Define zeteticism.

I'm especially interested in hearing from Tom and Dogplatter on this.  Can you provide a comprehensive definition of "zeteticism" and delineate exactly how it differs from the general scientific method?

how it differs from the general scientific method?

More magic.

The Zetitic Philosophy is an exercise in skepticism to come to the absolute truth of a matter. It's a form of Empiricism in which all possibilities are assessed, facts collected, where the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

Rowbotham has an excellent chapter on the subject of Zeteticism here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

The Zetitic Philosophy is an exercise in skepticism to come to the absolute truth of a matter. It's a form of Empiricism in which all possibilities are assessed, facts collected, where the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Then it's already failed as a methodology before it's out of the starting blocks.  There is only "absolute true" in mathematics and religion.  Back in the real world there is only evidence and understanding:  We don't know what we "don't know", and that why science in an on-going, iterative process.  In Zetitics, by arriving at an "absolute truth" you have stated that there is no more to be understood.

Zetitics has more in common with religion than science.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2008, 12:04:05 PM

The Zetitic Philosophy is an exercise in skepticism to come to the absolute truth of a matter. It's a form of Empiricism in which all possibilities are assessed, facts collected, where the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Then it's already failed as a methodology before it's out of the starting blocks.  There is only "absolute true" in mathematics and religion.  Back in the real world there is only evidence and understanding:  We don't know what we "don't know", and that why science in an on-going, iterative process.  In Zetitics, by arriving at an "absolute truth" you have stated that there is no more to be understood.

Zetitics has more in common with religion than science.

  the point is that you only claim something that is proven to the point that argument is useless. Like that daisy is yellow. That is a proven statement, very few sane people would argue with this statement.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2008, 12:04:05 PM

The Zetitic Philosophy is an exercise in skepticism to come to the absolute truth of a matter. It's a form of Empiricism in which all possibilities are assessed, facts collected, where the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Then it's already failed as a methodology before it's out of the starting blocks.  There is only "absolute true" in mathematics and religion.  Back in the real world there is only evidence and understanding:  We don't know what we "don't know", and that why science in an on-going, iterative process.  In Zetitics, by arriving at an "absolute truth" you have stated that there is no more to be understood.

Zetitics has more in common with religion than science.

Finally you admit the Earth could be flat!

Like that daisy is yellow.

Looks more pink to me.

  the point is that you only claim something that is proven to the point that argument is useless. Like that daisy is yellow. That is a proven statement, very few sane people would argue with this statement.

Quote from: Saint Raist on June 10, 2008, 02:25:37 PM

Like that daisy is yellow.

Looks more pink to me.

That's just crazy!!

wow, i silently called that in my head. I am amazing.

Quote from: Saint Raist on June 10, 2008, 02:25:37 PM

Like that daisy is yellow.

Looks more pink to me.

I disagree.

I'm color blind, so I never know!

Zetitics has more in common with religion than science.

Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 10, 2008, 02:23:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2008, 12:04:05 PM

The Zetitic Philosophy is an exercise in skepticism to come to the absolute truth of a matter. It's a form of Empiricism in which all possibilities are assessed, facts collected, where the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Then it's already failed as a methodology before it's out of the starting blocks.  There is only "absolute true" in mathematics and religion.  Back in the real world there is only evidence and understanding:  We don't know what we "don't know", and that why science in an on-going, iterative process.  In Zetitics, by arriving at an "absolute truth" you have stated that there is no more to be understood.

Zetitics has more in common with religion than science.

  the point is that you only claim something that is proven to the point that argument is useless. Like that daisy is yellow. That is a proven statement, very few sane people would argue with this statement.

If it's just about evidence gathering then I cannot see the usefulness of Zetetics beyond the established scientic process.  I can also see dangers:  Beyond daisies, a statement or theory may be incontrovertible at the current time,  but in the distant future you may discover some phenomenon with provides a successful argument which contradicts the statement.  So you can never say something is "proven", you can just say "there is currently no evidence which contracts it".

Tom essentially nailed it in his post.

Practical Zeteticism differs from the standard Theoretic scientific method in that instead of putting forth claims and then attempting to prove them correct (hypothesis-based science does this), one should enquire with as little of a preconceived notion of what is true as possible - one should not attempt to discover IF a particular thing is true, rather to discover WHAT the truth is. Put in those terms, I realise the two sound slightly synonymous, but there is an important, nuanced difference.

Didn't Rowbotham use a lot of scripture to back up his claims in ENaG, which would sort of undermine any explanation concerning "as little preconceived notions as possible"? The bible is pretty cut and dry with what it says. Scripture A says B and Scripture C says D. Can't really argue with it (you can, but that's Billy Graham's job) and is pretty well-established as being this and not that. So wouldn't the Zetetic method be more an attempt at explaining scientific phenomena with as little preconceived notions as possible but so long as one retains biblical references?

Didn't Rowbotham use a lot of scripture to back up his claims in ENaG, which would sort of undermine any explanation concerning "as little preconceived notions as possible"? The bible is pretty cut and dry with what it says. Scripture A says B and Scripture C says D. Can't really argue with it (you can, but that's Billy Graham's job) and is pretty well-established as being this and not that. So wouldn't the Zetetic method be more an attempt at explaining scientific phenomena with as little preconceived notions as possible but so long as one retains biblical references?

His actual experimentation was free from conjecture. Now, it's important to note, as I have done to Tom in the Ice Wall Scholar's thread, that having Zetetically proven the shape of the Earth, Rowbotham does make some conjecture. There's a time and a place for conjecture, but crucially, experimentation is neither the time nor the place (as Rowbotham showed). Theoretic scientific method promotes conjecture AS AN INTEGRAL PART of experimentation (in the making of a hypothesis).

Ah, ok. Thanks for that. I'm still hunting for a copy I don't have to pay for, and sadly, all the libraries within a ten mile radius of my apartment don't even have a record of ENaG. 

Happy to see some genuine interest!

You can read for free: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm


I've found most libraries in my area carry it.

Break all the laws of physics at once and you'll have about nailed it on the head.

Break all the laws of physics at once and you'll have about nailed it on the head.

Can you list these "laws" that were broken please.  Just a hint, before you embaress yourself, make sure you understand the difference between physical laws and theoretical physics.

Are you saying there is such a vast difference?

Humor me.

Are you saying there is such a vast difference?

I am.

Humor me.

No, do your own homework.

I did.

Your laws (FE "theory" that is) that govern the sun and moon do not work within the FRW Universe and FRW cosmology .

at ALL.

I did.

Your laws (FE "theory" that is) that govern the sun and moon do not work within the FRW Universe and FRW cosmology .

at ALL.

So what's it like to make shit up?

I don't know, you tell me? You guys seem to be awfully good at it.

Your laws (FE "theory" that is) that govern the sun and moon do not work within the FRW Universe and FRW cosmology .

Exactly my point.  Laws and theories are not interchangeable.  That being said, can you list the laws that were broken now please.

@wordsmith

Your defense is and i'm near quoting, "It breaks the laws of physics." we ask which ones/how, and you say something along the lines of "Re physics and FE physics are different"

Yes nothing made up there. Nice supporting your statements with facts......

A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.

A fine catch. I stand corrected.

Which changes nothing.

Yes your point is unsupportable. Nothing changes.

Another victory for FE!