Influence of Humanism in the World today

“The Socratic Method” {Humanist Model for Teaching} Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Elenchus redirects here. For the brachiopod genus, see Elenchus (brachiopod).
Socratic Method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate) is a dialectic method of inquiry, largely
applied to the examination of key moral concepts and first described by Plato in the Socratic
Dialogues. For this, Socrates is customarily regarded as the father of Western ethics or moral
philosophy.
It is a form of philosophical inquiry. It typically involves two speakers at any one time, with one
leading the discussion and the other agreeing to certain assumptions put forward for his acceptance or
rejection. The method is credited to Socrates, who began to engage in such discussions with his fellow
Athenians after a visit to the Oracle of Delphi. The Oracle of Delphi confirmed Socrates to be the
wisest man in Athens. Socrates interpreted this as a paradox, and began utilizing the Socratic method
in order to get his conundrum answered. Diogenes Laertius, however, wrote that Protagoras invented
the “Socratic” method.

The practice involves asking a series of questions surrounding a central issue, and answering questions
of the others involved. Generally, this involves the defense of one point of view against another and is
oppositional. The best way to 'win' is to make the opponent contradict themselves in some way that
proves the inquirer's own point.

Plato famously formalized the Socratic Elenctic style in prose — presenting Socrates as the curious
questioner of some prominent Athenian interlocutor — in some of his early dialogues, such as
Euthyphro or 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.
The term Socratic Questioning is used to describe a kind of questioning in which an original question is
responded to as though it were an answer. This in turn forces the first questioner to reformulate a new
question in light of the progress of the discourse.

Method
Elenkhos (Greek: ἔλεγχος, a cross-examination for the purpose of refutation), more usually spelled
'elenchus', is the central technique of the Socratic Method. "If you ask a question or series of questions
in which your prospect can readily agree, then ask a concluding question based on those agreements,
you will receive a desirable response".

In Plato's early dialogues, the elenchos is the technique Socrates uses to investigate, for example, the
nature or definition of ethical concepts such as justice or virtue. According to one general
characterization (Vlastos, 1983), it has the following steps:

1. Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example 'Courage is endurance of the soul', which Socrates
considers false and targets for refutation.
2. Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example 'Courage is a fine
thing' and 'Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing'.
3. 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'.
4. Socrates then claims that he has shown that his interlocutor's thesis is false and that its contrary 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 wise endurance of the soul'.
Most Socratic inquiries consist of a series of elenchai and typically end in aporia.
Frede (1992) insists that step #4 above makes nonsense of the aporetic nature of the early dialogues. If
any claim has shown to be true then it can not be the case that the interlocutors are in aporia, a state
where they no longer know what to say about the subject under discussion.
The exact nature of the elenchos 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.

The Socratic Method is a negative method of hypotheses elimination, in that better hypotheses are
found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. The method of
Socrates is a search for the underlying hypotheses, assumptions, or axioms, which may subconsciously
shape one's opinion, and to make them the subject of scrutiny, 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. To the
extent to which this method is designed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or
to help them further their understanding, it was called the method of maieutics. Aristotle attributed to
Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of
the scientific method. Perhaps oddly, however, Aristotle also claimed that this method is not suitable
for ethics.
Application
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 puzzlement known as
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. Although 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 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 the good and wisdom.
Law school
The Socratic Method is widely used in contemporary legal education by many law schools in the
United States. 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, in order to ensure that the
student has read and has a basic understanding of 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 teacher then asks whether the student agrees with the argument. The teacher 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 a few forms. Sometimes they seek to challenge the assumptions
upon which the student based the previous answer until it breaks. Further questions can also 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 use the Socratic method to allow
students to come to legal principles on their own through carefully worded questions that spur a
particular 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 law schools 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 focus on application of legal rules to
fungible 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, belief, and conclusions that are the subject of legitimate argument.
Sometimes, the class ends with a quick discussion of doctrinal foundations (legal rules) to anchor the
students in contemporary legal understanding of an issue. In other classes the class simply ends and
students are forced 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.

Psychotherapy
The Socratic Method has been adapted for psychotherapy, most prominently in Classical Adlerian
psychotherapy and Cognitive therapy. It can be used to clarify meaning, feeling, and consequences,
as well as to gradually unfold insight, or explore alternative actions.
Training
The method is used by modern management training companies focusing on behaviour change, e.g.
Krauthammer, Gustav Käser Training International, Dynargie. In this case the trainer acts as a
facilitator who uses open questions to allow the participants to reflect on their way of thinking and
behaviour, and then using closed questions to force them to make a decision towards a change in
their thinking and/or behaviour. In sales communication training it is often referred to as the funnel
concept. The open questions help to discover the needs of the client and the closed questions pin the
client down and get to the 'Yes' to close the deal.

