Philosophy is a hobby. No. It is a way of life.

Page 7 of 8 [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

16 Dec 2011, 2:51 pm

ruveyn wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:

Can the Scientific Method help you in your day-to-day life? No.



Using Mill's Methods to find out why your car won't start is a big help to you or your mechanic.

ruveyn


I don't' know Mill. But the Socratic Method will help you figure out why your car won't start. And it'll help you learn how cars work because you'll be able to ask better Socratic questions to your mechanic.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Dec 2011, 3:40 pm

rombomb2 wrote:
I don't' know Mill. But the Socratic Method will help you figure out why your car won't start. And it'll help you learn how cars work because you'll be able to ask better Socratic questions to your mechanic.


John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher wrote the book on how to use induction.

Aristotle could have used what Mill taught.

ruveyn



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

16 Dec 2011, 4:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:

Can the Scientific Method help you in your day-to-day life? No.



Using Mill's Methods to find out why your car won't start is a big help to you or your mechanic.

ruveyn


Mill was known for induction. I use induction when I'm trying to learn how my car works. And I ask Socratic questions to my mechanic in order to confirm my guesses. The mechanic gives his criticisms of my guesses, and that hows I'm able to learn how my car works. And this helps me understand why my car won't start.



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

16 Dec 2011, 7:08 pm

Please help me figure this out.

I've talked to a few NT's and confirmed that they think different than me in a very specific way. But I haven't spoken to any Aspie/Autistics yet. So I'd like your input so we can figure this out.

When you're watching tv, and your train of thought goes off on a tangent, are you a) able to follow whats going on in the tv show or b) do you have to rewind it?

Please answer the poll question here.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4248660.html#4248660



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Dec 2011, 2:02 am

rombomb2 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:
Your right. Scientific Philosophy disagrees with Analytic Philosophy because it is not scientific, i.e. it does not employ the hypothetical-deductive method.

I think this is confused. You want to promote that philosophy matters only if philosophy is scientific, but that scientific method is derived from philosophy? Aren't you in effect basically saying that science trumps philosophy, and that basically science was successful, and other philosophies were not, so we need to model philosophy after science and in essence, cast away the centuries of nonsense.

No. The Socratic Method is a philosophy. And it does not conform to the Scientific Method. So no I'm not saying that Science trumps philosophy. The Socratic Method trumps everything.

And that's a conceptual problem. You see, if philosophy needs to be scientific, and the socratic method is not scientific and the socratic method trumps everything, we have a lot of confusion going on but not a lot of sense.
Quote:
Thats right. But a scientist who has learned the Socratic Method, will have improved his own quesitioning methods, thereby improving his ability to understand his own Scientific work, thus improving his work.

Do you have proof, or is this an assertion?
Quote:
No I haven't claimed that Biology is Philosophy. But a scientist who has learned the Socratic Method, will have improved his own line of questioning, thereby improving his ability to understand his own Scientific work, thus improving his work.

You stated "If the Critical Thinking is systematized, then it is Philosophizing.", Biology is systematized critical thinking in that biologists use a method on a subject area to arrive at conclusions within a system of understanding. However, biology is not philosophy. Here's the issue, either you have to drop one definition or another, but the two do contradict.
Quote:
Read my journal. That is empirical evidence. Note that empirical evidence simply means evidence that is retrieved from the senses. It does not consider the idea that we must have others criticize our conjectures. So empirical evidence would not be enough to *know* that my statement is true. We would need others to test my hypothesis. Are you ready to test my hypothesis?

Hunh? What journal?

I know what empirical evidence means. Either it supports, or it rejects the claim. Empirical evidence is actually sufficient. Are you really going to claim that you can't know something unless somebody else is there to criticize it??? Really? I utterly reject that. I know lots of things that nobody else has criticized.

As for "test your hypothesis", we need a significant body of statistical information, and ideally an actual experiment. There is no meaningful "testing your hypothesis" without some scientific control. Frankly, I shouldn't be involved in "testing your hypothesis". If you make a claim this bold, it should already have proof.

Quote:
Its not a matter of recognizing that my conjecture is BS. Its a matter of criticizing it. Can you offer a criticism? Telling me that others would disagree does not suffice as a criticism.

I provided three criticisms:

"First of all: You have to prove your claim. I don't need to have much grounding to reject an unproved claim I find implausible, as you carry the burden of proof.

