The Socratic Method is a hoax

[Manopolus]

You're misunderstanding the method as presented by Plato. It's not about finding flaws in someone else's argument. The questioner starts with a predetermined conclusion, and then walks a willing patsy through a series of scripted questions leading to that conclusion.

Or you could assume that Plato left out some questions that went nowhere for the sake of brevity and only wrote the lines of questioning that mattered. And yes, that can look exactly like starting with the conclusion.

 

[theprestige]

Or you could assume that Plato left out some questions that went nowhere for the sake of brevity and only wrote the lines of questioning that mattered. And yes, that can look exactly like starting with the conclusion.

One example is the Pythagorean theorem. Socrates - the fictional character in Plato - claims that he can prove that someone already knows something, even if they don't know they know it. Plato writes in a regular dude, some kind of uneducated laborer who's passing by. Socrates starts up a conversation, walking the passerby through the steps of a geometric proof of the Pythagorean theorem, by means of questions and answers. The conclusion to Plato's story is that not only is the Pythagorean theorem true, but the passerby knew it was true all along, if they ever thought it through.

At no point is there a debate between peers, where one person is advancing an argument - evidence, reasoning, conclusion - and the other is looking to rebut that argument with evidence, reasoning, and conclusion of their own.

My thesis is that while the SM may look good on paper for teaching Geometry Facts to Children, it's a mistake to introduce it into a reasoned debate between peers. There are two main reasons I think it's a mistake. The first is that it's condescending. The second is because it excuses your own conclusions from critical examination and rebuttal.

You think you have a solid rebuttal to the other person's claim. Instead of laying out your rebuttal for examination - evidence, reasoning, conclusion, you assume your conclusion is true, and then try to get the other person to answer your leading questions until they arrive at your conclusion. ]

Any rebuttal that can be expressed on the form of leading questions can be much more quickly, clearly, and honestly expressed as a series of concrete statements. Hiding those statements as unstated assumptions behind leading questions is a technique for avoiding honest debate.

 

[acbytesla]

Please read or re-read Plato's Euthyphro and tell me what anybody "proved" because I don't see it. Sure, there were some works of Plato where they actually came to a conclusion, but Euthyphro was not one of them. It did, however, pose a few rather interesting questions.

I disagree . It's a great dialectic. It shows the circular reason of the main argument. If you didn't get that, you missed the point.

 

[Manopolus]

I disagree . It's a great dialectic. It shows the circular reason of the main argument. If you didn't get that, you missed the point.

Well yeah, the questions were in some sense illustrative. But answering them one way or the other wasn't the point that was made. It didn't really matter which answer you preferred. The third answer theologans came up with later doesn't work, either... unless you're already fully indoctrinated.

 

[acbytesla]

Well yeah, the questions were in some sense illustrative. But answering them one way or the other wasn't the point that was made. It didn't really matter which answer you preferred. The third answer theologans came up with later doesn't work, either... unless you're already fully indoctrinated.

I got in a discussion with a preacher recently after I pointed out the evil in the Christian god. IE: The global flood, slavery, racism, sexism. He said I didn't understand. And that I couldn't judge God.

I replied that I could and do. And so did he. He s said no he didn't. So I asked him if God was good. He said of course. Then you judged him. Didn't you?

 

[TragicMonkey]

In conclusion, the Socratic Method is more of a format for presenting a (philosophical or otherwise) argument than an actual debate.

 

[bruto]

You're misunderstanding the method as presented by Plato. It's not about finding flaws in someone else's argument. The questioner starts with a predetermined conclusion, and then walks a willing patsy through a series of scripted questions leading to that conclusion.

Perhaps I said it badly. The questioner undoubtedly starts with a conclusion, and I should have said, perhaps, that he reveals the flaws in his interlocutor's argument, giving the impression that it was not scripted from the start.

 

[LSSBB]

I got in a discussion with a preacher recently after I pointed out the evil in the Christian god. IE: The global flood, slavery, racism, sexism. He said I didn't understand. And that I couldn't judge God.

I replied that I could and do. And so did he. He s said no he didn't. So I asked him if God was good. He said of course. Then you judged him. Didn't you?

He could get out of his conundrum by borrowing from Buddhism. I sincerely doubt he is willing to do that though.

 

[theprestige]

Perhaps I said it badly. The questioner undoubtedly starts with a conclusion, and I should have said, perhaps, that he reveals the flaws in his interlocutor's argument, giving the impression that it was not scripted from the start.

The Socratic Method, as depicted by Plato, was never intended to reveal flaws in someone else's argument. It was intended to reveal fundamental truths by starting from a blank slate and asking a series of scripted questions leading to that truth.

It's entirely inappropriate for "revealing" "flaws" in an argument presented by a peer.

