After leaping into an online forum yesterday and unwittingly short-circuiting someone else’s Socratic dialogue, I mentioned in the aftermath on Twitter that law school soured me on the Socratic method. Mark, the unfortunate victim of my zeal, said he would be interested in hearing more about that. So I promised a blog post. Here it is.
For those unfamiliar with the art of Socratic dialogue, I’ll not go into the detailed background here (try the excellent Wikipedia article instead). But conversing like Socrates usually means that one party to the conversation uses a series of questions to force the other into clarity (the better to attack their views), contradiction (in which case their views crumble under their own weight), or illumination (after which no further persuasion is necessary). After suffering through Socratic interlocution by several law school professors, I developed five objections to the Socratic method.
People who use the Socratic method, including Socrates himself, often seem disingenuous. Socrates famously observed that he was wise because he knew that he knew nothing. So he asked questions. That’s great, Socrates; I think you’re lying. And I think questioners who pattern themselves after Socrates are employing the device of feigned ignorance to drive their questioning. People who use the Socratic method, whether law professors or otherwise, are rarely just looking for general illumination by way of dialectic; they are not really using ignorance as a springboard to knowledge. Instead they often have a particular outcome in mind and they are using a series of questions to push the other person toward it. Law students would say they are “hiding the ball.” Instead, let’s play ball.
Especially when they are disingenuous, Socratic interlocutors seem arrogant. Not all people who use the Socratic method are disingenuous, but I think most of them are. And it strikes me as rather arrogant. While pretending to ask innocent questions, the subtext of the interlocutor is something like this: “I understand this concept, but you do not and cannot yet, until you jump through all the hoops I set before you, leading you step by step to my position, where you will finally know what I know.” Really? Why not just tell me what you’re thinking and then see if I need further clarification? Why assume that I’m a fool? Or, if you know that I am a fool, why not just lay it bare immediately, instead of letting me believe otherwise and talking down to me in the meantime?
The didactic value of the Socratic method is questionable. What do people at the receiving end of the Socratic method really learn? Taking them by the nose through a series of questions, especially when the questioner is not extremely skilled at using the method, only reinforces a particular way of reaching a given conclusion. Any tendency to take another route, think creatively, or beat a path to a better conclusion, will be headed off by the questioner. Some Socratic questioners allow creative thinking, so that the conclusion is something other than what they desired, but in my experience, they are in a tiny minority. So the Socratic method is usually only good for reinforcing the views of the questioner.
Going round and round with the Socratic method can be a waste of time. Sometimes people launch into the Socratic method when they perceive that someone else has a problematic view, and sometimes that perception is wrong. After many, many questions, the Socratic interlocutor may discover that the victim was illuminated all along, but believed the questioner was talking about something else. This is especially likely when the person using the Socratic method is not very skilled at using it. There are other, quicker methods for rooting out real disagreements and bringing them to the forefront of the discussion. For example, restating the other party’s position in your own words and ensuring that you have agreed-upon definitions for key terms.
The Socratic method works better as a literary device than as a practical tool. We learned the Socratic method by reading Plato, who wrote the Socratic dialogues to illustrate the teachings of Socrates. And those dialogues make excellent reading because they present tricky ideas in an engaging way: by putting them into the mouths of two people who are arguing. And everybody loves a good argument. Maybe Socrates’ real-life victims learned something, too, but the dialogues are not transcripts. They convey that Socrates asked questions and they illustrate his famous observation that true wisdom means knowing the limits of your own knowledge, but ultimately, as they appear in the written dialogues, they are a literary device. They present opposing ideas without resorting to the conceit of pretending to know others’ minds. But for the reasons articulated above, I am doubtful about the practical value of the Socratic method for participants in Socratic dialogues.
When people want to discuss controversial topics, explain their ideas to those who may disagree, or persuade others to adopt a different view, I much prefer a direct path to the controversy. Lay it out. Be honest, be polite, say what you are thinking, and focus on the substance of the conversation. Don’t waste time. Be frank about your ignorance, recognize, as Socrates did, that you do not know everything, but don’t make conspicuously curious ignorance into your modus operandi when you really do know something. Concede the points that ought to be conceded, hold the points that ought to be held, and get to the points that ought to be gotten to.
Very well thought out Peter. I will probably change my position on the Socratic method because of this.
I think there may be a place for this method in arguments, but I believe I’ll use it sparingly in the future – even rarely. And when I do so, I’ll attempt to guard against my own hubris.
I agree. There will always be a place in argument and persuasion for rhetorical questions. There are also occasions where two people really do want to explore possibilities by dialectic, with no preconceived outcome in mind. But those are rare.