Second of all: Personal mastery proves nothing in this circumstance. You didn't state "Any and all people who master Socratic Method dramatically increase their intelligence", and science NEVER states anything like that, meaning that any personal, anecdotal experience could really just be an outlier.

Third of all: I actually don't need to specifically test a particular method to come to the conclusion that this is likely not true. If most things learned do not alter intelligence significantly, then if someone comes up to me saying "Come on, this learned thing will increase intelligence significantly", I have inductive evidence to dissent. Just like if I find that 200,000 different chickens lack the ability to speak, I really have a good reason to think that the next chicken I run across will not be able to speak. I could be wrong, but, I still have good reason. Most studies I am aware of suggest that IQ is highly genetic and does not alter significantly across one's life. Certain activities can cause a short-term boost, but when such actions are ended, then IQ will cease to be enhanced. "

Don't pretend I said absolutely nothing after that comment.

Quote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
First of all: You have to prove your claim. I don't need to have much grounding to reject an unproved claim I find implausible, as you carry the burden of proof.

Excellent. Its time for you to see my empirical evidence. Please read my journal. That is my empirical evidence. Also, all my employees are evidence. All of them are dramatically more intelligent. Now if you want to question what I really mean by more intelligent, then please read my Theory of Knowledge. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ztt ... t?hl=en_US

I don't know what you mean by "journal". I am going to stick to standardized IQ testing as "intelligent". If you want to have a different meaning, then use a different term, but I am not going to spend my time learning your particular method.

Also, your informal testing will not be admitted as evidence. Otherwise, I have just observed a pink elephant. Prove me wrong. The issue is that I have no reason to trust your observations. You're a random person on the internet promoting a special theory, this is the exact opposite of a credible source.

Quote:
Good point. I've done it with all my employees. 13 people. And yes this is still only empirical. That is why its time for some real criticism. Please try it and provide your empirical evidence as to the success or failure of the test.

With a control and experimental group? How do I even know you have employees? What IQ test did you administer between when you started, and after you started?

Do you expect me to have lab rats I can conduct the experiment with?

Your assertion that I just do something is not something I take seriously. Especially given that you have not actually presented some program. You're just saying "Do Socratic method!", but the problem is that to make this rigorous, we can't just say "do this", we have to say "do this for X time". There has to be a trial. This can't be try until success, otherwise, success is guaranteed. The problem is that I don't think you're showing an awareness of this kind of a concern. The issue is that this actually undermines your credibility, as I am not actually going to spend any time because you tell me to. I'm just going to evaluate you. If you make powerful arguments and show your intellectual abilities, then I'll consider your point, but if you don't then I won't.

Quote:
Your thought experiment is fallacious. Chickens are not able to read or learn. They do not have intuition. They are not able to create universal explanations of the universe they live in. We are able to. And when we learn a logic, then that logic is able to be applied in future situations, even in completely different situations in different fields. So every logic that we learn, increases the number of situations that we are able to reason through. More logic learned, equates to more intelligence. This is the main point of my theory. To be clear, the Socratic Method is a logic.

No, it isn't. You just didn't follow it. Also, chickens, like EVERY OTHER ORGANISM WITH A BRAIN are able to learn. Learning is a very basic feature of a brain. They also likely have intuitions, just as we do, just not philosophical intuitions.

Basically, all I am doing though, is explaining induction by saying "I observe an X Y times where Y is a large number and observe property Z in all instances. If I observe X again, I still be justified in inferring that X has property Z". That's it. Talking about how chickens are not able to read or learn actually is a failure to understand my point as I am approaching this by explaining how I know that chickens cannot speak. How do you know that chickens cannot read?

Your wordings are confusing. Your definition of intelligence is problematic, as it varies from other definitions that are more standard. Your definition of logic has a similar issue.

Quote:
Good point. But in my case, there is empirical evidence. And I only say *could* because I imagine that some people might have trouble learning just from reading on their own. Some people might need 1-1 attention. And since I can't provide that, I say *could*.

