- This topic has 3 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
I thought I had a good idea of what the Socratic Method was, but then I had some doubts. My original idea was that the Socratic Method was a way of making an argument against an opponent by means of careful questioning which is designed to lead the opponent to whatever position your are advocating. This seems to be what Socrates does in Plato's writings. In this kind of arguing, a person doesn't state his opinion explicitly but instead relies on the opponent to reason to that opinion in a round about way after being guided by specific questions.When I was reading up on it yesterday, though, I noticed that other people have slightly different views on what the Socratic Method entails. This article in Lifehacker, for example, essentially boils the method down to “questioning” as a form of “conflict resolution”. This article says that the “method focuses not so much on proving your point but on disproving the other person's point with a series of questions (elenchus), resulting in their aporia (puzzlement).” Another site emphasizes something else: “Socrates engaged in questioning of his students in an unending search for truth. He sought to get to the foundations of his students' and colleagues' views by asking continual questions until a contradiction was exposed, thus proving the fallacy of the initial assumption. This became known as the Socratic Method, and may be Socrates' most enduring contribution to philosophy.My question is whether the Socratic Method is really meant to bring someone around to a specific position, or simply to poke holes in the other's argument?
I think it's similar to the scientific method in that you keep asking questions in order to prove, disprove, or show the fallacies of something.
I have always thought the Socratic Method was a debate tactic and a way to make your opponent look like a moron.
I don't know if it's purpose is to make the opposition look like a moron, although that's quite possible (like when it comes to climate change). It could also be used to make your opponent strengthen his position further by having to dig deeper and come up with better facts.Claim 1: Something is undisputable fact Counter claim: Well what about this?Claim 1 refined: OK, maybe it's not “fact”, but it's possible it could be.etc., etc., etc.It's not so much that Claim 1 is a fool, but the counter claim does make the him look further into the facts.
I think it can be an honest approach to debating someone, and it doesn't have to be a so-called “trick up one's sleeve” to overcome the other. For example, I think it can be used when teaching (students or children) how to think through issues, BUT it's a good idea to know how to guide them from point A to point B.
It can be an honest way to talk about a problem. My point was that in my experience it is usually used to make someone look stupid. I use it on my kid all the time in an attempt to get him to realize the stupidity of some of the remarks that come out of his mouth. I have he impression lately that it is working as now he is starting to realize how dumb he sound as soon as he says some stuff. The trick now is to get him to think before he opens his mouth and makes himself look like an idiot. I am slowly getting there.
