2 ms·

labelling it as smarter is a bit of a misnomer, they may very well be more knowledgeable and experienced than you in the field you're asking questions about. Y

labelling it as smarter is a bit of a misnomer, they may very well be more knowledgeable and experienced than you in the field you're asking questions about. You can question someone's assumptions without being 'smarter' than them.

pdonis 12y ago
they may very well be more knowledgeable and experienced than you in the field you're asking questions about. But if they are, then the method will break down at either steps 2 or 3, because either the person will see that the assumptions you're trying to get them to accept would contradict their thesis, or they will be able to use their superior knowledge to convince you that the assumptions don't actually contradict their thesis after all. You can question someone's assumptions without being 'smarter' than them. Yes, but the method I described is more specific than just "questioning assumptions". It's a specific tactic with a specific objective: to force the person you're talking to to admit that a thesis they had believed up to that point is false, by making them prove it false for themselves. But to use this method successfully, you have to pick your targets: you don't use it unless you already know, in advance, that step 3 can be reached, which means you already know, in advance, that the person will not be able to head you off during the process. That knowledge is what makes you smarter than the other person. It's worth noting, btw, that most of what we know about Socrates, and practically all of what we know about how he used this method, comes from Plato's dialogues, which portray Socrates as having a very high success rate with his method. We don't know how accurately Plato represented that aspect of things; the real Socrates might not have been as consistently successful at using the method as the character Socrates in the dialogues. My comments are really about the character Socrates; they are only about the real Socrates to the extent that the character accurately represents what he did and how well he did it.
- mreiland 12y ago
  well obviously you're right because you hold the opinion. If someone else held that opinion than it would obviously be wrong because then you would no longer hold that opinion, thereby nullifying the validity of said opinion.
  - pdonis 12y ago
    What does this have to do with anything?

pdonis 12y ago

they may very well be more knowledgeable and experienced than you in the field you're asking questions about. But if they are, then the method will break down at either steps 2 or 3, because either the person will see that the assumptions you're trying to get them to accept would contradict their thesis, or they will be able to use their superior knowledge to convince you that the assumptions don't actually contradict their thesis after all. You can question someone's assumptions without being 'smarter' than them. Yes, but the method I described is more specific than just "questioning assumptions". It's a specific tactic with a specific objective: to force the person you're talking to to admit that a thesis they had believed up to that point is false, by making them prove it false for themselves. But to use this method successfully, you have to pick your targets: you don't use it unless you already know, in advance, that step 3 can be reached, which means you already know, in advance, that the person will not be able to head you off during the process. That knowledge is what makes you smarter than the other person. It's worth noting, btw, that most of what we know about Socrates, and practically all of what we know about how he used this method, comes from Plato's dialogues, which portray Socrates as having a very high success rate with his method. We don't know how accurately Plato represented that aspect of things; the real Socrates might not have been as consistently successful at using the method as the character Socrates in the dialogues. My comments are really about the character Socrates; they are only about the real Socrates to the extent that the character accurately represents what he did and how well he did it.

mreiland 12y ago
well obviously you're right because you hold the opinion. If someone else held that opinion than it would obviously be wrong because then you would no longer hold that opinion, thereby nullifying the validity of said opinion.
- pdonis 12y ago
  What does this have to do with anything?