Socratic method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
Socrates
"I
know
that
I
Social gadfly Trial of Socrates

know

nothing"

Eponymous concepts
Socratic
dialogue Socratic
method
Socratic
questioning Socratic
irony
Socratic paradox Socratic problem Apology (Plato)
Disciples
Plato Xenophon
Antisthenes Aristippus
Related topics
Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic
debate, is named after theclassical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative
argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to
stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is
a dialecticalmethod, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is
questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus
weakening the defender's point. This method is introduced by Socrates
in Plato'sTheaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions
implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding.

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found
by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method
searches for general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs, and scrutinizes them to determine
their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests
of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic,
exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general
characteristics shared by various particular instances. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the
discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of
the scientific method.
Contents
[hide]
1Development
2Method
3Application
3.1Socratic Circles
3.1.1Various approaches to Socratic Circles
3.1.2Text selection
3.1.3Questioning methods in Socratic Circles
3.2Law schools
3.3Psychotherapy
4See also
5References
6Further reading
7External links
Development[edit]
In the second half of the 5th century BC, sophists were teachers who specialized in using the
tools of philosophy and rhetoric to entertain or impress or persuade an audience to accept the
speaker's point of view. Socrates promoted an alternative method of teaching which came to be
called the Socratic method.

Socrates began to engage in such discussions with his fellow Athenians after his friend from
youth, Chaerephon, visited the Oracle of Delphi, which confirmed that no man in Greece was
wiser than Socrates. Socrates saw this as a paradox, and began using the Socratic method to
answer his conundrum. Diogenes Lartius, however, wrote that Protagoras invented the
Socratic method.
Plato famously formalized the Socratic elenctic style in prosepresenting Socrates as the
curious questioner of some prominent Athenian interlocutorin some of his early dialogues,
such as Euthyphro and Ion, and the method is most commonly found within the so-called
"Socratic dialogues", which generally portray Socrates engaging in the method and questioning
his fellow citizens about moral and epistemological issues. But in his later dialogues, such
as Theaetetus or Sophist, Plato had a different method to philosophical discussions, namely
Dialectic.
Method[edit]
Elenchus (Ancient Greek: elengkhos "argument of disproof or refutation; crossexamining, testing, scrutiny esp. for purposes of refutation"[3]) is the central technique of the
Socratic method. The Latin form elenchus (plural elenchi ) is used in English as the technical
philosophical
term.[4] The
most
common
adjectival
form
in
English
is elenctic; elenchic and elenchtic are also current.
In Plato's early dialogues, the elenchus is the technique Socrates uses to investigate, for example,
the nature or definition of ethical concepts such as justice or virtue. According to Vlastos,[5] it
has the following steps:
Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example "Courage is endurance of the soul", which
Socrates considers false and targets for refutation.
Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example "Courage is a fine
thing" and "Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing".
Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, that these further premises imply the contrary
of the original thesis; in this case, it leads to: "courage is not endurance of the soul".
Socrates then claims that he has shown that his interlocutor's thesis is false and that its negation
is true.
One elenctic examination can lead to a new, more refined, examination of the concept being
considered, in this case it invites an examination of the claim: "Courage is wiseendurance of the
soul". Most Socratic inquiries consist of a series of elenchi and typically end in puzzlement
known as aporia.

