From Rowbotham (bold added for emphasis):
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.
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 causes 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.
Does this not mean that all of your theories about bendy light, aetheric winds, universal acceleration, NASA conspiracies, theoretical infinite plane Earth model, etc. are all unzetetic?
When you don't use the zetetic method then, again according to Rowbotham:
The real state of things escapes our observation; or, 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.
Strikes me as a very accurate prediction of how FEers just keep twisting ideas and making new theories to fit in with a preconceived notion of a flat earth.
Also, if you are only allowed to use what can be zetetically observed, should that not prevent you from using, for example, special relativity to prove that a constantly accelerating Earth won't surpass light speed? I mean, how have you observed this zetetically (whatever the hell that even means)? Are you allowed to cherry pick what works for you from mainstream science, e.g. special relativity, while ignoring other universally accepted parts, e.g. gravitation. Is this what zetetic science is? What is the basis for which parts you accept and which parts you reject?