If you want to reveal flaws in an argument, in an honest way that subjects your own arguments to the same kind of examination, you do it by making statements. Not by asking leading questions while leaving all your own evidence, reasoning, and conclusions off the table. It's rude, it's dishonest, and you should know better.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The Socratic Method, as depicted by Plato, was never intended to reveal flaws in someone else's argument. It was intended to reveal fundamental truths by starting from a blank slate and asking a series of scripted questions leading to that truth.

It's entirely inappropriate for "revealing" "flaws" in an argument presented by a peer.

If you want to reveal flaws in an argument, in an honest way that subjects your own arguments to the same kind of examination, you do it by making statements. Not by asking leading questions while leaving all your own evidence, reasoning, and conclusions off the table. It's rude, it's dishonest, and you should know better.

Indeed. Because it's a format that mimics debate, not an actual debate. Just as Dracula is an epistolary novel, not a collection of actual letters. The Blair Witch Project is a movie in the format of found footage, not actual found footage.

eta: and, this one pisses me off, The Phantom of the Opera is musical theater about an opera, it's not itself an opera.

 

[theprestige]

Indeed. Because it's a format that mimics debate, not an actual debate. Just as Dracula is an epistolary novel, not a collection of actual letters. The Blair Witch Project is a movie in the format of found footage, not actual found footage.

eta: and, this one pisses me off, The Phantom of the Opera is musical theater about an opera, it's not itself an opera.

It doesn't mimic debate. It precludes debate.

The essence of the Socratic Method is asking leading questions.

That's a terrible way to debate. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar, a subject-matter idiot, or both.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It doesn't mimic debate. It precludes debate.

The essence of the Socratic Method is asking leading questions.

That's a terrible way to debate. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar, a subject-matter idiot, or both.

I'm agreeing with you, dummy. It doesn't "preclude debate" because it couldn't be a debate even if wanted to: there's only one party involved, the author. Plato writing in that format on any topic doesn't stop me, you, or any number of ancient Greeks from debating that topic.

The problem you're complaining about is that modern people are mistaking a literary convention for a real life strategy. Like people heading into the woods with a camera and no script assuming they'll make the next found footage horror sensation, not realizing that's just a format, not a strategy. The format isn't the thing itself.

 

[theprestige]

The problem you're complaining about is that modern people are mistaking a literary convention for a real life strategy.

Not exactly. The problem I'm complaining about is people thinking that asking leading questions designed to force someone else into agreement is a toxic, anti-social, dishonest practice. It's structured on the assumption that you're right, and that you can force someone else to admit you're right without having to actually argue for your position, by asking them leading questions that suit your conclusion but don't actually open up your conclusion for debate.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Jesus Christ, it's not enough that people who do a thing you disapprove of are simply mistaken, they must be actively evil as well. I give up.

 

[acbytesla]

Not exactly. The problem I'm complaining about is people thinking that asking leading questions designed to force someone else into agreement is a toxic, anti-social, dishonest practice. It's structured on the assumption that you're right, and that you can force someone else to admit you're right without having to actually argue for your position, by asking them leading questions that suit your conclusion but don't actually open up your conclusion for debate.

There's a difference between asking leading questions and the Socratic method. More often than not I see people knowing their position is flawed and refusing to address certain questions because it exposes that flaw. Which is simply stubborn dissonance. They defend and double down instead of reevaluate.

 

[theprestige]

Jesus Christ, it's not enough that people who do a thing you disapprove of are simply mistaken, they must be actively evil as well. I give up.

As long as you give up on trying to 'win' debates by asking leading questions without exposing your own argument to examination, because it's an evil way to debate, all's well that ends well.

 

[theprestige]

There's a difference between asking leading questions and the Socratic method.

Leading questions towards a predetermined conclusion is literally what the Socratic Method is.

More often than not I see people knowing their position is flawed and refusing to address certain questions because it exposes that flaw.

Yeah. People know when they're being railroaded. People know when you're trying to force them into agreeing with you. They don't like it.

My prescription for you is this: Stop trying to ask questions with answers that you think will prove you right. If you can see a flaw in their argument, lay it out for them via your own rebuttal, and then let them and the audience decide for themselves who has the better argument.

Stop trying to force people to fill out your special questionnaire that makes them concede defeat.

Which is simply stubborn dissonance. They defend and double down instead of reevaluate.

It's not your right or privilege to make them reevaluate. Stop trying to force it.

@TragicMonkey - this is why I say use of the Socratic Method in debate is actively evil. The person using it is not interested in presenting their case and letting the audience make up their own minds. The person using it is interested in winning the debate, and not only winning it, but forcing the other person to concede defeat. This is in addition to the other way it's actively evil, in that by design it hides the methodist's own arguments from examination and rebuttal. It's a more complex, anti-social form of begging the question.

And no, I don't think anyone who uses the method in a debate is doing so by mistake. I think it's very much an informed choice, to try to force someone to change their mind against their will, and to try to do so without exposing one's own arguments to examination and the risk of rebuttal.