Only one of my professors uses the Socratic method and that, very sparingly. He hasn’t appeared to be doing so in an arrogant manner when he does use it.
Will have to see what next year brings.
I agree with you Peter (or should I say I concur?). I think the Socratic method does have its place in certain situations, but I think that it should be reserved for when students have at least some sort of foundation on which to respond and, eventually, argue.
I believe that students would learn more and get more out of their education if, first, they were given knowledge and facts and hypotheticals (which they could use to spin their own wheels in their minds at their own pace). Then they should be questioned based on what they’ve been given.
It doesn’t make much sense to tell students to read a bunch of pages in a textbook that also uses the Socratic method, have them come to class confused, and then delve into more of the Socratic method.
Wouldn’t it be better if the confusion were dealt with before inundating students with more difficult questions to answer in front of their peers?
I love the Socratic method, and I’ll explain why….
When trying to get someone to understand a point you’re trying to make, it’s hard enough just to get them to effectively listen to you, let alone rationally evaluate your argument. Even if they do listen and evaluate your argument, it’s still easy enough to dismiss. If they come to the same conclusion you have, it leads to a deeper level of understanding. Assisting them in coming to that conclusion by providing with some questions for them to answer in their own words just facilitates that, and is a much more efficient way to prevail your point than simply telling them what it is and insisting on it’s superiority.
Also, providing them with the questions to answer for their selves helps stimulate their thinking, and can lead to answers you weren’t expecting/didn’t anticipate. It’s alot of fun.
I don’t think the statement Socrates made about knowing nothing was intended to be taken literally. If we all start out any discourse with the understanding that we don’t know everything and that we are always prepared to learn something new, then we are positioned to take something away from every encounter with others, and we are able to learn much more than we would be able to otherwise.
You have given a good description of the abuses of the Socratic Method. What they do in law school is not even an example of the Socratic Method. The law school form is almost violent and does not even have the basic structure of Socratic Dialogue. When a law school prof screams at you to recite the facts, procedural history and the holdings of such and such a case, obviously the prof is not ignorant and knows what he wants. However! When you ask a question like, “What is justice?” or “What is virtue?” then your ignorance is not an act. Nobody has perfect answers to such questions. I have used the Socratic Method on controversial subjects in a way that my being upfront about my ignorance made the other person less defensive and more inclined to have a serious dialogue. When I use the method, I do not know in advance what the outcome will be. Anyone who thinks they do is probably not using the Socratic Method. Just asking questions is not automatically a use of the Socratic Method.
The didactic value of the Socratic Method is not in its ability to teach specific facts or principles. It is in its ability to make people realize they do not know as much as they think they do. The only able people who cannot learn are those who think they already know. I would venture to guess that you may have not actually seen a real example of the Socratic Method (its quite rare).
A lot is two words
Firstly, where is your proof that Socrates already knows the truth and is just leading the men to whom he is conversing? Do think he lies when he says he knows nothing? Or is he just being modest? He sets out to see if what the Oracle at Delphi says is true, namely that he is the wisest man. And even if he already knows the conclusion to that which he is discussing that does not take away from the Socratic Method. It only goes to show that Socrates already knows what he’s talking about, and thus by using the Socratic Method he is able to assist men in coming to know the truth, also, by the use of their own logic and intellects. I don’t know, but that seems like a better way of learning and teaching as opposed to the Modern methods of learning (where students are just told what they ought to believe.) Also, the purpose of the Socratic Method is not merely about having questioner and then just answering those questions, but rather it is a discussion for the purpose of reaching some truth through controversy in order to finally come to a unanimous conclusion. To the matter of it being a waste of time: the reason it takes so long to discover a truth through the use of the Socratic Method is because it’s not easy to discover a truth; it’s strenuous work, but also it is a more accurate method because “the rule of thumb” is that if the majority agrees it is usually correct. Finally, things do not always need to be practical. The Fine Arts are not practical. A painting is an end in itself; its purpose is to be beautiful by portraying/imitating something in life according to Aristotle’s definition. That is the reason that many men say that modern art is not actually “art”. Nonetheless, things do not always have to be “practical” to be good, and besides we ought to pursue what is good, and the truth is good and one of the highest things because it is true. And we ought to pursue the highest things qua men.
Thanks for writing this it was very interesting especially because I’m writing my junior thesis for high school on: Whether the Socratic Method is the Highest Form of Education. But again, your objections were very insightful. Thanks!
“That’s great, Socrates; I think you’re lying.”
Funny. And so true. A lot of times not-that-smart people latch onto it cause it seems ‘educated’ when, geez, it’s kind of easy to see through.