Yes, your empirical evidence that only you observed when you're a person on the other side of the internet. Don't you understand the issue? The internet is a place where people don't actually know the identities of those who they talk to. I can't trust anything you say just because you say it. So, if you said something where the level of trust I had to give is low, then that's one issue, but something that's significant, like where you're trying to make a form of a scientific claim..... actually undermines your credibility because it undermines the degree to which I think you can make sense of how to run an argument.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Dec 2011, 2:40 am

rombomb2 wrote:
Living organism were not *derived* from biochemical molecules. Consider mathematics. When you derive an theorem from another theorem, the original holds in more situations then the derivation, thus the parent method is more complex.

Not that I am aware of. When we derive something from something else, we may just be manipulating the variables to find something else of interest.

That being said... no, I don't think scientific method formally follows from anything else in some a priori sense.

Quote:
How do philosophers and how they do things enter into this argument? I'm speaking of the method, not about how people employed the method. The Scientific Method is a tweak of the Socratic Method. It restricts a part of the Socratic Method. So the Socratic Method can be used in more situations, but the Scientific Method is more suited for situations that involve the ability to mechanically measure.

The actions of philosophers is relevant because the argument is that philosophers discovered science, but if they didn't discover science through the socratic method, then the socratic method isn't necessary as a method, and we don't have historical reasons to think science was derived from the socratic method.

Quote:
I don't see how philosophy enters into this argument. Philosophical dialogues? What does this have to do with the Socratic Method? It doesn't. The Socratic Method is a method of questioning. We could be questioning anything. If an employee asks me a question, instead of answering him, I ask him a question that leads him to the answer. In this way, I've taught him how to get to the answer himself so that next time, he doesn't need to consult me with such requests. In this way, each time that I interact with an employee, they learn something and they never consult with me about the issue again. This is how I reduce entropy in HR. And it took learning the Socratic Method to be able to do this.

Because to claim that science is a tweak of the socratic method, you either have to define your terms and show how your point is correct, or you have to be making a historical claim. You have not defined your terms and shown this. I'm showing that this is not a historical claim.

Philosophers cannot write out a socratic method without a socratic dialogue, so, if they don't use philosophical dialogues, then they don't use the socratic method.

Reduce entropy??? Do you simply mean information randomness? Or is this a redefinition of an existing term? I know you're probably not talking about reducing the local energy lost in chemical processes in HR.

Quote:
Back to my point, I am claiming that the Socratic Method was the mother of the Scientific Method. It does not matter whether philosophers did or did not employ the Socratic Method; this is absolutely irrelevant to this point.

But the term *MOTHER* is a historical claim. You're saying Socratic method GAVE BIRTH TO scientific method. But, if philosophers did not use Socratic Method to arrive at Scientific method, then this is a false claim. Meaning that what philosophers have done or not done is absolutely RELEVANT to the point. There is no way you can make your point without making a point about the history of philosophy.

Quote:
What questions should we be asking instead?

I am having difficulty understanding you at many points in this conversation, so I don't know where you're going wrong in some of these areas. However, asking a loaded question is actually a terrible idea philosophically, and that's what some of these questions have been. It's not a good intellectual move, but it's a good rhetorical move, and the reason I say that is because a loaded question looks neutral while biasing a conclusion in a certain direction. People are generally better off with analyzing syllogisms than loaded questions.

Quote:
That is correct. But I have not made such claims. I have not said that the Socratic Method should be used in place of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method has its uses; it works very well for situations where we are able to mechanically measure.

Ok, but the problem is that you're trying to argue for supremacy of the Socratic Method, BUT, the problem is that if science is better at certain things, then why consider the Socratic method superior? We have no justification because science does certain things better.

Quote:
Again you must think about the number of situations that each method can be applied to. The Socratic Method can be applied to all situations. But the Scientific Method can only be applied to situations where we are able to mechanically measure. So which method can be applied to more situations? The answer is the more useful one. Are you doing Scientific work? If not, then the Scientific Method can not help you; unless you are only considering the past Scientific work that has improved all our lives. But if you make this stance, then I will say, 'The Scientific Method would not have been created without the Socratic Method,' and thus some of the credit goes to the Socratic Method.

No, I don't have to think about that. Also, more situations doesn't mean more usefulness. That's ridiculous. Approximations are often more useful than explicit formula, because they are faster and cheaper and easier to use, which is a clear counter-example.

rombomb2, the claim the Scientific Method would not have been created without the Socratic Method is either a claim about history of philosophy, or about the necessary workings of method. I've challenged you on the historical interpretation. You haven't justified the claim of necessity as I've pointed out that most philosophers today use methods that don't rely on an explicit dialectic, but that the Socratic method is based upon an explicit dialectic. You can say anything you want, but you'll be full of crap unless you can prove your claims.