Lesson plan elements for teachers in classrooms

A skillful teacher can teach students to think for themselves using this method. This is the only classic
method of teaching that was designed to create genuinely autonomous thinkers. There are some
crucial lesson plan elements to this form of teaching:
• The teacher and student must agree on the topic of instruction.
• The student must agree to attempt to answer questions from the teacher.
• The teacher and student must be willing to accept any correctly-reasoned answer. That is, the reasoning
process must be considered more important than pre-conceived facts or beliefs.
• The teacher's questions must expose errors in the students' reasoning or beliefs. That is, the teacher must reason
more quickly and correctly than the student, and discover errors in the students' reasoning, and then formulate a
question that the students cannot answer except by a correct reasoning process. To perform this service, the
teacher must be very quick-thinking about the classic errors in reasoning.
• If the teacher makes an error of logic or fact, it is acceptable for a student to correct the teacher.
Since a discussion is not a dialogue, it is not a proper medium for the Socratic Method. However, it is
helpful — if second best — if the teacher is able to lead a group of students in a discussion. This is not
always possible in situations that require the teacher to evaluate students, but it is preferable
pedagogically, because it encourages the students to reason rather than appeal to authority.
More loosely, one can label any process of thorough-going questioning in a dialogue as an instance of
the Socratic Method.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
Socratic Method – noun
The use of questions, as employed by Socrates, to develop a latent idea, as in the mind of a pupil, or to elicit
admissions, as from an opponent, tending to establish a proposition.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
Socratic Method - n.
A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of
questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to
a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge.
WordNet - Cite This Source
Socratic Method – noun
A method of teaching by question and answer; used by Socrates to elicit truths from his students.
 Influence of Humanism in the World today

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
CASUISTRY - NOUN:Inflected forms: pl. ca•sui•ist•ries
1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead.

2. The determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by

analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Casuistry (pronounced /ˈkæʒuːɨstri/) is an applied ethics term referring to case-based reasoning.
Casuistry is used in juridical and ethical discussions of law and ethics, and often is a critique of
principle-based reasoning.
For example, while a principle-based approach might claim that lying is always morally wrong, the
casuist would argue that, depending upon the details of the case, lying might or might not be illegal or
unethical. For instance, the casuist might conclude that a person is wrong to lie in legal testimony under
oath, but might argue that lying actually is the best moral choice if the lie saves a life (Thomas Sanchez
and others thus theorized a doctrine of mental reservation). For the casuist, the circumstances of a case
are essential for evaluating the proper response.
Typically, casuistic reasoning begins with a clear-cut paradigmatic case (from paradigm, the Greek
word παράδειγμα, paradeigma, "pattern" and "example", in turn derived from παραδεικνύναι
paradeiknunai, "demonstrate"). In legal reasoning, for example, this might be a precedent case, such as
pre-meditated murder. From it, the casuist would ask how closely the given case currently under
consideration matches the paradigmatic case. Cases like the paradigmatic case ought to be treated like-
wise; cases unlike the paradigm ought to be treated differently. Thus, a man is properly charged with
pre-meditated murder if the circumstances surrounding his case closely resemble the exemplar pre-
meditated murder case. The less a given case is like the paradigm, the weaker the justification is for
treating that case like the paradigmatic case.
Western casuistry dates from Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), yet the zenith of casuistry was from A.D.
1550 to A.D. 1650, when the Jesuit religious order extensively used casuistry, particularly in practicing
the private, Roman Catholic confessional. The term casuistry quickly became pejorative with Blaise
Pascal's attack on the misuse of casuistry. In Provincial Letters (1656–7), he scolded the Jesuits for
using casuistic reasoning in confession to placate wealthy Church donors, whilst punishing poor
penitents. Pascal charged that aristocratic penitents could confess their sins one day, re-commit the sin
the next day, generously donate the following day, then return to re-confess their sins and only receive
the lightest punishment; Pascal's criticisms darkened casuistry's reputation. Since the seventeenth
century, casuistry has been widely considered a degenerate form of reasoning. Critics of casuistry
focus on its specious argumentation as intentionally misleading.
It was not until publication of The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (1988), by Albert
Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin, that a revival of casuistry occurred. They argue that the abuse of casuistry
is the problem, not casuistry itself. Properly used, casuistry is powerful reasoning. Jonsen and Toulmin
offer casuistry in dissolving the contradictory tenets of absolutism and relativism: “the form of
reasoning constitutive of classical casuistry is rhetorical reasoning”. Moreover, Utilitarianism and
Pragmatism commonly are identified as philosophies employing the rhetorical reasoning of
casuistry.
Meanings
Casuistry is a method of case reasoning especially useful in treating cases that involve moral dilemmas.
Casuistry is a branch of applied ethics. Casuistry is the basis of case law in common law. It is the
standard form of reasoning applied in common law.

The casuist morality

Casuistry takes a relentlessly practical approach to morality. Rather than using theories as starting
points, casuistry begins with an examination of cases. By drawing parallels between paradigms, so
called "pure cases," and the case at hand, a casuist tries to determine a moral response appropriate to a
particular case.

