• 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

arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...
It does work with children, if you're open to following along with them, and not sticking too rigidly to yoour own script.

But in debates, it mostly cones off as incredibly condescending.
 
Helen said:
It does work with children, if you're open to following along with them, and not sticking too rigidly to yoour own script.

But in debates, it mostly cones off as incredibly condescending.
Click to expand...
That's because in a debate, you're not actually trying to teach anyone anything.
 
arthwollipot said:
That's because in a debate, you're not actually trying to teach anyone anything.
Click to expand...
I would disagree - in a debate, both sides are supposed to teach and learn, if nothing more than the position of their opposite and what they consider convincing arguments.
 
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...
Over the history of the forum there have been several attempts to have formal and controlled "debates" in which the two people debating would have to answer questions asked by the other party. They never were successful....
 
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, I think it is a hoax for that purpose, too. I don't think anyone has ever successfully used the method to teach someone how to think.

It's all there in my OP: I think the only time it's ever actually worked has been in Plato's toy scenarios.

I think JayUtah has introduced an exception to the rule. Lawyering sometimes gets so adversarial that training to handle a Socratic style assault on the fly becomes a useful practice.

That doesn't really demonstrate the Method's value generally, because it has none.
 
Helen said:
It does work with children, if you're open to following along with them, and not sticking too rigidly to yoour own script.

But in debates, it mostly cones off as incredibly condescending.
Click to expand...
Holding a baby's hand as it consciously think about basic realities for the first time?

Yes, of course it comes off as incredibly condescending in a debate.
 
theprestige said:
/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.
Click to expand...
Like I said, not for them, for a potential audience. I have in real life used it with 9/11 truthers to decent effect. The weren't fully committed though, so there's that.
 
As an online finance tutor I find that asking questions helps me pinpoint where the student is going wrong, and once the student gets the hang of things allows them to demonstrate mastery. That said, at times it can be tedious for both student and teacher and you have to be willing to abandon the SM and more directly guide the student.
 
Yes. There's plenty of room for equivocation on the difference between clarifying questions and leading questions. Part of renouncing the Socratic Method is doing the work on yourself to understand when you're asking which kind of question, and why.
 
theprestige said:
I think JayUtah has introduced an exception to the rule. Lawyering sometimes gets so adversarial that training to handle a Socratic style assault on the fly becomes a useful practice.

That doesn't really demonstrate the Method's value generally, because it has none.
Click to expand...
The law academy aims to teach students to think quickly and critically. It currently believes the Socratic method is best at doing that. Not everyone agrees. Further, the method per se is conflated with the cold call, which isn't strictly from Socrates. Socrates would likely have allowed his students some time to think and prepare. And it seems to be the cold call that terrifies law students more than a Socratic dialogue. So I would be hard-pressed to say that law-school protocol is a true exception to a general rule. The Socratic method has been adapted and augmented to serve a practical legal education.

And since the adapted use in law schools is my only exposure to the actual practice of a Socratic dialogue (except insofar as we attempt it on this forum), I wouldn't consider myself a general authority on the subject.

In contrast we prefer to teach engineering at a more sedate, contemplative pace. In my conversations with my law professor friends, I emphasize that we don't necessarily want engineers to think on their feet. We want them to study problems methodically and thoroughly. While both enterprises are ruthlessly detail-oriented, we seem to approach them with almost diametrically opposed attitudes.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I would disagree - in a debate, both sides are supposed to teach and learn, if nothing more than the position of their opposite and what they consider convincing arguments.
Click to expand...
No, that's not the purpose of a debate. The purpose of a debate is to convince someone that you are right. The "someone" may be an audience not taking part in the debate. It has nothing to do with teaching or learning, only persuading.

theprestige said:
No, I think it is a hoax for that purpose, too. I don't think anyone has ever successfully used the method to teach someone how to think.
Click to expand...
I have. I used it with my children all the time.
 
I agree that the Socratic Method is not useful for discovering the truth or getting a clear statement out of someone, especially when I see it devolving into endless requests for definitions like a fractal.

However, I'm not sure "hoax" is the right word for what it is.
 
Ah, but then: what is a hoax?

[Socrates ducks below the barricade just before the bullets hit]
 
theprestige said:
I'm sure at least one of you is thinking, "what if I'm just asking clarifying questions; what then, smartass?"
Click to expand...
Then you pretty much answered your own question. It USED to work, as in having an honest exchange, which is valid and why we have such discussions on forums or in academia, but then at some early point in this century it MOSTLY (but not entirely) turned into the "secret Socrates" trope, where one keeps basically stating X, but pretending to just be asking.

But, as you've noted, Plato's works are basically the setup for this outcome in the first place. He can and does make the characters (which often didn't even live in the same century) say whatever he wants them to, to make his point. He's basically doing the first recorded sock-puppets.
 
arthwollipot said:
An error. A misuse. "Hoax" implies deliberate intent to mislead for some gain. Nobody is hoaxing anybody.
Click to expand...
Error? Not quite.

Sham. Since it's selling something that doesn't deliver. And it's not as forceful or deceptive as hoax or scam.
 
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