Quote:
You trust wikipedia that much? I don't even want to ask any questions about this. I do read wikipedia a lot. But I don't trust it in the way you seem to. Wikipedia is just a bunch of people like us. Just because other people are ignorant of a field, does not make the field less valid. Realize the time factor. Things take time to be known. And in this day and age where the institution of Universities is so very much market-driven, there's no wonder there is a snails-pace with respect to how fast things change. Universities are about NOT changing. They resist change. And this is what I want to fix.

rombomb2, the problem is that if something "hasn't caught on yet" then that means that it doesn't have a lot of credibility yet. Credibility is partially established by enduring things. So, I don't mind the time factor at all. The time factor is part of the point. If you come in with some random idea, and expect everybody to go along with it, then... we have a very good reason to be skeptical compared to something that we know is known by authoritative figures in the discipline.

Resisting change is good in certain contexts. You want to change your mind, but you don't want to change it to something stupid, so you resist a lot of possible changes until some have proven themselves.

Quote:
Yes your right. I unintentionally employed a fallacy. I should have read it again before pressing submit. Thanks for catching my error. :)

Employed a fallacy? You mean you misused logic?

Quote:
<snip>

I am just stopping here. I don't know the exact details of where you are coming from. I don't really want to know either. I've seen enough.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Dec 2011, 2:50 am

rombomb2 wrote:
Looks like we should have defined the parameters for considering what is more important. So lets do that. By important, I mean how much a method can help you.

Can the Scientific Method help you in your day-to-day life? No.

Can the Socratic Method help you in your day-to-day life? Yes. It helps with every single human to human communication and with internal thinking.

Therefore, according to the parameters for considering what is more important, the Socratic Method is more important to you than the Scientific Method.

HUNH???? Here's the issue, "how much a method can help you" always goes back to comparisons between it and other things. You can't use the socratic method for breathing, it takes too long. We HAVE heuristics already. The socratic method doesn't do better than heuristic-feedback methods, and those methods ALREADY EXIST. We ALREADY USE THEM. Scientific method is the add-on. So, here's the issue, does science add more to heuristic-feedback method than Socratic method? And scientific method DOES.

This means that scientific method helps you MORE. I might not explicitly do science, but I at minimum rely on scientific claims at multiple junctures, which means that I, indirectly, rely on the scientific method.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Dec 2011, 4:12 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Quote:
Yes your right. I unintentionally employed a fallacy. I should have read it again before pressing submit. Thanks for catching my error. :)

Employed a fallacy? You mean you misused logic?



Employing (or committing) a logical fallacy is an abuse or misuse of logic.

Picky, picky.

ruveyn



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

17 Dec 2011, 5:26 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:
Looks like we should have defined the parameters for considering what is more important. So lets do that. By important, I mean how much a method can help you.

Can the Scientific Method help you in your day-to-day life? No.

Can the Socratic Method help you in your day-to-day life? Yes. It helps with every single human to human communication and with internal thinking.

Therefore, according to the parameters for considering what is more important, the Socratic Method is more important to you than the Scientific Method.

HUNH???? Here's the issue, "how much a method can help you" always goes back to comparisons between it and other things. You can't use the socratic method for breathing, it takes too long. We HAVE heuristics already. The socratic method doesn't do better than heuristic-feedback methods, and those methods ALREADY EXIST. We ALREADY USE THEM. Scientific method is the add-on. So, here's the issue, does science add more to heuristic-feedback method than Socratic method? And scientific method DOES.

This means that scientific method helps you MORE. I might not explicitly do science, but I at minimum rely on scientific claims at multiple junctures, which means that I, indirectly, rely on the scientific method.


Hi Awesomelyglorious,

Even after William Lane Craig's pseudo-preaching a return to "The Ptolemaic System", "The Aether", and "Aristotelian Physics", with polished and verbose revamped long-dead models, the declaration of "Can the Scientific Method help you in your day-to-day life? No," seems very strange.

