The Art of Civilized Argument

[CO. Hoosier]

George Will on the Socratic Method:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/31/harvard-classics-socrates-how-to-argue/

This is the best thing I’ve read in years. Read the whole thing.

So much, if not all, of what is wrong with society, government, and and the Cooler Will describes in this piece. As noted, social media has become an accelerant for failure. but the underlying cause is our turning disagreements into moral preening, judgement, rejections and cancellations. Will is spot on by observing that failure to instruct in the basic ideas of this, because they are part of Western Culture, dumbs down all of us. The ideas in the piece ought to be drummed into students at the earliest possible time. I really haven’t thought about the connection between civilized argument and democracy, but the connection is obvious, particularly for those few whom we elect to represent us.

The Socratic method, although argumentative, is more oblique than adversarial. It amiably poses probing, leading questions to clarify the definitions of terms and to test the links in chains of reasoning. It is what public discourse in today’s America does not resemble.​

​

Social media, Farnsworth writes, amount to “a campus on which atrocious habits of discourse are taught” with “sad and sometimes calamitous” consequences. Social media, he says, exacerbate some dangerous susceptibilities — to demagoguery and moral vanity — that are neither new nor entirely expungable. The Socratic method decelerates reasoning, making space for deliberation when disagreements arise. So, the Socratic method is, Farnsworth says, an antidote to some social pandemics of our day — “fury, ostracism, etc.” These vices “are embedded in human nature” but social media are powerful accelerants of them.​

“Socratic habits,” Farnsworth writes, “require patience to develop and use.” They are not developed using “technologies that encourage quick reactions in short bursts” and that foment a cultural shift away from the patience of persuasion.​

​

Thanks to Montás and Farnsworth, Socrates had a good 2021. As another year of acrimony slinks away, remember what he demonstrated, and what a U.S. senator (Daniel Webster) supposedly said: “Anger is not an argument.​

 

[mcmurtry66]

George Will on the Socratic Method:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/31/harvard-classics-socrates-how-to-argue/

This is the best thing I’ve read in years. Read the whole thing.

So much, if not all, of what is wrong with society, government, and and the Cooler Will describes in this piece. As noted, social media has become an accelerant for failure. but the underlying cause is our turning disagreements into moral preening, judgement, rejections and cancellations. Will is spot on by observing that failure to instruct in the basic ideas of this, because they are part of Western Culture, dumbs down all of us. The ideas in the piece ought to be drummed into students at the earliest possible time. I really haven’t thought about the connection between civilized argument and democracy, but the connection is obvious, particularly for those few whom we elect to represent us.

The Socratic method, although argumentative, is more oblique than adversarial. It amiably poses probing, leading questions to clarify the definitions of terms and to test the links in chains of reasoning. It is what public discourse in today’s America does not resemble.​

​

Social media, Farnsworth writes, amount to “a campus on which atrocious habits of discourse are taught” with “sad and sometimes calamitous” consequences. Social media, he says, exacerbate some dangerous susceptibilities — to demagoguery and moral vanity — that are neither new nor entirely expungable. The Socratic method decelerates reasoning, making space for deliberation when disagreements arise. So, the Socratic method is, Farnsworth says, an antidote to some social pandemics of our day — “fury, ostracism, etc.” These vices “are embedded in human nature” but social media are powerful accelerants of them.​

“Socratic habits,” Farnsworth writes, “require patience to develop and use.” They are not developed using “technologies that encourage quick reactions in short bursts” and that foment a cultural shift away from the patience of persuasion.​

​

Thanks to Montás and Farnsworth, Socrates had a good 2021. As another year of acrimony slinks away, remember what he demonstrated, and what a U.S. senator (Daniel Webster) supposedly said: “Anger is not an argument.​

You LOVE Socrates you old dinosaur lol. This was a good read, and interesting. As noted, 140 words or less and the assault on our senses occasioned by tech makes drawn out communication a relic. I literally can see my daughter's body tense up when I talk to her as she's dying to scream HURRY UP (or SHUT UP).

In keeping with this people don't think for themselves anymore. They have so much access to info that's constantly being spoon-fed to them they just regurgitate instead of thinking, critically and independently.

The redeeming thing, to the extent there is one, is that they all understand each other inasmuch as that's how they all communicate.

Finally I'll add that I got my degree in political science. I lifted weights with a prof from Boston who taught most of the political philosophy courses so that was my emphasis. I took every one offered. With tuition north of 50k a year at most universities personal edification is a luxury most don't have anymore. Vocational majors/minors are now a necessity.

