PHILOSOPHY – Aims, Methods, Rationale ULRICH DE BALBIAN META-PHILOSOPHY RESEARCH CENTER © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 2 PREFACE In this meta-philosophical study I commence with an investigation of Wisdom. I then continue with an exploration of the institutionalization of the subject and the professionalization of those involved in it. This I contrast with original and creative philosophizing. In then sows that philosophizing resembles and attempts to do theorizing. The 9 questions, etc of the Socratic Method and details of the Philosophical Toolkit occur throughout different stages of theorizing as one level and one dimension of it. Linked books are FREE for download. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 3 CONTENTS 1 Seeking, development and realization of wisdom 4 2 Institutionalization, Professionalization of ‘philosophy’ 5 3 Original and Creative Thinking Philosophizing 37 4 Philosophizing resembles Theorizing 38 (i) (ii) Socratic Method Philosophical Toolkit © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press 41 145 www.criticalthinking.org 4 1 Seeking, development and realization of wisdom This section explores love of wisdom as the rationale, the aim and objective of philosophy. The nature of different types of wisdom and the possibility of their realization and development are explored. https://www.academia.edu/34518881/imi lar_to_PHILOSOPHY_PHILO_SOPHO S_LOVE_OF_WISDOM_with_enlarged _Appendices https://www.academia.edu/34231431/KN OWLEDGE_TRUTH_INSIGHT_WISD OM https://www.academia.edu/30704161/NO NPHILOSOPHY_OF_THE_ONE_Turnin g_away_from_Philosophy_of_Being © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 5 2 Institutionalization and Professionalization of ‘philosophy’ I commence with my own studies and critique of these topics and finally present those by the organization ‘against professional philosophy’. https://www.academia.edu/32726031/TH E_INSTITUTIONAL_and_PERSONAL _NEED_for_PHILOSOPHY https://www.academia.edu/31487396/_M eta-Philosophy_MetaCognition_and_Critique_of_Doing_Philo sophizing https://www.academia.edu/31251026/_M etaPhilosophy_Philosophers_and_their_lack _of_Meta-Cognition http://againstprofphil.org/ l share a deep love of real philosophy. By real philosophy, we mean synoptic, systematic, rational reflection on the individual and collective human © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 6 condition, and on the natural world in which human and other conscious animals live, move, and have their being. Real philosophy fully includes the knowledge yielded by the natural and formal sciences; but, as we see it, real philosophy also goes significantly beneath and beyond the exact sciences, and non-reductively incorporates aesthetic, artistic, affective/emotional, ethical/moral, and, more generally, personal and practical insights that cannot be adequately captured or explained by the sciences. In a word, real philosophy is all about the nature, meaning, and value of individual and collective human existence in the natural cosmos, and how it is possible to know the philosophical limits of science, without also being anti-science. Finally, real philosophy is pursued by people working on individual or collective writing projects, or teaching projects, in the context of small, friendly circles of like-minded philosophers. Like-minded but not uncritical! Real philosophers read © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 7 both intensively and also widely inside philosophy, and also widely outside of philosophy, critically discuss what they’ve read, write, mutually present and talk about their work, re-read, re-discuss, and then re-write, with the primary aim of producing work of originality and of the highest possible quality, given their own individual and collective abilities. They also seek to disseminate their work, through publication, teaching, or public conversation. In view of this conception of real philosophy, we also share some serious worries about contemporary professional philosophy. More bluntly put, we think that contemporary professional philosophy is seriously fucked up in various ways that, ironically and even tragically, oppose and undermine the ongoing project of real philosophy. The threefold purpose of this co-authored philosophical diary, then, is, first, to tell about our own inner and outer lives as professional philosophers from our four © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 8 very different points of view; second, to develop the art of resisting and subverting contemporary professional philosophy from the inside, for the sake of real philosophy, i.e., anarchophilosophy; and third, to prepare the way for the real philosophy of the future by featuring past or present philosophical work that is aggressively cosmopolitan and non-chauvinist, critically challenging and edgy, daringly generalist and original, fully humanly meaningful, slightly weird, and deemed “unpublishable” in mainstream venues. Our immediate goal at APP is the same as Immanuel Kant’s, in the justly famous opening sentences of “What is Enlightenment?”— “Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his own self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another. This immaturity is self-incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 9 but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own understanding! is thus the motto of Enlightenment.” In other words, we think that it’s up to all of us, as lovers of real philosophy, to dare to think for ourselves against the conventional wisdom of contemporary professional philosophy. But that’s only the beginning. We hope to help contemporary philosophers (re)discover their true vocation as rational rebels for humanity– “When nature has unwrapped, from under this hard shell, the seed for which she cares most tenderly, namely the propensity and calling to think freely, the latter gradually works back upon the mentality of the people (which thereby gradually becomes capable of freedom in acting) and eventually even upon the principles of government, which finds it profitable to itself to treat the human © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 10 being, who is now more than a machine, in keeping with [her] dignity.” Sincerely, W, X, Y, and Z 1. Think philosophically for yourself. Everyone in contemporary professional philosophy knows, but almost no one ever actually says, that if you dare to disagree with your MA thesis or PhD dissertation advisor, or with your MA or PhD examination committee, or with a hiring committee, or with your senior colleagues (especially those who are now department chairs or higher administrators), or with leading people in your philosophical sub-field who are, or who are likely to be, referees of your work for journals, academic presses, or tenure and/or promotion, then you’re in serious trouble, i.e., you’re in deep shit. But this is a very bad thing that is inimical to real philosophy. Therefore, dare to think for yourself, and to hell with them. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 11 2. Criticize professional philosophical authority. Everyone in contemporary professional philosophy knows, but almost no one ever actually says, that certain philosophical views are deemed acceptable by a large majority of philosophers in the leading departments of philosophy, and other views are ignored, mocked, rejected out-of-hand, or otherwise deemed unacceptable by that same large majority. This fact has now been objectively confirmed by the recent 2009 PhilPapers survey and follow-up article by David Bourget and David Chalmers, “What Do Philosophers Believe?”. More accurately, the article could have been entitled, “What Do Contemporary Professional Philosophers at the SoCalled Top-Ranked 100 Departments, as Selected by the Philosophical Gourmet Report, Believe?” Or most accurately of all, it could have been entitled, “What © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 12 Should Contemporary Professional Philosophers Believe, Who Want To Be Just Like the Large Majority of Contemporary Professional Philosophers at the So-Called Top-Ranked 100 Departments, as Selected by the Philosophical Gourmet Report? (Graduate Students and/or Unemployed, Untenured, or Unpromoted Professional Philosophers, This Means YOU.)” But this, again, is a very bad thing that is inimical to real philosophy. Therefore, dare to criticize professional philosophical authority, and to hell with them. 3. Recognize and reject professional philosophical bullshit. Everyone in contemporary professional philosophy knows, but almost no one ever actually says, that if we were to look back on professional philosophy since 1983 (i.e., over the last thirty years), we could see four extremely important trends. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 13 First, since 1983 there have been significant changes and transitions in what counts as mainstream core philosophy. (By “the mainstream,” it is meant: “tenure-track philosophers in the so-called top-ranked 100 departments.” By “core,” it is meant: “those areas of research deemed by the mainstream to be most central and fundamental to philosophy.”) In The Beginning There Was Logical Empiricism, which held sway in the mainstream and amongst those working in the core in the immediate post-World War II period, from the late 40s and through the 1950s, until the Quine-led, post- Empiricist reaction set in during the 50s. Later Wittgenstein’s work was then, for a brief while, taken seriously. During the 60s, Ordinary Language Philosophy, deriving mainly from Oxford, constituted a kind of philosophical British Invasion, later to be replaced by a Davidsonic Boom in the 70s. More generally, however, during the 60s, 70s, and even © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 14 into the 80s, the core was philosophy of language and logic, accompanied by a fairly virulent anti-metaphysical stance, plus strong anti-realism—both about science (e.g., work influenced by Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions) and also about central issues in metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of language. In the 80s, the core gradually switched over to being the philosophy of language- and-MIND, and logic, and EPISTEMOLOGY, with a gradual softening towards metaphysics, as long as it was the metaphysics of natural science. Anti-realism began to wither away. For a brief moment in the late 70s and early 80s, anti-realist ideas of a broadly pragmatist stripe that were also significantly influenced by the history of philosophy and Continental (i.e., Kantian, Hegelian, post-Kantian European, neo-Hegelian, existentialist, Husserlian/Heideggerian phenomenological, Derridean © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 15 deconstructionist, or Foucauldian poststructuralist) philosophy, challenged the hegemony of the core: Richard Rorty’s Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature in 1979. But we all know what happened to HIM. In the aftermath of the intellectual firestorm surrounding PMN, Rorty quit mainstream philosophy, became a Professor of Humanities and Comparative Literature, and was never read or taken seriously again by anyone in the mainstream or working in the core. Then in the 90s, the core quietly but surely changed over and became the philosophy of mind PERIOD, and logic, and epistemology, with increasing interest in metaphysics driven by modal logic and natural science. The acronym “M&E,” as shorthand for the core, mysteriously became widespread. Antirealism about science equally mysteriously turned into its dialectical opposite, dogmatic realism about science, especially scientific essentialism. Also equally mysteriously, © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 16 the philosophy of language in effect disappeared as a core philosophical discipline and re-appeared as empirically-driven, semi-philosophical linguistics/psycholinguistics. Finally in the 00s and now into the 10s, the philosophy of mind was gradually displaced from the core and demoted to the periphery, and then, yet again mysteriously, replaced in the core’s core by modal metaphysics (a.k.a. “Analytic metaphysics”), alongside logic and epistemology—which began gradually to absorb the philosophy of mind under the rubric of theories of cognition/mental representation and content, all driven, as always, by natural science and its methods. To be fair, in the 80s and 90s several other books also significantly influenced by the history of philosophy and/or Continental philosophy also attempted to challenge the hegemony of the core: e.g., John McDowell’s Mind and World, Hilary Putnam’s Realism and Reason and © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 17 Realism with a Human Face, and Robert Brandom’s Making It Explicit. And each of them had its small group of enthusiastic supporters, hoping against hope for a break-up of the hegemony of the core. But, sadly, it just didn’t happen, and all of them eventually suffered, to varying degrees, the fate of PMN. Therefore, it is completely clear that since 1983, core philosophy has always included logic, but gradually has become more and more metaphysical and scientistic, under the nicely referentiallyflexible acronym “M&E.” Dogmatic scientific realism, various forms of materialism, compatibilism, and atheism became the unquestioned default positions, quixotically opposed by a small minority of reactionary professional philosophers—as it were, The Official Opposition—clinging to the core by the skin of their teeth, who still defended anti- realism, or Cartesian dualism, or agent-causal libertarian incompatibilism, and/or theism. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 18 But why, since at least 1983, has there never been any serious mainstream consideration of views that don’t fit either the core or The Official Opposition? The answer is that they’re all simply off the grid for those working in the core or still clinging to the core. Or otherwise put, they’re the third rail of mainstream philosophy: touch it, and you die professionally, i.e., no one in the mainstream or working in or near the core ever reads your work or takes you seriously again. That this is undeniably so was recently fully confirmed by the extremely instructive intellectual controversy surrounding Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos. “Poor old Nagel—I haven’t actually read Mind and Cosmos, but he’s gone crazy, hasn’t he?” Je vous dis, merde. Second, since 1983 everyone else in mainstream philosophy but not working in the core has allowed themselves to be slotted into one or another of three nonM&E areas of specialization, a.k.a. