conjectures & refutations

37
CONJECTURES & REFU TATION S: IMPLEMENTING THE SOCRATI C METHOD IN TH E CLASSROOM

Upload: arthur-boyer

Post on 14-Aug-2015

30 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Conjectures & Refutations

CONJECTU

RES &

REF

UTATI

ONS:

IMPLE

MEN

TING T

HE SOCRATI

C

MET

HOD IN T

HE CLA

SSROOM

Page 2: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM

Page 3: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper,

William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller.

Page 4: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper,

William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller.

• School of thought known as critical rationalism.

Page 5: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper,

William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller.

• School of thought known as critical rationalism.

• Rejects inductivism, or the theory that humans acquire knowledge by forming generalizations on the basis of observable patterns in nature.

Page 6: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper,

William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller.

• School of thought known as critical rationalism.

• Rejects inductivism, or the theory that humans acquire knowledge by forming generalizations on the basis of observable patterns in nature.

• Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism.

Page 7: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper,

William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller.

• School of thought known as critical rationalism.

• Rejects inductivism, or the theory that humans acquire knowledge by forming generalizations on the basis of observable patterns in nature.

• Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism. 1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon

nature. 2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to

experiences or scientific experiments. 3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape

our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic.

Page 8: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism.

1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon nature.

2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to experiences or scientific experiments.

3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic.

4. Popper saw dogmatism as a form of neuroticism, in which an individual (perhaps as a result of past trauma) is simply unable to dispense with or revise certain beliefs.

Page 9: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism.

1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon nature.

2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to experiences or scientific experiments.

3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic.

4. Popper saw dogmatism as a form of neuroticism, in which an individual (perhaps as a result of past trauma) is simply unable to dispense with or revise certain beliefs.

The definition of irrationality

Page 10: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism.

1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon nature.

2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to experiences or scientific experiments.

3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic.

4. Popper saw dogmatism as a form of neuroticism, in which an individual (perhaps as a result of past trauma) is simply unable to dispense with or revise certain beliefs.

The definition of irrationality NHHSA educators must encourage rationality and open-mindedness while

discouraging dogmatism.

Page 11: Conjectures & Refutations

CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism.

1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon nature.

2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to experiences or scientific experiments.

3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic.

4. Popper saw dogmatism as a form of neuroticism, in which an individual (perhaps as a result of past trauma) is simply unable to dispense with or revise certain beliefs.

The definition of irrationality NHHSA educators must encourage rationality and open-mindedness while

discouraging dogmatism. Care should be taken to ensure that students do not feel challenged or affronted

with respect to their most fundamental beliefs.

Page 12: Conjectures & Refutations

THE SOCRATIC METHOD• Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent

to the degree to which their capabilities allow.

Page 13: Conjectures & Refutations

THE SOCRATIC METHOD• Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent

to the degree to which their capabilities allow.

• With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method.

Page 14: Conjectures & Refutations

THE SOCRATIC METHOD• Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent

to the degree to which their capabilities allow.

• With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method.

• There are two versions:

Page 15: Conjectures & Refutations

THE SOCRATIC METHOD• Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent

to the degree to which their capabilities allow.

• With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method.

• There are two versions:1. Classic Method

Page 16: Conjectures & Refutations

THE SOCRATIC METHOD• Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent

to the degree to which their capabilities allow.

• With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method.

• There are two versions:1. Classic Method

Aims at dismantling bad preexisting ideas by leading the respondent into self-contradiction and, hopefully, getting them to acknowledge their own ignorance. Produces a “Socratic effect” which forces the respondent to realize they have more thinking to do. Occurs into phases: (a) deconstructive phase (b) constructive / reconstructive.

Page 17: Conjectures & Refutations

THE SOCRATIC METHOD• Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent

to the degree to which their capabilities allow.

• With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method.

• There are two versions:1. Classic Method

Aims at dismantling bad preexisting ideas by leading the respondent into self-contradiction and, hopefully, getting them to acknowledge their own ignorance. Produces a “Socratic effect” which forces the respondent to realize they have more thinking to do. Occurs into phases: (a) deconstructive phase (b) constructive / reconstructive.

2. Modern Method

Page 18: Conjectures & Refutations

THE SOCRATIC METHOD• Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent

to the degree to which their capabilities allow.

• With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method.

• There are two versions:1. Classic Method

Aims at dismantling bad preexisting ideas by leading the respondent into self-contradiction and, hopefully, getting them to acknowledge their own ignorance. Produces a “Socratic effect” which forces the respondent to realize they have more thinking to do. Occurs into phases: (a) deconstructive phase (b) constructive / reconstructive.

2. Modern Method A process of inductive questioning used to guide respondent to understanding through a

series of small steps.

Page 19: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• In general, the Classic Method is superior for developing critical thinking skills. The only

problem facing educators is that the deconstructive phase of the Classic Method can be unnerving and discouraging to students who are emotionally invested (attached) to certain beliefs.

Page 20: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• In general, the Classical method is superior for developing critical thinking skills. The only

problem facing educators is that the deconstructive phase of the Classical method can be unnerving and discouraging to students who are emotionally invested (attached) to certain beliefs.

• For this reason, the Classical method must be employed with caution and empathy. Instructors employing it must be able to recognize when their student is becoming unsettled by the inquiry and when to back off and allow them time to recover. Special caution must be taken if you are engaged in a dialogue involving a student’s (1) religious or spiritual beliefs (2) political beliefs (3) self-concept (4) ethical beliefs.

Page 21: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• The Deconstructive Phase

Page 22: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• The Deconstructive Phase

Prepares students to think, and think hard.

