What's a Theory?

Theories are collections of concepts about some real world area of concern or
interest which facilitate explaining, predicting, or intervening. With theories we
explain why and how things occur as they do. We predict what is going to happen
given the way things are. And we choose ways of acting to make things turn out
in some way we desire.

Some theories are better for one or more of these purposes, worse for others.
Darwins theory of Natural Selection, for example, explains very well, predicts
barely at all and allows intervention of only a quite limited sort. Theories of the
solar system, based on Newtonian gravity, not only explain but also allow us to
prediction example where a planet will be on some day and even hour 50 years
from now. Social theories generally explain, predict, and permit intervention, all
to a degree, not with perfect confidence, but with enough to be much more useful
than just winging it, so to speak.

https://zcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/zinstructionals/www/RTInstruc/id6.htm

What is a Theory?
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without
supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A
theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can
incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains
why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of
evolution explains why so many plants and animals--some very similar and some very
different--exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of
what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New
evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected.
The longer the central elements of a theory hold--the more observations it predicts, the
more tests it passes, the more facts it explains--the stronger the theory.

Many advances in science--the development of genetics after Darwin's death, for

example--have greatly enhanced evolutionary thinking. Yet even with these new
advances, the theory of evolution still persists today, much as Darwin first described it,
and is universally accepted by scientists.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory/

Theory explains how some aspect of human behavior or performance is organized. It

thus enables us to make predictions about that behavior. A theory is a related set of
concepts and principles
 - about a phenomenon
- the purpose of which is to explain or predict the phenomenon

Why theory is important

1. Theory provides concepts to name what we observe and to explain
relationships between concepts. Theory allows us to explain what we see and
to figure out how to bring about change. Theory is a tool that enables us to
identify a problem and to plan a means for altering the situation.

2. Theory is to justify reimbursement to get funding and support - need to

explain what is being done and demonstrate that it works - theory and
research

3. Theory is to enhance the growth of the professional area to identify a body

of knowledge with theories from both within and with out the area of distance
learning. That body of knowledge grows with theory and research. Theory
guides research.

The theory also helps us understand what we dont know and, therefore, is
the only guide to research. Relating to theory, it increases its ability to solve
other problems in different times and different places. (Moore, 1991: 2)

What is Philosophy?

At its simplest, philosophy (from the Greek or phlosopha, meaning the love of wisdom) is the study of
knowledge, or "thinking about thinking", although the breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of
other alternative definitions:

the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their
essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct
principles of reasoning (logic) (Wikipedia)
investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather
than empirical methods (American Heritage Dictionary)
the study of the ultimate nature of existence, reality, knowledge and goodness, as discoverable by human
reasoning (Penguin English Dictionary)
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics (WordNet)
 the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of man and his behaviour and beliefs (Kernerman
English Multilingual Dictionary)
the rational and critical inquiry into basic principles (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia)
the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter,
reason, proof, truth, etc. (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)
careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and the evaluation of
human conduct (The Philosophy Pages)

As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term "philosophy" meant the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and
comprised ALL areas of speculative thought, including the arts, sciences and religion.

Philosophical questions (unlike those of the sciences) are usually foundational and abstract in nature. Philosophy is done
primarily through reflection and does not tend to rely on experiment, although the methods used to study it may
be analogous to those used in the study of the natural sciences.

In common usage, it sometimes carries the sense of unproductive or frivolous musings, but over the centuries it has produced
some of the most important original thought, and its contribution to politics, sociology, mathematics, science and
literature has been inestimable. Although the study of philosophy may not yield "the meaning of life, the universe and
everything", many philosophers believe that it is important that each of us examines such questions and even that
an unexamined life is not worth living. It also provides a good way of learning to think more clearly about a wide range of
issues, and its methods of analyzing arguments can be useful in a variety of situations in other areas of life.