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 19 AOS—as it were, the client states of the core—listed here in diminishing order of greatest-to-least importance and professional status, relative to the core: (1) Values (i.e., ethics, social-andpolitical philosophy, and aesthetics), (2) History of Philosophy, and, lowliest of all, (3) Continental Philosophy. Together with M&E, let us call these The Four Horsemen of the AOS. Two conditions must be implicitly satisfied in order to ride in the same saddle with one or another of The Four Horsemen of the AOS: (i) full acceptance of the hegemony of the core, M&E, and (ii) full acceptance of the mysterious establishment, within that AOS, of a core-like structure that effectively controls patterns of research and publication for people officially working in that area. Otherwise, you die professionally. Graduate student, non-tenure track professional philosopher, or pre-tenured professional philosopher: “But why can’t © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 20 I work on topics that fall fully outside of The Four Horsemen of the AOS? Or why can’t I devise an original area of research and publication for myself that, e.g., fully fuses some basic issues and problems in so-called M&E with some in so-called Values and some in so-called Continental Philosophy? The whole system doesn’t make any sense to me.” Mainstream professional philosopher with tenure: “Well, I’m sorry but you can’t—unless of course you want to die professionally. I didn’t make the the rules. That’s just the way it is.” Je vous dis, merde! Third, there has been an emergence and flourishing of highly influential online professional philosophy rankings of all kinds, profession-related blogs, etc.; and finally, at least in part, as a consequence of this emergence and flourishing, the by- now almost complete dominance of practices of hyperprofessionalization and hyperspecialization in the mainstream and amongst those working in the core. The © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 21 primary or sole function of graduate programs in philosophy at mainstream departments is to produce, within six years or less, new PhDs who can compete well in the current job-market. To be sure, mainstream departments are ranked and punished/rewarded by their universities and also by the profession at large, for their time-to-PhD numbers and their placement records. Nevertheless it is a shining example of how, as per James C. Scott’s crisp phrase, “a measure colonizes behavior” (Two Cheers for Anarchism, p. 114), and real philosophy is thereby colonized out of existence. Fourth and finally, perhaps the most striking thing about the whole period since 1983 is that almost no one ever talks about, or critically questions, the huge, obvious changes that have happened, or even seems to notice them as they change—they simply go over to the latest things as if they’ve been there ever since Socrates. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 22 But this is all a very bad thing that is inimical to real philosophy. Therefore, recognize and reject professional philosophical bullshit, and to hell with them. 4. Treat everyone else with at least minimal moral respect, but never allow yourself to be tyrannized by the professional majority. Everyone in contemporary professional philosophy knows, but almost no one ever actually says, that if you do not conform to the dominant professional institutional culture of your department, college, university, or the American Philosophical Association (let’s call these, collectively, The Professional Academic State), they will find a way to reprimand you, fire you, or otherwise kick you out of the profession, whether you publish a lot or not. In fact, “publish or perish” is a myth. Many professional philosophers in the mainstream publish very little, yet achieve significant © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 23 professional success precisely because they conform to the dominant professional culture (as measured by, e.g., citation indexes or other online professional rankings); contrariwise, other professional philosophers publish a great deal, yet still are denied jobs, tenure, and/or promotion—either on the putative grounds that their publications are not sufficiently substantive or worthy, or on the putative grounds of inadequate teaching, or on the putative grounds of blah-blah-blah. Whatever they say by way of rationalization, however, this is usually nothing but rigor mortis masquerading as “professional academic rigor.” So the plain truth is, that if you don’t conform, The Professional Academic State will find a way to get you: it’s really conform or perish. But, yet again, this is all a very bad thing that is inimical to real philosophy. Therefore, treat everyone else with at least minimal moral respect, but never allow yourself to be tyrannized © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 24 by the professional majority , and to hell with them. 5. Take philosophical responsibility for creating the real philosophy of the future. In view of 1-4, as a real philosopher, you have only two options: (i) quit professional philosophy and do something else with your life that really matters to you, for the sake of real philosophy, or else (ii) stay in professional philosophy but develop the art of resisting and subverting it from the inside, for the sake of real philosophy, i.e., anarcho-philosophy. Therefore, one way or the other, dare to take philosophical responsibility for creating the real philosophy of the future, and to hell with them. And another way to resist the Professional Academic State and support real philosophy is to write something for the S.Ph. journal, which strives to provide a home for academically- © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 25 informed non-academic creative philosophizing. https://www.quora.com/search?q=Curt+ Doolittle Who is the most influential living philosopher? Curt Doolittle, Philosopher: Truth, Natural Law, Economics, Politics, War Answered Sep 13 Interesting question. Good answers. Let’s look at how we can ask this question. ;) Technical Innovation <-> Practical Utility <------> Popular Influence Successful Technical Hard to argue that the Russel-FregeKripke chain didn’t provide answers but it’s also hard to argue that they weren’t wasting their time. Because BabbageCantor-Goedel-Turing produced superior methods and answers. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 26 Failed Technical The failure of Brouwer(Physics), Bridgman(mathematics), Mises (economics), Hayek(Law), and Popper(Philosophy) to understand that the ‘ideal’ disciplines had failed to include operations as a test of possibility, operational grammar to prevent pretense of knowledge, Influential and Contributory: Searle(cognition), Jonathan Haidt(morality), Daniel Kahneman(cognition), Nassim Taleb (probability and cognitive biases). Unfortunately we can’t list Popper(via negativa), Hayek(Social Science = Law), Keynes(Monetary Marxism), Turing, and Rawls who are demonstrably Popular Influence But Otherwise Meaningless: Dennet et all. 1. Categorical Construction: © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 27 2. Scientific <----------------> Ideal <----------------> Experiential 3. Descriptive Causality Experiential Causality 4. Scientific Categories Normative Categories Arbitrary Categories 5. Operational Analytic Literary Conflationary Continental 6. Aristotle Plato (many) 7. 8. Tends to Result In: 9. Truth Utility Preference 10.Markets, Regulation Command 11.Nash Equality Pareto Equality Command Equality 12.Natural Hierarchy Political Hierarchy Bureaucratic Hierarchy 13.Classical Liberalism Social Democracy Socialism © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 28 14.Rapid Adaptation Windfall Consumption Redirected Consumption 15.Hyper Competitive Competitive in Windfalls Competitive when Behind I would make the following observations: 1) The continental (German) program has been a failed attempt, since the time of Kant (through Heidegger), to produce a secular, rational, version of Christianity. The French program (Rousseau through Derrida) has been a demonstrably successful program but a devastatingly destructive one. The Abrahamic program’s second revision (Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, Strauss) has been catastrophic. And between the French Literary, Continental Rational, and Abrahamic Pseudoscientific movements, the attempt to restore the Aristotelian(scientific)/ Stoic(Mindfulness) / Roman(Law) / Heroic(Truth, Excellence, Beauty) program responsible for human progress © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 29 in the ancient and modern world has been nearly defeated. 2) The analytic program was exhausted with Kripke, and in retrospect the analytic attempt to produce both formal logic of language, and a science of language will be considered a failure. For example, there is nothing in analytic philosophy that is not better provided by Turing. 3) The principle function of academic philosophy today appears consist of the self correction of existing errors prior to exhaustion of the philosophical program (termination of the discipline) in the same way that the analytic program exhausted itself. (If you list philosophers and their innovations this is what appears to be occurring. The discipline is exhausting itself as a dead end). 4) The principal influences on intellectual history are being provided by the sciences. In particular they are eliminating the last refuge of philosophy: © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 30 the mind. And science is doing so vianegativa: through the incremental definition and measurement of cognitive biases (errors). 5) Science, if understood as an organized attempt to produce deflationary truthful (descriptive) speech, and the use of scientific categories (necessary and universal), will continue to displace the discipline of philosophy, and the use of philosophical categories, terminology and concepts. And (assuming I am correct), what remains of the discipline of philosophy will be reducible to the continuous refinements of the scientific method’s production of constant descriptive categories, terminology, and operational grammar. And the cross disciplinary adaptation of local categories into universal categories. 6) Science is less vulnerable to error , bias, suggestion and deceit, in no small part because the common problems of philosophy: suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, overloading, and the © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 31 Fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and pseudomythology(theology)) are prohibited by the demand for Operational language, declared limits, and full accounting of consequences. It certainly appears that since the beginning of the 20th century we have been far busier eliminating errors of philosophy than philosophers have been busy discovering innovations. 7) Greek philosophy arose out of the common law of torts. Roman philosophy explicitly functioned on the common law of Torts. The Abrahamic Dark Age (conflating idealism, law, and religion) followed, but we were rescued by the reconstruction of north sea trade and the English common law of Torts (Bacon). And as far as I can determine, 8) As we have seen with continental and political philosophy, just as we saw with theology, and especially Abrahamic theology, the principle purpose of unscientific speech has been deception, propaganda, the propagation of © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 32 ignorance, and the conduct of rule, and the expansion of warfare. With theologians and philosophers responsible for more deaths than generals and plagues. Between Zoroaster, Muhammed, and Marx, we have more deaths than all but the great diseases including malaria and the black plague. Philosophers and theologians have done more harm than good, largely functioning as a middle class opposition to the current form of rule. 9) Philosophical language then is a dead language, and perhaps an immoral one and rationalism a dead technology. And they will be incrementally combined institutionally and normatively into theology, with Literary Philosophy(Plato and his heirs), merely representing it’s position on the spectrum of Aristotelian/Stoic/Roman/English Law (science), Confucian Reason, French Literary Idealism, Platonic Rational Idealism, Continental and Augustinian © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 33 Fictionalism, and Abrahamic and Zoroastrian Fictionalism. 10) The use of non philosophical categories to construct *moral literature* in the French and Italian model will persist forever. Although largely as a means of resistance against the sciences, and the status social, economic, and political status quo. In this context we have to ask what we mean by Influential, or Great Philosophers, because: (a) Unless we are talking scientists who function as public intellectuals, philosophers, or Social Critics (practitioners of critique), or Moral Fictionalists (wishful thinkers), it really doesn’t appear that philosophy is a living or useful language or discipline. (b) it’s hard to argue there are any currently living and working rationalists of any substance. They are largely Moral Fictionalists. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 34 Let’s look at the list: Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. The atheists. It’s worth noting that Dawkins was correct and Gould was wrong - about almost everything. (Surprisingly). Harris and Hitches practice critique but nothing else. Zizek practices Critique and has nothing to offer - and is honest about it. I mean, what solutions does Zizek provide? None. And he says so. Chomsky practices Critique, has nothing to offer - and is dishonest about it. He is an interesting example of how people with high intelligence and verbal acumen can construct elaborate deceptions. Between Chomsky and Paul Krugman, a half dozen people could spend their entire careers demonstrating their use of cherry picking, loading, framing, overloading with incommensurables, straw men, and heaping of undue praise. His insight into ‘universal grammar’ but categories of increasing complexity is © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 35 largely correct and we can see that in brain structure today. However, he speaks about world affairs by constantly making the error (intentionally), that rational choice is scalable - just as did Marx. And he has no concept of economics whatsoever, and no political statement can be made any longer independently of economics - especially once we understand that the term economics has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the voluntary organization of individuals through the use of incentives provided by money. Hofstadter is a good example as any, but again, he is a public intellectual and a literary aesthete. Did he really provide any insight that was not visible in the literature of the time? So in closing, I would say, that: 1) There are no influential rationalists, because the program is complete and it’s been a dead end. The reasons for this would require I write a tome. 2) That there are many scientists that © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 36 serve as public intellectuals, and this will continue. 