Greetings, fellow Homo sapiens and esteemed readers of other species. As a learned scholar in this collective of grate brains and wunderkinder I feel it is my responsibility - nay, duty - nay, privilege - to open my thoughts on the Zetetic Method to the scrutation of you all.
I am currently working on a book of some 300 pages, which will be published next month, covering this topic, and I delight in affording you a preview of some of its philosophical treats in this post.
1. What is Zeteticism?
According to the FE Wiki: Zeteticism is a system of scientific inquiry. Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved.
According to other sources: The term 'Zetetic' is formally defined as "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker." In modern usage, the term 'inquiry' is understood as 'critical inquiry,' and the zetetic is therefore best considered a 'skeptical seeker.' Zeteticism, then, is the principle and practice of being a zetetic, a skeptical seeker. In plainer terms, it is an open-minded yet realistic approach to matters of truth, philosophy, and religion. It is based in critical thinking.
So far so good, and I feel greatly honoured to hold up this platter of wisdom so you may behold it. But, my brothers, how does this relate to the shape of the earth? Well...
From the FE wiki:
In questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.
Very laudable in its openmindedness, I'm sure you all agree. But what mighty Titan would perform the experiment to find the shape of our world? Step forward the purveyor of only the very finest snake oil, none of this cheap rubbish with bits floating in it - Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Rowbotham lived in the Victorian era, a time when everyone was either astonishingly rich or dirt poor and everything was in black and white. Science knew nothing, and Rowbotham determined to correct this by wading into a canal with a spyglass and observing things far away. From this practical and pure zetetic observation, Rowbotham discovered that the surface of the canal appeared to be flat. From this, he deduced that the earth was not a globe, but a flat plane.
Now I know what you're thinking. "Praise be for the zetetic method! Through it, Rowbotham has shown the true nature of the earth!"
But not so fast. Let us imagine what had happened if this intellectual giant had instead used the conventional scientific method in his inquiry rather than the truly zetetic one:
First, he would have made a hypothesis: "I hypothesise the earth is XYZ shape."
Then, he would have designed an experiment: "I shall wade into a canal and make observations through a spyglass."
Then, he would have seen if his results confirmed his hypothesis or not. If his hypothesis was that earth was flat, then he would have indeed been led to the same conclusion as by his zetetic enquiry. If his hypothesis was the ridiculous notion that earth was a globe (as if!) he would have been forced to reject this idea and form a new hypothesis - that the earth was flat!
I know this is probably astonishing to you, my fellow philoscientists. To discover that a zetetic enquiry and a conventional scientific one could lead to the same conclusion is mindblowing. Indeed, it is probably only because you are among the most openminded men of the world that you have not fainted away in a swoon. Or swooned away in a faint.
But this leads us to troubling dilemma which creases the brow. "Surely," you cry, "the writings of Lord Wilmore (of Conspiracy Avenue, Hibernia, Cork) tell us to reject the scientific method! Now you have shown how it just leads to the same thing as normal science!"
Yes, my brothers, that is what Wilmore says. However, should you take his word for it, or should you approach it zetetically? Zeteticism teaches you never to start from a fixed opinion - in this case the fixed opinion that Wilmore is correct that the conventional scientific method is worthless. But as I have shown above, in undeniable detail, that is not the case.
And in the next excerpt from Discard Of The Zetetic Method, I shall show you the secret wisdom of how the scientific method can even triumph over zeteticism! But that will wait for another time, as I shortly have a meeting with some snake oil importers.