So tech, the American Dream slipping away, and exorbitant tuition demanding that one go into career oriented majors combine to make the Socratic Method on the cusp of extinction, sadly. Hmmm. Maybe we can at least find more politicians who wrestle

 

[hoot1]

In our democracy (I.e., federal constitutional republic) voters elect representatives who solve problems with policies which may or may not be the right answer as called for in the Socratic method.

Those running for office offer policy choices and we pick the candidate whose policies appear to come closest to being a solution to the problem. Only through trial and error can our elected representatives finally come close to a more correct solution.

In addition, because of change and new problems making old solutions no longer effective finding new and better solutions gives rise to more trial and error.

In order to have alternative choices it is vital we have parties and office seekers with differing views. Differing opinions often require compromise. Compromise along with trial and error is usually better than letting a problem fester.

Today we are so divided and unwilling to compromise, especially at the federal level, that the pile of festering problems continues to grow.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

In our democracy (I.e., federal constitutional republic) voters elect representatives who solve problems with policies which may or may not be the right answer as called for in the Socratic method.

Those running for office offer policy choices and we pick the candidate whose policies appear to come closest to being a solution to the problem. Only through trial and error can our elected representatives finally come close to a more correct solution.

In addition, because of change and new problems making old solutions no longer effective finding new and better solutions gives rise to more trial and error.

In order to have alternative choices it is vital we have parties and office seekers with differing views. Differing opinions often require compromise. Compromise along with trial and error is usually better than letting a problem fester.

Today we are so divided and unwilling to compromise, especially at the federal level, that the pile of festering problems continues to grow.

I don’t think the Socratic method calls for a right answer. The best answer maybe. The SM is most useful in coming to a decision after considering different variables. It isn’t very useful to detrimene whether a driver had a red or green light before the collision.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You LOVE Socrates you old dinosaur lol. This was a good read, and interesting. As noted, 140 words or less and the assault on our senses occasioned by tech makes drawn out communication a relic. I literally can see my daughter's body tense up when I talk to her as she's dying to scream HURRY UP (or SHUT UP).

In keeping with this people don't think for themselves anymore. They have so much access to info that's constantly being spoon-fed to them they just regurgitate instead of thinking, critically and independently.

The redeeming thing, to the extent there is one, is that they all understand each other inasmuch as that's how they all communicate.

Finally I'll add that I got my degree in political science. I lifted weights with a prof from Boston who taught most of the political philosophy courses so that was my emphasis. I took every one offered. With tuition north of 50k a year at most universities personal edification is a luxury most don't have anymore. Vocational majors/minors are now a necessity.

So tech, the American Dream slipping away, and exorbitant tuition demanding that one go into career oriented majors combine to make the Socratic Method on the cusp of extinction, sadly. Hmmm. Maybe we can at least find more politicians who wrestle

Tech certainly makes non-thinking easier. Teaching how to think and how to debate in elementary school makes for a better overall education and less adult acrimony than teaching about CRT or why Johnny has two moms and no dad.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Tech certainly makes non-thinking easier. Teaching how to think and how to debate in elementary school makes for a better overall education and less adult acrimony than teaching about CRT or why Johnny has two moms and no dad.

I think your expectations of elementary school are a few rungs above reality at this point

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think your expectations of elementary school are a few rungs above reality at this point

I dunno. Some districts are teaching about racism, diversity, inclusion etc, Without also teaching the basics of Socratic thinking, the former becomes indoctrination, not education.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

You LOVE Socrates you old dinosaur lol. This was a good read, and interesting. As noted, 140 words or less and the assault on our senses occasioned by tech makes drawn out communication a relic. I literally can see my daughter's body tense up when I talk to her as she's dying to scream HURRY UP (or SHUT UP).

In keeping with this people don't think for themselves anymore. They have so much access to info that's constantly being spoon-fed to them they just regurgitate instead of thinking, critically and independently.

The redeeming thing, to the extent there is one, is that they all understand each other inasmuch as that's how they all communicate.

Finally I'll add that I got my degree in political science. I lifted weights with a prof from Boston who taught most of the political philosophy courses so that was my emphasis. I took every one offered. With tuition north of 50k a year at most universities personal edification is a luxury most don't have anymore. Vocational majors/minors are now a necessity.

So tech, the American Dream slipping away, and exorbitant tuition demanding that one go into career oriented majors combine to make the Socratic Method on the cusp of extinction, sadly. Hmmm. Maybe we can at least find more politicians who wrestl

I agree that Twitter, social media, et al. are hurting thinking and public discourse. I think it has A LOT to do with the limitations of the medium and the number of characters allowed.

