Peter Boghossian | The Socratic Method in the Western Tradition

How do we have “impossible conversations”? What is the basis of belief? How do we disagree fruitfully across philosophical, ideological, and religious divides?

The Socratic Method is a form of argumentative dialogue based on asking and answering questions to draw out ideas and underlying assumptions. In this lecture, Peter Boghossian, a former Philosophy Professor at Portland State University and current Founding Faculty member at the University of Austin, outlines how he has devised a template using the Socratic Method as a core element in discourse. He speculates on the role of dialectical processes, critical thinking, corrective mechanisms to test beliefs and assumptions, and attitudinal dispositions, and explains the method of his conversational technique known as ‘street epistemology’ for promoting reflection.

Like this video if you enjoyed it so we know you want to see more content like it. Subscribe to our channel and click the bell to watch our videos first.
About the Ramsay Centre: The Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation is based in Sydney Australia. It was created with an endowment from the late Paul Ramsay AO, founder of Ramsay Health Care, to promote a deeper understanding of Western civilisation, through scholarships, educational partnerships and events. The Ramsay Lecture series hosts speakers from all walks of life who have important and interesting perspectives relating to the world and our Western heritage.

[cowboypicayune]

I believe this is my favorite Peter Boghossian talk, because the main deliverable here illustrates how ancient fundamental Western moral philosophy will either be relevant to our future or not at our peril.

[thomasfry]

I got taught the Socratic method straight from this guy. Very cool.

[newpilgrim]

Mind-blowingly rich. Audience questions are so sharp, it really made for a brilliant deep-dive into a topic weighing heavily on my mind.

[tompommerel]

A wonderful & honourable presentation which stimulates

[ross]

Indian Jesus sent me here

As soon as PB gave the link, I switched over (as TIJ was saying not to until after)

But it was worth it

What I like most about Peter, is that he’s probably the most left “red pilled” post IDW voice that I listen to. Brett and heather on a par.

I’m drawn to this movement across the spectrum

I find that most of my favourite voices, are the ones that have come from a leftist background.

I’m definitely on the conservative spectrum… but support some of the social safety nets that the left push forward

I feel like there’s a recalibration taking place. But it seems like our educational institutions are blind to it… as are the media and politicians

The suppression of everything populist, makes it abundantly clear that there are power brokers more interested in shutting down free thinkers and limiting the spread of their ideas

PB is a great example of a voice that can cut across the divide

I’d love to hear a conversation between him and John Anderson

This was a great podcast evemt

[DAWN]

Hypotheses testing and estimating the probability of false positive (alpha) is consistent with the idea of what’s the chance of I am getting this wrong. In practice, however, most people try really hard to prove themselves right.

[Metaphyicalsamak]

I am grateful universe THANK YOU FOR WHAT IVE OVERCOME

[KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

[29:15] “One of the greatest insights in critical thinking was from—in my opinion—was from Michael Shermer’s book _Why People Believe Weird Things._ In _Why People Believe Weird Things, _ he has a _chapter in there: _Why Do Really Smart People Believe Really Weird Things, *_ and the data is really interesting. For example—it goes by decade, so—in the 70’s, MENSA members—high IQ, the number of people who believed in things that virtually nobody believes in—telekinesis, moving things with your minds, etc—those numbers were very high. But that’s in the top one percent of the IQ pool. So how is it that people in those categories believe weird things? And Shermer’s answer to that is: the smarter you are, the better you are at reasoning to bad conclusions.”


[33:35] How can I be wrong? + How Gods would talk to each other

[jswets]

answers build questions, not understanding
questions build understanding, not knowledge

knowledge builds answers, not questions

[terryhuffaker]

The application of epistemology is true for our empirical world. But, can it be applied to the inseen or spiritual realm of existence?

[kennethgee]

so when agnostics says that they cannot make a determination about God would you say that they are refusing to do the step of accepting or rejecting the proposition? When the atheist rejects the proposition, do they carry a burden of proof for why they rejected the proposition?

[SupachargedGaming]

"Why smart people believe weird things..."
I think, maybe, this is being too reductive. Yes, smart people are better at rationalizing "bad" ideas... but their perspective on the ideas are, typically, fundamentally different than the colloquial interpretation. "Anything is possible, it just won't necessarily look the way you expect."

If you ask the average person if they believe humans could develop super strength, they will probably say no. Some of them might say yes. Some 'slightly' above average people might make reference to biochemical engineering, or gene manipulation, or possibly robotics... And the smartest people will say we already have super strength. It's called cranes. Forklifts. Wheelbarrows, "trolleys" (I don't know what they are called in other places, the manual wheeled lifting devices often used for things like fridges), or other engineering solutions. Or telekinesis. Again, most people would probably say no. You can't move things with your mind. Some people might make the 'technicality' or definitional argument: My mind is my brain. My brain controls my body. My body is moved by my brain. The things my body moves are, ultimately, moved by my brain. But then at the higher ends you may have people considering AI and robotics, or 'neural nets', or possibly magnets. It's not how one typically pictures these things, but it functionally is the thing. Like flying. If asked if you wished you could fly, most people (whether their answer is yes or no or otherwise) would imagine some kind of wings, or the ability to fly with nothing but themselves. Does low gravity count?


TL:DR It's not just that more intelligent people are better at rationalizing bad ideas, it's that they are more capable of considering ways in which something could work.
"Can humans fly?"
"Of course not" says the average person
"Hmm, give us 4 years or so" responds Wilbur and Orville Wright, in 1899.

[kyoglesage]

Most events are improved by Howard’s absence.

[edwardpaddock]

I would say, that smart people believe 'weird' things, because they are smart. The more you know, the more you know how little you know. The more you understand, the more you understand how little you understand. "The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing." "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The shortest path to absolute certainty, is made with a dull mind.

Also, the entire debate generally boils down to what one means when one says words like 'god'. If you define 'god' as an impossible thing, then it is very easy to disprove. (A straw-god argument, mayhaps?) If by 'god' you are suggesting the possibility of the existence of one or more being with access to technology that is greatly beyond your/our ability to understand, it would all but impossible to dismiss in any rational manner. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

[yourhealinghome]

What a fool believes; HE SEES - Speaks to the reliability of observations made by those whose very perception of reality is poisoned by preconceived notions that are accepted and retained without critical evaluation. One false belief can do long term damage to one's ability to understand factual reality. There are more than one cautionary aspects to the Doobies' admonition there. Great observation your questioner raises here too - I've constantly been stimulated to practice analysis by culturally sourced cues, delivered by critically thinking artists.

[ericlorge]

Who wants to tell him that circular reasoning is exactly what the Socratic dialectic works to DISMANTLE. And that the Socratic Method is in fact based on intellectual HUMILITY?
Because he's simply using it as a tool to confirm all his ideological presumptions, (of which there are many, apparently).