A Socratic Seminar

[shiva2999]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

 

Socratic seminarEdit

A Socratic seminar (also known as a Socratic circle) is a pedagogical approach based on the Socratic method and uses a dialogic approach to understand information in a text. Its systematic procedure is used to examine a text through questions and answers founded on the beliefs that all new knowledge is connected to prior knowledge, that all thinking comes from asking questions, and that asking one question should lead to asking further questions.^[9] A Socratic seminar is not a debate. The goal of this activity is to have participants work together to construct meaning and arrive at an answer, not for one student or one group to "win the argument".^[10]

This approach is based on the belief that participants seek and gain deeper understanding of concepts in the text through thoughtful dialogue rather than memorizing information that has been provided for them.^[10] While Socratic seminars can differ in structure, and even in name, they typically involve a passage of text that students must read beforehand and facilitate dialogue. Sometimes, a facilitator will structure two concentric circles of students: an outer circle and an inner circle. The inner circle focuses on exploring and analysing the text through the act of questioning and answering. During this phase, the outer circle remains silent. Students in the outer circle are much like scientific observers watching and listening to the conversation of the inner circle. When the text has been fully discussed and the inner circle is finished talking, the outer circle provides feedback on the dialogue that took place. This process alternates with the inner circle students going to the outer circle for the next meeting and vice versa. The length of this process varies depending on the text used for the discussion. The teacher may decide to alternate groups within one meeting, or they may alternate at each separate meeting.^[9][11]

The most significant difference between this activity and most typical classroom activities involves the role of the teacher. In Socratic seminar, the students lead the discussion and questioning. The teacher's role is to ensure the discussion advances regardless of the particular direction the discussion takes.^[9][11]

 

[shiva2999]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

 

Dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ; related to dialogue; German: Dialektik), also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and the modern pejorative sense of rhetoric.^[1][2] Dialectic may thus be contrasted with both the eristic, which refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument (rather than searching for truth), and the didactic method, wherein one side of the conversation teaches the other. Dialectic is alternatively known as minor logic, as opposed to major logic or critique.

Within Hegelianism, the word dialectic has the specialised meaning of a contradiction between ideas that serves as the determining factor in their relationship. Dialectical materialism, a theory or set of theories produced mainly by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, adapted the Hegelian dialectic into arguments regarding traditional materialism. The dialectics of Hegel and Marx were criticized in the twentieth century by the philosophers Karl Popper and Mario Bunge.

Dialectic tends to imply a process of evolution and so does not naturally fit within classical logics, but was given some formalism in the twentieth century. The emphasis on process is particularly marked in Hegelian dialectic, and even more so in Marxist dialectical logic, which tried to account for the evolution of ideas over longer time periods in the real world.

 

[shiva2999]

Great video..

 

[Herodotus]

Shiva, the main problem with the Socratic method is it only works with people who want to learn.  Most of the people on here that would most benefit from the Socratic method and Dialectics are sadly not interested in learning, evolving, or knowing truth.  The TV and the social media "influencers" have already made up their minds for them and they sadly cannot be bothered to know what the truth is.  They don't care to know truth and like young earth creationists they have every interest in denying truth.  The YEC is driven by a fear that rejecting a certain interpretation of Genesis will damn them to hell and most of the clowns here -especially the American exceptionalists - believe that questioning the metanarrative presented by the corporate state controlled press and the government will damn them as unMercun.  Trust me, I have evolved on both.  One can still believe in God and reject the absurd junk science of creationism and one is actually a better American by questioning the corporate state press's metanarrative and calling American Exceptionalism and Joseph Borrell's Garden ideology the terrible, paternalistic racist, imperialist, exploitative evil because it is evil.

On the other hand, keep it up because for every Lit, Hip, F8, and steaming pile of schizowoke nazi dogshit that is ICweiner, there are some who will say ya know, you're right.  I mean it may not be you on your own that causes people to question the narrative.  In fact, transformation and evolution in thought requires zeitgeist (not the film, but the concept) rather than one poster on the interwebz, but you may get people to question the narrative.  For instance, Iraq.  A year after 9/11 I -like almost 3 out of ever 4 Americans - was primed for Powell's anthrax vials.  Seriously, we never wanted to be attacked again and here was the Sec State before the UN -and a war hero at that - holding up these vials that Saddam could unleash with Serb built drones against Europe and the US within 30 minutes.  Remember, we were operating under "Remember 9/11" and "Never Again." Then came the war.  My most shameful moments on here were not a troll job against CDarwin and Psychosis gone wrong.  No, it was supporting the war in Iraq and backing Bush's ultimatum against a goverenment of a country that had never declared war on us and had never attacked us.  I supported that war until we invaded and WMDs turned out to mean weapons of mass disappearance.  Seriously, you had Saddam Hussein and we had been primed for months that he would use WMDs against us.  The CIA psychological profile was that he would use any and all weapons against us that he had like the time he emptied his revolver magazine when he was a revolutionary before he seized power.  That led to so many questions.  Each hour and mile we got further into the war I asked well if he has WMDS why doesn't he use them? The answer I got? Well, he knows we would punish him most severely.  Excuse me, but this is a supposedly bloodthirsty dictator who only cares about himself.  We are coming for him to kill him anyway, why the hell wouldn't he use them? I kept asking the question and the fucking narrative changed.  It became, "this is a war of freedumb" and for "human rights." Bull fucking shit.  We invaded Iraq because we were told about WMDs.  Which is it? Human rights or WMDs?  Also, why did we start torturing Iraqis if it was for human rights? The answer? "Well its because they are terrorists." Wait, you said it was human rights, why are we torturing people for terrorism? "Well its because they had "wmds." 