Look at the posts on here: most are short. With that, you lose nuance and if you feel you have to put everything into ten words (or want to out of laziness), the easiest way to get your point across is not to attempt persuasion, with facts, but to name call or just state a moral declaration that the other person or idea is "bad." Twitter and message board responses like this are an emotivist's wet dream:

Emotivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I agree that Twitter, social media, et al. are hurting thinking and public discourse. I think it has A LOT to do with the limitations of the medium and the number of characters allowed.

Look at the posts on here: most are short. With that, you lose nuance and if you feel you have to put everything into ten words (or want to out of laziness), the easiest way to get your point across is not to attempt persuasion, with facts, but to name call or just state a moral declaration that the other person or idea is "bad." Twitter and message board responses like this are an emotivist's wet dream:

Emotivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My stoker, who taught Jr. High students, has a theory about Sesame Street. SS delivered its messages in short entertaining bursts. That had an effect in how youngsters acqure, process, and apply information. That carried through to adulthood.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

My stoker, who taught Jr. High students, has a theory about Sesame Street. SS delivered its messages in short entertaining bursts. That had an effect in how youngsters acqure, process, and apply information. That carried through to adulthood.

I think it might be required for toddlers. But look at Fred Rogers: he spoke and acted slowly on his show, giving kids time to react and understand. It also came with a calming effect. We need more Fred Rogers in this country.

In fact, this thread just made me stumble on my hypothetical perfect man: a combo of Socrates and Mr. Rogers!

 

[HillzHoozier]

This thread is racist.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I agree that Twitter, social media, et al. are hurting thinking and public discourse. I think it has A LOT to do with the limitations of the medium and the number of characters allowed.

Look at the posts on here: most are short. With that, you lose nuance and if you feel you have to put everything into ten words (or want to out of laziness), the easiest way to get your point across is not to attempt persuasion, with facts, but to name call or just state a moral declaration that the other person or idea is "bad." Twitter and message board responses like this are an emotivist's wet dream:

Emotivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For sure. For many of us, myself lol, unfortunately, this board isn't conducive to developed thoughts/writing/responses. I really do love this board, because it's something I can quickly look at in the meantime and in between time, leave a quick and dirty drive by post, and get back to work. I find it more entertaining than internet stories, which also take too long.

A few posters I will take the time to read, when I do, very few. You're one.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

George Will on the Socratic Method:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/31/harvard-classics-socrates-how-to-argue/

This is the best thing I’ve read in years. Read the whole thing.

So much, if not all, of what is wrong with society, government, and and the Cooler Will describes in this piece. As noted, social media has become an accelerant for failure. but the underlying cause is our turning disagreements into moral preening, judgement, rejections and cancellations. Will is spot on by observing that failure to instruct in the basic ideas of this, because they are part of Western Culture, dumbs down all of us. The ideas in the piece ought to be drummed into students at the earliest possible time. I really haven’t thought about the connection between civilized argument and democracy, but the connection is obvious, particularly for those few whom we elect to represent us.

The Socratic method, although argumentative, is more oblique than adversarial. It amiably poses probing, leading questions to clarify the definitions of terms and to test the links in chains of reasoning. It is what public discourse in today’s America does not resemble.​

​

Social media, Farnsworth writes, amount to “a campus on which atrocious habits of discourse are taught” with “sad and sometimes calamitous” consequences. Social media, he says, exacerbate some dangerous susceptibilities — to demagoguery and moral vanity — that are neither new nor entirely expungable. The Socratic method decelerates reasoning, making space for deliberation when disagreements arise. So, the Socratic method is, Farnsworth says, an antidote to some social pandemics of our day — “fury, ostracism, etc.” These vices “are embedded in human nature” but social media are powerful accelerants of them.​

“Socratic habits,” Farnsworth writes, “require patience to develop and use.” They are not developed using “technologies that encourage quick reactions in short bursts” and that foment a cultural shift away from the patience of persuasion.​

​

Thanks to Montás and Farnsworth, Socrates had a good 2021. As another year of acrimony slinks away, remember what he demonstrated, and what a U.S. senator (Daniel Webster) supposedly said: “Anger is not an argument.​

Dumb!

 

[hoot1]

I don’t think the Socratic method calls for a right answer. The best answer maybe. The SM is most useful in coming to a decision after considering different variables. It isn’t very useful to detrimene whether a driver had a red or green light before the collision.

