Socratic Method

[Music] hi i want to talk to you today about socratic method these days many people advertise that they use the socratic method in teaching but it tends to mean roughly speaking that they cold call various students and ask them things like in the famous tv series or movie the paper chase where professor kingsfield suddenly calls on a student says miss jones facts of west coast hotel vs paris please and suddenly the student has to respond well socrates himself didn't quite do it that way instead he tended to address prominent citizens of athens as well as students and ask them questions they would be asking about usually a practical question almost all of the early dialogues depicting socrates start with a practical question something like how should we educate our children so that they grow up not only being successful and knowledgeable but also wise and moreover virtuous we want them to be good people and so he will say well before we inquire into how to educate somebody we have to understand what that goal is so what is virtue what is courage what is it to be successful what is friendship what is love what is justice later socrates starts asking more abstract questions such as what is knowledge what is truth and so forth now the point here is always that he's looking for a definition he starts out dealing with a practical problem and i think that's meant to stress that philosophy is a practical discipline it's meant to address questions like how to educate your children how to pursue your own life how to do various things and what you ought to be doing but then he says look to understand that we have to know what our goal is so we have to know what virtue is we have to know what justice is we have to know what knowledge is and so on and the crucial question is in order to know we have to be able to define these things in his dialogue the lockhees which is about courage he says and surely what we know we must be able to tell that i think is a crucial assumption for socrates what we know we must be able to tell now it's not so clear that plato himself endorses this view maybe there are all sorts of things that we can know without being able to define them without being able to tell what we know and here i don't just mean knowing how to do something you might know how to ride a bicycle for example without being able to explain to anyone how to do it but i mean knowing that knowing well gosh what exactly is involved in knowing what justice is if we're thinking about how to educate our children to be virtuous for example well we have to understand the goal what is it we're trying to attain what is it for someone to be good what is virtuous and his idea is look we don't really know that unless we can tell someone what virtue is so typically these early dialogues of plato are all about trying to define a crucial term like virtue courage self-control friendship love and so forth often they do end in frustration so that the quest is unsuccessful but here's the way this typically goes socrates asks for a definition he says what we know we surely must be able to tell so tell me what is virtue what is justice what is friendship or love or self-control or courage and so forth and so people propose definitions now one way of looking at this is to say that there is a certain class of things that we are trying to characterize a class of actions let's say that truly are courageous or that truly are just etc so let's start with that imagine a circle containing all and only the things that really do fit our term that is to say that really do count as courage or that really are virtuous or really are just now we propose a definition and of course ideally those things that satisfy the definition are exactly the things that we're trying to define so ideally we really end up with one circle that is to say everything that fits our definition really is a case of what we're trying to define and every such case is covered by our definition but of course they might not go like that it might be that the circles end up overlapping we've got some good cases that our definition fits that really are what we're trying to define but we might end up with things that are outliers on both sides so for example we might end up with some things that fit our definition but nevertheless do not count as for example courage or justice or virtue whatever it is we're trying to define you might say that that shows that our definition is really too broad it includes things that really shouldn't be included we could call those false positives they are things that our definition says are positive cases but they're false positives they aren't really cases conversely it might be that there are real cases of courage or virtue or justice or whatever it is we're trying to define that our definition doesn't capture that says that in some ways at least our definition is too narrow and so the things that are out there that really are cases that our definition is not covering count as false negatives that is to say our definition lists them as negative cases no that's not courage that's not virtue that's not justice but actually they are cases so those are false negative reports well ideally we want to get rid of the false positives we want to get rid of the false negatives now as soon as we deal with a hard question like virtue or justice or courage or self-control or generosity or any of the other basic virtues or for that matter things like friendship love other kinds of relationships or even more abstract things like knowledge or truth it's very hard to say whether we're getting things right and it's easy to get lost in the philosophical complications so let's think about some things that may or may not be a little easier for example think about what it would be like to try to define a concept familiar to all of us namely time apply the socratic method to get to the bottom of different concepts you might discover that there are some things that you think you know but you cannot actually define or even put into words for example consider the concept of time time is the most used noun in the english language which makes sense because time is an inescapable phenomenon and we all think we know what time is but if i ask you for a definition of time if i apply the socratic method and ask you what is time you'll find it extremely difficult to come up with a good response in fact the more you try to come up with a good response the more impossible it seems and i think the sentiment was best expressed by saint augustine in his book confessions he says what is time if no one asks me i know but if i wish to explain it to one who asks i know not well time turns out to be pretty hard so let's think about something easier for example odds are you're sitting down right now you're sitting in a chair let's say well do you know that you're sitting in a chair are you sure of that do you know what a chair is you're like you think that's crazy of course i know what a chair is yes i'm sitting down in a chair i know what a chair is but it's not quite that simple actually let's say we follow socrates surely what you know you must be able to