So basically, historical explanations. These are frequently a good idea for exactly the reason you say—a lot of things are just a lot more confusing without their historical context; they developed as the answer to a series of questions and answers and things make more sense once you know that series.
However it’s worth noting that there are times where you do want to skip over a bunch of the history, because the modern way of thinking about things is so much cleaner, and you can develop a different, better series of questions and answers than the one that actually happened historically.
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.
So basically, historical explanations. These are frequently a good idea for exactly the reason you say—a lot of things are just a lot more confusing without their historical context; they developed as the answer to a series of questions and answers and things make more sense once you know that series.
However it’s worth noting that there are times where you do want to skip over a bunch of the history, because the modern way of thinking about things is so much cleaner, and you can develop a different, better series of questions and answers than the one that actually happened historically.
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.