07:49:43 PM »
Motivated reasoning. The most popular kind or reasoning on FE and RE.

After seeing the sun "arrives" obviously some degrees above the horizon at official time of 'sunrise' - as we are used to see such view in Jakarta - what would you do?
Think that there are clouds along your horizon preventing you from seeing the true sunrise.

Oh, you wanted the whole story? You got it  8)

(Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19504
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2019, 06:19:59 AM »

1 thing I have noticed about FEs is their refusal to believe in experimental results.
The Scientific method basically says
1) form a hypothesis (i.e. the earth is flat)
2) create an experiment to test your theory (pick a test)
3) analyze the results
4) draw a conclusion

Like this ? . . .

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66268.msg1769438#msg1769438


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2019, 11:35:54 PM »
Motivated reasoning. The most popular kind or reasoning on FE and RE.

After seeing the sun "arrives" obviously some degrees above the horizon at official time of 'sunrise' - as we are used to see such view in Jakarta - what would you do?
Think that there are clouds along your horizon preventing you from seeing the true sunrise.

Oh, you wanted the whole story? You got it  8)

As I said, "there are clouds along your horizon preventing you from seeing the true sunrise."
Not only that. Without a proper solar filter (or at least a proper exposure setting) all that shows on that video is massive glare.

Bye!

*

Canary

  • 179
Re: Scientific method and FE
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2019, 11:41:46 AM »
i believe that flat earth is a scientific argument but not necessary a right argument.
science does not give value to something facts and explanations do.