Conjectures & Refutations
- 3. CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper, William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller.
- 4. CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper, William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller. • School of thought known as critical rationalism.
- 5. CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper, William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller. • School of thought known as critical rationalism. • Rejects inductivism, or the theory that humans acquire knowledge by forming generalizations on the basis of observable patterns in nature.
- 6. CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper, William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller. • School of thought known as critical rationalism. • Rejects inductivism, or the theory that humans acquire knowledge by forming generalizations on the basis of observable patterns in nature. • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism.
- 7. CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Based on a model of knowledge acquisition developed by philosophers Sir Karl Popper, William Warren Bartley III, and David Miller. • School of thought known as critical rationalism. • Rejects inductivism, or the theory that humans acquire knowledge by forming generalizations on the basis of observable patterns in nature. • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism. 1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon nature. 2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to experiences or scientific experiments. 3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic.
- 8. CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism. 1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon nature. 2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to experiences or scientific experiments. 3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic. 4. Popper saw dogmatism as a form of neuroticism, in which an individual (perhaps as a result of past trauma) is simply unable to dispense with or revise certain beliefs.
- 9. CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism. 1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon nature. 2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to experiences or scientific experiments. 3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic. 4. Popper saw dogmatism as a form of neuroticism, in which an individual (perhaps as a result of past trauma) is simply unable to dispense with or revise certain beliefs. The definition of irrationality
- 10. CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism. 1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon nature. 2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to experiences or scientific experiments. 3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic. 4. Popper saw dogmatism as a form of neuroticism, in which an individual (perhaps as a result of past trauma) is simply unable to dispense with or revise certain beliefs. The definition of irrationality NHHSA educators must encourage rationality and open-mindedness while discouraging dogmatism.
- 11. CRITICAL RATIONALISM • Proposes a hypothetico-deductive model of learning known as falsificationism. 1. Humans naturally impose the expectation of regularity (or repetition, or patterns) upon nature. 2. We form rudimentary hypotheses, theories, and beliefs, then adjust them according to experiences or scientific experiments. 3. The more rational we are, the more we allow empirical evidence to shape and reshape our beliefs and core values. The less rational, the more dogmatic. 4. Popper saw dogmatism as a form of neuroticism, in which an individual (perhaps as a result of past trauma) is simply unable to dispense with or revise certain beliefs. The definition of irrationality NHHSA educators must encourage rationality and open-mindedness while discouraging dogmatism. Care should be taken to ensure that students do not feel challenged or affronted with respect to their most fundamental beliefs.
- 12. THE SOCRATIC METHOD • Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent to the degree to which their capabilities allow.
- 13. THE SOCRATIC METHOD • Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent to the degree to which their capabilities allow. • With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method.
- 14. THE SOCRATIC METHOD • Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent to the degree to which their capabilities allow. • With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method. • There are two versions:
- 15. THE SOCRATIC METHOD • Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent to the degree to which their capabilities allow. • With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method. • There are two versions: 1. Classic Method
- 16. THE SOCRATIC METHOD • Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent to the degree to which their capabilities allow. • With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method. • There are two versions: 1. Classic Method Aims at dismantling bad preexisting ideas by leading the respondent into self-contradiction and, hopefully, getting them to acknowledge their own ignorance. Produces a “Socratic effect” which forces the respondent to realize they have more thinking to do. Occurs into phases: (a) deconstructive phase (b) constructive / reconstructive.
- 17. THE SOCRATIC METHOD • Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent to the degree to which their capabilities allow. • With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method. • There are two versions: 1. Classic Method Aims at dismantling bad preexisting ideas by leading the respondent into self-contradiction and, hopefully, getting them to acknowledge their own ignorance. Produces a “Socratic effect” which forces the respondent to realize they have more thinking to do. Occurs into phases: (a) deconstructive phase (b) constructive / reconstructive. 2. Modern Method
- 18. THE SOCRATIC METHOD • Our aim as educators should be to teach students to be rational and intellectually independent to the degree to which their capabilities allow. • With a Popperian general model of learning and rationalism as our guide, we ought to engage students using the Socratic Method. • There are two versions: 1. Classic Method Aims at dismantling bad preexisting ideas by leading the respondent into self-contradiction and, hopefully, getting them to acknowledge their own ignorance. Produces a “Socratic effect” which forces the respondent to realize they have more thinking to do. Occurs into phases: (a) deconstructive phase (b) constructive / reconstructive. 2. Modern Method A process of inductive questioning used to guide respondent to understanding through a series of small steps.
- 19. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • In general, the Classic Method is superior for developing critical thinking skills. The only problem facing educators is that the deconstructive phase of the Classic Method can be unnerving and discouraging to students who are emotionally invested (attached) to certain beliefs.
- 20. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • In general, the Classical method is superior for developing critical thinking skills. The only problem facing educators is that the deconstructive phase of the Classical method can be unnerving and discouraging to students who are emotionally invested (attached) to certain beliefs. • For this reason, the Classical method must be employed with caution and empathy. Instructors employing it must be able to recognize when their student is becoming unsettled by the inquiry and when to back off and allow them time to recover. Special caution must be taken if you are engaged in a dialogue involving a student’s (1) religious or spiritual beliefs (2) political beliefs (3) self-concept (4) ethical beliefs.
- 21. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • The Deconstructive Phase
- 22. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • The Deconstructive Phase Prepares students to think, and think hard.
- 23. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • The Deconstructive Phase Prepares students to think, and think hard. Deconstructs understanding of a concept by forcing the respondent to analyze previously unexamined assumptions. Elicits a “Socratic Effect”, leaving students less certain of what they previously “knew.” This makes the deconstructive aspect of the Classic Method a powerful weapon against dogmatism.