tell so tell me what is a chair now for years in my introductory philosophy class in the first week i've been doing this i've been asking people you probably think right now you're sitting down in a chair well surely you must know what a chair is everybody says yeah i know what a chair is good then tell me what is a chair here's the first response typically a piece of furniture well that's true a chair is a piece of furniture but on the other hand that's not a very good definition why not well part of the reason is that it's rather unclear and indeed often socrates raises that kind of challenge to a definition he says well that's kind of unclear and especially if it says well it's a kind of this or a sort of that he says well yeah what kind what sort we have to pin it down a little more than that so surely the first thing he would say is what kind of furniture what sort of piece of furniture after all if we just say a piece of furniture that's much too broad that includes chairs tables sofas beds nightstands all sorts of things that are not chairs so we better rule that out and we better think about doing something a bit more specific than just pieces of furniture that includes far too much well when i challenge people to come up with something more they usually come up with something like the dictionary definition what is a chair well it's a piece of furniture that has four legs and a back now is it a good definition are there false positives are there false negatives that is to say are there things our definition counts as chairs things that do have four legs and a back but are not chairs on the other hand are there chairs that don't have four legs in our back and so aren't covered by our definition those things will be false negatives well let's analyze that definition a chair is a piece of furniture with four legs and a back can you think of examples of things with four legs and a back that are pieces of furniture but aren't chairs take a moment to think about that it shouldn't be too hard to realize wait a minute there are benches there are for example sofas couches there are divans or other things kind of old-fashioned furniture that we wouldn't really count as chairs there might be daybeds other kinds of things like that that are furniture that do have four legs that do have a back but we couldn't count as chairs so it looks like our definition covers much too much it's still too broad there are lots of false positives things that have four legs and a back but aren't chairs so we have to do more now typically people respond by saying well i see the problem benches and sofas and day beds and things of that kind that more than one person can sit on those and so the problem is they're they're too big we need to pin it down we'll say a chair is a piece of furniture that has four legs and a back and it's for one person to sit on okay so we've got a chair being something piece of furniture four legs in a back designed for one person to sit in how is that as a definition well it's certainly better it will rule out love seats and sofas and couches and longer benches and things like that so it's way better as a definition it's going to have many fewer false positives and that makes sense we've shrunk that circle by adding certain conditions and so we're going to now have something that's a bit narrower so yes they're going to be fewer false positives but is now an adequate definition well one problem is that it might still be too broad that is to say there still might be false positives after all think about a stool a bar stool for example it might have four legs and a back it's a piece of furniture it's designed for one person to sit on but we'd say it's a stool it's not a chair and so we still have false positives our definition is still too broad but there's another problem with it we have shrunk it enough that it is now in some ways too narrow maybe in fact it's going to point out that our definition before was also too narrow we get false negatives even with the four legs and a back criterion let alone that designed for one person to sit on for example there are hanging chairs they are designed for one person to sit on their chairs they're suspended from the top but they don't have four legs they do have a back they are i suppose pieces of furniture but now no four legs so according to our definition not a chair but it is a chair that's a false negative there are other cases there are examples of chairs that have only one leg or have only two legs or have three legs some of them have more than four legs in fact it's a common style of office chair to have one sort of pipe descending from the seat part of the chair that goes into an array of five things often that have wheels on them well i don't know whether to call that one leg or five legs or to say that doesn't really have legs at all has some other mechanism but whatever we say about that kind of office chair it doesn't fit our definition either plainly a chair but on the other hand doesn't have four legs and so it's ruled out by our definition another false negative we have chairs that seem not to have four legs in other ways that have for example something that almost looks like sleigh tracks or runs of some kind under them we have chairs that simply sit on disks of some sort we have chairs that are sculpted in such a way that it's hard to describe any sort of leg at all that really just have a shape that sits on the floor we have a kind of chair actually popular among some members of my department that has well it doesn't have four legs it doesn't have a back it's supposed to improve your posture and they find it comfortable but notice it doesn't have four legs also notice it doesn't have a back and yet it's described as a chair what about a rocking chair a rocking chair might have four legs that go into a rocker type mechanism but maybe it doesn't maybe it has more maybe it has fewer depending on the design of the rocking chair maybe it just has sides that go down to the rocker part and so rocking chairs not always maybe but quite often are going to violate our criterion too they're going to turn out to be false negatives finally we get the defeater for almost any attempted definition of a chair a beanbag chair beanbag chairs are chairs we call them chairs on the other hand they don't have four legs or any number of legs they don't have a back they sort of form a back when you sit on them sometimes not always depends on how big the beanbag chair is and how big you are and so that's something that doesn't appear to fit our definition yeah we call it a chair now that's going to be tough because the moment we start saying well look maybe we've been far too restrictive and indeed this is a move up people often make they say we've been too restrictive we were talking about four legs and a back and as we've seen the four leg part that's typical it's commonplace but it's not strictly necessary you can be a chair and not have four legs the back part well that's much more common but still as that kind of posture chair or a beanbag chair indicate a chair doesn't always have a back so maybe we end up saying all right forget all of that