CoH, you say "best" answer and I say "right" answer. Not much disagreement here as I see it.

It is when the Socratic Method is suggested as a method which a democracy such as ours is the path to follow in deciding our future that I question.

May work in a classroom with a teacher manipulating the questions to arrive at his preconceived best or right answer.

However, in the real world of a politically divided country trying to find either the right or best answers, it is a pipe dream.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

George Will on the Socratic Method:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/31/harvard-classics-socrates-how-to-argue/

This is the best thing I’ve read in years. Read the whole thing.

So much, if not all, of what is wrong with society, government, and and the Cooler Will describes in this piece. As noted, social media has become an accelerant for failure. but the underlying cause is our turning disagreements into moral preening, judgement, rejections and cancellations. Will is spot on by observing that failure to instruct in the basic ideas of this, because they are part of Western Culture, dumbs down all of us. The ideas in the piece ought to be drummed into students at the earliest possible time. I really haven’t thought about the connection between civilized argument and democracy, but the connection is obvious, particularly for those few whom we elect to represent us.

The Socratic method, although argumentative, is more oblique than adversarial. It amiably poses probing, leading questions to clarify the definitions of terms and to test the links in chains of reasoning. It is what public discourse in today’s America does not resemble.​

​

Social media, Farnsworth writes, amount to “a campus on which atrocious habits of discourse are taught” with “sad and sometimes calamitous” consequences. Social media, he says, exacerbate some dangerous susceptibilities — to demagoguery and moral vanity — that are neither new nor entirely expungable. The Socratic method decelerates reasoning, making space for deliberation when disagreements arise. So, the Socratic method is, Farnsworth says, an antidote to some social pandemics of our day — “fury, ostracism, etc.” These vices “are embedded in human nature” but social media are powerful accelerants of them.​

“Socratic habits,” Farnsworth writes, “require patience to develop and use.” They are not developed using “technologies that encourage quick reactions in short bursts” and that foment a cultural shift away from the patience of persuasion.​

​

Thanks to Montás and Farnsworth, Socrates had a good 2021. As another year of acrimony slinks away, remember what he demonstrated, and what a U.S. senator (Daniel Webster) supposedly said: “Anger is not an argument.​

In all seriousness, the thing about the Socratic Method is that it is primarily useful for falsifying unwarranted claims. It's less useful for supporting warranted ones. As such, I agree it is a method that should be more widely employed. People don't question their own assumptions nearly enough, and the SM is a great tool for doing that. But it's also just one tool.

Socrates himself* was a bit of a rabble-rouser. He liked to demonstrate why others were wrong. Liked it so much, it got him killed. But he was never really good at demonstrating why he was right. We need other methods for that. If we rely too much on the SM, we devolve into solipsism and nihilism.

* Or, rather, "Socrates as Plato presents him."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

In all seriousness, the thing about the Socratic Method is that it is primarily useful for falsifying unwarranted claims. It's less useful for supporting warranted ones. As such, I agree it is a method that should be more widely employed. People don't question their own assumptions nearly enough, and the SM is a great tool for doing that. But it's also just one tool.

Socrates himself* was a bit of a rabble-rouser. He liked to demonstrate why others were wrong. Liked it so much, it got him killed. But he was never really good at demonstrating why he was right. We need other methods for that. If we rely too much on the SM, we devolve into solipsism and nihilism.

* Or, rather, "Socrates as Plato presents him."

In my experience, SM has never been used to either falsify or support claims. it was a way to think about concepts. One of my most vivid memories in law school is how our torts prof used SM to get us to think about proximate cause and how to analyze foreeability In the context of Palsgraf. I also remember SM classes about consequential damages as compared to the benefit of the bargain rule in contracts. The evidence professor, who was also very good with SM, used it with effect in teaching exceptions to the hearsay rule.

SM is a way of thinking and arriving at opinions and conclusions. It has everyday uses. SM either with others or as solitaire is a way to test opinions. SM constantly splits hairs. It’s not about whats correct or incorrect.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

CoH, you say "best" answer and I say "right" answer. Not much disagreement here as I see it.

It is when the Socratic Method is suggested as a method which a democracy such as ours is the path to follow in deciding our future that I question.

May work in a classroom with a teacher manipulating the questions to arrive at his preconceived best or right answer.

However, in the real world of a politically divided country trying to find either the right or best answers, it is a pipe dream.

The problem with our policy debates as now performed is that too many think they are correct. There is no correct in so many questions. There can only be a process to arrive at the best. The debate over BB is a perfect example. There iare no civilized arguments. The debate boils down to agree with me or GFY.

