On Becoming Zetetic

I have a friend - an open-minded, inquisitive, suspicious friend, with whom I communicate via email - who is into the Flat Earth theory.  To the point where he has recently sent me a book on the subject.  It is apparently the ‘bible’ of the Flat Earthers, written originally in 1849 (as a pamphlet, and then elaborated upon over a number of succeeding years) by an Englishman by the name of Samuel Birley Rowbotham.  Its title is ’Zetetic Astronomy’ (with the subtitle: ‘Earth Not A Globe’).  What is ‘zetetic astronomy'?

From the author’s opening:

“The term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes.  It is here used in contradistinction from the word ‘theoretic,’ the meaning of which is, speculative - imaginary - not tangible - scheming, but not proving.”  Intriguing.  He goes on:

“None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system - assuming the existence and operation of cases of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be ‘admitted for the sake of argument,’ and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena.  All theories are of this character.  ‘Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things.  Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the parts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers.  The real state of things escapes our observation; or, if if it presents itself to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new efforts of a vain ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits, and labour to make it tally with our favourite schemes.  Thus, by blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd composition of truth and error.*** These have not done near so much harm as that pride and ambition which has led philosophers to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a complete and finished system of Nature; and, in order to obtain this at once, to take the liberty of inventing certain principles and hypotheses from which they pretend to explain all her mysteries.’…

“Let there be adopted a true and practical free-thought method, with sequence as the only test of truth and consistency, and the philosopher may become the Priest of Science and the real benefactor of his species.  ‘Honesty of thought is to look truth in the face, not in the side face, but in the full front; not merely to look at truth when found, but to seek it till found.  There must be no tampering with conviction, ho hedging or mental prevarication; no making ‘the wish father to the thought;’ no fearing to arrive at a particular result.  To think honestly, then, is to think freely; freedom and honesty of thought are truly but interchangeable terms.  For how can he think honestly, who dreads his being landed in this or that conclusion?  Such an one has already predetermined in his heart how he shall think, and what he shall believe.  Perfect truth, like perfect love, casteth out fear.’”(1)

And so forth, in that admirable vein.  And then he cuts to the chase of the truth of the matter at hand, starting with an experiment that he himself entered into:

“A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called ‘Welche’s Dam’ (a well-known ferry passage), to another called ‘Welney Bridge.’  These two points are six statute miles part.  The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge.  The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance!…”[After an explanation of how much curvature there should have been, on the globe as reckoned, he goes on:] “From which it is concluded that the surface of standing water is not convex, but horizontal.”

And he goes into other experiments along that, er, line, and then proceeds into other aspects of his case.  I haven’t gone into all that as yet, except for dipping into a couple of the subjects;(2) but for now, a comment.

My responses to my friend have been to a) look at the ‘proofs’ that he provides,(3) and to b) ask some questions/make some observations of my own.  As to the latter, a couple of for examples: 

When I was living near Sydney, Australia, I noticed that the night sky was different from the one that was overhead me when I lived in Scotland.  Think the North Star - Polaris - with its relationship to The Big Dipper, as opposed to The Southern Cross.  (I did also see/notice Orion, as a familiar constellation from the other, er, hemisphere as well.  And there could be a certain amount of overlap along the ecliptic, to account for that commonality.  But the night sky directly overhead?  Definitely different??…)  And two: The seasons are decidedly different - and precisely the opposite.  In the middle of their summer, when it’s winter in the UK, the English Aussies put faux icicles in their windows, as a reminder of The Auld Country.  The tilt of a globe on its axis can easily account for the phenomenon of seasons.  Any other attempt to account for them can be looked at.  But it would have to be a very strong argument, to beat out the axial-tilt one.  And three: I have read that sailors use trigonometry by which to reckon their positions.  Not geometry.(4) 

Rowbotham has arguments for all of ‘the usual suspects’: Cause of Day and Night (and yes, also Of Winter and Summer, and where); Cause of Solar and Lunar Eclipses; The Cause of Tides; and so on, as chapter titles.  I look forward to checking out his arguments.

Because he was an honorable man.  And doing his best to use his intelligence.  And not have it used for him.  By - perhaps - unscrupulous people. Who have long had various agendas.  Which are not conducive to 

Truth.          

Except as to give us something to hanker for.  And by which to prove our worth.

As the offspring of our Creator Source.

Going for gold, so to speak.  On The Way to our

Completion.

—

footnotes:

(1) He doesn’t explain whom he is quoting when he writes this way.

(2) like how he handles the subject of sunrises and sunsets, on a presumably flat plane.  He deals with it in terms of the atmosphericI densities, and light refraction.  I admit that I haven’t read that chapter in detail yet; but I find the argument, on its surface (so to speak), less than satisfactory.  But to continue.

   (Hey - anybody who has the philosophy that the has, as indicated from his Opening, is worth listening to, being given the courtesy of consideration.  How often in life have we settled for less, regarding where people are coming from??)

(3) I will remind you of the quote from a former Director of the CIA, wherein he said, in a private setting: “We will know that our disinformation program is complete when everything that the American public believes is false.”  

   Was JFK assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald?  Anybody who has looked into the matter with any degree of an open mind can easily come to the conclusion that that story is, er, false.  And, say, the (follow-on) Gulf of Tonkin incident??  And 9/11???  And many a false flag incident????

   But to continue.  (But not in this line.  Any longer.) 

(4) Although I do, in all honesty, also have to report here that I read an article by a passenger airliner pilot who reported that when he flew from Brisbane, Australia to New York City, he found himself flying over Alaska.  Which makes no sense on a globe (a direct line between the two sites necessitating the plane to fly over the north of Mexico to get there).  But it makes eminent sense given a map - and a reality - of a flat surface between the two sites. 

   Interesting…