3) There remain and always will be a market for moral literature. 4) That scientific philosophy, if completed, as ‘the discipline of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deceit, will replace the discipline of philosophy. But that won’t stop people over invested in a dead frame of reference from attempting to practice it. Why? It’s cheap and science is expensive. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 37 3 Original and Creative Thinking Philosophizing Here are my own work concerning the nature, the meaning, objectives, aims and rationale of original and creative thinking or philosophizing. This is the work that are usually thought of philosophy and philosophers in the Western Tradition. https://www.academia.edu/31813592/_M etaPhilosophy_Why_read_Philosophy_of_o riginal-_and_creativethinking_rather_than_derivative_academ ic_professionals_ https://www.academia.edu/31100450/_M etaphilosophy_Where_to_begin_Philosophy _NEWER_version © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 38 4 Philosophizing resembles Theorizing The first two pieces consist of my work on the nature, features, stages, levels and dimensions of the processes of theory construction and development or theorizing. https://www.academia.edu/30958770/Phi losophizing_is_part_of_the_Process_es_ of_Theorizing https://www.academia.edu/30687183/phi losophizing_no_THEORIZING Some methods, tools and techniques of philosophizing as one aspect, on one level and in one dimension of the process of theorizing PHILOSOPHERS' Thinking vol6 (INSIGHT, UNDERSTANDING, MEANING, COMMUNICATION INTERSUBJECTIVITY ).docx In this volume, volume 6, I will deal with insight and understanding, meaning and communi... © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 39 PHILOSOPHER'S THINKING (LOGIC & ARGUMENTATION (VOLUME 5)) OGIC & ARGUMENTATION (VOLUME 5) The first section deals with different ways, approaches o. more Philosophers' Thinking (Experimental philosophy & Qualitative Tools Vol 4) EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY (VOLUME 4) and Qualitative tools and experimental philosophy. So-c... more Philosophers' Thinking (THOUGHT or Imaginary EXPERIMENTS and METAPHORS (volume 3) THOUGHT or Imaginary EXPERIMENTS and METAPHORS (volume 3) I intended to deal with the diffe... more © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 40 PHILOSOPHERS Thinking (HEURISTICS and PROBLEMSOLVING} (VOLUME 2)Vol2.docx HEURISTICS and PROBLEMSOLVING (VOLUME 2) This section or chapter two. Because of its leng... more PHILOSOPHERSTHINKING (THEORIZING AND PHILOSOPHIZING (VOLUME 1)vol1.docx I intended to deal with the different sections or chapters in one volume, but as certain sectio... more (i) Socratic Method The Socratic Method The Socratic Method is a form of argumentative (but not angry) dialogue between individuals that stirs the cogs of © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 41 critical thinking into motion. It relies on a continuous stream of questions that stretch the mind in ways it’s not used to — which often means critical thinking, for all of us. Socrates never sat down and formalized the method in writing, but today we can find them categorized into 6 concepts: · Questions for clarification: Why do you say we need feature X? Could you phrase that another way? · Questions that probe assumptions: What else can we assume? Is everyone assuming the same thing? · Questions that probe reasons and evidence: What do you think causes the need for feature X? How did this situation come about? · Questions about viewpoints and perspectives: What could be an alternative to feature X? Is there anyone here who sees the project in a different way? · Questions that probe implications and consequences: What are the © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 42 consequences of assumptions we are making? If this and that is true, then what else must be true? · Questions about the question itself: Why is this question (problem, challenge) important? Can we break it down into smaller parts? Each of these categories can contain many question that we ask until one of the following happens : 1. you reveal information that helps clarify the need for X 2. the person you’re talking to sees that they’re unable to logically explain the need for X (which is a sure sign that something needs to change) The project manager here is the obvious, but not the only choice — any stakeholder will do. Everyone in some way related to the project (managers, owners, developers, the coffee machine) knows something about it. By getting into the habit of asking simple and direct © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 43 questions, conversation can be nudged along the path of critical thinking that will help expose possible flaws in prior reasoning. Or, as Socrates put it, I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think. Now, all of this has to be done with great tact and patience. Don’t just whip out a list of questions and begin drilling everyone you see. The core of the approach is to understand that prior reasoning is not necessarily good reasoning and that it is important to verify it. Equally important is to learn how and when to ask questions, with enough detachment that the person whom you’re asking does not feel interrogated but rather feels part of a part of a thinking conversation about a joint enterprise. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 44 Socratic Method: asking good questions that promote thoughtful and relevant responses Adapted in part from a Powerpoint presentation to EMS tutors in May 2012 by Megan Bam, and in part from pages published on Criticalthinking.org and the University of Carleton’s Geoscience Department website. What is the Socratic Method? Named for the famed Greek philosopher Socrates (470-399 B. C.), a Socratic approach to teaching is based on the practice of ‘disciplined, rigorously thoughtful dialogue’. In brief, the lecturer claims to know very little about the topic under discussion in order to draw students into a thoughtful and thoughtprovoking discussion that will engage them in thinking through their own ideas and responses to the topic, and to what they have been learning in the course. The overall aim of using the Socratic method of questioning students and eliciting their responses and engagement © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 45 is based on Socrates’ idea that the ‘disciplined practice of thoughtful questioning enables the scholar/student to examine ideas logically and to be able to determine the validity of those ideas’. This approach is sometimes also called the ‘dialectical approach’ and because it allows students and teachers to identify and correct misconceptions and misunderstandings, it can lead to reliable knowledge construction, and also promotes more independent thinking. Why is it effective in teaching and learning? According to the Carleton University: Socratic questioning helps students to think critically by focusing explicitly on the process of thinking. During disciplined, carefully structured questioning, students must slow down and examine their own thinking processes (i.e., reflective thinking). Thoughtful, disciplined questioning in the classroom can achieve the following teaching and learning goals: © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 46 -centered learning -based learning wledge solving skills -term retention of knowledge (http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/socratic /third.html) This approach may seem simple, but it is in fact quite rigorous to manage successfully in practice. The lecturer or tutor needs to feign ignorance about the topic under discussion so that students have to contribute fully to the conversation, and in so doing actively construct and critique and think carefully about the knowledge they are using. If the teacher steps in and starts giving them the answers, the process of getting students to question their own ideas and think about their knowledge in a more © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 47 disciplined and rigorous way is somewhat defeated. This method is effective in teaching and learning because it promotes more active learning; it focuses on what students are doing and asks them to engage in their own learning and thinking, rather than treating them as passive receivers of knowledge; it takes some of the pressure off the lecturer or tutor to have ‘all the answers’ and asks students to take responsibility for coming up with the answers; and it develops graduate attributes that speak being inquiryfocused and knowledgeable, being skilled communicators and having a critical attitude towards knowledge. Socratic Method - UWC https://www.uwc.ac.za/TandL/Documents /Socratic%20Method.pdf Socratic Method: asking good questions that promote thoughtful and relevant ... retention of knowledge © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 48 (http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/socratic /third.html). Search Results Critical thinking is the process we use to reflect on, access and judge the assumptions underlying our own and others ideas and actions. Socratic questioning is at the heart of critical thinking and a number of homework problems draw from R.W. Paul's Socratic questions: 1. 9 types of Socratic Questions umich.edu/~scps/html/probsolv/strategy/ cthinking.htm Feedback About this result 9 types of Socratic Questions © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 49 umich.edu/~scps/html/probsolv/strategy/ cthinking.htm Critical thinking is the process we use to reflect on, access and judge the assumptions underlying our own and others ideas and actions. Socratic questioning is at the heart of critical thinking and a number of homework problems draw from R.W. Paul's Socratic questions: 1. TYPES OF SOCRATIC QUESTIONS Due to the rapid addition of new information and the advancement of science and technology that occur almost daily, an engineer must constantly expand his or her horizons beyond simple gathering information and relying on the basic engineering principles. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 50 A number of homework problems have been included that are designed to enhance critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is the process we use to reflect on, access and judge the assumptions underlying our own and others ideas and actions. Socratic questioning is at the heart of critical thinking and a number of homework problems draw from R.W. Paul's Socratic questions: 1. Questions for clarification:    © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press Why do you say that? How does this relate to our discussion? "Are you going to include diffusion in your mole balance equations?" www.criticalthinking.org 51 2. Questions that probe assumptions:    3. Questions that probe reasons and evidence:     © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press What could we assume instead? How can you verify or disapprove that assumption? "Why are neglecting radial diffusion and including only axial diffusion?" What would be an example? What is....analogous to? What do you think causes to happen...? Why:? "Do you think that diffusion is responsible for the lower conversion?" www.criticalthinking.org 52 4. Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives:         © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press What would be an alternative? What is another way to look at it? Would you explain why it is necessary or beneficial, and who benefits? Why is the best? What are the strengths and weaknesses of...? How are...and ...similar? What is a counterargument for...? "With all the bends in the pipe, from an industrial/practic al standpoint, do you think diffusion will www.criticalthinking.org 53 affect the conversion?" 