Philosophy is such a huge subject that it is difficult to know how to break it down into manageable and logical sections.
Perhaps the most basic overall split at the highest level is geographical, between Eastern Philosophy and Western
Philosophy (with, arguably, African Philosophy as a possible third branch at this level).

http://www.philosophybasics.com/general_whatis.html

What is Philosophy?
Philosophy is the systematic and critical study of fundamental questions that arise both in everyday
life and through the practice of other disciplines. Some of these questions concern the nature
of reality: Is there an external world? What is the relationship between the physical and the mental?
Does God exist? Others concern our nature as rational, purposive, and social beings: Do we act
freely? Where do our moral obligations come from? How do we construct just political states? Others
concern the nature and extent of our knowledge: What is it to know something rather than merely
believe it? Does all of our knowledge come from sensory experience? Are there limits to our
knowledge? And still others concern the foundations and implications of other disciplines: What is a
scientific explanation? What sort of knowledge of the world does science provide? Do scientific
theories, such as evolutionary theory, or quantum mechanics, compel us to modify our basic
philosophical understanding of, and approach to, reality? What makes an object a work of art? Are
aesthetic value judgments objective? And so on.

The aim in Philosophy is not to master a body of facts, so much as think clearly and sharply through
any set of facts. Towards that end, philosophy students are trained to read critically, analyze and
assess arguments, discern hidden assumptions, construct logically tight arguments, and express
themselves clearly and precisely in both speech and writing.

Here are descriptions of some of the main areas of philosophy:

Epistemology

Epistemology studies questions about knowledge and rational belief. Traditional questions include
the following: How can we know that the ordinary physical objects around us are real (as opposed to
dreamed, or hallucinated, as in the Matrix)? What are the factors that determine whether a belief is
rational or irrational? What is the difference between knowing something and just believing
it? (Part of the answer is that you can have false beliefs, but you can only know things that are
true. But thats not the whole answerafter all, you might believe something true on the basis of a
lucky guess, and that wouldnt be knowledge!) Some other questions that have recently been the
subject of lively debate in epistemology include: Can two people with exactly the same evidence be
completely rational in holding opposite beliefs? Does whether I know something depend on how
much practical risk I would face if I believed falsely? Can I rationally maintain confident beliefs
about matters on which I know that others, who are seemingly every bit as intelligent, well-informed,
unbiased and diligent as I am, have come to opposite conclusions?

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the study of what the world is likeor (some would say) what reality consists in.
Metaphysical questions can take several forms. They can be questions about what exists (questions of
ontology); they can be questions what is fundamental (as opposed to derivative); and they can be
questions about what is an objective feature of the world (as opposed to a mere consequence the way
in which creatures like us happen to interact with that world). Questions that are central to the study
of metaphysics include include questions about the nature of objects, persons, time, space, causation,
laws of nature, and modality. The rigorous study of these questions has often led metaphysicians to
make surprising claims. Plato thought that alongside the observable, concrete world there was a
realm of eternal, unchanging abstract entities like Goodness, Beauty, and Justice. Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz claimed that the world was composed of tiny indivisible souls, called monads. Even today
contemporary metaphysicians have been known to doubt the existence of ordinary objects, to deny
the possibility of free will, and to argue that our world is just one of a plurality of worlds.
Logic

Logic is the study of the validity of patterns of inference. Logic is not a branch of psychology: It does
not concern how people actually reason or which kinds of reasoning they find intuitively compelling.
Rather, logic concerns the question of when a claim is conclusively supported by other claims. For
instance, the inference from the claims it is raining and if it is raining then the streets are wet to
the claim the streets are wet is logically valid the premises conclusively support the conclusion.
The validity of this specific inference, and of other inferences of the same form, is tied to the nature
of the concept if then. More generally, the notion of logical validity is closely connected to the
nature of concepts such as and, or, not, if then, all, and some. In studying the notion of
logical validity, logicians have developed symbolic languages. These enable us to state claims clearly
and precisely, and to investigate the exact structure of an argument. These languages have turned out
to be useful within philosophy and other disciplines, including mathematics and computer science.
Some of the questions about logic studied by members of the philosophy department include: Given
that logic is not an empirical science, how can we have knowledge of basic logical truths? What is the
connection between logic and rationality? Can mathematics be reduced to logic? Should we revise
logic to accommodate vague or imprecise language? Should we revise logic to answer the liar paradox
and other paradoxes concerning truth?