 

[NPT]

I agree that Twitter, social media, et al. are hurting thinking and public discourse. I think it has A LOT to do with the limitations of the medium and the number of characters allowed.

Look at the posts on here: most are short. With that, you lose nuance and if you feel you have to put everything into ten words (or want to out of laziness), the easiest way to get your point across is not to attempt persuasion, with facts, but to name call or just state a moral declaration that the other person or idea is "bad." Twitter and message board responses like this are an emotivist's wet dream:

Emotivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The biggest problem with social media is that the debaters are sitting at a keyboard and not face to face. JMO They can be tough guys or assholes when sitting at a keyboard whereas most would be that way face to face. And you are correct that most posts are short and a lot of people (I'm one) are just not good at expressing themselves writing. There are some good writers on here (you, goat, CoH, McM, and others) and others just default to one or two line snarks and that doesn't make for good debate. When Buzz was around I remember him, Rock, and maybe CoH and goat getting into debates about the constitution and those debates were interesting to read because they were in a civilized manner.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

The biggest problem with social media is that the debaters are sitting at a keyboard and not face to face. JMO They can be tough guys or assholes when sitting at a keyboard whereas most would be that way face to face. And you are correct that most posts are short and a lot of people (I'm one) are just not good at expressing themselves writing. There are some good writers on here (you, goat, CoH, McM, and others) and others just default to one or two line snarks and that doesn't make for good debate. When Buzz was around I remember him, Rock, and maybe CoH and goat getting into debates about the constitution and those debates were interesting to read because they were in a civilized manner.

TL/DR

(jk...your writing is fine)

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The biggest problem with social media is that the debaters are sitting at a keyboard and not face to face. JMO They can be tough guys or assholes when sitting at a keyboard whereas most would be that way face to face. And you are correct that most posts are short and a lot of people (I'm one) are just not good at expressing themselves writing. There are some good writers on here (you, goat, CoH, McM, and others) and others just default to one or two line snarks and that doesn't make for good debate. When Buzz was around I remember him, Rock, and maybe CoH and goat getting into debates about the constitution and those debates were interesting to read because they were in a civilized manner.

Absolutely the degrees of separation and sometimes anonymity amplify the lack of civility. But there are at least two problems here. Lack of civility is one. Lack of thinking and deep discourse another.

Maybe they go hand in hand? Amplify each other? I’m not sure. I think you could have four quadrants with these two variables pretty easily: civilized-deep debate, uncivilized-deep debate, civilized-shallow debate, and uncivilized-shallow debate.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The biggest problem with social media is that the debaters are sitting at a keyboard and not face to face. JMO They can be tough guys or assholes when sitting at a keyboard whereas most would be that way face to face. And you are correct that most posts are short and a lot of people (I'm one) are just not good at expressing themselves writing. There are some good writers on here (you, goat, CoH, McM, and others) and others just default to one or two line snarks and that doesn't make for good debate. When Buzz was around I remember him, Rock, and maybe CoH and goat getting into debates about the constitution and those debates were interesting to read because they were in a civilized manner.

One thing that has changed since Buzz is that Buzz didn't feel the purpose was to convert people to a cause. Once we keyboard warriors decide our role is to ensure our side wins, everything goes to hell.

The problem with Socratic is that in a classroom with someone to steer it and with that person also deciding how much time is going to be spent, it might work. The professor wants to spend 12 hours delving into the minutiae of something, the students have little choice. And it is expected. Here, if someone presents a case that BBB will create inflation, they probably don't want to get bogged down for 12 hours debating some barely connected tangent to their main theme. And often people choose to debate said tangent because they don't have an answer to the main theme so they are deflecting and distracting.

 

[mcmurtry66]

One thing that has changed since Buzz is that Buzz didn't feel the purpose was to convert people to a cause. Once we keyboard warriors decide our role is to ensure our side wins, everything goes to hell.

The problem with Socratic is that in a classroom with someone to steer it and with that person also deciding how much time is going to be spent, it might work. The professor wants to spend 12 hours delving into the minutiae of something, the students have little choice. And it is expected. Here, if someone presents a case that BBB will create inflation, they probably don't want to get bogged down for 12 hours debating some barely connected tangent to their main theme. And often people choose to debate said tangent because they don't have an answer to the main theme so they are deflecting and distracting.