Frede[6] points out that Vlastos' conclusion in step above makes nonsense of the aporetic nature
of the early dialogues. Having shown that a proposed thesis is false is insufficient to conclude
that some other competing thesis must be true. Rather, the interlocutors have reached aporia, an
improved state of still not knowing what to say about the subject under discussion.
The exact nature of the elenchus is subject to a great deal of debate, in particular concerning
whether it is a positive method, leading to knowledge, or a negative method used solely to refute
false claims to knowledge.
W. K. C. Guthrie in The Greek Philosophers sees it as an error to regard the Socratic method as a
means by which one seeks the answer to a problem, or knowledge. Guthrie claims that the
Socratic method actually aims to demonstrate one's ignorance. Socrates, unlike the Sophists, did
believe that knowledge was possible, but believed that the first step to knowledge was
recognition of one's ignorance. Guthrie writes, "[Socrates] was accustomed to say that he did not
himself know anything, and that the only way in which he was wiser than other men was that he
was conscious of his own ignorance, while they were not. The essence of the Socratic method is
to convince the interlocutor that whereas he thought he knew something, in fact he does not."
Application[edit]
It has been suggested that Socratic questioning be merged into this section.
(Discuss) Proposed since June 2015.
Socrates generally applied his method of examination to concepts that seem to lack any concrete
definition;
e.g.,
the
key
moral
concepts
at
the
time,
the virtues of piety, wisdom,temperance, courage, and justice. Such an examination challenged
the implicit moral beliefs of the interlocutors, bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies in
their beliefs, and usually resulting in aporia. In view of such inadequacies, Socrates himself
professed his ignorance, but others still claimed to have knowledge. Socrates believed that his
awareness of his ignorance made him wiser than those who, though ignorant, still claimed
knowledge. While this belief seems paradoxical at first glance, it in fact allowed Socrates to
discover his own errors where others might assume they were correct. This claim was known by
the anecdote of the Delphic oracular pronouncement that Socrates was the wisest of all men. (Or,
rather, that no man was wiser than Socrates.)
Socrates used this claim of wisdom as the basis of his moral exhortation. Accordingly, he
claimed that the chief goodness consists in the caring of the soul concerned with moral truth and
moral understanding, that "wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth and
every other blessing, both to the individual and to the state", and that "life without examination
[dialogue] is not worth living". It is with this in mind that the Socratic method is employed.
The motive for the modern usage of this method and Socrates' use are not necessarily equivalent.
Socrates rarely used the method to actually develop consistent theories, instead using myth to

explain them. The Parmenides dialogue shows Parmenides using the Socratic method to point
out the flaws in the Platonic theory of the Forms, as presented by Socrates; it is not the only
dialogue in which theories normally expounded by Plato/Socrates are broken down through
dialectic. Instead of arriving at answers, the method was used to break down the theories we
hold, to go "beyond" the axioms and postulates we take for granted. Therefore, myth and the
Socratic method are not meant by Plato to be incompatible; they have different purposes, and are
often described as the "left hand" and "right hand" paths to good and wisdom.
Socratic Circles[edit]
A Socratic Circle (also known as a Socratic Seminar) is a pedagogical approach based on the
Socratic method and uses a dialogic approach to understand information in a text. Its systematic
procedure is used to examine a text through questions and answers founded on the beliefs that all
new knowledge is connected to prior knowledge, that all thinking comes from asking questions,
and that asking one question should lead to asking further questions.[8] A Socratic Circle is not a
debate. The goal of this activity is to have participants work together to construct meaning and
arrive at an answer, not for one student or one group to win the argument.[9]
This approach is based on the belief that participants seek and gain deeper understanding of
concepts in the text through thoughtful dialogue rather than memorizing information that has
been provided for them.[9] While Socratic Circles can differ in structure, and even in name, they
typically involve the following components: a passage of text that students must read beforehand
and two concentric circles of students: an outer circle and an inner circle. The inner circle
focuses on exploring and analysing the text through the act of questioning and answering. During
this phase, the outer circle remains silent. Students in the outer circle are much like scientific
observers watching and listening to the conversation of the inner circle. When the text has been
fully discussed and the inner circle is finished talking, the outer circle provides feedback on the
dialogue that took place. This process alternates with the inner circle students going to the outer
circle for the next meeting and vice versa. The length of this process varies depending on the text
used for the discussion. The teacher may decide to alternate groups within one meeting, or they
may alternate at each separate meeting.[8][10]
The most significant difference between this activity and most typical classroom activities
involves the role of the teacher. In Socratic Circles the students lead the discussion and
questioning. The teacher's role is to ensure the discussion advances regardless of the particular
direction the discussion takes.[8][10]
Various approaches to Socratic Circles[edit]
Teachers use Socratic Circles in different ways. The structure it takes may look different in each
classroom. While this is not an exhaustive list, teachers may use one of the following structures
to administer Socratic Seminar:

Inner/outer circle or fishbowl: Students need to be arranged in inner and outer circles. The inner
circle engages in discussion about the text. The outer circle observes the inner circle, while
taking notes. The outer circle shares their observations and questions the inner circle with
guidance from the teacher/facilitator. Students use constructive criticism as opposed to making
judgements. The students on the outside keep track of topics they would like to discuss as part of
the debrief. Participants of the outer circle can use an observation checklist or notes form to
monitor the participants in the inner circle. These tools will provide structure for listening and
give the outside members specific details to discuss later in the seminar.[8][10] The teacher may
also sit in the circle but at the same height as the students.[11]
Triad: Students are arranged so that each participant (called a pilot) in the inner circle has two
co-pilots sitting behind them on either side. Pilots are the speakers because they are in the
inner circle; co-pilots are in the outer circle and only speak during consultation. The seminar
proceeds as any other seminar. At a point in the seminar, the facilitator pauses the discussion and
instructs the triad to talk to each other. Conversation will be about topics that need more in-depth
discussion or a question posed by the leader. Sometimes triads will be asked by the facilitator to
come up with a new question. Any time during a triad conversation, group members can switch
seats and one of the co-pilots can sit in the pilots seat. Only during that time is the switching of
seats allowed. This structure allows for students to speak, who may not yet have the confidence
to speak in the large group. This type of seminar involves all students instead of just the students
in the inner and outer circles.[10]
Simultaneous seminars: Students are arranged in multiple small groups and placed as far as
possible from each other. Following the guidelines of the Socratic Seminar, students engage in
small group discussions. Simultaneous seminars are typically done with experienced students
who need little guidance and can engage in a discussion without assistance from a
teacher/facilitator. According to the literature, this type of seminar is beneficial for teachers who
want students to explore a variety of texts around a main issue or topic. Each small group may
have a different text to read/view and discuss. A larger Socratic Seminar can then occur as a
discussion about how each text corresponds with one another. Simultaneous Seminars can also
be used for a particularly difficult text. Students can work through different issues and key
passages from the text.[12]
No matter what structure the teacher employs, the basic premise of the seminar/circles is to turn
partial control and direction of the classroom over to the students. The seminars encourage
students to work together, creating meaning from the text and to stay away from trying to find a
correct interpretation. The emphasis is on critical and creative thinking.[8]
Text selection[edit]
Socratic Circle texts

A Socratic Circle text is a tangible document that creates a thought-provoking discussion.

[13] The text ought to be appropriate for the participants' current level of intellectual and social
development.[14] It provides the anchor for dialogue whereby the facilitator can bring the
participants back to the text if they begin to digress. Furthermore, the seminar text enables the
participants to create a level playing field ensuring that the dialogical tone within the classroom
remains consistent and pure to the subject or topic at hand.[13]Some practitioners argue that
"texts" do not have to be confined to printed texts, but can include artifacts such as objects,
physical spaces, and the like.
Pertinent elements of an effective Socratic text
Socratic seminar texts are able to challenge participants thinking skills by having these
characteristics:
Ideas and values
Complexity and challenge
Relevance to participants' curriculum
Ambiguity
Ideas and values - The text must introduce ideas and values that are complex and difficult to
summarize.[13] Powerful discussions arise from personal connections to abstract ideas and from
implications to personal values.
Complexity and challenge - The text must be rich in ideas and complexity [10] and open to
interpretation.[15] Ideally it should require multiple readings,[16] but should be neither far above
the participants' intellectual level nor very long.
Relevance to participants and curriculum - An effective text has identifiable themes that are
recognizable and pertinent to the lives of the participants.[14] Themes in the text should relate to
the curriculum.
Ambiguity - The text must be approachable from a variety of different perspectives, including
perspectives that seem mutually exclusive, thus provoking critical thinking and raising important
questions. The absence of right and wrong answers promotes a variety of discussion and
encourages individual contributions.[10][16]
Two different ways to select a text
Socratic texts can be divided into two main categories:
Print texts (e.g. short stories, poems, and essays) and non-print texts (e.g. photographs,
sculptures, and maps); and

Subject area, which can draw from print or non-print artifacts. As examples, language arts can be
approached through poems, history through written or oral historical speeches, science through
policies on environmental issues, math through mathematical proofs, health through nutrition
labels, and physical education through fitness guidelines.[10][13]
Questioning methods in Socratic Circles[edit]
Socratic Circles are based upon the interaction of peers. The focus is to explore multiple
perspectives on a given issue or topic. Socratic questioning is used to help students apply the
activity to their learning. The pedagogy of Socratic questions is open-ended, focusing on broad,
general ideas rather than specific, factual information.[8] The questioning technique emphasizes
a level of questioning and thinking where there is no single right answer.
Socratic circles generally start with an open-ended question proposed either by the leader or by
another participant.[14] There is no designated first speaker; as individuals participate in Socratic
circles, they gain experience that enables them to be effective in this role of initial questioner.
[10]
The leader keeps the topic focused by asking a variety of questions about the text itself, as well
as questions to help clarify positions when arguments become confused. The leader also seeks to
coax reluctant participants into the discussion, and to limit contributions from those who tend to
dominate.[10] She or he prompts participants to elaborate on their responses and to build on what
others have said. The leader guides participants to deepen, clarify, and paraphrase, and to
synthesize a variety of different views.[10]
The participants share the responsibility with the leader to maintain the quality of the Socratic
circle. They listen actively in order to respond effectively to what others have contributed. This
teaches the participants to think and speak persuasively using the discussion to support their
position.[8] Participants must demonstrate respect for different ideas, thoughts and values, and
must not interrupt each other.[10]
Questions can be created individually or in small groups.[15] All participants are given the
opportunity to take part in the discussion.[17] Socratic Circles specify three types of questions to
prepare:
Opening questions generate discussion at the beginning of the seminar in order to elicit dominant
themes.[10][15]
Guiding questions help deepen and elaborate the discussion, keeping contributions on topic and
encouraging a positive atmosphere and consideration for others.
Closing questions lead participants to summarize their thoughts and learning[10] and personalize
what theyve discussed.[15]