5. Questions that probe implications and consequences:       6. Questions about the question:  © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press What generalizations can you make? What are the consequences of that assumption? What are you implying? How does...affect...? How does...tie in with what we learned before? "How would our results be affected if neglected diffusion?" What was the point of this question? www.criticalthinking.org 54     7. Questions that Probe Purpose:     © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press Why do you think I asked this question? What does...mean? How does...apply to everyday life? "Why do you think diffusion is important?" What is the purpose of ... ? Was this purpose justifiable? What is the purpose of addressing this question at this time? What is the purpose of the main character in this story? www.criticalthinking.org 55 8. Questions that Probe Concepts:     9. Questions that Probe Inferences and Interpretations :     © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press What is the main idea we are dealing with? Why/How is this idea important? Do these two ideas conflict? If so, how? What main theories do we need to consider in figuring out ... ? What conclusions are we coming to ... ? What is the conclusion based on? How did you reach that conclusion? What do you think of ...? www.criticalthinking.org 56  How to interpret the data? The following is a transcript of a teaching experiment, using the Socratic method, with a regular third grade class in a suburban elementary school. I present my perspective and views on the session, and on the Socratic method as a teaching tool, following the transcript. The class was conducted on a Friday afternoon beginning at 1:30, late in May, with about two weeks left in the school year. This time was purposely chosen as one of the most difficult times to entice and hold these children's concentration about a somewhat complex intellectual matter. The point was to demonstrate the power of the Socratic method for both teaching and also for getting students involved and excited about the material being taught. There were 22 students in the class. I was told ahead of time by two different teachers (not the classroom teacher) that only a couple of students © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 57 would be able to understand and follow what I would be presenting. When the class period ended, I and the classroom teacher believed that at least 19 of the 22 students had fully and excitedly participated and absorbed the entire material. The three other students' eyes were glazed over from the very beginning, and they did not seem to be involved in the class at all. The students' answers below are in capital letters. The experiment was to see whether I could teach these students binary arithmetic (arithmetic using only two numbers, 0 and 1) only by asking them questions. None of them had been introduced to binary arithmetic before. Though the ostensible subject matter was binary arithmetic, my primary interest was to give a demonstration to the teacher of the power and benefit of the Socratic method where it is applicable. That is my interest here as well. I chose binary arithmetic as the vehicle for that because it is something very difficult for © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 58 children, or anyone, to understand when it is taught normally; and I believe that a demonstration of a method that can teach such a difficult subject easily to children and also capture their enthusiasm about that subject is a very convincing demonstration of the value of the method. (As you will see below, understanding binary arithmetic is also about understanding "place-value" in general. For those who seek a much more detailed explanation about place-value, visit the long paper on The Concept and Teaching of Place-Value.) This was to be the Socratic method in what I consider its purest form, where questions (and only questions) are used to arouse curiosity and at the same time serve as a logical, incremental, step-wise guide that enables students to figure out about a complex topic or issue with their own thinking and insights. In a less pure form, which is normally the way it occurs, students tend to get stuck at some point and need a teacher's explanation of some aspect, or the teacher gets stuck and cannot figure © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 59 out a question that will get the kind of answer or point desired, or it just becomes more efficient to "tell" what you want to get across. If "telling" does occur, hopefully by that time, the students have been aroused by the questions to a state of curious receptivity to absorb an explanation that might otherwise have been meaningless to them. Many of the questions are decided before the class; but depending on what answers are given, some questions have to be thought up extemporaneously. Sometimes this is very difficult to do, depending on how far from what is anticipated or expected some of the students' answers are. This particular attempt went better than my best possible expectation, and I had much higher expectations than any of the teachers I discussed it with prior to doing it. I had one prior relationship with this class. About two weeks earlier I had shown three of the third grade classes together how to throw a boomerang and © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 60 had let each student try it once. They had really enjoyed that. One girl and one boy from the 65 to 70 students had each actually caught their returning boomerang on their throws. That seemed to add to everyone's enjoyment. I had therefore already established a certain rapport with the students, rapport being something that I feel is important for getting them to comfortably and enthusiastically participate in an intellectually uninhibited manner in class and without being psychologically paralyzed by fear of "messing up". When I got to the classroom for the binary math experiment, students were giving reports on famous people and were dressed up like the people they were describing. The student I came in on was reporting on John Glenn, but he had not mentioned the dramatic and scary problem of that first American trip in orbit. I asked whether anyone knew what really scary thing had happened on John Glenn's flight, and whether they © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 61 knew what the flight was. Many said a trip to the moon, one thought Mars. I told them it was the first full earth orbit in space for an American. Then someone remembered hearing about something wrong with the heat shield, but didn't remember what. By now they were listening intently. I explained about how a light had come on that indicated the heat shield was loose or defective and that if so, Glenn would be incinerated coming back to earth. But he could not stay up there alive forever and they had nothing to send up to get him with. The engineers finally determined, or hoped, the problem was not with the heat shield, but with the warning light. They thought it was what was defective. Glenn came down. The shield was ok; it had been just the light. They thought that was neat. "But what I am really here for today is to try an experiment with you. I am the subject of the experiment, not you. I want to see whether I can teach you a whole new kind of arithmetic only by asking © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 62 you questions. I won't be allowed to tell you anything about it, just ask you things. When you think you know an answer, just call it out. You won't need to raise your hands and wait for me to call on you; that takes too long." [This took them a while to adapt to. They kept raising their hands; though after a while they simply called out the answers while raising their hands.] Here we go. 1) "How many is this?" [I held up ten fingers.] TEN 2) "Who can write that on the board?" [virtually all hands up; I toss the chalk to one kid and indicate for her to come up and do it]. She writes 10 3) Who can write ten another way? [They hesitate than some hands go up. I toss the chalk to another kid.] © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 63 |||||||||| 4) Another way? ||||| ||||| 5) Another way? 2 x 5 [inspired by the last idea] 6) That's very good, but there are lots of things that equal ten, right? [student nods agreement], so I'd rather not get into combinations that equal ten, but just things that represent or sort of mean ten. That will keep us from having a whole bunch of the same kind of thing. Anybody else? TEN 7) One more? X [Roman numeral] 8) [I point to the word "ten"]. What is this? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 64 THE WORD TEN 9) What are written words made up of? LETTERS 10) How many letters are there in the English alphabet? 26 11) How many words can you make out of them? ZILLIONS 12) [Pointing to the number "10"] What is this way of writing numbers made up of? NUMERALS 13) How many numerals are there? NINE / TEN 14) Which, nine or ten? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 65 TEN 15) Starting with zero, what are they? [They call out, I write them in the following way.] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16) How many numbers can you make out of these numerals? MEGA-ZILLIONS, INFINITE, LOTS 17) How come we have ten numerals? Could it be because we have 10 fingers? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 66 COULD BE 18) What if we were aliens with only two fingers? How many numerals might we have? 2 19) How many numbers could we write out of 2 numerals? NOT MANY / [one kid:] THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM 20) What problem? THEY COULDN'T DO THIS [he holds up seven fingers] 21) [This strikes me as a very quick, intelligent insight I did not expect so suddenly.] But how can you do fifty five? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 67 [he flashes five fingers for an instant and then flashes them again] 22) How does someone know that is not ten? [I am not really happy with my question here but I don't want to get side-tracked by how to logically try to sign numbers without an established convention. I like that he sees the problem and has announced it, though he did it with fingers instead of words, which complicates the issue in a way. When he ponders my question for a second with a "hmmm", I think he sees the problem and I move on, saying...] 23) Well, let's see what they could do. Here's the numerals you wrote down [pointing to the column from 0 to 9] for our ten numerals. If we only have two numerals and do it like this, what numerals would we have. 0, 1 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 68 24) Okay, what can we write as we count? [I write as they call out answers.] 0 ZERO 1 ONE [silence] 25) Is that it? What do we do on this planet when we run out of numerals at 9? WRITE DOWN "ONE, ZERO" 26) Why? [almost in unison] I DON'T KNOW; THAT'S JUST THE WAY YOU WRITE "TEN" 27) You have more than one numeral here and you have already used these numerals; how can you use them again? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 69 WE PUT THE 1 IN A DIFFERENT COLUMN 28) What do you call that column you put it in? TENS 29) Why do you call it that? DON'T KNOW 30) Well, what does this 1 and this 0 mean when written in these columns? 1 TEN AND NO ONES 31) But why is this a ten? Why is this [pointing] the ten's column? DON'T KNOW; IT JUST IS! 32) I'll bet there's a reason. What was the first number that needed a new column for you to be able to write it? TEN © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 70 33) Could that be why it is called the ten's column?! What is the first number that needs the next column? 100 34) And what column is that? HUNDREDS 35) After you write 19, what do you have to change to write down 20? 9 to a 0 and 1 to a 2 36) Meaning then 2 tens and no ones, right, because 2 tens are ___? TWENTY 37) First number that needs a fourth column? ONE THOUSAND 38) What column is that? THOUSANDS © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 71 39) Okay, let's go back to our twofingered aliens arithmetic. We have 0 1 zero one. What would we do to write "two" if we did the same thing we do over here [tens] to write the next number after you run out of numerals? START ANOTHER COLUMN 40) What should we call it? TWO'S COLUMN? 41) Right! Because the first number we need it for is ___? TWO 42) So what do we put in the two's column? How many two's are there in two? 1 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 72 43) And how many one's extra? ZERO 44) So then two looks like this: [pointing to "10"], right? RIGHT, BUT THAT SURE LOOKS LIKE TEN. 45) No, only to you guys, because you were taught it wrong [grin] -- to the aliens it is two. They learn it that way in pre-school just as you learn to call one, zero [pointing to "10"] "ten". But it's not really ten, right? It's two -- if you only had two fingers. How long does it take a little kid in pre-school to learn to read numbers, especially numbers with more than one numeral or column? TAKES A WHILE 46) Is there anything obvious about calling "one, zero" "ten" or do you © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 73 have to be taught to call it "ten" instead of "one, zero"? HAVE TO BE TAUGHT IT 47) Ok, I'm teaching you different. What is "1, 0" here? TWO 48) Hard to see it that way, though, right? RIGHT 49) Try to get used to it; the alien children do. What number comes next? THREE 50) How do we write it with our numerals? We need one "TWO" and a "ONE" © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 74 [I write down 11 for them] So we have 0 1 10 11 zero one two three 51) Uh oh, now we're out of numerals again. How do we get to four? START A NEW COLUMN! 52) Call it what? THE FOUR'S COLUMN 53) Call it out to me; what do I write? ONE, ZERO, ZERO [I four" write "100 other numbers] under the 54) Next? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 75 ONE, ZERO, ONE I write "101 five" 55) Now let's add one more to it to get six. But be careful. [I point to the 1 in the one's column and ask] If we add 1 to 1, we can't write "2", we can only write zero in this column, so we need to carry ____? ONE 56) And we get? ONE, ONE, ZERO 57) Why is this six? What is it made of? [I point to columns, which I had been labeling at the top with the word "one", "two", and "four" as they had called out the names of them.] a "FOUR" and a "TWO" 58) Which is ____? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 76 SIX 59) Next? Seven? ONE, ONE, ONE I write "111 seven" 60) Out of numerals again. Eight? NEW COLUMN; ONE, ZERO, ZERO, ZERO write I "1000 eight" [We do a couple more and I continue to write them one under the other with the word next to each number, so we have:] 0 1 10 11 100 101 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press zero one two three four five www.criticalthinking.org 77 110 111 1000 1001 1010 six seven eight nine ten 61) So now, how many numbers do you think you can write with a one and a zero? MEGA-ZILLIONS ALSO/ ALL OF THEM 62) Now, let's look at something. [Point to Roman numeral X that one kid had written on the board.] Could you easily multiply Roman numerals? Like MCXVII times LXXV? NO 63) Let's see what happens if we try to multiply in alien here. Let's try two times three and you multiply just like you do in tens [in the "traditional" American style of writing out multiplication]. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 78 10 two x 11 times three They call out the "one, zero" for just below the line, and "one, zero, zero" for just below that and so I write: 10 two x 11 times three 10 100 110 64) Ok, look on the list of numbers, up here [pointing to the "chart" where I have written down the numbers in numeral and word form] what is 110? SIX 65) And how much is two times three in real life? SIX © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 79 66) So alien arithmetic works just as well as your arithmetic, huh? LOOKS LIKE IT 67) Even easier, right, because you just have to multiply or add zeroes and ones, which is easy, right? YES! 68) There, now you know how to do it. Of course, until you get used to reading numbers this way, you need your chart, because it is hard to read something like "10011001011" in alien, right? RIGHT 69) So who uses this stuff? NOBODY/ ALIENS 70) No, I think you guys use this stuff every day. When do you use it? