Zetetic method?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2013/jan/03/flat-earth-science-asimov

Is this the zetetic method which also seems to be the scientific method?

I did not read the Ansimov article, but the link sounds like an overly romantic view of orthodoxy. What about it was zetetic, would you say?

I did not read the Ansimov article, but the link sounds like an overly romantic view of orthodoxy. What about it was zetetic, would you say?

Namely this part

when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

I'm not entirely sure the authors interpreted the article correctly, but I thought it was interesting because that describes a situation where you can't rely on a supposition to interpret the truth because they can be equally right or wrong.

So for a RET theory or FET theory neither of them can be the 'truth'.

I related it to the Zetetic method because I understood it to be purely based on observation without superstition, which is what that article is describing (in a round about way).

Quote from: Ski on January 03, 2013, 03:48:55 PM

I did not read the Ansimov article, but the link sounds like an overly romantic view of orthodoxy. What about it was zetetic, would you say?

Namely this part

Quote

when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

I'm not entirely sure the authors interpreted the article correctly, but I thought it was interesting because that describes a situation where you can't rely on a supposition to interpret the truth because they can be equally right or wrong.

So for a RET theory or FET theory neither of them can be the 'truth'.

I related it to the Zetetic method because I understood it to be purely based on observation without superstition, which is what that article is describing (in a round about way).

Wronger?
English is not my first language but even I know this is not a proper word.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on January 03, 2013, 04:13:38 PM

Quote from: Ski on January 03, 2013, 03:48:55 PM

I did not read the Ansimov article, but the link sounds like an overly romantic view of orthodoxy. What about it was zetetic, would you say?

Namely this part

Quote

when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

I'm not entirely sure the authors interpreted the article correctly, but I thought it was interesting because that describes a situation where you can't rely on a supposition to interpret the truth because they can be equally right or wrong.

So for a RET theory or FET theory neither of them can be the 'truth'.

I related it to the Zetetic method because I understood it to be purely based on observation without superstition, which is what that article is describing (in a round about way).

Wronger?
English is not my first language but even I know this is not a proper word.

Are you sure?

English isn't my strong point, and I must admit it sounds as if it shouldn't be a word, but I found it in the Oxford English dictionary.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wrong?q=wronger#wrong__42

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2013/jan/03/flat-earth-science-asimov

Is this the zetetic method which also seems to be the scientific method?

Asimov's piece is well-known within this community. However, it ultimately defends the scientific method without any substantive reference to genuine methodological criticisms of the scientific method.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on January 03, 2013, 01:50:31 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2013/jan/03/flat-earth-science-asimov

Is this the zetetic method which also seems to be the scientific method?

Asimov's piece is well-known within this community. However, it ultimately defends the scientific method without any substantive reference to genuine methodological criticisms of the scientific method.

What are those criticisms?

The article (not Asimov's piece) also describes how an experimental (not theoretical) scientist approaches a problem which to me seems to describe the Zetetic method.

In essence it says an experimentalist knows a theory can never be right or wrong.