Law schools[edit]
See also: Casebook method
The Socratic method is widely used in contemporary legal education by many schools
throughout the world; most law schools in the United States tend to employ the Socratic method.
In a typical class setting, the professor asks a question and calls on a student who may or may not
have volunteered an answer. The professor either then continues to ask the student questions or
moves on to another student.
The employment of the Socratic method has some uniform features but can also be heavily
influenced by the temperament of the teacher. The method begins by calling on a student at
random, and asking about a central argument put forth by one of the judges (typically on the side
of the majority) in an assigned case. The first step is to ask the student to paraphrase the
argument to ensure they read and basically understand the case. (Students who have not read the
case, for whatever reason, must take the opportunity to "pass," which most professors allow as a
matter of course a few times per term.) Assuming the student has read the case and can articulate
the court's argument, the professor then asks whether the student agrees with the argument. The
professor then typically plays Devil's advocate, trying to force the student to defend his or her
position by rebutting arguments against it.
These subsequent questions can take several forms. Sometimes they seek to challenge the
assumptions upon which the student based the previous answer until it can no longer be
defended. Further questions can be designed to move a student toward greater specificity, either
in understanding a rule of law or a particular case. The teacher may attempt to propose a
hypothetical situation in which the student's assertion would seem to demand an exception.
Finally professors can use the Socratic method to allow students to come to legal principles on
their own through carefully worded questions that encourage a particular[citation needed] train
of thought.
One hallmark of Socratic questioning is that typically there is more than one "correct" answer,
and more often, no clear answer at all. The primary goal of the Socratic method in the law school
setting is not to answer usually unanswerable questions, but to explore the contours of often
difficult legal issues and to teach students the critical thinking skills they will need as lawyers.
This is often done by altering the facts of a particular case to tease out how the result might be
different. This method encourages students to go beyond memorizing the facts of a case and
instead to focus on application of legal rules to tangible fact patterns. As the assigned texts are
typically case law, the Socratic method, if properly used, can display that judges' decisions are
usually conscientiously made but are based on certain premises, beliefs, and conclusions that are
the subject of legitimate argument.
Sometimes, the class ends with a discussion of doctrinal foundations (legal rules) to anchor the
students in contemporary legal understanding of an issue. At other times the class ends without

such discussion leaving students to figure out for themselves the legal rules or principles that
were at issue. For this method to work, the students are expected to be prepared for class in
advance by reading the assigned materials (case opinions, notes, law review articles, etc.) and by
familiarizing themselves with the general outlines of the subject matter.
Several excellent examples of the Socratic Method are portrayed in the 1973 film The Paper
Chase, based on a 1970 novel of the same name. Several scenes involve the interaction of
members of Professor Kingsfields's first year Contracts Law course and clearly show how the
Socratic method is used as a framework for presenting concepts in contract law to the students.
Psychotherapy[edit]
The Socratic method, in the form of Socratic questioning, has been adapted for psychotherapy,
most prominently in Classical Adlerian Psychotherapy, Cognitive Therapy[18][19][20]
[21] and Reality Therapy. It can be used to clarify meaning, feeling, and consequences, as well
as to gradually unfold insight, or explore alternative actions.
The Socratic method has also recently inspired a new form of applied philosophy: socratic
dialogue, also called philosophical counseling. In Europe Gerd B. Achenbach is probably the
best known practitioner. Michel Weber proposes yet another blend of practice.
See also[edit]
Wikiversity
has learning
materials
about Socrati
c Methods
Dialectic
Sophism
Stoicism
Active learning
Lecture
Institutional memory
Marva Collins
Rote learning
Socrates Cafe