we were too concerned about shape it's really just a piece of furniture designed for one person to sit on but now it looks like we're much too broad again now we include foot stools now we include other kinds of things these italian designed pieces of furniture for example that are designed to be seats but are really just discs that sit on the floor stools then are not chairs but they're designed for one person to sit on and so it looks like now we're too broad once again are we in some other ways too narrow maybe could you have a chair designed for more than one person to sit on or design for no one to sit on well in a sense yes as long as we mean person in the usual way after all what about dollhouse furniture a little chair in a dollhouse is designed for a doll to sit in but on the other hand it's not designed for a person to sit in it's much too small there are also sculpted chairs that are very large actually they're designed for many people to sit in even though they still have the shape of chairs and we would refer to them as chairs they have the shape of a chair but on the other hand they aren't designed for one person to sit on so it looks like we've got attention we've got this definition based on shape it's a piece of furniture with four legs and a back we've got another competing definition it's a piece of furniture designed for one person to sit in if we put them together we end up with something that's far too narrow if we take them apart and consider each one individually it looks as if we've got something that is both too broad and too narrow and so we are not really quite sure what to do it looks like sometimes we have in mind primarily the shape other times we have primarily in mind the function but we don't strictly go by either one and it's going to turn up but many definitions are like this they have different kinds of components and they're all relevant we can't leave them out but on the other hand we can't strictly speaking combine them either because then we end up with something too narrow well what should we conclude from this well one thing you might conclude is we don't know how to define chair have i shaken your confidence that you're sitting down in a chair that you know what a chair is well you might say no you haven't actually i'm still pretty sure i know what a chair is i know how to use this term i know that i'm sitting in one maybe i can't put it into words maybe i can't give you a definition but still i know what it is so socrates must be wrong to say what i know i must be able to tell often there are things i know that i can't tell that's one response maybe it's even plato's response in these early dialogues there are some scholars who argue that it is here's another way of looking at the problem we might say well actually you have shaken my confidence i'm no longer very sure what a chair is there are some paradigm cases things that have four legs and a back and are designed for one person to sit in that are good cases under the definition and those i'm sure of those are definitely chairs but now when you give me an example like a beanbag chair or a large sculpted chair i don't know what to say maybe i'm wrong to call those chairs or maybe i put them in some kind of chair like borderline and i say i don't know maybe they're chairs maybe they're not i'm not really sure you haven't shaken my confidence on the central cases i'm sure those are chairs and if you show me a couch or a table i said yeah i'm sure those are not chairs and so look there are lots of things that i think are plainly false cases plainly true cases but now yeah there are a lot more things that are rather unclear than i would have expected now that seems strange but on the other hand i have had quite a few students over the years say okay we call beanbag chairs chairs but they aren't really chairs we call that kind of thing you sit on to improve your posture a chair but it doesn't have four legs it doesn't have a back it is not a chair it's a misuse of the term and maybe they're right how do we know whether that's a misuse of the term or whether it really is the case that we don't yet understand what a chair is it's a complicated question and i think we can take different attitudes about it the same thing is going to arise when we face questions later on about the nature of virtue itself or the nature of knowledge the nature of justice or of truth we're going to say well here are some things that seem characteristic of the central cases of knowledge or truth or virtue or justice are they true of all cases are there cases that our definition doesn't cover and often we're going to find that there are what do we do about that how do we respond maybe we say so we don't know what virtue and justice and truth and knowledge are maybe we say well i know this in central cases i know other things are not and then there are these other cases that seem vague and i'm not exactly sure anymore what to say i used to know what to say but now i don't here's an especially puzzling case think about a high chair that is to say something typically four legs and a back designed for one person a baby to sit in it's a chair right it looks like it meets all our criteria and yet think about something that has the same shape fairly tall four legs a back designed for one person to sit on but we refer to that as a stool rather than a chair how is that it turns out that if something that shape is made for a baby we call it a chair if it's made for an adult human we call it a stool and yet it looks like that's something that should be in the very core of our definition it meets the criteria of shape it's a piece of furniture with four legs and a back moreover it has the same function it is designed for one person to sit on and so why is a high chair a chair but a stool not a chair you might at that point say maybe our concept just doesn't make any sense maybe it really can't be defined maybe it's so zigzaggy to draw it as a circle or a square or something like that is really misleading it's some bizarre kind of thing and nothing's really going to quite match it so that's another possibility it might be that our concepts the basic concepts we use all the time that are really pre-theoretical concepts are like that they're so gerrymandered so confusing that maybe it's impossible to give any clear definition of what they are that doesn't mean it won't be possible to give definitions of other terms we might be able to define a triangle or a circle in geometry just fine but maybe certain basic things like chair or table or mountain or a variety or time maybe those things are going to turn out to be just indefinable and so we're going to look at a variety of different ways of approaching these questions but it's important to understand the nature of the method what it's generally trying to do but also understand that it may have potential limitations and to be sensitive to those as we approach more serious philosophical questions you

Channel: Daniel Bonevac

Views: 6,536

Rating: 4.9692307 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: MvDLC0blMbU

Length: 24min 28sec (1468 seconds)

Published: Mon Jul 20 2020