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 80 NO WE DON'T 71) Yes you do. Any ideas where? NO 72) [I walk over to the light switch and, pointing to it, ask:] What is this? A SWITCH 73) [I flip it off and on a few times.] How many positions does it have? TWO 74) What could you call these positions? ON AND OFF/ UP AND DOWN 75) If you were going to give them numbers what would you call them? ONE AND TWO/ © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 81 [one student] OH!! ZERO AND ONE! [other kids then:] OH, YEAH! 76) You got that right. I am going to end my experiment part here and just tell you this last part. Computers and calculators have lots of circuits through essentially on/off switches, where one way represents 0 and the other way, 1. Electricity can go through these switches really fast and flip them on or off, depending on the calculation you are doing. Then, at the end, it translates the strings of zeroes and ones back into numbers or letters, so we humans, who can't read long strings of zeroes and ones very well can know what the answers are. [at this point one of the kid's in the back yelled out, OH! NEEEAT!!] © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 82 I don't know exactly how these circuits work; so if your teacher ever gets some electronics engineer to come into talk to you, I want you to ask him what kind of circuit makes multiplication or alphabetical order, and so on. And I want you to invite me to sit in on the class with you. Now, I have to tell you guys, I think you were leading me on about not knowing any of this stuff. You knew it all before we started, because I didn't tell you anything about this -- which by the way is called "binary arithmetic", "bi" meaning two like in "bicycle". I just asked you questions and you knew all the answers. You've studied this before, haven't you? NO, WE HAVEN'T. REALLY. Then how did you do this? You must be amazing. By the way, some of you may want to try it with other sets of numerals. You might try three © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 83 numerals 0, 1, and 2. Or five numerals. Or you might even try twelve 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ~, and ^ -- see, you have to make up two new numerals to do twelve, because we are used to only ten. Then you can check your system by doing multiplication or addition, etc. Good luck. After the part about John Glenn, the whole class took only 25 minutes. Their teacher told me later that after I left the children talked about it until it was time to go home. .............. My Views About This Whole Episode Students do not get bored or lose concentration if they are actively participating. Almost all of these children participated the whole time; often calling out in unison or one after another. If necessary, I could have asked if anyone thought some answer © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 84 might be wrong, or if anyone agreed with a particular answer. You get extra mileage out of a given question that way. I did not have to do that here. Their answers were almost all immediate and very good. If necessary, you can also call on particular students; if they don't know, other students will bail them out. Calling on someone in a non-threatening way tends to activate others who might otherwise remain silent. That was not a problem with these kids. Remember, this was not a "gifted" class. It was a normal suburban third grade of whom two teachers had said only a few students would be able to understand the ideas. The topic was "twos", but I think they learned just as much about the "tens" they had been using and not really understanding. This method takes a lot of energy and concentration when you are doing it fast, the way I like to do it when © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 85 beginning a new topic. A teacher cannot do this for every topic or all day long, at least not the first time one teaches particular topics this way. It takes a lot of preparation, and a lot of thought. When it goes well, as this did, it is so exciting for both the students and the teacher that it is difficult to stay at that peak and pace or to change gears or topics. When it does not go as well, it is very taxing trying to figure out what you need to modify or what you need to say. I practiced this particular sequence of questioning a little bit one time with a first grade teacher. I found a flaw in my sequence of questions. I had to figure out how to correct that. I had time to prepare this particular lesson; I am not a teacher but a volunteer; and I am not a mathematician. I came to the school just to do this topic that one period. I did this fast. I personally like to do new topics fast originally and then re-visit them periodically at a more © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 86 leisurely pace as you get to other ideas or circumstances that apply to, or make use of, them. As you re-visit, you fine tune. The chief benefits of this method are that it excites students' curiosity and arouses their thinking, rather than stifling it. It also makes teaching more interesting, because most of the time, you learn more from the students -- or by what they make you think of -- than what you knew going into the class. Each group of students is just enough different, that it makes it stimulating. It is a very efficient teaching method, because the first time through tends to cover the topic very thoroughly, in terms of their understanding it. It is more efficient for their learning then lecturing to them is, though, of course, a teacher can lecture in less time. It gives constant feed-back and thus allows monitoring of the students' understanding as you go. So you know what problems and misunderstandings © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 87 or lack of understandings you need to address as you are presenting the material. You do not need to wait to give a quiz or exam; the whole thing is one big quiz as you go, though a quiz whose point is teaching, not grading. Though, to repeat, this is teaching by stimulating students' thinking in certain focused areas, in order to draw ideas out of them; it is not "teaching" by pushing ideas into students that they may or may not be able to absorb or assimilate. Further, by quizzing and monitoring their understanding as you go along, you have the time and opportunity to correct misunderstandings or someone's being lost at the immediate time, not at the end of six weeks when it is usually too late to try to "go back" over the material. And in some cases their ideas will jump ahead to new material so that you can meaningfully talk about some of it "out of (your!) order" (but in an order relevant to them). Or you can tell them you will get to exactly © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 88 that in a little while, and will answer their question then. Or suggest they might want to think about it between now and then to see whether they can figure it out for themselves first. There are all kinds of options, but at least you know the material is "live" for them, which it is not always when you are lecturing or just telling them things or they are passively and dutifully reading or doing worksheets or listening without thinking. If you can get the right questions in the right sequence, kids in the whole intellectual spectrum in a normal class can go at about the same pace without being bored; and they can "feed off" each others' answers. Gifted kids may have additional insights they may or may not share at the time, but will tend to reflect on later. This brings up the issue of teacher expectations. From what I have read about the supposed sin of tracking, one of the main complaints is that the students who are © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 89 not in the "top" group have lower expectations of themselves and they get teachers who expect little of them, and who teach them in boring ways because of it. So tracking becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy about a kid's educability; it becomes dooming. That is a problem, not with tracking as such, but with teacher expectations of students (and their ability to teach). These kids were not tracked, and yet they would never have been exposed to anything like this by most of the teachers in that school, because most felt the way the two did whose expectations I reported. Most felt the kids would not be capable enough and certainly not in the afternoon, on a Friday near the end of the school year yet. One of the problems with not tracking is that many teachers have almost as low expectations of, and plans for, students grouped heterogeneously as they do with nonhigh-end tracked students. The point is to try to stimulate and challenge all © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 90 students as much as possible. The Socratic method is an excellent way to do that. It works for any topics or any parts of topics that have any logical natures at all. It does not work for unrelated facts or for explaining conventions, such as the sounds of letters or the capitals of states whose capitals are more the result of historical accident than logical selection. Of course, you will notice these questions are very specific, and as logically leading as possible. That is part of the point of the method. Not just any question will do, particularly not broad, very open ended questions, like "What is arithmetic?" or "How would you design an arithmetic with only two numbers?" (or if you are trying to teach them about why tall trees do not fall over when the wind blows "what is a tree?"). Students have nothing in particular to focus on when you ask such questions, and few © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 91 come up with any sort of interesting answer. And it forces the teacher to think about the logic of a topic, and how to make it most easily assimilated. In tandem with that, the teacher has to try to understand at what level the students are, and what prior knowledge they may have that will help them assimilate what the teacher wants them to learn. It emphasizes student understanding, rather than teacher presentation; student intake, interpretation, and "construction", rather than teacher output. And the point of education is that the students are helped most efficiently to learn by a teacher, not that a teacher make the finest apparent presentation, regardless of what students might be learning, or not learning. I was fortunate in this class that students already understood the difference between numbers and numerals, or I would have had to teach that by © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 92 questions also. And it was an added help that they had already learned Roman numerals. It was also most fortunate that these students did not take very many, if any, wrong turns or have any firmly entrenched erroneous ideas that would have taken much effort to show to be mistaken. I took a shortcut in question 15 although I did not have to; but I did it because I thought their answers to questions 13 and 14 showed an understanding that "0" was a numeral, and I didn't want to spend time in this particular lesson trying to get them to see where "0" best fit with regard to order. If they had said there were only nine numerals and said they were 1-9, then you could ask how they could write ten numerically using only those nine, and they would quickly come to see they needed to add "0" to their list of numerals. These are the four critical points about the questions: 1) they must be © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 93 interesting or intriguing to the students; they must lead by 2) incremental and 3) logical steps (from the students' prior knowledge or understanding) in order to be readily answered and, at some point, seen to be evidence toward a conclusion, not just individual, isolated points; and 4) they must be designed to get the student to see particular points. You are essentially trying to get students to use their own logic and therefore see, by their own reflections on your questions, either the good new ideas or the obviously erroneous ideas that are the consequences of their established ideas, knowledge, or beliefs. Therefore you have to know or to be able to find out what the students' ideas and beliefs are. You cannot ask just any question or start just anywhere. It is crucial to understand the difference between "logically" leading questions and "psychologically" leading questions. Logically leading © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 94 questions require understanding of the concepts and principles involved in order to be answered correctly; psychologically leading questions can be answered by students' keying in on clues other than the logic of the content. Question 39 above is psychologically leading, since I did not want to cover in this lesson the concept of value-representation but just wanted to use "columnar-place" value, so I psychologically led them into saying "Start another column" rather than getting them to see the reasoning behind columnar-place as merely one form of value representation. I wanted them to see how to use columnar-place value logically without trying here to get them to totally understand its logic. (A common form of valuerepresentation that is not "place" value is color value in poker chips, where colors determine the value of the individual chips in ways similar to how columnar place does it in writing. For example if white chips are worth © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 95 "one" unit and blue chips are worth "ten" units, 4 blue chips and 3 white chips is the same value as a "4" written in the "tens" column and a "3" written in the "ones" column for almost the same reasons.) For the Socratic method to work as a teaching tool and not just as a magic trick to get kids to give right answers with no real understanding, it is crucial that the important questions in the sequence must be logically leading rather than psychologically leading. There is no magic formula for doing this, but one of the tests for determining whether you have likely done it is to try to see whether leaving out some key steps still allows people to give correct answers to things they are not likely to really understand. Further, in the case of binary numbers, I found that when you used this sequence of questions with impatient or math-phobic adults who didn't want to have to think but just © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 96 wanted you to "get to the point", they could not correctly answer very far into even the above sequence. That leads me to believe that answering most of these questions correctly, requires understandingof the topic rather than picking up some "external" sorts of clues in order to just guess correctly. Plus, generally when one uses the Socratic method, it tends to become pretty clear when people get lost and are either mistaken or just guessing. Their demeanor tends to change when they are guessing, and they answer with a questioning tone in their voice. Further, when they are logically understanding as they go, they tend to say out loud insights they have or reasons they have for their answers. When they are just guessing, they tend to just give short answers with almost no comment or enthusiasm. They don't tend to want to sustain the activity. