• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Socratic Method is a hoax

theprestige

Penultimate Amazing
theprestige
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
84,840
Location
The Antimemetics Division
I don't think the Socratic Method works. I don't think the Socratic Method has ever worked. I think the only time we see the Socratic Method work is in Plato, where it only works because meticulously creates toy scenarios consisting of two NPCs whose only job is to make it look like the Method works. I think reading Plato to see how didactic inquiry is supposed to work is like reading John Grisham to see how jury trials are supposed to work.

I think the Wikipedia intro sums up the problem quite nicely: "The Socratic Method a form of argumentative dialogue in which an individual probes a conversation partner on a topic, using questions and clarifications, until the partner is pressed to come to a conclusion on their own, or else their reasoning breaks down and they are forced to admit ignorance."

People know when they're in an argument. People know when they're being asked leading questions. People know when someone is trying to force them into a predetermined conclusion. They don't like it, with good reason. They resist it, with good reason. In the end, you spend more time and effort trying to construct and maintain the perfect rhetorical cage for another person's thoughts, than you do just making your own best argument, and letting them decide for themselves whether they agree.

The Socratic Method is a ham-fisted, time-wasting, goodwill-destroying attempt at forcing agreement with a predetermined conclusion. This will never work in a debate between peers. Nor should it. A debate between peers is no place for this kind of didactic coercion. A debate between peers is the place for each debator to make their best argument, and rest their case.

The only time the Method could be anything else, is in a perfect didactic setting, with one teacher, one or more cooperative students, and an established truth that the students can be led to reason towards. You can teach the Pythagorean Theorem this way, to a cooperative student but it's probably easier and more effective to just demonstrate the proof and have them work on some sample problems. And if they're uncooperative? Forget about it. They'll never sit still for the entire series of toy questions, the answers of which make up the irrefutable argument one step at a time.


Any time you see someone on this forum try to start up a Socratic dialog, you can be sure you're in for several days of leading questions from someone who would rather waste time than ever just make their best argument and let you decide for yourself whether you agree.

I think the real reason the Athenians made Socrates drink hemlock was not because he questioned the gods, but because he questioned the gods.


Not only is the Socratic Method a Platonic scam in its own right, it also leads to another rhetorical parasite: the Pseudosocratic Dialog. You probably already know about the practice of "just asking questions" or "JAQing off". Instead of using the Method as an idealized tool for reaching an established truth, JAQ uses the method to try to drag you away from established truths.

People also use it because they think it works, and they think its workings consist entirely of asking leading questions. The reality is that what makes the Method work (on paper) is the existence of a well-established truth, and the meticulous laying of a breadcrumb path of questions that lead a cooperative partner to that truth. People are waaay to comfortable making up questions on the fly, without ever bothering to examine if they actually lead to the predetermined conclusion, or whether that conclusion is actually true.

You will also see it used as a kind of rhetorical ink, asking questions to distract you, while scuttling back to the bailey or back under the bridge.


What can be done about all this? Here is my prescription.

Name the behavior when you see it. Refuse to participate. Invite the questioner to skip the contrived leading questions, and get straight to the conclusion they're trying to lead to, the argument they're trying to make. If you think it will help, remind them that sometimes people just won't agree, no matter how good their arguments are, and that's okay.
 
I'm sure at least one of you is thinking, "what if I'm just asking clarifying questions; what then, smartass?"

I'm afraid I don't have a rigid taxonomy for you, to help distinguish between good-faith clarifying questions, and bad-faith leading questions. I suggest that, as for a lot of things, all knowledge must start with self-knowledge. The next time you're forming a question, in a debate between peers, ask yourself, "am I forming a clarifying question so I can understand their argument better, or am I forming a leading question to try to constrain their ability to disagree with me?"
 
As you said, the "Method" presupposes that there is an agreed upon role allocation of "teacher" and "student". The argument can end either with the Student convinced or not, but the Teacher is not expected to change their opinion no matter what.

That it's because it's not an actual argument, but a didactic trick to put A Reader who wants to learn from The Author in the position of Student who might or might not be convinced by the written argument - but the text of the book won't change even if the argument made within is flawed.
 
The problem I see with the Socratic method as a debate strategy is that it presumes good faith.

I'm more familiar with the Socratic method as a way of teaching law, where it serves more to build skills in lawyers than it may serve to teach principles. Of course there the law professor is presumed to act in good faith even if she takes up a contrary (and sometimes irrational) position. The goal at the end is for the student to gain skill and confidence is identifying those flaws. But I have seen it be traumatic in the beginning. There's a particular stairwell at my nearby law school where first-year students go to cry after a particularly grueling Socratic experience.

But the narrow goal there—which doesn't necessarily apply elsewhere—is to teach lawyers to think critically on their feet in a split second. Being cold-called and forced to challenge or defend a point is sort of the equivalent of being taught to swim by being thrown bodily into the deep end. But there is a method to the madness. There's the dialectic, to be sure, which mimics the intellectual aspects of the practice of law. But then there is also the pressure of time and circumstance.

But that's why it's done in law school. I don't know if that justifies its use anywhere else either as a teaching method or a debate framework.
 
JayUtah said:
The problem I see with the Socratic method as a debate strategy is that it presumes good faith.
Click to expand...
Whereas the problem I see with it as a debate strategy was that it was never conceived, designed, or presented as a debate strategy. It was presented as a theory of inquisitorial didactics. It does presume good faith, in the context of the classroom, where learning necessarily depends in large part on the good faith efforts of student and teacher alike.