The ancient joining of "The Socratic Method" to "Aristotelian Physics" stymied progress for nearly a couple thousand years. I was taught (and I thought) that the disputes between Galileo and the adherents of the dis-proven and rejected Systems, Methods, and ancient Physics where over and done with, except for history lessons of how long held wrong doctrines inculcated by strong hierarchies prevented advancement. If everybody philosophizes about how a heavy rock falling back to its beloved ground is an explanation for its greater speed, than the speed of the reluctant light feather wishing to remain airborne, instead of multiple and different experiments like Galileo's, I guess Aristotelian Nonsense would have remained protected from facts and the modern Scientific Method . (It now seems very possible that WLC's remark was actually serious in his remarking that when a passenger on a train drops a rock to the floor, the train's floor will have traveled out from under the dropping rock before the rock hits the floor!! !).

Polishing and rewording the Socratic Method in order to play word games for distractions from unpleasant facts might be the next vogue in happiness of the bliss of ignorance. The immaterial and spiritual aspects of the physic started to lose out in the middle of the 19th century in academics, with books starting in 1865 to overwhelm the Socratic Method with the Scientific Method, but now hard science is declining again back down to 1910 levels, with the Socratic Method making a weak return back to 1740 levels:
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?co ... moothing=3

I cited Lawrence Krader's "Noetics" for the canonical stance of "The Socratic Method" compared to "The Scientific Method" in the 20th Century, and I receive the response:
"What you are quoting is somebodies "opinion" of what he thinks the Socratic Method is for. He is mistaken. He obviously doesn't realize that the Socratic Method is used to teach children, and in consulting. Are these "seeking truths within"? No. Its possible the author was saying something poetic. But it is absolutely false. "
So, it definitely looks like Humanity might be headed back to the Dark Ages (The "Age of Faith" sounds nicer, but that doesn't stop the boat of scientific knowledge from sinking after colliding with Neo-Old-Faith in nonsense, and taking most of humanity with it).

Who's to blame? I'm going to place bets that it is Ayn Rand's fault on the vague neo-Conservative side, and Noam Chomsky on the vague New-Ager Liberal side. I still like one comedian's remark that she studied the works of Deepak Chopra , and then took a university course in Quantum Physics to better understand him, and she said that she only discovered that he was so full of sh*t, and like Rand, too selfish to take a dump without receiving prior payment and promise of future royalties. The Great Religions are madly riding off in every direction, with the Cathars' fate only one exemplifying previous paradigm for New Domestic & International Crusades. Billy Graham "knows" the 2nd Law is Wrong and not true, but Satan is going to win against that nonsensical stance too.

Tadzio



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Dec 2011, 5:31 am

rombomb2 wrote:

Mill was known for induction. I use induction when I'm trying to learn how my car works. And I ask Socratic questions to my mechanic in order to confirm my guesses. The mechanic gives his criticisms of my guesses, and that hows I'm able to learn how my car works. And this helps me understand why my car won't start.


The best way to understand it to directly check the repair and see if the engine starts. You don't need to ask any questions that way. The most eloquent spokes-thing for reality, is reality itself.

That was Aristotle's problem. He tried to talk Nature to death. Actually most of the Athenian crowd did that.

ruveyn



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

17 Dec 2011, 7:18 am

ruveyn wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:

Mill was known for induction. I use induction when I'm trying to learn how my car works. And I ask Socratic questions to my mechanic in order to confirm my guesses. The mechanic gives his criticisms of my guesses, and that hows I'm able to learn how my car works. And this helps me understand why my car won't start.


The best way to understand it to directly check the repair and see if the engine starts. You don't need to ask any questions that way. The most eloquent spokes-thing for reality, is reality itself.

That was Aristotle's problem. He tried to talk Nature to death. Actually most of the Athenian crowd did that.

ruveyn


Sure but how do you know what repair to try? First you ask yourself some questions. Once you've answered those questions, you now have ideas for what repairs to do.

Yes I imagine that Aristotle asked some goofy questions. But again its because there was no background knowledge to show him how goofy his questions were. If he knew our background knowledge, he wouldn't have asked those goofy questions.



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

17 Dec 2011, 7:20 am

ruveyn wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Quote:
Yes your right. I unintentionally employed a fallacy. I should have read it again before pressing submit. Thanks for catching my error. :)

Employed a fallacy? You mean you misused logic?



Employing (or committing) a logical fallacy is an abuse or misuse of logic.