- 24. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Except from Plato’s Meno: • Socrates: By the Gods, Meno, be generous, and tell me what you say that virtue is… • Meno: There will be no difficulty, Socrates, in answering your question. Let us take first the virtue of a man-he should know how to administer the state, and in the administration of it to benefit his friends and harm his enemies; and he must also be careful not to suffer harm himself. A woman's virtue, if you wish to know about that, may also be easily described: her duty is to order her house, and keep what is indoors, and obey her husband. Every age, every condition of life, young or old, male or female, bond or free, has a different virtue: there are virtues numberless, and no lack of definitions of them; for virtue is relative to the actions and ages of each of us in all that we do. And the same may be said of vice, Socrates. • Soc: How fortunate I am, Meno! When I ask you for one virtue, you present me with a swarm of them, which are in your keeping. Suppose that I carry on the figure of the swarm, and ask of you, What is the nature of the bee? and you answer that there are many kinds of bees, and I reply: But do bees differ as bees, because there are many and different kinds of them; or are they not rather to be distinguished by some other quality, as for example beauty, size, or shape? How would you answer me?
- 25. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Soc: How fortunate I am, Meno! When I ask you for one virtue, you present me with a swarm of them, which are in your keeping. Suppose that I carry on the figure of the swarm, and ask of you, What is the nature of the bee? and you answer that there are many kinds of bees, and I reply: But do bees differ as bees, because there are many and different kinds of them; or are they not rather to be distinguished by some other quality, as for example beauty, size, or shape? How would you answer me? • Meno: I should answer that bees do not differ from one another, as bees. • Soc: And if I went on to say: That is what I desire to know, Meno; tell me what is the quality in which they do not differ, but are all alike; would you be able to answer? • Meno: I should. • Soc: And so of the virtues, however many and different they may be, they have all a common nature which makes them virtues; and on this he who would answer the question, "What is virtue?" would do well to have his eye fixed: Do you understand? • Meno: I am beginning to understand; but I do not as yet take hold of the question as I could wish.
- 26. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Soc: When you say, Meno, that there is one virtue of a man, another of a woman, another of a child, and so on, does this apply only to virtue, or would you say the same of health, and size, and strength? Or is the nature of health always the same, whether in man or woman? • Meno: I should say that health is the same, both in man and woman. • Soc: And is not this true of size and strength? If a woman is strong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the same strength subsisting in her which there is in the man. I mean to say that strength, as strength, whether of man or woman, is the same. Is there any difference? • Meno: I think not. • Soc: And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man? • Meno: I cannot help feeling, Socrates, that this case is different from the others. • Soc: But why? Were you not saying that the virtue of a man was to order a state, and the virtue of a woman was to order a house?
- 27. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Meno: I did say so. • Soc: And can either house or state or anything be well ordered without temperance and without justice? • Meno: Certainly not. • Soc: Then they who order a state or a house temperately or justly order them with temperance and justice? • Meno: Certainly. • Soc: Then both men and women, if they are to be good men and women, must have the same virtues of temperance and justice? • Meno: True. • Soc: And can either a young man or an elder one be good, if they are intemperate and unjust? • Meno: They cannot.
- 28. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Soc: They must be temperate and just? • Meno: Yes. • Soc: Then all men are good in the same way, and by participation in the same virtues? • Meno: Such is the inference. • Soc: And they surely would not have been good in the same way, unless their virtue had been the same? • Meno: They would not. • Soc: Then now that the sameness of all virtue has been proven, try and remember what you … say that virtue is. • Meno: Will you have one definition of them all? • Soc: That is what I am seeking. • Meno: If you want to have one definition of them all, I know not what to say, but that virtue is the power of governing mankind.
- 29. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?”
- 30. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?” • Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H.
- 31. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?” • Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H. • Socratic Effect
- 32. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?” • Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H. • Socratic Effect Reject H
- 33. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?” • Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H. • Socratic Effect Reject H Attempt to salvage H with ad hoc hypothesis
- 34. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD • Socratic dialogue in the Classic style begins with a question of the form: “What is X?” • Respondent proposes a definition or a hypothesis (H), from which the Socratic facilitator criticizes by (1) deriving a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum) (2) pointing out a problem with H as an explanation of X (3) proposing a superior explanation of X that does not run into the same issues as H. • Socratic Effect Reject H Attempt to salvage H with ad hoc hypothesis Propose a new hypothesis
- 35. THE CLASSIC SOCRATIC METHOD R proposes hypothesis H as a definition/explanation for X (virtue). S argues that X is like Y (strength). R agrees. S further asserts that Y has property P (universality). S asserts: If X is like Y, then X has also P. But P implies that H is false/inadequate as an explanation of X. • H = “Virtue is relative to the actions and ages of each of us in all that we do.” • “If a woman is strong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the same strength subsisting in her which there is in the man … And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?” • “If a woman is strong, she will be strong by reason of the same form and of the same strength subsisting in her which there is in the man. I mean to say that strength, as strength, whether of man or woman, is the same.” • “And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?”
- 36. SOCRATIC DIALOGUE NHHSA student-teacher interactions ought to follow a general model: Lecture Conjecture Refutation Revision
- 37. INTERSUBJECTIVE TRANSLATION Writing Lecture Conjecture Explanation Brainstorming a thesis by identifying a question, answering it, and researching corroborative evidence. Refutation Critique of the student’s thesis and/or corroborative evidence by instructor, suggestions for improvement. Revision Corrections made by student, under instructor’s guidance. Lecture Conjecture Instructor explains essay outlining. Student proposes an outline structure. Refutation Instructor critiques outline.