It was never intended to be used in the context of adversarial debate, even assuming good faith.
 
theprestige said:
It does presume good faith, in the context of the classroom, where learning necessarily depends in large part on the good faith efforts of student and teacher alike.

It was never intended to be used in the context of adversarial debate, even assuming good faith.
Click to expand...
Some of the principles apply to cross examinations in court. A cross examination is a kind of debate. The lawyer attempts to challenge the statements of a witness by probing inconsistencies or illogic. "Pinioning" a witness is an art; I think it's closely related to Socratic dialogue. The judge is there to enforce the outward trappings of good faith, even if the people in question could not possibly be more at odds. The lawyer is limited in what kinds of questions may be asked. The witness is compelled to answer.
 
The problem with the Socratic (or 'Gotcha!') method is that it relies on getting the 'right' answers to move forward. Watching people try it on this forum and in the real world suggests that very rarely happens.
 
SteveAitch said:
The problem with the Socratic (or 'Gotcha!') method is that it relies on getting the 'right' answers to move forward.
Click to expand...
Or getting any answer. Too often in this forum attempts to pinion someone Socratically result simply in the other person clamming up and ignoring the questions they realize require answers that are uncomfortable to the claim at hand. This is why a witness in court is compelled to answer a lawful question under penalty of contempt. Out here in the anonymous wild, mild embarrassment is the only penalty for not playing along.

But yes, that does tend to support the characterization of Socratic debate as an ultimately pointless intellectual exercise. Everyone has to play nice and respect the exercise.
 
JayUtah said:
Or getting any answer. Too often in this forum attempts to pinion someone Socratically result simply in the other person clamming up and ignoring the questions they realize require answers that are uncomfortable to the claim at hand. This is why a witness in court is compelled to answer a lawful question under penalty of contempt. Out here in the anonymous wild, mild embarrassment is the only penalty for not playing along.

But yes, that does tend to support the characterization of Socratic debate as an ultimately pointless intellectual exercise. Everyone has to play nice and respect the exercise.
Click to expand...
I would guess that even that doesn't guarantee getting the 'right' answer.

Especially if the witness pleads the 5th.
 
I think it's useful when talking to conspiracy theorists. More getting the theorist to demonstrate the flaws for the audience, they won't change their minds but maybe some folks won't believe in the first place.

ETA: I also think that sometimes, genuine attempts at clarification are perceived as someone attempting the socratic method, sealioning, or strawmaning. Some times folks genuinely don't understand what I'm trying to say.

ETAA: I know, you are thinking, how is that possible, but I assure you, it does happen as hard as that is to believe.
 
Last edited:
Nietzsche didn't care for it much, either. I wouldn't blame it for the downfall of civilization and the encrapification of intellectualism for the whole of subsequent history like he did, but it does frequently seem to be a favored method of sneering bullies. And even when it's done nicely it comes across as patronizing.
 
ahhell said:
I think it's useful when talking to conspiracy theorists. More getting the theorist to demonstrate the flaws for the audience, they won't change their minds but maybe some folks won't believe in the first place.

ETA: I also think that sometimes, genuine attempts at clarification are perceived as someone attempting the socratic method, sealioning, or strawmaning. Some times folks genuinely don't understand what I'm trying to say.

ETAA: I know, you are thinking, how is that possible, but I assure you, it does happen as hard as that is to believe.
Click to expand...
From what I've observed, it's not worth the effort. They don't actually reply, not the way you'd like. The utility of the Method is entirely aspirational. The idea that it's useful for talking to conspiracy theorists is exactly what I'm saying is a hoax.
 
I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with the Socratic method. Like TP said, in practice in needs people conversing in good faith. A lot of the questions become variations of "when did you stop beating your wife" and answers that are lies or obtuse.
 
theprestige said:
I don't think the Socratic Method works...

People know when they're in an argument. People know when they're being asked leading questions. People know when someone is trying to force them into a predetermined conclusion. They don't like it, with good reason. They resist it, with good reason. In the end, you spend more time and effort trying to construct and maintain the perfect rhetorical cage for another person's thoughts, than you do just making your own best argument, and letting them decide for themselves whether they agree.

The Socratic Method is a ham-fisted, time-wasting, goodwill-destroying attempt at forcing agreement with a predetermined conclusion. This will never work in a debate between peers. Nor should it.
Click to expand...
You assume the purpose is to bring someone around to your way of thinking, but what if the real reason is just to boost your ego? What if being a smart-ass is more important to you than obtaining a consensus? What if you enjoy browbeating people and don't want them to just agree with you? What if resisting is part of the game?

You say it's a waste of time, yet here we are wasting our time arguing when we could be doing something more useful. Furthermore your own argument is an example of the Socratic method you purport to despise.
 
theprestige said:
Whereas the problem I see with it as a debate strategy was that it was never conceived, designed, or presented as a debate strategy. It was presented as a theory of inquisitorial didactics. It does presume good faith, in the context of the classroom, where learning necessarily depends in large part on the good faith efforts of student and teacher alike.

It was never intended to be used in the context of adversarial debate, even assuming good faith.
Click to expand...
Correct. I believe that it was intended as a teaching tool, to help a student come to the conclusions that the teacher wants them to learn. Because it is more effective than simply telling someone what the conclusions are supposed to be. It helps a student to understand why the conclusion is so and how the act of reasoning informs it.

In short, you use Socratic reasoning to teach someone how to think, rather than what to think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom