Zetetic method

  • 2 Replies
Zetetic method
« on: September 09, 2012, 09:39:15 AM »
No, the point of this post is not to question the validity of the zetetic method.  And I'm not completely sure if I posted in the right section, or whether this should belong on one of the forums for discussion of philosophy.  If this is in the wrong section, can this please be moved?

Now, to the point, which is that the zetetic method is merely a subset of the scientific method.  The central idea of the scientific method is that a single observation, experiment, discovery, etc. that contradicts a theory necessarily disproves it.  That is, we give more credit to our data than our theories.  I'll call the method of repeatedly subjecting tests to try to disprove an experiment the "mainstream scientific method."

Now to dissect the zetetic method.  If the Flat Earth Wiki is to be believed, the zetetic method is the act of trying to distinguish two or more theories by devising an experiment which will have one outcome if one theory is correct, another distinct outcome if another theory is correct, and so on.  (It may have even more outcomes if none are correct.)  Let's take the case of two theories.

Once an experiment has been devised to distinguish the two, as stated before, it may have outcome A if the first theory is correct or distinct outcome B if the second is.  (Or, of course, outcome C if neither is.)  Clearly, if outcome A occurs, then outcome B doesn't.  As the second theory predicts outcome B, applying the scientific method, we've disproven the second theory.  The same applies in reverse.

And so the zetetic method for two hypotheses is simply an application of the basic scientific method that's guaranteed to disprove at least one of the hypotheses in question, and similar reasoning shows that, when applied to more hypotheses, it's still just the scientific method guaranteed to leave at most one hypothesis intact.  The mainstream scientific method is an application for one hypothesis.

Apologies if the reasoning seems a bit jumbled, but hopefully the point I'm trying to get across is clear.



  • Planar Moderator
  • 3390
Re: Zetetic method
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2012, 03:35:34 PM »
I started to write my response and realized that this link will explain things for you.


That is just the chapter relating to Zetetic definition and comparison. There is much more for you in the rest of the text, as well...and Welcome!



  • 849
Re: Zetetic method
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2012, 07:26:41 AM »
Hi, whovian. The zetetic method espoused by Flat-Earthers is not the only one.  In the mid 20th century a rift happened in the ranks of CSICOP and a csicop member left, his name was Marcello truzzi. not long after, marcello released a journal called the zetetic scholar which was less dogmatic than CSICOP, but no where near as far-out as rowbotham.

I have posted about this in many other topic areas, among posts about other people who could be classed as zetetic. please feel free to peruse my posts and read them, and then read the zetetic scholar: it is rigourous, thought provoking and above all harkens to critical rationalism in science rather than postivism, you can find it for free here:http://tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZeteticScholars.html. The zetetecism provided by Flat-Earthers is not even as mature as the ancient greek strand of zetetecism, do not get fooled flatearthers calling what they do "zetetecism", it is not nearly as free-thinking as that, it is probably better to call it "denialism".