 

[acbytesla]

Leading questions towards a predetermined conclusion is literally what the Socratic Method is.

No, it's not. The Socratic method is involving the students in dialogue so the lesson sticks as opposed to being put to sleep listening to a teacher drone on.

Yeah. People know when they're being railroaded. People know when you're trying to force them into agreeing with you. They don't like it.

It's not about railroading anyone. It's a teaching method. If you are ignorant and determined to stay ignorant then yes,it might feel that way.

My prescription for you is this: Stop trying to ask questions with answers that you think will prove you right. If you can see a flaw in their argument, lay it out for them via your own rebuttal, and then let them and the audience decide for themselves who has the better argument.

Again, the Socratic method is a tried and true teaching method. It's not a debate tactic. If you're a creationist determined not to learn about evolution, it won't matter if the teacher employs the Socratic method or lectures, you will have the opportunity to remain a moron.

Stop trying to force people to fill out your special questionnaire that makes them concede defeat.

Stop pretending there aren't questions that have correct and wrong answers.

It's not your right or privilege to make them reevaluate. Stop trying to force it.

You can't force it. Willfully ignorant people will remain ignorant.

@TragicMonkey - this is why I say use of the Socratic Method in debate is actively evil. The person using it is not interested in presenting their case and letting the audience make up their own minds. The person using it is interested in winning the debate, and not only winning it, but forcing the other person to concede defeat. This is in addition to the other way it's actively evil, in that by design it hides the methodist's own arguments from examination and rebuttal. It's a more complex, anti-social form of begging the question.

And no, I don't think anyone who uses the method in a debate is doing so by mistake. I think it's very much an informed choice, to try to force someone to change their mind against their will, and to try to do so without exposing one's own arguments to examination and the risk of rebuttal.

No, it's not evil. Evil is something Hannibal Lecter does. Not a teacher trying to keep their students minds thinking about the subject.

 

[arthwollipot]

You're misunderstanding the method as presented by Plato. It's not about finding flaws in someone else's argument. The questioner starts with a predetermined conclusion, and then walks a willing patsy through a series of scripted questions leading to that conclusion.

And then walks a student, whom he is teaching, through a series of scripted questions. It's not about argumentation. It's about pedagogy. I don't know how many times I need to say this.

Or you could assume that Plato left out some questions that went nowhere for the sake of brevity and only wrote the lines of questioning that mattered. And yes, that can look exactly like starting with the conclusion.

Or, how about this, it's about teaching students how to come to the conclusion themselves.

One example is the Pythagorean theorem. Socrates - the fictional character in Plato - claims that he can prove that someone already knows something, even if they don't know they know it. Plato writes in a regular dude, some kind of uneducated laborer who's passing by. Socrates starts up a conversation, walking the passerby through the steps of a geometric proof of the Pythagorean theorem, by means of questions and answers. The conclusion to Plato's story is that not only is the Pythagorean theorem true, but the passerby knew it was true all along, if they ever thought it through.

At no point is there a debate between peers, where one person is advancing an argument - evidence, reasoning, conclusion - and the other is looking to rebut that argument with evidence, reasoning, and conclusion of their own.

It's not about advancing an argument! It's about demonstrating how a person learns. There's no debate about the Pythagorean theorem.

My thesis is that while the SM may look good on paper for teaching Geometry Facts to Children, it's a mistake to introduce it into a reasoned debate between peers.

Yes! Anyone who tries to use it that way is using the wrong tool.

 

[arthwollipot]

You think you have a solid rebuttal to the other person's claim. Instead of laying out your rebuttal for examination - evidence, reasoning, conclusion, you assume your conclusion is true, and then try to get the other person to answer your leading questions until they arrive at your conclusion. ]

Any rebuttal that can be expressed on the form of leading questions can be much more quickly, clearly, and honestly expressed as a series of concrete statements. Hiding those statements as unstated assumptions behind leading questions is a technique for avoiding honest debate.

What is the purpose of honest debate? Is it to convince someone else of your point of view? Or is it to teach someone something that they didn't know - or in the case of your example that they knew without knowing how they knew?

Any rebuttal that can be expressed on the form of leading questions can be much more quickly, clearly, and honestly expressed as a series of concrete statements. Hiding those statements as unstated assumptions behind leading questions is a technique for avoiding honest debate.

A series of concrete statements is no more convincing than saying "I'm right and you're wrong". If you're being honest about the purpose of debate, the idea is to allow them to understand why they're wrong and you're right, and the best way to do that is to treat it like a learning experience.

The Socratic Method, as depicted by Plato, was never intended to reveal flaws in someone else's argument. It was intended to reveal fundamental truths by starting from a blank slate and asking a series of scripted questions leading to that truth.

It's entirely inappropriate for "revealing" "flaws" in an argument presented by a peer.

Again, you're grasping entirely the wrong end of the stick here. I don't want to go out on a limb and say that you're egregiously misunderstanding Plato, but it sure looks like you are.