Political Philosophy

Political philosophy is the philosophical study of concepts and values associated with political
matters. For one example, is there any moral obligation to do what the law says just because the law
says so, and if so on what grounds? Many have said we consent to obey. Did you consent to obey the
laws? Can one consent without realizing it? Are there other grounds for an obligation to obey the
law? Another central question is what would count as a just distribution of all the wealth and
opportunity that is made possible by living in a political community? Is inequality in wealth or
income unjust? Much existing economic inequality is a result of different talents, different childhood
opportunities, different gender, or just different geographical location. What might justify
inequalities that are owed simply to bad luck? Some say that inequality can provide incentives to
produce or innovate more, which might benefit everyone. Others say that many goods belong to
individuals before the law enters in, and that people may exchange them as they please even if this
results in some having more than others. So (a third question), what does it mean for something to
be yours, and what makes it yours?
Philosophy of Language

The Philosophy of Language is devoted to the study of questions concerned with meaning and
communication. Such questions range from ones that interact closely with linguistic theory to
questions that are more akin to those raised in the study of literature. Very large questions include:
What is linguistic meaning? How is the meaning of linguistic performances similar to and different
from the meanings of, say, gestures or signals? What is the relationship between language and
thought? Is thought more fundamental than language? Or is there some sense in which only
creatures that can speak can think? To what extent does the social environment affect the meaning
and use of language? Other questions focus on the communicative aspect of language, such as: What
is it to understand what someone else has said? What is it to assert something? How is assertion
related to knowledge and belief? And how is it that we can gain knowledge from others through
language? Yet other questions focus on specific features of the langauges we speak, for example:
What is it a name to be a name of a particular thing? What's the relationship between the meanings
of words and the meanings of sentences? Is there an important difference between literal and
figurative uses of language? What is metaphor? And how does it work?

Moral Philosophy

Ethics is the study of what we ought to do and what sorts of people we

ought to be. Ethicists theorize about what makes acts right and wrong and what
makes outcomes good and bad, and also about which motivations and
traits of character we should admire and cultivate. Some other questions that ethicists try to answer
are closely related to the central ones. They include: What does it mean to act freely? Under what
conditions are we responsible for our good and bad acts? Are moral claims true and false, like
ordinary descriptive
claims about our world, and if they are what makes them so?

Aesthetics

[forthcoming]

History of Philosophy

The History of Philosophy plays a special role in the study of philosophy. Like every other intellectual
discipline, philosophy has of course a history. However, in the case of philosophy an understanding
of its history - from its ancient and medieval beginnings through the early modern period (the 17th
and 18th centuries) and into more recent times - forms a vital part of the very enterprise of
philosophy, whether in metaphysics and epistemology or in ethics, aesthetics, and political
philosophy. To study the great philosophical works of the past is to learn about the origins and
presuppositions of many of the problems that occupy philosophy today. It is also to discover and to
come to appreciate different ways of dealing with these problems, different conceptions of what the
fundamental problems of philosophy are, and indeed different ways of doing philosophy
altogether. And it is also the study of worksfrom Plato and Aristotle, through Kant and Mill and
more recent writersthat have shaped much of Western culture far beyond academic philosophy.
Many of the most creative philosophers working today have also written on various topics in the
history of philosophy and have found their inspiration in great figures of the past.

Why Study Philosophy?

This question may be understood in two ways: Why would one engage in the particular intellectual
activities that constitute philosophical inquiry? And how might the study of philosophy affect my
future career prospects?

Philosophy as intellectual activity may have a number of motivations:

Intellectual curiosity: philosophy is essentially a reflective-critical inquiry motivated by a sense
of intellectual wonder. What is the world like? Why is it this way, rather than another? Who am
I? Why am I here?
Interest in cultural and intellectual history: as a discipline, philosophy pays a great deal of
attention to its history, and to the broader cultural and intellectual context in which this history
unfolds.
Sharpening thinking skills: the study of philosophy is especially well suited to the development of
a variety of intellectual skills involved in the analysis of concepts, the critique of ideas, the
conduct of sound reasoning and argumentation; it is important to emphasize that philosophical
inquiry also fosters intellectual creativity (developing new concepts, or new approaches to
problems, identifying new problems, and so on).
Sharpening writing skills: the writing of philosophy is especially rigorous insofar as it demands a
high level of clarity, precision, and organization.
Philosophy might affect future career prospects in a number of ways:
Some philosophy concentrators go on to graduate school to earn a PhD in philosophy. Most of
those become professors of philosophy, which means that their professional lives are devoted to
research and teaching in philosophy.
 A philosophy concentration is not limiting: in fact, the skills it develops and sharpens are
transferable to a wide variety of professional activities. Obvious examples include the application
of reasoning and argumentation skills to the practice of law; less obvious examples include the
application of analytical and critical skills to journalism, investment banking, writing,
publishing, and so on; even less obvious examples include putting ones philosophical education
to work in business entrepeneurship, political and social activism, and even creative arts.
https://www.brown.edu/academics/philosophy/undergraduate/philosophy-what-and-why

I.he Main Branches of Philosophy are divided as to the nature of the questions asked in each
area. The integrity of these divisions cannot be rigidly maintained, for one area overlaps into the
others.