Casuistry has been described as "theory modest" (Arras, see below). One of the strengths of casuistry is
that it does not begin with, nor does it overemphasize, theoretical issues. Casuistry does not require
practitioners to agree about ethical theories or evaluations before making policy. Instead, they can agree
that certain paradigms should be treated in certain ways, and then agree on the similarities, the so-
called warrants between a paradigm and the case at hand.

Since most people, and most cultures, substantially agree about most pure ethical situations, casuistry
often creates ethical arguments that can persuade people of different ethnic, religious and philosophical
beliefs to treat particular cases in the same ways. For this reason, casuistry is widely considered to be
the basis for the English common law and its derivatives.
Casuistry is prone to abuses wherever the analogies between cases are false.

Casuistry in early modern times

The casuistic method was popular among Catholic thinkers in the early modern period, and not only
among the Jesuits, as it is commonly thought. Famous casuistic authors include Antonio Escobar y
Mendoza's Summula casuum conscientiae (1627), which had enjoyed a great success, Thomas
Sanchez, Vincenzo Filliucci (Jesuit and penitentiary at St Peter's), Antonino Diana, Paul Laymann
(Theologia Moralis, 1625), John Azor (Institutiones Morales, 1600), Etienne Bauny, Louis Cellot,
Valerius Reginaldus, Hermann Busembaum (d. 1668), etc.
One of the main theses of casuists was the necessity to adapt the rigorous morals of the Early Fathers
of Christianity to modern morals, which led in some extreme cases to justify what Innocent XI later
called "laxist moral" (i.e. justification of usury, homicide, regicide, lying through "mental
reservation", adultery and loss of virginity before marriage, etc. — all due cases registered by Pascal
in the Provincial Letters).
The progress of casuistry was interrupted towards the middle of the 17th century by the controversy
which arose concerning the doctrine of probabilism, which stipulated that one could choose to follow a
"probable opinion," that is, supported by a theologian or another, even if it contradicted a more
probable opinion or a quotation from one of the Fathers of the Church. The controversy divided
Catholic theologians into two camps, Rigorists and Laxists.
Casuistry was much mistrusted by early Protestant theologians, because it justified many of the
abuses that they sought to reform. It was famously attacked by the Catholic and Jansenist philosopher
Pascal, during the formulary controversy against the Jesuits, in his Provincial Letters as the use of
rhetorics to justify moral laxity, which became identified by the public with Jesuitism; hence the
everyday use of the term to mean complex and sophistic reasoning to justify moral laxity. By the
middle of the 18th century, the name of "casuistry" became a synonym of moral laxity.
In 1679 Pope Innocent XI publicly condemned sixty-five of the more radical propositions (stricti
mentalis), taken chiefly from the writings of Escobar, Suarez and other casuists as propositiones
laxorum moralistarum and forbade anyone to teach them under penalty of excommunication. Despite
this papal condemnation, both Catholicism and Protestantism permits the use of ambiguous and
equivocal statements in specific circumstances .
Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (d. 1787), founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, then
brought some attention back to casuistry by publishing again Hermann Busembaum's Medulla
Theologiae Moralis, the last edition of it being published in 1785 and receiving the approbation of the
Holy See in 1803. Busembaum's Medulla had been burnt in Toulouse in 1757 because of its
justification of regicide, deemed particularly scandalous after Damiens' assassination attempt against
Louis XV.
Casuists have often been mistrusted as too self-serving, and their reasoning thought too inaccessible.
The reasoning is often inaccessible because successful casuistry requires a large amount of knowledge
about paradigms, and how parallels can be drawn from those paradigms to real life situations. In
modern times, there is a similar tremendous resentment against lawyers and law. Defenders of casuistry
often point out that the problems are not so much with casuistry itself, but with the improper use of
casuistry. That these problems manifest themselves so often however may make it appear to some that
this form of reasoning is somewhat easier to misuse than it is to apply correctly.

Casuistry in modern times

In modern times, casuistry has successfully been applied to law, bioethics and business ethics, and
its reputation is somewhat rehabilitated. G.E. Moore dealt with casuistry in chapter 1.4 of his Principia
Ethica; he claimed that "the defects of casuistry are not defects of principle; no objection can be taken
to its aim and object. It has failed only because it is far too difficult a subject to be treated adequately in
our present state of knowledge." He also asserted, "Casuistry is the goal of ethical investigation. It
cannot be safely attempted at the beginning of our studies, but only at the end."
A good reference, analysing the methodological structure of casuistic argument is The Abuse of
Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (1990), by Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin (ISBN 0-520-
06960-9).

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

soph·ist – noun
1. (often initial capital letter) Greek History.
a. any of a class of professional teachers in ancient Greece who gave instruction in various fields, as in
general culture, rhetoric, politics, or disputation.
b. a person belonging to this class at a later period who, while professing to teach skill in reasoning,
concerned himself with ingenuity and specious effectiveness rather than soundness of argument.
2. a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.
3. a philosopher.

1535–45; < L sophista < Gk sophists sage, deriv. of sophízesthai]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.