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 97 Finally, two of the interesting, perhaps side, benefits of using the Socratic method are that it gives the students a chance to experience the attendant joy and excitement of discovering (often complex) ideas on their own. And it gives teachers a chance to learn how much more inventive and bright a great many more students are than usually appear to be when they are primarily passive. [Some additional comments about the Socratic method of teaching are in a letter, "Using the Socratic Method".] [For a more general approach to teaching, of which the Socratic Method is just one specific form, see "Teaching Effectively: Helping Students Absorb and Assimilate Material"] © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 98 https://www.criticalthinking.org/store/get _file.php?inventories_id=231&inventorie s_files_id=374 The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning 1 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org Socratic Questioning Transcripts http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html http://www.trigonweb.com/dowload/SO CRATIC%20QUESTIONS.pdf THE SIX TYPES OF SOCRATIC QUESTIONS © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 99 Due to the rapid addition of new information and th e advancement of science and technology that occur almost daily, an engineer must constantly expand his or her horizons beyond simple gathering information and relying on the basic engineering principles. THE SIX TYPES OF SOCRATIC QUESTIONS Due to the rapid addition of new information and th e advancement of science and technology that occur almost daily, an engineer must constantly expand his or her horizons beyond simple gathering information and relying on the basic engineering principles. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 100 A number of homework problems have been included th at are designed to enhance critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is the process we use to reflect on, access and judge the assumptions underl ying our own and others ideas and actions. Socratic questioning is at the heart of critical th inking and a number of homework problems draw from R.W. Paul's six types o f Socratic questions: 1. Questions for clarification: • Why do you say that? • How does this relate to our discussion? • What do you mean by? • What do we already know about...? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 101 2. Questions that probe assumptions: • What could we assume instead? • How can you verify or disapprove that assumption? • Could you explain why you arrived at that conclusion? (Explain how...) • What would happen if...? • Do you agree or disagree with this statement...? 3. Questions that probe reasons and evidence: • What would be an example? • What is....analogous to? • What do you think causes to happen...? Why:? • © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 102 What evidence is there to support your answer? 4. Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives: • What would be an alternative? • What is another way to look at it? • Would you explain why it is necessary-or beneficial and who benefits? • Why is the best? • What are the strengths and weaknesses of...? • How are...and ...similar? • What is a counter argument for...? • Compare... and... with regard to... 5. Questions that probe implications and consequences: © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 103 • What generalizations can you make? • What are the consequences of that assumption? • What are you implying? • How does...affect...? • How does...tie in with what we have learned before? • Why is... important? 6. Questions about the question: • What was the point of this question? • Why do you think I asked this question? • What does...mean? • How does...apply to everyday life? Socratic Questions Socratic QuestionsSocratic Questions © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 104 Socratic Questions [Adapted from Richard Paul's Critical Thinking Workshop ] A. Questions that probe CONCEPTUAL understandings. 1. What do you mean by ____? 2. How does ____ relate to ____? 3. Could you put that another way? 4. Is your basic point ____ or ____? 5. Let me see if I understand you; do you mean ____ or ____? 6. How does this relate to our discussion/problem/i ssue? 7. Could you give me an example? 8. Would this be an example: ____? 9. Could you explain further? 10. Can you find a more precise term for ____? B. Questions that probe ASSUMPTIONS. 1. What are you assuming? 2. What could we assume instead? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 105 3. You seem to be assuming ____. Do I understand yo u correctly? 4. You seem to be assuming ____. How would you just ify taking this for granted? 5. Why would someone make this assumption? C. Questions that probe REASONS AND EVIDENCE for a pos ition. 1. How do you know? 2. Why do you think that is true? 3. Do you have any evidence for that? 4. What are your reasons for saying that? 5. What other information do we need? 6. Could you explain your reasons to us? 7. Are these reasons adequate? 8. Why did you say that? 9. What led you to that belief? 10. How does that apply to this case? 11. What would change your mind? 12. Is there a reason to doubt that evidence? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 106 13. What would you say to someone who said ____? 14. By what reasoning did you come to that conclusi on? 15. How could we find out whether that is true? D. Questions about PERSPECTIVES. 1. You seem to be approaching this from ____ perspe ctive. Why have you chosen this rather than another perspective? 2. How would other groups/types of people respond? Why? What would influence them? 3. How could you answer the objection that ____ wou ld make? 4. What might someone who believed ____ think? 5. Can/did anyone see this another way? 6. How many other perspectives can you imagine? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 107 E. Questions that probe CONSEQUENCES of a position. 1. When you say ____, are you implying ____? 2. But if that happened, what else would happen as a result? Why? 3. What effect would that have? 4. Would that necessarily happen or only probably h appen? 5. If we disagree, what consequences could result? 6. If this and this is the case, then what else mus t also be true? 7. Would any implication or result cause you to thi nk differently? http://www.keytostudy.com/six-typessocratic-questions/ Posted on September 5, 2016 by Lev Goldentouch, PhD © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 108 Six types of Socratic questions We ask similar questions after each time we preread or read the text. The questions can be divided into questions building our curiosity so we can focus on the text and questions we asked in order to ensure we understood the text properly. This post mainly deals with questions of the second kind. If we cannot answer the questions we need to reread the text. Typically I ask one question at the end of each section and 6 questions at the end of an article/chapter. The tool that we use is called socratic questions, and apparently there are six types of them. This article was used to generate my list. 1. Questions for clarification. Quite often we preread a text and do not understand its added value. What is the main subject of the article? Why did the author write the article? What can I get out of it? This sort of questions is typically © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 109 asked after first prereading of an article. If we are puzzled by some section we asked it again. If the document does not make any sense, there is really no need to read and create mental markers – you might better reread the article after “Aha!” moment later on. 2. Questions that probe assumptions. To get a reasonable theory some things need to be assumed. These assumptions may be explicitly stated in the document, implicitly assumed by the author like common sense, or may be invisible to the author being a part of his belief system. Typically we probe the assumptions after reading the chapter/article when we consider how to use the new information in our own knowledge base. Occasionally we find the article untrustworthy or useless in real life scenarios and need to probe © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 110 assumptions immediately after initial prereading. 3. Questions that probe reasons and evidence. This is something we ask quite often, almost every section, when trying to link the new information with other information we know. Some links may be obvious, yet some might require concentration and creativity. We make the more complex linking at the end of the text, when trying reevaluate the article. We do need to recreate the logic of the article from the details we remembered when reading. If something is missing from this logic we really should scan (read very fast) and rescan the article for the missing parts. This process results in improved comprehension but reduced average speed, so we do not count it when calculating the reading speed. Sometimes this “search and recovery” mission takes me x3-x5 more time than © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 111 reading the article itself, especially with complex patents and scientific articles. 4. Questions about viewpoints and perspectives. Typically we use various perspectives to increase creativity and curiosity before reading the article. It might be a good idea to ask the same question after reading the article, so we can identify the hidden agendas behind the article. An article is typically a work of several people with different agendas, each person and agenda being fused into the common text. You may have your own different agenda and then you might miss key arguments or you might have a very similar agenda and then you will miss flaws in logic. Occasionally articles contain hidden triggers which make us act differently. Do we want to incorporate these triggers in our life? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 112 5. Questions that probe implications and consequences. How can I use what I just read? This is the main question we ask after reading an article. If the article did not make your inner word richer, if you did not get motivated to do the right thing, if your knowledge base and toolset did not grow – then why did you read the article? Being honest to ourselves about why we read what we read and what we do with what we read is very important. If you read just to pass some sort of exam or because you have completion bias (decided to read so need to finish reading), you may want to reassess situation and find more practical motivations. 6. Questions about the question. Some articles are provocative and they make us think. Rather than giving us an answer they ask a question. These are the best articles as far as I am concerned, © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 113 since they can set up into a journey and open worlds we could not imagine. It is very useful to think for a while about the questions we are asked and how we can learn more about them. Do not just put a checkmark on the article, but try to plan your researh, enrich the original question with follow-up questions you may have I hope this article will make you ask further questions and read more about socratic method and critical thinking. Asking the right question is 80% of the process, with the right questions asked finding the answer is easy. https://www.criticalthinking.org/store/get _file.php?inventories_id=231&inventorie s_files_id=374 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 114 Contents Introduction Part One A Taxonomy of Socratic Questions Based in Critical Thinking Concepts 4 Questions that Target the Parts of Thinking 4 Questions that Target the Quality of Reasoning 7 The Art of Socratic Questioning Checklist 10 Four Directions in Which to Pursue Thought 12 Three Kinds of Questions 14 Asking One-System, No-System, and Conflicting-System Questions 15 Questioning Questions: Identifying Prior Questions 17 Asking Complex Interdisciplinary Questions 18 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 115 Part Two Socratic Questioning Transcripts 24 Exploring the Mind and How it Works (Elementary School) 26 Helping Students Organize Their Thoughts for Writing (Middle School) 33 Helping Students Think Deeply about Basic Ideas (High School) 37 Helping Students Think Seriously about Complex Social Issues (High School) 42 Part Three The Mechanics of Socratic Questioning 48 Three Kinds of Socratic Discussion 48 Spontaneous or Unplanned 48 Exploratory 49 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 116 Focused 50 Wondering Aloud About Truth and Meaning 54 Sources of Student Belief 55 General Guidelines for Socratic Questioning 57 Part Four The Role of Questions in Teaching, Thinking, and Learning 60 The Teacher as Questioner 60 Understanding Content as Interrelated Systems with Real-Life Connections 61 Thinking Is Driven By Questions 62 Part Five Socrates, the Socratic Method, and Critical Thinking 64 A Definition of Socratic © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 117 Questioning 64 On Socrates 65 The Intellectual Virtues as Displayed By Socrates 66 The Systematic Nature of the Socratic Method 68 Placing the Dialectic Process at the Heart of Teaching 68 The Historical Contribution of Socrates 69 The Concept of Critical Thinking 69 What Critical Thinking Brings to Socratic Questioning 70 Appendices A—Patterns in Teaching that Incorporate Socratic Dialogue 72 B—Analyzed Transcript of a Socratic Dialogue from Plato’s © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 118 The Art of © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 119 Dear Reader, It is hard to imagine someone being a good critical thinker while lacking the disposition to question in a deep way. It is also hard to imagine someone acquiring the disposition to question in a fuller way than Socrates. It follows that those truly interested in critical thinking will also be interested in the art of deep questioning. And learning the Socratic art is a natural place to start. Of course, to learn from Socrates we must identify and practice applying the components of his art. Without a sense of these components, it is hard to grasp the nature of the questioning strategies that underlie the art of Socratic questioning. The art requires contextualization. And in that contextualization, the spirit of Socratic questioning is more important than the letter of it. In this guide, we provide analyses of the components of Socratic questioning, © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 120 along with some contemporary examples of the method applied in elementary through high school classes. To get you started in practicing Socratic questioning, we begin with the nuts and bolts of critical thinking (Part One), followed by some examples of Socratic dialogue (Part Two), and then the mechanics of Socratic dialogue (Part Three). The fourth and fifth sections focus on the importance of questioning in teaching, the contribution of Socrates, and the link between Socratic questioning and critical thinking. As you begin to ask questions in the spirit of Socrates—to dig deeply into what people believe and why they believe it—you will begin to experience greater command of your own thinking as well as the thinking of others. Be patient with yourself and with your students. Proficiency in Socratic questioning takes time, but time well worth spending. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 121 We hope this guide is of use to you and your students in achieving greater command of the art of deep questioning. Richard Paul Center for Critical Thinking Linda Elder Foundation For Critical Thinking 1 Contents Introduction Part One A Taxonomy of Socratic Questions Based in Critical Thinking Concepts 4 Questions that Target the Parts of Thinking 4 Questions that Target the Quality of Reasoning 7 The Art of Socratic Questioning Checklist © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 122 10 Four Directions in Which to Pursue Thought 12 Three Kinds of Questions 14 Asking One-System, No-System, and Conflicting-System Questions 15 Questioning Questions: Identifying Prior Questions 17 Asking Complex Interdisciplinary Questions 18 Part Two Socratic Questioning Transcripts 24 Exploring the Mind and How it Works (Elementary School) 26 Helping Students Organize Their Thoughts for Writing (Middle School) 33 Helping Students Think Deeply about Basic Ideas (High School) 37 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 123 Helping Students Think Seriously about Complex Social Issues (High School) 42 Part Three The Mechanics of Socratic Questioning 48 Three Kinds of Socratic Discussion 48 Spontaneous or Unplanned 48 Exploratory 49 Focused 50 Wondering Aloud About Truth and Meaning 54 Sources of Student Belief 55 General Guidelines for Socratic Questioning 57 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 124 Part Four The Role of Questions in Teaching, Thinking, and Learning 60 The Teacher as Questioner 60 Understanding Content as Interrelated Systems with Real-Life Connections 61 Thinking Is Driven By Questions 62 Part Five Socrates, the Socratic Method, and Critical Thinking 64 A Definition of Socratic Questioning 64 On Socrates 65 The Intellectual Virtues as Displayed By Socrates 66 The Systematic Nature of the Socratic Method 68 Placing the Dialectic Process at the Heart of Teaching 68 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 125 The Historical Contribution of Socrates 69 The Concept of Critical Thinking 69 What Critical Thinking Brings to Socratic Questioning 70 Appendices A—Patterns in Teaching that Incorporate Socratic Dialogue 72 B—Analyzed Transcript of a Socratic Dialogue from Plato’s Euthyphro 76 C—More On Socrates 90 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 2 The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning Introduction The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates Socratic questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems. Teachers, students, or indeed anyone interested in probing thinking at a deep level can and should construct Socratic questions and engage in Socratic dialogue. When we use Socratic questioning in teaching, our purpose may be to probe student thinking, to determine the extent of their knowledge on a given topic, issue or subject, to model Socratic questioning for them, or to help them analyze a concept or line of reasoning. In the final analysis, we want students to learn the discipline of Socratic questioning, so that they begin to use it in reasoning through complex issues, in understanding and assessing the thinking of others, and in following-out the implications of what they, and others think. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning In teaching, then, we can use Socratic questioning for at least two purposes: 1. To deeply probe student thinking, to help students begin to distinguish what they know or understand from what they do not know or understand (and to help them develop intellectual humility in the process). 2. To foster students’ abilities to ask Socratic questions, to help students acquire the powerful tools of Socratic dialogue, so that they can use these tools in everyday life (in questioning themselves and others). To this end, we need to model the questioning strategies we want students to emulate and employ. Moreover, we need to directly teach students how to construct and ask deep questions. Beyond that, students need practice, practice, and more practice. Socratic questioning teaches us the importance of questioning in learning (indeed Socrates himself thought that questioning was the only defensible form of teaching). It teaches us the difference between systematic and fragmented thinking. It teaches us to dig beneath the surface of our ideas. It teaches us the value of developing questioning minds in cultivating deep learning. The art of Socratic questioning is intimately connected with critical thinking because the art of questioning is important to excellence of thought. What the word “Socratic” adds to the art of questioning is systematicity, depth, and an abiding interest in assessing the truth or plausibility of things. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning Both critical thinking and Socratic questioning share a common end. Critical thinking provides the conceptual tools for understanding how the mind functions (in it’s pursuit of 3 meaning and truth); and Socratic questioning employs those tools in framing questions essential to the pursuit of meaning and truth. The goal of critical thinking is to establish an additional level of thinking to our thinking, a powerful inner voice of reason, that monitors, assesses, and reconstitutes—in a more rational direction—our thinking, feeling, and action. Socratic discussion cultivates that inner voice through an explicit focus on self-directed, disciplined questioning. In this guide, we focus on the mechanics of Socratic dialogue, on the conceptual tools that critical thinking brings to Socratic dialogue, and on the importance of questioning in cultivating the disciplined mind. Through a critical thinking perspective, we offer a substantive, explicit, and rich understanding of Socratic questioning. To get you started in practicing Socratic questioning, we begin with the nuts and bolts of critical thinking (Part One), followed by some examples of Socratic dialogue (Part Two), and then the mechanics of Socratic dialogue (Part Three). The fourth and fifth sections focus on the importance of questioning in teaching, the contribution © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning of Socrates, and the link between Socratic questioning and critical thinking. • • • • • • • Socratic Questioning Raises basic issues Probes beneath the surface of things Pursues problematic areas of thought Helps students discover the structure of their own thought Helps students develop sensitivity to clarity, accuracy, relevance, and depth Helps students arrive at judgments through their own reasoning Helps students analyze thinking—its purposes, assumptions, questions, points of view, information, inferences, concepts, and implications 5 Implications frame of reference,Point of Viewperspective,orientation,Purposegoal, objective,function world view © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning and Question Consequences at Issue that which follows problem, issue logically, effects Elements of Assumptions Thought Information presuppositions, data, facts, evidence, axioms, taking observations, for granted experiences, Concepts reasons theories, Interpretation definitions, laws, and Inference principles, conclusions, models solutions understand the agenda behind it. Some of the many questions that focus on purpose in thinking include: • What is your purpose right now? • What was your purpose when you made that comment? • Why are you writing this? Who is your audience? What do you want to persuade them of? • What is the purpose of this assignment? • What are we trying to accomplish here? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning • What is our central aim or task in this line of thought? • What is the purpose of this chapter, relationship, policy, law? • What is our central agenda? What other goals do we need to consider? 2. Questioning Questions. All thought is responsive to a question. Assume that you do not fully understand a thought until you understand the question that gives rise to it. Questions that focus on questions in thinking include: • I am not sure exactly what question you are raising. Could you explain it? • What are the main questions that guide the way you behave in this or that situation? • Is this question the best one to focus on at this point, or is there a more pressing question we need to address? 13 Opposing thoughts and objections: How would you answer someone who said …? What might these people say? How could someone else look at this? Why? Why do you think your way of looking at it is better? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning The implications and consequences : The origin Are you implying or source: The belief, that …? If that’s How did statement, or true, then what else you come to conclusion must by true? How would we put that believe that? into action? What happens when you act on that belief? Support, reasons, evidence, and assumptions: How do you know? Are you assuming that …? Is this a good assumption? What evidence do you have? Why is that relevant? How do you know your evidence is true? How are you conceiving of, thinking about the issue? Why? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning This diagram, and the classifications implicit in it, helps accentuate the following important facts about thinking. • All thinking has a history in the lives of particular persons. • All thinking depends upon a substructure of reasons, evidence, and assumptions. • All thinking leads us in some direction or other (has implications and consequences). • All thinking stands in relation to other possible ways to think (there is never just one way to think about something). This classificatory scheme highlights four ways we can help students come to terms with their thought: • We can help students reflect on how they have come to think the way they do on a given subject. (In doing this, we are helping them examine the history of their thinking on that subject, helping them find the source or origin of their thinking.) • We can help students reflect on how they support or might support their thinking. (In doing this, we are helping them express the reasons, evidence, and assumptions that underlie what they think.) © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 14 Questioning • • The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic We can help students reflect on what “follows from” their thinking, what implications and consequences their thinking generates. (In doing this, we are helping them recognize that all thinking entails or involves “effects” or “results” that we are obliged to consider.) We can help students reflect on how it is that people with points of view different from theirs might raise legitimate objections or propose alternative ways to think that they should take into account. (In doing this, we are helping them think more broadly, more comprehensively, more fair-mindedly.) Three Kinds of Questions In approaching a question, it is useful to figure out what type it is. Is it a question with one definitive answer? Is it a question that calls for a subjective choice? Or does the question require us to consider competing answers. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 1 One-System 2 3 No-System Conflicting Systems requires evidence calls for stating requires evidence and reasoning a subjective and reasoning within a system preference within conflicting systems a correct a subjective better and worse answer opinion answers Knowledge 48 Cannot be assessed Judgment The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning Part Three The Mechanics of Socratic Questioning Three Kinds of Socratic Discussion We can loosely categorize three general forms of Socratic questioning and distinguish three basic kinds of preparation for each: spontaneous, exploratory, and © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org focused. Each of these forms of questioning can be used to probe student thinking at any level of instruction— from elementary throughout graduate school. All three types of Socratic discussion require developing the art of questioning. They require the teacher to learn a wide variety of intellectual moves and to develop judgment in determining when to ask which kinds of questions (realizing that there is rarely one best question at any particular time). Spontaneous or Unplanned When your teaching is imbued with the Socratic spirit, when you maintain your curiosity and sense of wonderment, there will be many occasions in which you will spontaneously ask students questions that probe their thinking. There will be many opportunities to question what they mean and explore with them how you might find out if something is true, logical, or reasonable. If one student says that a given angle will be the same as another angle in a geometrical figure, you may spontaneously question how the class might go about proving or disproving this assertion. If a student says, “Americans love freedom,” you may spontaneously wonder aloud about what such a statement might mean (Does that mean, for example, that we love freedom more than other people do? Does it mean that we live in a free country? What would it mean to live in a free country? How would we know if we did? Does “freedom” mean the same thing to all Americans?). If in © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org a science class a student says that most space is empty, you may spontaneously ask a question as to what that might mean and how