Page 23: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• The Deconstructive Phase

Prepares students to think, and think hard. Deconstructs understanding of a concept by forcing the respondent to analyze previously

unexamined assumptions. Elicits a “Socratic Effect”, leaving students less certain of what they previously “knew.” This makes the deconstructive aspect of the Classic Method a powerful weapon against dogmatism.

Page 24: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Except from Plato’s Meno:

• Socrates: By the Gods, Meno, be generous, and tell me what you say that virtue is…

• Meno: There will be no difficulty, Socrates, in answering your question. Let us take first the virtue of a man-he should know how to administer the state, and in the administration of it to benefit his friends and harm his enemies; and he must also be careful not to suffer harm himself. A woman's virtue, if you wish to know about that, may also be easily described: her duty is to order her house, and keep what is indoors, and obey her husband. Every age, every condition of life, young or old, male or female, bond or free, has a different virtue: there are virtues numberless, and no lack of definitions of them; for virtue is relative to the actions and ages of each of us in all that we do. And the same may be said of vice, Socrates.

• Soc: How fortunate I am, Meno! When I ask you for one virtue, you present me with a swarm of them, which are in your keeping. Suppose that I carry on the figure of the swarm, and ask of you, What is the nature of the bee? and you answer that there are many kinds of bees, and I reply: But do bees differ as bees, because there are many and different kinds of them; or are they not rather to be distinguished by some other quality, as for example beauty, size, or shape? How would you answer me?

Page 25: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Soc: How fortunate I am, Meno! When I ask you for one virtue, you present me with a swarm

of them, which are in your keeping. Suppose that I carry on the figure of the swarm, and ask of you, What is the nature of the bee? and you answer that there are many kinds of bees, and I reply: But do bees differ as bees, because there are many and different kinds of them; or are they not rather to be distinguished by some other quality, as for example beauty, size, or shape? How would you answer me?

• Meno: I should answer that bees do not differ from one another, as bees.

• Soc: And if I went on to say: That is what I desire to know, Meno; tell me what is the quality in which they do not differ, but are all alike; would you be able to answer?

• Meno: I should.

• Soc: And so of the virtues, however many and different they may be, they have all a common nature which makes them virtues; and on this he who would answer the question, "What is virtue?" would do well to have his eye fixed: Do you understand?

• Meno: I am beginning to understand; but I do not as yet take hold of the question as I could wish.

Page 26: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Soc: When you say, Meno, that there is one virtue of a man, another of a woman, another of a

child, and so on, does this apply only to virtue, or would you say the same of health, and size, and strength? Or is the nature of health always the same, whether in man or woman?

• Meno: I should say that health is the same, both in man and woman.

• Soc: And is not this true of size and strength? If a woman is strong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the same strength subsisting in her which there is in the man. I mean to say that strength, as strength, whether of man or woman, is the same. Is there any difference?

• Meno: I think not.

• Soc: And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?

• Meno: I cannot help feeling, Socrates, that this case is different from the others.

• Soc: But why? Were you not saying that the virtue of a man was to order a state, and the virtue of a woman was to order a house?

Page 27: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Meno: I did say so.

• Soc: And can either house or state or anything be well ordered without temperance and without justice?

• Meno: Certainly not.

• Soc: Then they who order a state or a house temperately or justly order them with temperance and justice?

• Meno: Certainly.

• Soc: Then both men and women, if they are to be good men and women, must have the same virtues of temperance and justice?

• Meno: True.

• Soc: And can either a young man or an elder one be good, if they are intemperate and unjust?

• Meno: They cannot.

Page 28: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Soc: They must be temperate and just?

• Meno: Yes.

• Soc: Then all men are good in the same way, and by participation in the same virtues?

• Meno: Such is the inference.

• Soc: And they surely would not have been good in the same way, unless their virtue had been the same?

• Meno: They would not.

• Soc: Then now that the sameness of all virtue has been proven, try and remember what you … say that virtue is.

• Meno: Will you have one definition of them all?

• Soc: That is what I am seeking.

• Meno: If you want to have one definition of them all, I know not what to say, but that virtue is the power of governing mankind.

Page 29: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?”

Page 30: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?”

• Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H.

Page 31: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?”

• Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H.

• Socratic Effect

Page 32: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?”

• Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H.

• Socratic Effect Reject H

Page 33: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?”

• Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H.

• Socratic Effect Reject H Attempt to salvage H with ad hoc hypothesis

Page 34: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD• Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?”

• Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H.

• Socratic Effect Reject H Attempt to salvage H with ad hoc hypothesis Propose a new hypothesis

Page 35: Conjectures & Refutations

THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD R proposes hypothesis H as a

definition/explanation for X (virtue).

S argues that X is like Y (strength). R agrees.

S further asserts that Y has property P (universality).

S asserts: If X is like Y, then X has also P. But P implies that H is false/inadequate as an

explanation of X.

• H = “Virtue is relative to the actions and ages of each of us in all that we do.”

• “If a woman is strong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the same strength subsisting in her which there is in the man … And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?”

• “If a woman is strong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the same strength subsisting in her which there is in the man. I mean to say that strength, as strength, whether of man or woman, is the same.”

• “And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?”

Page 36: Conjectures & Refutations

SOCRATIC DIALOGUE

NHHSA student-teacher interactions ought to follow a general model:

Lecture Conjecture Refutation Revision

Page 37: Conjectures & Refutations

INTERSUBJECTIVE TRANSLATION Writing

Lecture Conjecture

Explanation Brainstorming a thesis by identifying a question, answering it, and researching corroborative evidence.

Refutation

Critique of the student’s thesis and/or corroborative evidence by instructor, suggestions for improvement.

Revision

Corrections made by student, under instructor’s guidance.

Lecture Conjecture

Instructor explains essay outlining. Student proposes an outline structure.

Refutation Instructor critiques outline.