I have found something interesting on a different forum section and will put it here as I think it will help.
Also, I'm not allowed to debate it there.
It's easier for me if I keep my notes here and update the thread with content as I go.
Outline:
P1. Define Zetetic: Zetetic method is a method of empiricism where all possibilities considered and all tests tried.
P2. Examples of Zetetc Method in practice. Creation of new medicines is generally based on Zetetic method, for example.
P3. Disclaimer on the meaning of truth and how it generally means the "current truth"
P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.
P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.
P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.
I think only P1, P2 and P4 are releveant, but I didn't want to lose context.
P1 - I don't understand how all possibilities can be considered or all tests done. There isn't enough time for either. Ever.
As an example, I want to test how high my bouncy-ball bounces.
There's an infinite range of possibilities for the expected height, it may even not bounce (I was sold a duff one).
Then on to testing it. What do I bounce it on? Concrete, grass, wood or an infinite spectrum of surfaces?
How do I measure the results? Video camera or human eye? What height do I put those? How would I illustrate scale?
At this point, i'm shaking with not being allowed to bounce the ball and I haven't even gotten to the possible errors in equipment.
P2 - Medicine development is almost certainly following the scientific process. It even has the safeguards of animal testing before moving on to human trials.
Error is expected from the beginning, it's literally assuming the medicine is deadly until proven otherwise.
Then you get on to side-effects, which can sometimes change the scope of the experiment entirely. Viagra was a good example of this, even though it still works as originally intended.
P4 - The inferiority of the scientific method. Wow. I'd be interested to see how P2 develops for this.
We're back to P1 for the not considering all possibilities, but I have no idea what a half-truth is.
By definition, it is also a half-lie. Why would that be helpful to understanding?
I can't even factor it in for my bouncy-ball explanation. (I tried writing guesses, but none of them made sense)
Anyways, I hope this injection of Zeteticism helps to get us somewhere.