Thinking through the Socratic Method

Although we assert that our perspectives and decisions should be based on data / information, even the data or information we select and what meanings we give them also depends on how we have grown up and our past experiences. Chris Argyris and Donald Schon of Harvard had told about “leaps of abstraction”, i.e. “jumping” to conclusions or generalizations based on our past experiences – values, beliefs and assumptions.

     How do we surface these mental models and learn to look at reality and interpret data through deeper examination. By asking “Questions”! Our thinking is not driven by answers but by questions. In fact, every discovery in the intellectual field is born out of a cluster of questions to which answers are either needed or highly desirable. Furthermore, every field stays alive only to the extent that fresh questions are generated and taken seriously as the driving force in a process of thinking. To think through or rethink anything, one must ask questions that stimulate thought. Questions define tasks, express problems and delineate issues. Moreover, the quality of the questions determines the quality of the thinking.

     “Socratic Method” provides the appropriate framework to ask the right questions and debate on all available data and their interpretation.  The Socratic method (or Method of Elenchus), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. 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, seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defence of one point of view is pitted against the defence of another; one participant may lead another to contradict him in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point.