you together might find out. Such spontaneous discussions provide models of listening critically as well as exploring the beliefs expressed. If something said seems questionable, misleading, or false, Socratic questioning provides a way of helping students become self-correcting, rather than relying on correction by the teacher. Spontaneous Socratic discussion can prove especially useful when students become interested in a topic, when they raise an important issue, when they are on the brink of grasping or integrating a new insight, when discussion becomes bogged down or confused or hostile. Socratic questioning provides specific moves which can fruitfully take advantage of student interest. It can help you effectively approach an important issue. It can aid in integrating and expanding an insight, move a troubled discussion forward, clarify or sort through what appears confusing, and diffuse frustration or anger. Although by definition there can be no preplanning for a particular spontaneous discussion, you can prepare yourself by becoming familiar and comfortable with generic Socratic questions, by developing the art of raising probing follow-up questions and by The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning 49 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org giving encouraging and helpful responses. Consider the following “moves” you might be prepared to make: • • • • • • • • Spontaneous Socratic Questioning “Moves” Ask for an example of a point a student has made, or of a point you have made. Ask for evidence or reasons for a position. Propose a counter-example or two. Ask the group whether they agree. (Does everyone agree with this point? Is there anyone who does not agree?) Suggest parallel or similar examples. Provide an analogy that illuminates a particular position. Ask for a paraphrase of an opposing view. Rephrase student responses clearly and accurately. In short, when you begin to wonder more and more about meaning and truth, and so think aloud in front of your students by means of questions, Socratic exchanges will occur at many unplanned moments in your instruction. However, in addition to these unplanned wonderings, we can also design or plan out at least two distinct kinds of Socratic discussion: one that explores a wide range of issues and one that focuses on one particular issue. Exploratory © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org What we call exploratory Socratic questioning is appropriate when teachers want to find out what students know or think and to probe student thinking on a variety of issues. For example, you might use it to assess student thinking on a subject at the beginning of a semester or unit. You could use it to explore student values, or to uncover problematic areas or potential biases. You could use it to identify where your students are the most clear or the most fuzzy in their thinking. You can use it to discover areas or issues of interest or controversy, or to find out where and how students have integrated academic material into their thinking (and into their behavior). Such discussions can be used in introducing a subject, in preparing students for later analysis of a topic, or in reviewing important ideas before students take a test. You can use it to determine what students have learned from their study of a unit or topic, or as a guide to future assignments. After an exploratory dialogue, you might have students take an issue raised in discussion and develop in writing their own views on the issue. Or you might have students form groups to further discuss the issue or topic. With this type of Socratic questioning, we raise and explore a broad range of interrelated issues and concepts, not just one. It requires minimal preplanning or prethinking. It has a relatively loose order or structure. You can prepare by having some general questions ready to raise when appropriate by considering the topic or © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org issue, related issues, and key concepts. You can also prepare by predicting students’ likeliest responses and preparing 76 The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning Appendix B Analyzed Transcript of a Socratic Dialogue from Plato’s Euthyphro What follows is an excerpt from Plato’s Euthyphro. This is a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, in which Socrates is questioning Euthyphro on what it means to be pious (and, by implication, what it means to be impious). Through this excerpt, we get a good idea of the basic approach taken by Socrates when questioning others. At the heart of most Socratic dialogues is a concept that is both abstract and deep. Socrates pretends that he doesn’t understand the concept, and that he needs help from the person he is questioning in understanding the concept clearly and accurately. This dialogue takes place outside the courthouse where Socrates is shortly to stand trial. There he meets Euthyphro, “a seer and religious expert, who says that he is going to charge his own father with manslaughter. Socrates is startled, and inquires how Euthyphro can be sure that such conduct is consistent with his religious duty. The result is a discussion of the true nature of Piety. Euthyphro does not represent Athenian orthodoxy; on the contrary, he is sympathetic towards Socrates. He © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org is an independent specialist, confident in his own fallibility, and therefore a fit subject for Socrates’ curative treatment, which aims at clearing the mind of false assumptions and so making it receptive of real knowledge…although the argument moves in a circle, it offers clues for the solution of the problem.” What we want most to notice in this, and indeed any dialogue led by Socrates, is how Socrates guides the discussion. We want to understand the precise intellectual moves, if you will, Socrates makes at each point along the way, so that we might emulated those moves. The best way to do this is to use the language of critical thinking to label those moves. As you read through this dialogue, notice the notes we provide relevant to this point (in parentheses and italics). We begin shortly after the beginning of the dialogue, and include a good portion, but not all, of the dialogue. Euthyphro: The man who is dead was a poor dependent of mine who worked for us as a field laborer at Naxos, and one day in a fit of drunken passion he got into a quarrel with one of our domestic servants and slew him. My father bound him hand and foot and threw him into a ditch, and then sent to Athens, to ask of a diviner what he should do with him. Meantime he had no care or thought of him, being under the impression that he was a murderer; and that even if he did die there would be no great harm. And this was just what happened. For such was the effect of cold and hunger © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org and chains upon him, that before the messenger returned from the diviner, he was dead. And my father and family are angry with me for taking the part of the murderer and prosecuting my father. They say that he did not kill him, and if he did, the dead man was but a murderer, and I ought not to take any notice, for that a son is impious who prosecutes a father. That shows, The Thinker’s Guide to the Art of Socratic Questioning 77 Socrates, how little they know of the opinions of the gods about piety and impiety. Socrates: And what is piety, and what is impiety? (Socrates asks Euthyphro to explicitly state the fundamental difference between two concepts. This is an important early step in conceptual analysis.) E: Piety is doing as I am doing; that is to say, prosecuting any one who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any other similar crime—whether he be your father or mother, or some other person, makes no difference—and not persecuting them is impiety. And please to consider, Socrates, what a notable proof I will give you of the truth of what I am saying, which I have already given to others—of the truth, I mean of the principle that the impious, whoever he may be, ought not to go unpunished. For do men regard Zeus as the best and most righteous of the gods?—and even they admit that he bound his father (Cronos) because he wickedly devoured his sons, and that he too has © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org punished his own father (Uranus) for a similar reason, in a nameless manner. And yet when I proceed against my father, they are angry with me. This is their inconsistent way of talking when the gods are concerned, and when I am concerned. S: May not this be the reason, Euthyphro, why I am charged with impiety— that I can not away with these stories about the gods? And therefore I suppose that people think me wrong. But, as you who are well informed about them approve of them, I cannot do better than assent to your superior wisdom. For what else can I say, confessing as I do, that I know nothing of them? I wish you would tell me whether you really believe that they are true. (Here, Socrates is saying that Euthyphro, since he purports to know a lot about the gods, should tell Socrates of his knowledge. Socrates refers to the indictment against him—that he believes in gods different from those sanctioned by the state. Socrates is demonstrating intellectual humility, while imlying that Euthyphro is intellectually arrogant in purporting to know what the gods believe.) E: Yes, Socrates; and things more wonderful still, of which the world is in ignorance. S: And do you really believe that the gods fought with one another, and had dire quarrels, battles, and the like, as the poets say, and as you may see represented © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org in the works of great artists? The temples are full of them. Are all these tales of the gods true, Euthyphro? © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 145 © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 146 i) Philosophical Toolkit https://www.amazon.com/Philosophers-Toolkit-CompendiumPhilosophical-Concepts/dp/1405190183#reader_1405190183 Table of Contents Preface. Acknowledgements. 1. Basic Tools for Argument. 1.1 Arguments, premises and conclusions. 1.2 Deduction. 1.3 Induction. 1.4 Validity and soundness. 1.5 Invalidity. 1.6 Consistency. 1.7 Fallacies. 1.8 Refutation. 1.9 Axioms. 1.10 Definitions. 1.11 Certainty and probability. 1.12 Tautologies, self-contradictions and the law of non-contradiction. 2. More Advanced Tools. 2.1 Abduction. 2.2 Hypothetico-deductive method. 2.3 Dialectic. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 147 2.4 Analogies. 2.5 Anomalies and exceptions that prove the rule. 2.6 Intuition pumps. 2.7 Logical constructions. 2.8 Reduction. 2.9 Thought experiments. 2.10 Useful fictions. 3. Tools for Assessment. 3.1 Alternative explanations. 3.2 Ambiguity. 3.3 Bivalence and the excluded middle. 3.4 Category mistakes. 3.5 Ceteris paribus. 3.6 Circularity. 3.7 Conceptual incoherence. 3.8 Counterexamples. 3.9 Criteria. 3.10 Error theory. 3.11 False dichotomy. 3.12 False cause. 3.13 Genetic fallacy. 3.14 Horned dilemmas. 3.15 Is/ought gap. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 148 3.16 Masked man fallacy. 3.17 Partners in guilt. 3.18 Principle of charity. 3.19 Question-begging. 3.20 Reductios. 3.21 Redundancy. 3.22 Regresses. 3.23 Saving the phenomena. 3.24 Self-defeating arguments. 3.25 Sufficient reason. 3.26 Testability. 4. Tools for Conceptual Distinctions. 4.1 A priori/a posteriori. 4.2 Absolute/relative. 4.3 Analytic/synthetic 4.4 Categorical/modal. 4.5 Conditional/biconditional. 4.6 De re/de dicto. 4.7 Defeasible/indefeasible. 4.8 Entailment/implication. 4.9 Essence/accident. 4.10 Internalism/externalism. 4.11 Knowledge by acquaintance/description. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 149 4.12 Necessary/contingent. 4.13 Necessary/sufficient. 4.14 Objective/subjective. 4.15 Realist/non-realist. 4.16 Sense/reference. 4.17 Syntax/semantics. 4.18 Thick/thin concepts. 4.19 Types/tokens. 5. Tools of Historical Schools and Philosophers. 5.1 Aphorism, fragment, remark. 5.2 Categories and specific differences. 5.3 Elenchus and aporia. 5.4 Hume's fork. 5.5 Indirect discourse. 5.6 Leibniz's law of identity. 5.7 Ockham's razor. 5.8 Phenomenological method(s). 5.9 Signs and signifiers. 5.10 Transcendental argument. 6. Tools for Radical Critique. 6.1 Class critique. 6.2 Deconstruction and the critique of presence. 6.3 Empiricist critique of metaphysics. © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 150 6.4 Feminist critique. 6.5 Foucaultian critique of power. 6.6 Heideggerian critique of metaphysics. 6.7 Lacanian critique. 6.8 Critiques of naturalism. 6.9 Nietzschean critique of Christian-Platonic culture. 6.10 Pragmatist critique. 6.11 Sartrean critique of 'bad faith'. 7. Tools at the Limit. 7.1 Basic beliefs. 7.2 Gödel and incompleteness. 7.3 Philosophy and/as art. 7.4 Mystical experience and revelation. 7.5 Paradoxes. 7.6 Possibility and impossibility. 7.7 Primitives. 7.8 Self-evident truths. 7.9 Scepticism. 7.10 Underdetermination. Internet Resources for Philosophers. Index. See Less © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org 151 Author Information Julian Baggini (www.julianbaggini.com) is a freelance writer and co-founding editor of The Philosophers’ Magazine. Peter S. Fosl is Professor of Philosophy at Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky. New To This Edition   For the second edition, many of the volume’s original 87 entries have been enhanced, extended and updated, an entirely new section has been added on methods drawn from the history of philosophy, and the suggestions for further reading have been expanded This edition has a broad, pluralistic approach--appealing to readers in both continental philosophy and the history of philosophy, as well as analytic philosophy. In this second edition, greater attention is paid to continental philosophy and history of philosophy than in the first edition The Wiley Advantage     Provides necessary intellectual equipment to engage with and participate in philosophical argument and criticism Features significantly updated and expanded entries, as well as an entirely new section drawn from methods in the history of philosophy This edition has a broad, pluralistic approach--appealing to readers in both continental philosophy and the history of philosophy, as well as analytic philosophy Explains difficult concepts in an easily accessible manner, and addresses the use and application of these concepts  Proven useful to philosophy students at both beginning and advanced levels © 2007 Foundation for Critical Thinking Press www.criticalthinking.org