The Socratic method is, for me, the purest and highest form of debate. Can't be properly exercised online though. Socratic method = dialogue. One person speaks, then the other responds.
The rhythm of the debate goes a little like this:
Person 1 gives an argument for his point of view. -> Person 2 explains why he thinks person 1 is wrong. He proves it by means of a logical argument. -> Person 1 might prove person 2 wrong again or add to his first argument if it wasn't clear. -> Person 2 may now give a new argument, implicitly admitting that he now agrees with person 1.
And so on and so forth.
The rhythm of the debate goes a little like this:
Person 1 gives an argument for his point of view. -> Person 2 explains why he thinks person 1 is wrong. He proves it by means of a logical argument. -> Person 1 might prove person 2 wrong again or add to his first argument if it wasn't clear. -> Person 2 may now give a new argument, implicitly admitting that he now agrees with person 1.
And so on and so forth.
f=m*a syens
Originally Posted by GoodBox
I can see why you have that view, it is very rational and in general true. But still, presenting your view, that you "cannot imagine that two dictionaries would have significantly different definitions" does not imply that no two dictionaries have significantly different definitions.
I made a mistake in not stating why I asked those two questions. I am interested in implementing your system of only using dictionary definitions. In order for me to do that, I feel like I only need to know two things. One: "What differentiates a dictionary definition from a non-dictionary definition?" And assuming that my answer to question one is the same as yours, "Two: What makes one dictionary definition more suitable than another dictionary definition of the same word?" The first question seems trivial, however I do not believe there is any way to answer it such that your system for choosing definitions can be implemented. Rather, the way I would answer the first question makes your system impossible to implement - due to the problem posed by the second question.
Also, you might be wondering why I'm being so wishy-washy. That is, I have my own answer to the first question, so why am I not just presenting it and going from there? If I did that, then I would be "[taking] the liberty of redefining words to [my] favour" as you say. So such a presentation would only be a pointless show of my ability or lack thereof to "win logical arguments by redefining words then forcing your opponent into logical fallacies." Hence, I wait for you to present your own answer to the first question or definition for what is a dictionary definition.
"What differentiates a dictionary definition from a non-dictionary definition?"
A dictionary definition is well enunciated and already agreed on by speakers of whatever language. A non-dictionary definition is at best just an opinion that may or may not coincide with the actual definition of the word (which is recorded in a dictionary) - it's just what someone thinks a word means or should mean.
"Two: What makes one dictionary definition more suitable than another dictionary definition of the same word?"
Logic dictates that since dictionaries merely record the meaning of words, both definitions should be equivocal - or have different relevancies to the conversation.
Implementing this system is extremely simple. Everyone should use the accepted definition from wikipedia or wiktionary, depending on which is more appropriate. I doubt there is any need to use wiktionary since most things not covered in wikipedia are just going to be particles etc...
Originally Posted by Arglax
The Socratic method is, for me, the purest and highest form of debate. Can't be properly exercised online though. Socratic method = dialogue. One person speaks, then the other responds.
The rhythm of the debate goes a little like this:
Person 1 gives an argument for his point of view. -> Person 2 explains why he thinks person 1 is wrong. He proves it by means of a logical argument. -> Person 1 might prove person 2 wrong again or add to his first argument if it wasn't clear. -> Person 2 may now give a new argument, implicitly admitting that he now agrees with person 1.
And so on and so forth.
In other words, exactly what happens on this forum...
How can this not be practiced online?
While the socratic method was indeed originally practiced in person, the definition does not call for the participants to be in person.
Hence, the difference between 'online socratic' and 'socratic'?
Well, that would be the same as the difference between 'correspondence chess' and 'chess', would it not?
If you wish to discuss co-location uses of the socratic method, then say so.
I believe this directly relates to "don't invent your own definitions for fun".
Hence, the difference between 'online socratic' and 'socratic'?
Well, that would be the same as the difference between 'correspondence chess' and 'chess', would it not?
If you wish to discuss co-location uses of the socratic method, then say so.
I believe this directly relates to "don't invent your own definitions for fun".
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Why should people have to rely on their own knowledge? The beauty of this age is that we don't have to rely on wishy washy memory.
It actually makes me sad when I have to correct someone on something basic that the could have googled and found out...
If a person rely's on the internet, they have absolutely no knowledge on the subject and their false opinion could and most likely would be from a complete bias view point. I don't mean using google is a bad thing, but using it to look up major parts of an argument because you have absolutely no clue as to what is going on is just a waste of everyone's time. That is the problem with today's society though. One person goes on google and searches for something, next thing you know that persons thinks they are the god of that subject and then they make stupid comments and replies on a subject. You should never engage in an argument if you don't know what is going on. You usually end up making yourself look like an ass.
A hasbeen like the rest