A. Axiology: the study of value; the investigation of its nature, criteria, and metaphysical status.
More often than not, the term "value theory" is used instead of "axiology" in contemporary
discussions even though the term theory of value is used with respect to the value or price
of goods and services in economics.

1. Some significant questions in axiology include the following:

a. Nature of value: is value a fulfillment of desire, a pleasure, a preference, a behavioral

disposition, or simply a human interest of some kind?

b. Criteria of value: de gustibus non (est) disputandum (i.e., (there's no accounting for
tastes) or do objective standards apply?

c. Status of value: how are values related to (scientific) facts? What ultimate worth, if
any, do human values have?

2. Axiology is usually divided into two main parts.

. Ethics: the study of values in human behavior or the study of moral problems: e.g., (1)
the rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) the kinds of things which are good or
desirable, and (3) whether actions are blameworthy or praiseworthy.

i. Consider this example analyzed by J. O. Urmson in his well-known essay, "Saints and
Heroes":

"We may imagine a squad of soldiers to be practicing the throwing of live hand
grenades; a grenade slips from the hand of one of them and rolls on the ground near
the squad; one of them sacrifices his life by throwing himself on the grenade and
protecting his comrades with his own body. It is quite unreasonable to suppose that
such a man must be impelled by the sort of emotion that he might be impelled by if his
best friend were in the squad."

ii. Did the soldier who threw himself on the grenade do the right thing? If he did not
cover the grenade, several soldiers might be injured or be killed. His action probably
saved lives; certainly an action which saves lives is a morally correct action. One
might even be inclined to conclude that saving lives is a duty. But if this were so,
wouldn't each of the soldiers have the moral obligation or duty to save his
comrades? Would we thereby expect each of the soldiers to vie for the opportunity
to cover the grenade?
 a. sthetics: the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings, judgments, or
standards of beauty and related concepts. Philosophy of art is concerned with
judgments of sense, taste, and emotion.

. E.g., Is art an intellectual or representational activity? What would the realistic

representations in pop art represent? Does art represent sensible objects or ideal
objects?

i. Is artistic value objective? Is it merely coincidental that many forms in architecture

and painting seem to illustrate mathematical principles? Are there standards of
taste?

ii. Is there a clear distinction between art and reality?

B. Epistemology: the study of knowledge. In particular, epistemology is the study of the

nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge.

1. Epistemology investigates the origin, structure, methods, and integrity of knowledge.

2. Consider the degree of truth of the statement, "The earth is round." Does its truth
depend upon the context in which the statement is uttered? For example, this statement
can be successively more accurately translated as
"The earth is spherical"
"The earth is an oblate spheroid" (i.e., flattened at the poles).
But what about the Himalayas and the Marianas Trench? Even if we surveyed exactly the
shape of the earth, our process of surveying would alter the surface by the footprints left and
the impressions of the survey stakes and instruments. Hence, the exact shape of the earth
cannot be known. Every rain shower changes the shape.
(Note here as well the implications for skepticism and relativism: simply because we cannot
exactly describe the exact shape of the earth, the conclusion does not logically follow that the
earth does not have a shape.)

3. Furthermore, consider two well-known problems in epistemology:

. Russell's Five-Minute-World Hypothesis: Suppose the earth were created five minutes
ago, complete with memory images, history books, records, etc., how could we ever
know of it? As Russell wrote in The Analysis of Mind, "There is no logical impossibility
in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then
was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically
necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is
happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world
began five minutes ago." For example, an omnipotent God could create the world with
all the memories, historical records, and so forth five minutes ago. Any evidence to the
contrary would be evidence created by God five minutes ago. (Q.v.,the Omphalos
hypothesis.)

a. Suppose everything in the universe (including all spatial relations) were to expand
uniformly a thousand times larger. How could we ever know it? A moment's thought
reveals that the mass of objects increases by the cube whereas the distance among
them increases linearly. Hence, if such an expansion were possible, changes in the
measurement of gravity and the speed of light would be evident, if, indeed, life would
be possible.
 b. Russell's Five-Minute-World Hypothesis is a philosophical problem; the impossibility of
the objects in the universe expanding is a scientific problem since the latter problem
can, in fact, be answered by principles of elementary physics.

C. Ontology or Metaphysics: the study of what is really real. Metaphysics deals with the
so-called first principles of the natural order and "the ultimate generalizations available
to the human intellect." Specifically, ontology seeks to indentify and establish the
relationships between the categories, if any, of the types of existent things.

1. What kinds of things exist? Do only particular things exist or do general things also exist?
How is existence possible? Questions as to identity and change of objectsare you the
same person you were as a baby? as of yesterday? as of a moment ago?

2. How do ideas exist if they have no size, shape, or color? (My idea of the Empire State
Building is quite as "small" or as "large" as my idea of a book. I.e., an idea is not
extended in space.) What is space? What is time?

3. E.g., Consider the truths of mathematics: in what manner do geometric figures exist? Are
points, lines, or planes real or not? Of what are they made?

4. What is spirit? or soul? or matter? space? Are they made up of the same sort of "stuff"?

5. When, if ever, are events necessary? Under what conditions are they possible?
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/what.shtml

WHAT IS A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT?

A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be

true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the
premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the
truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example:

1. All men are mortal. (premise)

2. Socrates was a man. (premise)
3. Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)

As you can see, if the premises are true (and they are), then it simply isn't
possible for the conclusion to be false. If you have a deductive argument and you
accept the truth of the premises, then you must also accept the truth of the
conclusion; if you reject it, then you are rejecting logic itself.

WHAT IS AN INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT?

An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support

the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that
the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the
premises and inferences. Here is an example:

1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)

 2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the
conclusion to be false (maybe Socrates was allergic to fish, for example).

Words which tend to mark an argument as inductive - and hence probabilistic

rather than necessary - include probably, likely, possibly and reasonably.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS VS. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

It may seem that inductive arguments are weaker than deductive arguments
because there must always remain the possibility of their arriving at false
conclusions, but that is not entirely true.

With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained, even if

implicitly, in our premises. This means that we don't arrive at new information -
at best, we are shown information which was obscured or unrecognized
previously. Thus, the sure truth-preserving nature of deductive arguments comes
at a cost.

Inductive arguments, on the other hand, do provide us with new ideas and thus
may expand our knowledge about the world in a way that is impossible for
deductive arguments to achieve. Thus, while deductive arguments may be used
most often with mathematics, most other fields of research make extensive use of
inductive arguments.

https://www.thoughtco.com/deductive-and-inductive-arguments-249754

Developed from Platos Socratic Dialogues, the Socratic method of teaching is a

student-centered approach that challenges learners to develop their critical
thinking skills and engage in analytic discussion. The Socratic method can be
used at any grade level and with all subject areas, and lessons can be adapted to
fit a changing society.

History of the Socratic method

An ancient form of discourse, the Socratic method is over 2400 years old and is
reportedly founded on Socrates belief that lecture was not an effective method
of teaching all students. According to Matt Copeland, Socrates valued the
knowledge and understanding already present within people and thought that
using this knowledge could potentially be beneficial in advancing their
understanding. Copeland explains, by helping students examine their
premonitions and beliefs while at the same time accepting the limitations of
human thought, Socrates believed students could improve their reasoning skills
and ultimately move toward more rational thinking and ideas more easily
supported with logic.1
The term Socratic seminar appears to have first been used by the Great
Books Program founder Scott Buchanan in his work with the St. Johns College
New Program, and the concept has been popularized by organizations such as
The Center for Socratic Practice, the Touchstones Project, Junior Great Books,
the National Paideia Center, and the Coalition of Essential Schools.
Lynda Tredway explains that although this type of teaching practice has
been explored throughout history, this teaching technique was reintroduced in
the 1980s, as part of Mortimer Adlers Paideia Proposal for comprehensive school
reform.2

The Socratic method in practice

In the Socratic method of education, teachers engage students by asking
questions that require generative answers. Ideally, the answers to questions are
not a stopping point for thought but are instead a beginning to further analysis
and research. Teachers can use the Socratic method in a variety of subject areas
and across grade levels in order to challenge students to examine both
contemporary and historical issues. In modeling the practice of Socrates, the
teacher questions students in a manner that requires them to consider how they
rationalize and respond about topics. Copeland explains that it is important for
teachers to clarify that these questions are not intended to create an
environment of judgment, but rather to help students examine their attitudes,
beliefs, knowledge and logic.3 The goal of the Socratic method is to help
students process information and engage in deeper understanding of topics.
Most importantly, Socratic teaching engages students in dialogue and discussion
that is collaborative and open-minded as opposed to debate, which is often
competitive and individualized.
Ideally, teachers develop open-ended questions about texts and encourage
students to use textual evidence to support their opinions and answers. In the
Socratic seminar, the teacher uses questions to guide discussion around specific
learning goals. It is imperative for teachers to establish guidelines to help
students understand their roles and responsibilities in the Socratic
discussion.4 Socratic questioning is a systematic process for examining the
ideas, questions, and answers that form the basis of human belief. It involves
recognizing that all new understanding is linked to prior understanding, that
thought itself is a continuous thread woven throughout lives rather than isolated
sets of questions and answers.5

Socratic circles
Socratic circles can be used to engage in the Socratic method in various subjects.
Typically, when participating in Socratic circle activities, students first read a
passage critically and then form two concentric circles. First, the inner circle
examines and discusses the text and the second circle comments on the quality
of the dialogue. Then, the two circles switch places and roles, and the process is
repeated with the new ideas from a new circle. The outer circle is required to
remain quiet while the inner circle reacts and dialogues, and conversely, the
inner circle must listen quietly to the outer circles evaluation of their
conversation.
Copeland explains that Socratic circles turn partial classroom control,
classroom direction, and classroom governance over to students by creating a
truly equitable learning community where the weight and value of student voices
and teacher voices are indistinguishable from each other. Copeland suggests
that Socratic circles help to develop critical and creative thinking skills that will
ultimately facilitate their growth and development into productive, responsible
citizens.6
 According to Copeland, Socratic circles encourage students to work
cooperatively to construct meaning from what they have read and avoid focusing
on a correct interpretation of the text.7

STEPS FOR CREATING S OCRATIC CIRCLES

Typically, Socratic circles must include a short passage of text in which students
have already given a critical read, and two concentric circles of students one
circle focusing on exploring the meaning expressed in the text and a second
circle observing the conversation.8
Basic structure:

1. Teacher assigns a short passage of text the day prior to the Socratic circle activity.

2. Students read, analyze, and take notes individually.

3. Students are divided into two circles.

4. The inner circle reads the passage aloud and discusses the text for about ten minutes, while the outer circle silently

observes.

5. The outer circle evaluates the inner circles conversation and provides feedback to the inner circle.

6. Students switch circles.

7. The new inner circle discusses the text for approximately ten minutes and then is given ten minutes of feedback by the

outer circle.

Socratic Seminars
Lynda Tredaway describes the Socratic seminar as a form of structured
discourse about ideas and moral dilemmas.9 According to Tredway, the Socratic
seminar is a 50-80 minute discussion in which 25 or fewer students react to a
novel, poem, essay, document, or art reproduction. Students engaging in
Socratic seminar generally sit in a circle and do not raise their hands to speak;
instead, they make eye contact and observe body language in order to learn the
cues for engaging in discussion.
In the Socratic seminar, the teacher usually provides questions that require
students to evaluate options and make decisions. When Socratic seminars
engage students in active learning, they develop knowledge, understanding,
 and ethical attitudes and behaviors, they are more apt to retain these attributes
than if they had received them passively.10 Proponents of this teaching
methodology propose that it also has the potential for character and
communication development in addition to facilitating the improvement of self-
esteem.

THE TEACHERS ROLE IN SOCRATIC SEMINAR

In the Socratic seminar, the teacher is responsible for guiding students to a

deeper and clarified consideration of the ideas of the text, a respect for varying
points of view, and adherence to and respect for the seminar process.11 The
teacher also counts the number and type of comments made by students and
models expected behaviors for listening, thinking and interacting within the
dialogue. Teachers often participate in student-led seminars, and in case, the
dialogue is charted by students who tally the types of contributions made by
classmates.

DEVELOPING QUESTIONS FOR SOCRATIC SEMINAR S

There are several methods of developing questions for Socratic seminars;

however, creating an opening question can determine the success of the
seminar. According to the Greece Central School District of New York,12 a good
opening question must:

Arise from the curiosity of the leader.

Have no single right answer.

