IN DEPTH ‘‘ Andrew K. Shenton.
In terms of the learning scene today, we may highlight the importance of youngsters discovering for themselves information from established sources and constructing their own understanding, rather than merely accepting what they are told by the outputs of AI agents.
A little more wisdom from ancient times
This is the second of two articles devoted to ideas originating in ancient times which are still pertinent to student inquiry today, writes Andrew K. Shenton.
BOTH deal with lines of thought that are essentially sceptical. Meno’s Paradox – the subject of the first piece (
https://tinyurl.com/3cn- 2m9ne) – warns that all investigation is futile,1 whilst advocates of the zetetic tradition – which inspired the present article – are wary of accepting existing knowledge un- questioningly. Although the word, “zetetic” dates from the mid-seventeenth century,2
its
philosophical underpinnings can be traced back to the time of the ancient Greeks. I first became aware of the zetetic approach whilst reading a Wikipedia entry about one of my ancestors – Samuel Shenton, founder of the International Flat Earth Research Society, and I was intrigued to learn of his commitment to it. By way of explanation, the page elaborated that, according to the zetetic model, “only personally acquired facts [are] permissible.”3 I soon found myself wondering whether, amidst all the current concerns surrounding the accuracy of the material generated by popular AI tools such as ChatGPT, those of us who are involved in working with students on their information literacy may be inclined to recommend the application of tweaked versions of certain zetetic principles. After all, both subscribers to “the zetetic” and information literate individuals bring to their experiences a scepticism which, as Lewandowski et al recognise, can be critical in enabling “people to differentiate more
42 INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL accurately between truth and falsehood.”4 Dunne
isolates specific skills that he associates with “zetetic activities” – “synthesizing information, evaluating evidence, and crafting a cogent argument based on solid evidence, demonstrating that the process of thinking applies to a wide range of intellectual activ- ities beyond just writing.”5
These would also seem
fundamental to what we would consider information literacy.
In terms of the learning scene today, we may highlight the importance of youngsters discover- ing for themselves information from established sources and constructing their own understanding, rather than merely accepting what they are told by the outputs of AI agents. This is consistent with the zetetic emphasis on the process of gaining knowl- edge,6
a means to the product. If we embrace the zetetic principle that knowledge is not fixed,7
rather than investigation being seen only as students
should be wary of simply seeking to confirm what they have discovered via AI. Given the popularity of the principle of least effort when information-seek- ing and research more generally take place, learners may, of course, be reluctant to undertake the extra work. Yet, we may reflect on how readily they often acquiesce to our arguments that secondary referenc- ing is unwise. Over the course of many years, I have been largely successful in training the Sixth Formers I have known to reject the temptation to state the
August-September 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
