Here’s why I think the distinction you’re drawing can be misleading:
Some “historical” explanations lay out a path to discovering a thing that clarifies the evidence we have about it and what other ways that evidence should constrain our expectations. Other “historical” explanations recite the successive chronology of opinions about the thing, often with a progress narrative.
Some modernized explanations go through a better-than-chronological series of questions and answers that lead you more efficiently to understanding the thing. Others teach you how to describe the thing in contemporary technical jargon.
For both the chronological and modernized approach, the first version is zetetic, the second version isn’t.
Here’s why I think the distinction you’re drawing can be misleading:
Some “historical” explanations lay out a path to discovering a thing that clarifies the evidence we have about it and what other ways that evidence should constrain our expectations. Other “historical” explanations recite the successive chronology of opinions about the thing, often with a progress narrative.
Some modernized explanations go through a better-than-chronological series of questions and answers that lead you more efficiently to understanding the thing. Others teach you how to describe the thing in contemporary technical jargon.
For both the chronological and modernized approach, the first version is zetetic, the second version isn’t.
Thanks, that’s a good way of putting it.