Show Posts
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Zeteticism - how exactly does it work
« on: April 05, 2016, 06:44:58 PM »
So, this board has a "Zetetic council" and apparently the FE-movement is connected to a method called Zeteticism. I have read the relevant wiki article, but it did leave some questions, which I'd like to ask here.
1. Difference to the scientific method:
The wiki states: "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." But it seems to me that the scientific method also bases it's conclusions on observation. Since both methods base their conclusions on observations, it would follow that their conclusions would be the same. Specifically, I cannot see how leaving out the hypothesis would change the end result.
2. How does Zeteticism structure it's inquiry?
The wiki states that Zeteticism simply skips the hypothesis step and goes straight to the experiment. But how does the zetetic know which experiment to conduct and what the result will mean? Let's take the question from the wiki: "What is the shape of the earth?" Without prior information, the amount of possible shapes is infinite. So first of all, there'd be no logical way to choose any experiment out of the infinite possible ones. The experiment could only be randomly selected.
If the experiment is nevertheless conducted, then you get a random bit of information. Since it's random, you have no idea where it fits within your infinite possibility space, so you have no idea what possiblity you just excluded.
But it still gets worse: Even if every observation excluded one shape, the remaining possible shapes would still be infinite. One would need an infinite number of observations, which is impossible.
The wiki's reference to the Bedford level experiment supports this view, since it stays that Samuel Rowbotham specifically tested if the water was convex in order to disprove the hypothesis that the earth is a sphere. Had he not formed the hypothesis "the earth is a sphere", he would not have known to check whether the water is convex. Had he by chance found out it was or wasn't convex, he would not have known what possibility that excluded. Had he not also formed the hypothesis "the earth is flat", finding that the water was convex or wasn't convex would not have resulted in a definitive result. He'd still have an infinite number of possibilities left.
3. Why Zeteticism?
It can be proven, from a-priori knowledge, that the scientific method is a working way to gain empirical knowledge. Is there any philosophy behind Zeteticism and a metaphysical argument about how it's superior to the scientific method?
No doubt it would be a huge discovery if Rowbotham had found a new way to gain empirical knowledge that the philosophers of the enlightenment did not think about. So I'm very interested in seeing if someone here can adress my concerns.
1. Difference to the scientific method:
The wiki states: "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." But it seems to me that the scientific method also bases it's conclusions on observation. Since both methods base their conclusions on observations, it would follow that their conclusions would be the same. Specifically, I cannot see how leaving out the hypothesis would change the end result.
2. How does Zeteticism structure it's inquiry?
The wiki states that Zeteticism simply skips the hypothesis step and goes straight to the experiment. But how does the zetetic know which experiment to conduct and what the result will mean? Let's take the question from the wiki: "What is the shape of the earth?" Without prior information, the amount of possible shapes is infinite. So first of all, there'd be no logical way to choose any experiment out of the infinite possible ones. The experiment could only be randomly selected.
If the experiment is nevertheless conducted, then you get a random bit of information. Since it's random, you have no idea where it fits within your infinite possibility space, so you have no idea what possiblity you just excluded.
But it still gets worse: Even if every observation excluded one shape, the remaining possible shapes would still be infinite. One would need an infinite number of observations, which is impossible.
The wiki's reference to the Bedford level experiment supports this view, since it stays that Samuel Rowbotham specifically tested if the water was convex in order to disprove the hypothesis that the earth is a sphere. Had he not formed the hypothesis "the earth is a sphere", he would not have known to check whether the water is convex. Had he by chance found out it was or wasn't convex, he would not have known what possibility that excluded. Had he not also formed the hypothesis "the earth is flat", finding that the water was convex or wasn't convex would not have resulted in a definitive result. He'd still have an infinite number of possibilities left.
3. Why Zeteticism?
It can be proven, from a-priori knowledge, that the scientific method is a working way to gain empirical knowledge. Is there any philosophy behind Zeteticism and a metaphysical argument about how it's superior to the scientific method?
No doubt it would be a huge discovery if Rowbotham had found a new way to gain empirical knowledge that the philosophers of the enlightenment did not think about. So I'm very interested in seeing if someone here can adress my concerns.