4 ms·
> It proves only that the person isn't capable of supporting their own premise, not that the premise is wrong. This is a good outcome. It shows everyone else w
by sellyme 5y ago
> It proves only that the person isn't capable of supporting their own premise, not that the premise is wrong.
This is a good outcome. It shows everyone else who sees the discussion that they are speaking on a topic that they do not understand, and should be ignored.
- jfengel 5y agoUsing this tactic it's not difficult to prove that nobody completely understands any topic. Which is true, but unhelpful. It's very easy to show that Socrates doesn't understand the topic he's talking about, and should also be ignored. What's needed is a different kind of interaction where we acknowledge what we don't know and find ways to reduce our ignorance. There's legitimate disagreement about how to do that; science is not nearly as rigorous a mechanism for that as we're led to believe. But Socrates' route only leads to "Let's not bother". Which is, arguably, a worthwhile position to consider as well, but Socrates himself never actually brought it up. He'd be perfectly to apply the same approach to Radical Skeptics, prove them wrong, and then go back to find somebody else to bug.