It was then, about the summer of 2003, that I started questioning the narrative of 9/11.  I still disagree with you that Bush orchestrated 9/11, but then I can't entirely rule that out because after all the Obama regime did orchestrate the nazi seizure of power in Ukraine in 2014, but I did question the narrative.  I also did some serious soul searching and I realized that the US -with the sole exception of WWII- has never been honest and has been anything but virtuous in regard to its relations with other countries, a record that gets decidedly worse when you consider that the Aboriginals were their own nation states.  So pretty much, I now have a paradigm that is, if an American or NATO official said or wrote something about another country you can dismiss it as bullshit, and then if you wait long enough (and often the wait is very short) you will be inundated with evidence as to why their spoken or written word is bullshit.

[ICRockets2]

8 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

 So pretty much, I now have a paradigm that is, if an American or NATO official said or wrote something about another country you can dismiss it as bullshit

That's only part 1 of the Socratic Method.  You have to then test this hypothesis, which you refuse to do.  

[shiva2999]

44 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

That's only part 1 of the Socratic Method.  You have to then test this hypothesis, which you refuse to do.  

Are you just going to make the claim or will you grace us with an example?

[ICRockets2]

1 minute ago, shiva2999 said:

Are you just going to make the claim or will you grace us with an example?

I don't need to, he said it himself.  He makes the presumption and then waits for the narrative he'd prefer to believe to find its way to him.  That kind of passivity doesn't lead you to truth, it just leads you by the nose.

[shiva2999]

1 minute ago, ICRockets2 said:

I don't need to, he said it himself.  He makes the presumption and then waits for the narrative he'd prefer to believe to find its way to him.  That kind of passivity doesn't lead you to truth, it just leads you by the nose.

Yes, you need to.

One unsupported accusation does not validate another unsupported accusation.

[ICRockets2]

43 minutes ago, shiva2999 said:

Yes, you need to.

One unsupported accusation does not validate another unsupported accusation.

Again, I'm not accusing him of anything.  He said it himself.  

He crafts the hypothesis that what he hears is a lie, and then waits until a counternarrative drops in his lap and- what do you know?  He was righr!  As long as the new information is accurate, of course, but there's no indication that he wastes his time independently exploring that either.

If you were honest, you'd be criticizing him for this along with me.  Remember, the core principle of the Socratic Method is that you test your hypotheses in an effort to prove them wrong.  What Gibby describes is simply assuming he's right and being satisfied when information presents itself that confirms his priors.  He's following a method that is explicitly anti-Socratic.

[shiva2999]

8 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Again, I'm not accusing him of anything.  He said it himself.  

He crafts the hypothesis that what he hears is a lie, and then waits until a counternarrative drops in his lap and- what do you know?  He was righr!  

Again, this is merely an unsupported accusation.

Every time you dodge having to provide examples for your claims, you just look more and more like a demagogue.

Is that your intent?

[ICRockets2]

9 minutes ago, shiva2999 said:

Again, this is merely an unsupported accusation.

 

Again, it's his own words.

[shiva2999]

2 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Again, it's his own words.

Again, please show rather than tell.

You never know, you may be making a mistake.

[ICRockets2]

2 minutes ago, shiva2999 said:

Again, please show rather than tell.

You never know, you may be making a mistake.

He has exactly one post in this entire thread I'm sure a committed scholar like you can find what you're looking for without my help.

[shiva2999]

1 minute ago, ICRockets2 said:

He has exactly one post in this entire thread I'm sure a committed scholar like you can find what you're looking for without my help.

Then it should be easy for you to quote the offending text.

Be a man, to use a sexist exhortation.

Impress me and ruin gibby's reputation forever.

You know you want to.

[ICRockets2]

3 minutes ago, shiva2999 said:

Then it should be easy for you to quote the offending text.

Be a man, to use a sexist exhortation.

Impress me and ruin gibby's reputation forever.

You know you want to.

I'm content with exposing you for being an incurious slug in your thread about how cool it is to think.

[shiva2999]

9 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

I'm content with exposing you for being an incurious slug in your thread about how cool it is to think.

LOL!

Pull your pants up, your ass is hanging out.