The Socratic method: a practitioner’s handbook
The legal scholar John Wigmore called cross-examination “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”2 Socrates evidently thought the same was true in philosophy. (ref)
The rules in court and in a Socratic dialogue are similar in many ways. First, all questions have to be answered as long as they aren’t out of order. You can’t say “I’d rather not say.” (ref)
Leading questions leave no room for answers that evade. (ref)
adversarial thinking—that is, an adversarial approach within your own thinking—isn’t usual at all and is very constructive (ref)
Adversarial thinking separates us from our prejudices and expectations (ref)
Notice that Socrates uses questions to get the agreement of his partner at every step. Didn’t you say this, and don’t you also think that—and don’t they conflict? This matters because it means, when the final result arrives, that Laches has contradicted himself rather than being contradicted by Socrates. He has full ownership of the problem. (ref)
The front half of the elenchus—the claim that will be tested—has to be established first, and this process involves questioning, too. (ref)
First, you can put pressure on a principle by taking it literally. Think about cases that might be covered by the wording of the principle but that are outside its intent or that just don’t fit. Sometimes a principle is based on a mental picture of a core case but is expressed in words that also cover cases far afield. The need for narrower wording can be made obvious, and then saying something more specific may turn out to be hard. That is where the real action lies. (ref)