This article addresses and rebuts the claim that the purpose of the Socratic method is to humiliate, shame, and perplex participants. It clarifies pedagogical and exegetical confusions surrounding the Socratic method, what the Socratic method is, what its epistemological ambitions are, and how the historical Socrates likely viewed it. First, this article explains the Socratic method; second, it clarifies a misunderstanding regarding Socrates' role in intentionally perplexing his interlocutors; third, it discusses two different types of perplexity and relates these to (...) philosophical inquiry and dialectical pedagogy; finally, it refutes the claim that those who use the Socratic method intentionally attempt to shame and humiliate students. (shrink)

This paper examines the relationship among behaviorism, constructivism and Socratic pedagogy. Specifically, it asks if a Socratic educator can be a constructivist or a behaviorist. In the first part of the paper, each learning theory, as it relates to the Socratic project, is explained. In the last section, the question of whether or not a Socratic teacher can subscribe to a constructivist or a behaviorist learning theory is addressed. The paper concludes by stating that while Socratic pedagogy shares some similarities (...) with each learning theory, ultimately it is fundamentally incompatible with both. (shrink)

This paper examines the relationship among behaviorism, constructivism and Socratic pedagogy. Specifically, it asks if a Socratic educator can be a constructivist or a behaviorist. In the first part of the paper, each learning theory, as it relates to the Socratic project, is explained. In the last section, the question of whether or not a Socratic teacher can subscribe to a constructivist or a behaviorist learning theory is addressed. The paper concludes by stating that while Socratic pedagogy shares some similarities (...) with each learning theory, ultimately it is fundamentally incompatible with both. (shrink)

This paper argues that without the appropriate educational and organizational context, Socratic pedagogy can undermine a teacher’s leadership and negatively impact classroom dynamics by exposing a teacher’s lack of knowledge. In arguing for this position, the paper articulates the nature of the Socratic method, clarifies the notion of “power” and “leadership,” and then discusses traditional power roles in the classroom. These traditional power roles are strongly contrasted against the notion of power in the Socratic method, where the Socratic teacher derives (...) their power by asking questions. Finally, provided the educational and organizational context are structured in a way that puts the teacher in the role of the Socratic questioner, instructors need not worry that their leadership is in jeopardy or that classroom dynamics will suffer. (shrink)

This paper argues that without the appropriate educational and organizational context, Socratic pedagogy can undermine a teacher’s leadership and negatively impact classroom dynamics by exposing a teacher’s lack of knowledge. In arguing for this position, the paper articulates the nature of the Socratic method, clarifies the notion of “power” and “leadership,” and then discusses traditional power roles in the classroom. These traditional power roles are strongly contrasted against the notion of power in the Socratic method, where the Socratic teacher derives (...) their power by asking questions. Finally, provided the educational and organizational context are structured in a way that puts the teacher in the role of the Socratic questioner, instructors need not worry that their leadership is in jeopardy or that classroom dynamics will suffer. (shrink)

In his paper, “Higher‐order truths about chmess,” Daniel Dennett argues that “[m]any projects in contemporary philosophy are artifactual puzzles of no abiding significance.” In other words, much contemporary academic philosophy is a waste of time. In this chapter, we use mathematics, models, and metaphysics, to expand and clarify Dennett's chmess analogy. We further the argument that some contemporary academic philosophy loses its way and chases chmess‐like endeavors – arguing that philosophy is bloated by extraneous, esoteric, and bizarre philosophical projects that (...) aren't detached from reality but only related to it tangentially. Chmess‐like games, like some contemporary academic philosophy, nick reality and then shoot off on their own trajectory, often down intellectual rabbit holes. (shrink)

Constructivist pedagogies cannot achieve their critical thinking ambitions. Constructivism, and constructivist epistemological presuppositions, actively thwarts the critical thinking process. Using Wittgenstein's private language argument, this paper argues that corrective mechanisms—the ability to correct a student's propositions and cognitions against the background of a shared, knowable world—are indispensible to critical thinking. This paper provides concrete examples of actual constructivist practice and shows how a particular constructivist classroom exercise can be modified to incorporate critical thinking elements as detailed by the American Philosophical (...) Association. Finally, the paper states the significance of these arguments, particularly as they extend from the educational arena into the public and governmental domains. (shrink)

There is an extensive body of philosophical, educational, and popular literature explaining Socratic pedagogy’s epistemological and educational ambitions. However, there is virtually no literature clarifying the relationship between Socratic method and doxastic responsibility. This article fills that gap in the literature by arguing that the Socratic method models many of the features of an ideally doxastically responsible agent. It ties a robust notion of doxastic responsibility to the Socratic method by showing how using defeaters to undermine participants’ knowledge claims can (...) facilitate responsible belief. It then argues that more robust notions of doxastic responsibility can be augmented by constructs found in the American Philosophical Association’s Delphi Report. Finally, it shows how considering challenges and modifying beliefs accordingly are objectives of the Socratic method and crucial elements of what it means to be a responsible believer. (shrink)