Well said

 

[NPT]

Maybe they go hand in hand? Amplify each other? I’m not sure. I think you could have four quadrants with these two variables pretty easily: civilized-deep debate, uncivilized-deep debate, civilized-shallow debate, and uncivilized-shallow debate.

And the problem here is that the last one is the most common.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

And the problem here is that the last one is the most common.

I have noticed that much of the "debate" around here instigated by posters who present topics in a less than unbiased manner. You aren't really inviting true debate when your first sentence is basically, "So, here's my obviously superior opinion on this topic, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Discuss why I am right."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

you, goat, CoH, McM

Hm. All four are lawyers who were at least exposed to Socratic learning.

But there are at least two problems here. Lack of civility is one. Lack of thinking and deep discourse another.

I’d add a third problem; lack of ability to read.

One thing that has changed since Buzz is that Buzz didn't feel the purpose was to convert people to a cause.

Heartily agree. Many posters are focused on right and wrong. That has no application when discussing concepts and ideas.

The problem with Socratic is that in a classroom with someone to steer it and with that person also deciding how much time is going to be spent, it might work

I think Will‘s point was that the Socratic Method is not just a classroom technique. It provides the basis for all civilized argument.

I have noticed that much of the "debate" around here instigated by posters who present topics in a less than unbiased manner. You aren't really inviting true debate when your first sentence is basically, "So, here's my obviously superior opinion on this topic, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Discuss why I am right."

Ha. There is some truth in that. But I view those posts (and also links) as a challenge to be met with better arguments. I really enjoy finding ways to challenge expert opinion. The posts you describe should not be met with anger, but with better argument.

The last paragraph of Will’s piece:

Thanks to Montás and Farnsworth, Socrates had a good 2021. As another year of acrimony slinks away, remember what he demonstrated, and what a U.S. senator (Daniel Webster) supposedly said: “Anger is not an argument“.​

 

[hoot1]

A variation of the Socratic Method might work in Congressional committee hearings if the parties were interested in passing the best possible legislation.

This requires committee members to be open minded and willing to take into account expert citizen input which may not conform to their preconceived political positions. Lot of luck this will happen given today's politics.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Hm. All four are lawyers who were at least exposed to Socratic learning.


I’d add a third problem; lack of ability to read.


Heartily agree. Many posters are focused on right and wrong. That has no application when discussing concepts and ideas.


I think Will‘s point was that the Socratic Method is not just a classroom technique. It provides the basis for all civilized argument.

Ha. There is some truth in that. But I view those posts (and also links) as a challenge to be met with better arguments. I really enjoy finding ways to challenge expert opinion. The posts you describe should not be met with anger, but with better argument.

The last paragraph of Will’s piece:

Thanks to Montás and Farnsworth, Socrates had a good 2021. As another year of acrimony slinks away, remember what he demonstrated, and what a U.S. senator (Daniel Webster) supposedly said: “Anger is not an argument“.​

It's all about implied intent...and nuance.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In my experience, SM has never been used to either falsify or support claims. it was a way to think about concepts. One of my most vivid memories in law school is how our torts prof used SM to get us to think about proximate cause and how to analyze foreeability In the context of Palsgraf. I also remember SM classes about consequential damages as compared to the benefit of the bargain rule in contracts. The evidence professor, who was also very good with SM, used it with effect in teaching exceptions to the hearsay rule.

SM is a way of thinking and arriving at opinions and conclusions. It has everyday uses. SM either with others or as solitaire is a way to test opinions. SM constantly splits hairs. It’s not about whats correct or incorrect.

It's certainly versatile, as are many methods of inquiry. My point was simply that the SM is a primarily deconstructive method, and is very good at refining definitions, discovering and undermining assumptions and biases, and uncovering (ahem) nuances. It's not nearly as well suited to synthesizing data into conclusions, so I'd disagree slightly with your statement to that effect in the second paragraph.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Libs aren't capable of a civilized argument.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

My point was simply that the SM is a primarily deconstructive method,

Eh . . . Don’t agree with what I think your point is. The beauty of SM is it is a way to build ideas and principles from a variety of underlying and maybe even inconsistent pieces and parts of ideas. I suppose it can be a way to deconstruct paradigms too but SM isn’t mostly that. Particularly vulnerable would those paradigms that are the product of emotions. There isn’t much room for purely emotional positions in a SM exchange.

 

[NPT]

This requires committee members to be open minded and willing to take into account expert citizen input which may not conform to their preconceived political positions. Lot of luck this will happen given today's politics.

That is so true because "expert" means different things to different people. To some it's someone that agrees with their preconceived political positions.