Socratic irony
Socratic dialogue
W. Clement Stone
Shimer College
St. John's College (Annapolis/Santa Fe)
References[edit]
Jump up^ Jarratt, Susan C. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale
and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991., p 83.
Jump up^ Sprague, Rosamond Kent, The Older Sophists, Hackett Publishing Company (ISBN 087220-556-8), p. 5.
Jump up^ Liddell, Scott and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th Edition.
Jump up^ Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition; Oxford English Dictionary.
Jump up^ Gregory Vlastos, 'The Socratic Elenchus', Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy I,
Oxford 1983, 2758.
Jump up^ Michael Frede, "Plato's Arguments and the Dialogue Form", Oxford Studies in Ancient
Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 1992, Oxford 1992, 20119.
Jump up^ Stephen Salkever, "Methods of Interpreting Plato and his Dialogues" (Bryn Mawr
Classical Review)
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Copeland, Matt (2010). Socratic Circles: Fostering Critical and
Creative Thinking in Middle and High School. Portland, MN: Stenhouse.
^ Jump up to:a b "The Socratic Circle" (PDF). Retrieved 17 July 2012.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m "Furman: Socratic Seminar" (PDF). Retrieved July 2012.
Jump up^ Ting Chowning, Jeanne (October 2009). "Socratic Seminars in Science Class". The
Science Teacher (National Science Teachers Association) 76 (7): 38.
Jump up^ Gose, Michael (January 2009). "When Socratic Dialogue is Flagging: Questions and
Strategies for Engaging Students". College Teaching 57 (1): 46.
^ Jump up to:a b c d "The Paideia Seminar: active thinking through dialogue centre. 3.4 Planning
step 3: Select text". Retrieved July 16, 2012.

^ Jump up to:a b c Chorzempa, Barbara; Lapidus, Laurie (January 2009). "To Find Yourself,
Think For Yourself". Teaching Exceptional Children 41 (3): 5459.
^ Jump up to:a b c d Mangrum, Jennifer (April 2010). "Sharing Practice Through Socratic
Seminars".Kappan 91 (7): 4043.
^ Jump up to:a b "Facing History and Ourselves: Socratic Seminar". Retrieved July 16, 2012.
Jump up^ Gose, Michael (2009). "When Socratic Dialogue Is Flagging; Questions and Strategies
for Engaging Students". College Teaching 57 (1).
Jump up^ Overholser, J. C. (1993). "Elements of the Socratic method: II. Inductive
reasoning".Psychotherapy 30: 7585. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.30.1.75.
Jump up^ Overholser, J. C. (1994). "Elements of the Socratic method: III. Universal
definitions".Psychotherapy 31 (2): 286293. doi:10.1037/h0090222.
Jump up^ Overholser, J. C. (1995). "Elements of the Socratic method: IV. Disavowal of
knowledge".Psychotherapy 32 (2): 283292. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.32.2.283.
Jump up^ Overholser, J. C. (1996). "Elements of the Socratic method: V. Selfimprovement".Psychotherapy 33: 283292.
Further reading[edit]
Articles
Areeda,Philip E. 'The Socratic Method' (1996) 109(5) Harvard Law Review 911-922
Darvhisi, Dariush, "Distinction between Dialectical methods of Socrates and Plato", Logical
Study, Volume & Issue: Volume 2, Number 4, Winter 2012, pp. 4976.
Vlastos, Gregory; Vlastos (1983). "The Socratic Elenchus". Oxford Studies in Ancient
Philosophy 1: 2758.
Books
Benson, Hugh (2000) Socratic Wisdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frede, Michael (1992) 'Plato's Arguments and the Dialogue Form' in Oxford Studies in Ancient
Philosophy, Supplementary Volume, 201-19.
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1968) The Greek Philosophers from Thales to Aristotle. London: Routledge.
Jarratt, Susan C. (1991) Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale and
Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Sprague, Rosamond Kent (1972) The Older Sophists. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company ISBN 0-87220-556-8.
External links[edit]
Robinson, Richard, Plato's Earlier Dialectic, 2nd edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1953).
Ch. 2: Elenchus;
Ch. 3: Elenchus: Direct and Indirect
Philosopher.org - 'Tips on Starting your own Socrates Cafe', Christopher Phillips, Cecilia Phillips
Socraticmethod.net Socratic Method Research Portal
How to Use the Socratic Method
UChicago.edu 'The Socratic Method' by Elizabeth Garrett (1998)
Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling, an example from Rick Garlikov
Project Gutenberg: Works by Plato
Project Gutenberg: Works by Xenophon (includes some Socratic works)
Project Gutenberg: Works by Cicero (includes some works in the "Socratic dialogue" format)
The Socratic Club
Socratic and Scientific Method