Thanks for this offering
Kevin
Peter,
You make some good points here. However, I don’t think you’ve developed a satisfactory critique of the Socratic Method because the examples you evaluate are not authentic examples of the Socratic Method. I am, of course, assuming that by “Socratic Method” you refer to Socrates’ method of doing philosophy as demonstrated in Plato’s early dialogues. If this is not what you mean, then I have completely misunderstood your point.
I agree with you that it is counter to authentic learning to have a teacher that behaves in a generally disingenuous and arrogant manner. I also think we might agree that authentic learning requires the development of autonomous thinking. Thus, having a rigid, closed, dependent disposition is not the proper disposition of one who is a true student.
What is the proper way to understand the Socratic Method? I would venture the following… As Socrates practiced philosophy he was seeking knowledge about something that he claimed to be ignorant about. (There is a lot of speculation about what Socrates may have meant by his claim here. One idea that seems consistent with a careful reading of several dialogues (including Plato’s Apology) is that Socrates seems to have thought that having authentic knowledge has a transformative effect on the knower. Thus, when one knows Justice, one becomes just. When one knows Holiness, one becomes holy. Thus, Socrates is ignorant insofar as he is not just, holy, beautiful, and so forth. So though he may have some ideas about some subject, he has such high standards for what counts as knowledge that he regards himself as ignorant.) Next, Socrates meets someone claiming to have the knowledge that Socrates is seeking. Socrates presses for a definition and then proceeds to critique it to see if it stands up to scrutiny. If it is flawed in some way, then it is not knowledge. This critiquing process is the destructive part of the Socratic Method. It is necessary before the next step can take place. This part of the method concludes when the other person admits ignorance. Finally, Socrates and the other person then work together to discover a satisfactory answer. Here, Socrates still uses questions but he uses them in a constructive manner rather than the destructive manner that was previously employed (I am oversimplifying here for the sake of making some general distinctions between the two elements of the Socratic Method: constructive and destructive).
I think that many people do not read Socrates carefully enough and conclude that any sort of question-asking activity in the educational setting is thus Socratic in nature. This is obviously a misunderstanding of Socrates’ methods. All too often people put too much weight on the destructive element of this method and conclude that that is all there is too it. This is a shame. Certainly the destructive element is important: after all, how can two people seek knowledge on a subject when one of them concludes that he already knows all there is to know? To authentically seek knowledge, all interested parties must be willing to admit ignorance. By admitting ignorance, they remain open to the possibility of discovery.
Furthermore, the Socratic Method aims to help others discover knowledge. By making the discovery yourself you are able to make meaning, make connections, and thus take ownership of what is learned. A lecture or “let me tell you” format of instruction lacks these advantages. The Socratic Method, used properly, helps the development of autonomous and independent thinkers. It also properly construes knowledge as a social inquiry. It need not be conducted in an inauthentic or arrogant manner. It is best done with an attitude of authentic curiosity and genuine caring. We cannot learn in isolation and we must value the diverse perspectives others.
This is just my interpretation. Thank you for sharing your interesting critique.
As a 3rd year law student I’d say you hit the nail right on the head. Yes I am way late to the party, but my take on the socratic method as just another person who’s had to deal with it.
I’ve seen examples of both good and bad socratic use. The bad is just as you’ve described, but I’ll also add that it was used in a class of 60 students. My first year I noticed the sign up sheets to meet with the prof during office hours was constantly full, and people would race from the class rooms to the secretary’s desk to sign up for office hours. What does that say as far as being an effective teaching tool. I had a Contracts professor who was so terrible at it, we ended up 3 month behind on the syllabus at the end of the semester, yes 3 MONTHS! From my own personal experience I just don’t think Socratic method works with a large class and when it’s used with a particular objective at the end. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard it mumbled “get to the f***ing point!” Or how many people I’ve seen logging on to Facebook while the prof continued to hide a ball that most in class no longer cared about.
On the other hand the instances I have seen it work were with smaller classes like you’d see for electives, and the prof had taken a more conversational tone, but most of all was the prof’s purpose behind using socratic method, instead of trying to TEACH he was gauging if we understood the material. For instance I had a criminal law prof who would give us the rule and how it was applied during lecture then post a hypothetical and pick on a random student or a volunteer and discuss if all the elements of the crime were present, and he’d change a fact or two along the way and see if the elements of the crime were still there. Another prof I had for immigration law, would lecture, then in the middle ask our opinion and give a response, though half of his questions would be in regards to policy, for example he would ask if the U Visa should be a permanent visa.
Like any other tool there’s a right way and a wrong way to use it. Using socratic method as the primary teaching tool? Wrong way. Would you teach someone how to drive, or use a firearm? No you would because that could get someone killed. Using it as a way to test if students are understanding concepts that the prof has explained and discussed, then yes, in that way it could be effective.