Editing Socratic method (section)

==Method==
[[wikt:elenchus|Elenchus]] ({{langx|grc|ἔλεγχος|elenkhos|argument of [[disproof]] or refutation; cross-examining, testing, scrutiny esp. for purposes of refutation}}<ref>Liddell, Scott and Jones, ''[[A Greek–English Lexicon]]'', 9th Edition.</ref>) is the central technique of the Socratic method. The Latin form {{lang|la|elenchus}} (plural {{lang|la|elenchi}}) is used in English as the technical philosophical term.<ref>''Webster's New World College Dictionary'', 4th Edition; ''Oxford English Dictionary''.</ref> The most common adjectival form in English is {{em|elenctic}}; {{em|elenchic}} and {{em|elenchtic}} are also current. This was also very important in Plato's early dialogues.

{{Rhetoric}}
Socrates (as depicted by Plato) generally applied his method of examination to concepts such as the [[virtue]]s of [[piety]], [[wisdom]], [[Temperance (virtue)|temperance]], [[courage]], and [[justice]]. Such an examination challenged the implicit moral beliefs of the interlocutors, bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies in their beliefs, and usually resulting in [[aporia]]. In view of such inadequacies, Socrates himself professed ignorance. Socrates said that his awareness of his ignorance made him wiser than those who, though ignorant, still claimed knowledge. This claim was based on a reported Delphic oracular pronouncement that no man was wiser than Socrates. While this belief seems paradoxical at first glance, in fact it allowed Socrates to discover his own errors. 

Socrates used this claim of wisdom as the basis of moral exhortation. He claimed that the chief goodness consists in the caring of the soul concerned with moral truth and moral understanding, that "wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and to the state", and that "life without examination [dialogue] is not worth living".{{citation_needed|date=January 2024}} 

Socrates rarely used the method to actually develop consistent theories, and he even made frequent use of creative myths and [[allegories]]. The [[Parmenides dialogue]] shows [[Parmenides]] using the Socratic method to point out the flaws in the Platonic [[theory of forms]], as presented by Socrates; it is not the only dialogue in which theories normally expounded by Plato's Socrates are broken down through dialectic. Instead of arriving at answers, the method breaks down the theories we hold, to go "beyond" the axioms and postulates we take for granted. Therefore, myth and the Socratic method are not meant by Plato to be incompatible; they have different purposes, and are often described as the "left hand" and "right hand" paths to good and wisdom.{{citation_needed|date=January 2024}} 

===Scholarly debate===
In Plato's early dialogues, the elenchus is the technique Socrates uses to investigate, for example, the nature or definition of [[ethical]] concepts such as justice or virtue. According to [[Gregory Vlastos]], it has the following steps:<ref>Gregory Vlastos, "The Socratic Elenchus", ''Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy I'', Oxford 1983, 27–58.</ref>

# Socrates' [[Interlocutor (linguistics)|interlocutor]] asserts a thesis, for example "Courage is endurance of the soul".
# Socrates decides whether the thesis is false and targets for refutation.
# Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example "Courage is a fine thing" and "Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing".
# Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, these further premises imply the contrary of the original thesis; in this case, it leads to: "courage is not endurance of the soul".
# Socrates then claims he has shown his interlocutor's thesis is false and its negation is true.

One elenctic examination can lead to a new, more refined, examination of the concept being considered, in this case it invites an examination of the claim: "Courage is {{em|wise}} endurance of the soul". Most Socratic inquiries consist of a series of {{wikt-lang|la|elenchi}} and typically end in puzzlement known as {{lang|la|[[aporia]]}}.

[[Michael Frede]] points out Vlastos' conclusion in step No. 5 above makes nonsense of the [[aporetic]] nature of the early dialogues. Having shown a proposed thesis is false is insufficient to conclude some other competing thesis must be true. Rather, the interlocutors have reached [[aporia]], an improved state of still not knowing what to say about the subject under discussion.<ref>Michael Frede, "Plato's Arguments and the Dialogue Form", ''Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy'', Supplementary Volume 1992, Oxford 1992, 201–19.</ref>

The exact nature of the elenchus is subject to a great deal of debate, in particular concerning whether it is a positive method, leading to knowledge, or a negative method used solely to refute false claims to knowledge.<ref>Stephen Salkever, [http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1992/03.05.09.html "Methods of Interpreting Plato and his Dialogues"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160912224610/http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1992/03.05.09.html |date=12 September 2016 }} ([[Bryn Mawr Classical Review]])</ref> Some qualitative research shows that the use of the Socratic method within a traditional [[Yeshiva]] [[Jewish education|education]] setting helps students succeed in [[law school]], although it remains an open question as to whether that relationship is causal or merely correlative.<ref>
{{cite journal | last1=Klein |first1=Reuven Chaim |date=March 1, 2024 |title=A qualitative study on how traditional Yeshiva education prepares students for law school | url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03069400.2023.2296811 |journal=The Law Teacher |volume=58 |issue=1 |pages=111–130 |doi=10.17613/b462-fp41}}
</ref>

Yet, [[W. K. C. Guthrie]] in ''The Greek Philosophers'' sees it as an error to regard the Socratic method as a means by which one seeks the answer to a problem, or knowledge. Guthrie claims that the Socratic method actually aims to demonstrate one's ignorance. Socrates, unlike the [[Sophists]], did believe that knowledge was possible, but believed that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one's ignorance. Guthrie writes, "[Socrates] was accustomed to say that he did not himself know anything, and that the only way in which he was wiser than other men was that he was conscious of his own ignorance, while they were not. The essence of the Socratic method is to convince the interlocutor that whereas he thought he knew something, in fact he does not."<ref>[[W. K. C. Guthrie]] (1968) ''The Greek Philosophers from Thales to Aristotle'', page 74, London: Routledge.</ref>