Picky, picky.

ruveyn


Abuse seems to mean that someone intentionally employs a fallacy to gain an edge; which is what politicians are very well trained in.

Misuse seems to mean that someone unintentionally employs a fallacy.



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

17 Dec 2011, 7:25 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:
Looks like we should have defined the parameters for considering what is more important. So lets do that. By important, I mean how much a method can help you.

Can the Scientific Method help you in your day-to-day life? No.

Can the Socratic Method help you in your day-to-day life? Yes. It helps with every single human to human communication and with internal thinking.

Therefore, according to the parameters for considering what is more important, the Socratic Method is more important to you than the Scientific Method.

HUNH???? Here's the issue, "how much a method can help you" always goes back to comparisons between it and other things. You can't use the socratic method for breathing, it takes too long. We HAVE heuristics already. The socratic method doesn't do better than heuristic-feedback methods, and those methods ALREADY EXIST. We ALREADY USE THEM. Scientific method is the add-on. So, here's the issue, does science add more to heuristic-feedback method than Socratic method? And scientific method DOES.

This means that scientific method helps you MORE. I might not explicitly do science, but I at minimum rely on scientific claims at multiple junctures, which means that I, indirectly, rely on the scientific method.


Help me understand the heuristic-feedback process, do you ask questions during the process? Are they always the same questions?



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

17 Dec 2011, 7:48 am

rombomb2 wrote:
Thats it. No author "infected" me with goofiness about bringing back the Socratic Method. I am making my points completely alone. Not one person has agreed me with yet. Not one professor, not one philosopher, not one scientist, not even a layperson.


This is misleading. I did get one source of inspiration, although there was no mention of 'bringing the Socratic Method back'. My inspiration came from George Washington, or rather his autobiography, or rather an excerpt from his autobiography that was included in "The Underground History of American Education," by John Taylor Gatto. This is what GW said about the Socratic Method:

George Washington wrote:
I found this method safest for myself and very embarrassing to those against whom I used it; therefore I took a delight in it, practis’d it continually, and grew very artful and expert in drawing people, even of superior knowledge, into concessions, the consequences of which they did not foresee, entangling them in difficulties out of which they could not extricate themselves, and so obtaining victories that neither myself nor my cause always deserved.


Lets be even more clear. GW is very much responsible for America's greatness. GW set the major European powers against each other while in each diplomatic relationship he made with each European power, America gained a bit and they lost a bit. This is why America wanted him as President. And how did he manipulate the European powers so effectively? He employed the Socratic Method.



Last edited by rombomb2 on 17 Dec 2011, 9:37 am, edited 3 times in total.

lunarious
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

17 Dec 2011, 8:20 am

Wow...

When I was younger, I decided that I will not use anything that I dont understand how works. Which i found out later was that I couldnt use the computer for example. .... Time passed and suffering became too much, suffering upon suffering, and then I decided that I will use the computer but I vow to learn everything about it (altough it is very hard recieving from the schools as you said). Now here I am and I know that I might not catch the train and I dont know the f*****g soctratic method yet, so I have decided that I will use the computer but I will remain in debt to the computer producers, the miners for metal, the screen glass producers. I will repay them with my service (I dont know really if they told me, that they dont want my service I would leave them alone ... maybe I should leave them if they request that)

Can you brief me about the socratic method as a scientist?

Salam



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Dec 2011, 11:05 am

lunarious wrote:
Wow...

When I was younger, I decided that I will not use anything that I dont understand how works. Which i found out later was that I couldnt use the computer for example. .... Time passed and suffering became too much, suffering upon suffering, and then I decided that I will use the computer but I vow to learn everything about it (altough it is very hard recieving from the schools as you said). Now here I am and I know that I might not catch the train and I dont know the f***ing soctratic method yet, so I have decided that I will use the computer but I will remain in debt to the computer producers, the miners for metal, the screen glass producers. I will repay them with my service (I dont know really if they told me, that they dont want my service I would leave them alone ... maybe I should leave them if they request that)

Can you brief me about the socratic method as a scientist?

Salam


In modern times scientists (aka natural philosophers) have never used the Socratic Method. The Socratic Method is a debating tactic and involved picking words apart. It has little or nothing to do with making careful observations of the physical world (which is to say, the real world). Socrates was no scientist. Aristotle was, but a very bad one.

ruveyn