Be structured to generate dialogue that leads to a clearer understanding of textual concepts.

Require participants to make textual references.

The questions that follow the introduction to the seminar require students to
make personal connections with the text and the world outside of school. For
example, the questions might ask students to share similar or different
experiences as those in the text. The teacher might also pose questions that ask
students to clarify their perspectives and draw on textual evidence to support
their claims. The questions in a Socratic seminar might also challenge students to
make comparisons, give evidence for cause-and-effect relationships, provide
suggestions for why this text might be realistic or unrealistic, and compare it to
their personal lives. Sample questions may be found on the Socratic
Seminars page at the Greece Central School website.
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4994?ref=search

WHAT IS THE SOCRATIC METHOD?

excerpted from Socrates Caf by Christopher Phillips

The Socratic method is a way to seek truths by your own lights.

It is a system, a spirit, a method, a type of philosophical inquiry an
intellectual technique, all rolled into one.
Socrates himself never spelled out a "method." However, the Socratic
method is named after him because Socrates, more than any other before or
since, models for us philosophy practiced - philosophy as deed, as way of
living, as something that any of us can do. It is an open system of
philosophical inquiry that allows one to interrogate from many vantage
points.
Gregory Vlastos, a Socrates scholar and professor of philosophy at
Princeton, described Socrates method of inquiry as "among the greatest
achievements of humanity." Why? Because, he says, it makes philosophical
inquiry "a common human enterprise, open to every man." Instead of
requiring allegiance to a specific philosophical viewpoint or analytic
technique or specialized vocabulary, the Socratic method "calls for common
sense and common speech." And this, he says, "is as it should be, for how
man should live is every mans business."
I think, however, that the Socratic method goes beyond Vlastos
description. It does not merely call for common sense but examines what
common sense is. The Socratic method asks: Does the common sense of our
day offer us the greatest potential for self-understanding and human
excellence? Or is the prevailing common sense in fact a roadblock to
realizing this potential?
 Vlastos goes on to say that Socratic inquiry is by no means simple, and
"calls not only for the highest degree of mental alertness of which anyone is
capable" but also for "moral qualities of a high order: sincerity, humility,
courage." Such qualities "protect against the possibility" that Socratic
dialogue, no matter how rigorous, "would merely grind out . . . wild
conclusions with irresponsible premises." I agree, though I would replace the
quality of sincerity with honesty, since one can hold a conviction sincerely
without examining it, while honesty would require that one subject ones
convictions to frequent scrutiny.
A Socratic dialogue reveals how different our outlooks can be on concepts
we use every day. It reveals how different our philosophies are, and often
how tenable - or untenable, as the case may be - a range of philosophies can
be. Moreover, even the most universally recognized and used concept, when
subjected to Socratic scrutiny, might reveal not only that there
is not universal agreement, after all, on the meaning of any given concept, but
that every single person has a somewhat different take on each and every
concept under the sun.
Whats more, there seems to be no such thing as a concept so abstract, or a
question so off base, that it cant be fruitfully explored at Socrates Caf. In the
course of Socratizing, it often turns out to be the case that some of the most
so-called abstract concepts are intimately related to the most profoundly
relevant human experiences. In fact, its been my experience that virtually
any question can be plumbed Socratically. Sometimes you dont know what
question will have the most lasting and significant impact until you take a
risk and delve into it for a while.
What distinguishes the Socratic method from mere nonsystematic inquiry
is the sustained attempt to explore the ramifications of certain opinions and
then offer compelling objections and alternatives. This scrupulous and
exhaustive form of inquiry in many ways resembles the scientific method.
But unlike Socratic inquiry, scientific inquiry would often lead us to believe
that whatever is not measurable cannot be investigated. This "belief" fails to
address such paramount human concerns as sorrow and joy and suffering and
love.
 Instead of focusing on the outer cosmos, Socrates focused primarily on
human beings and their cosmos within, utilizing his method to open up new
realms of self-knowledge while at the same time exposing a great deal of
error, superstition, and dogmatic nonsense. The Spanish-born American
philosopher and poet George Santayana said that Socrates knew that "the
foreground of human life is necessarily moral and practical" and that "it is so
even so for artists" - and even for scientists, try as some might to divorce
their work from these dimensions of human existence.

Scholars call Socrates method the elenchus, which is Hellenistic Greek

for inquiry or cross-examination. But it is not just any type of inquiry or
examination. It is a type that reveals people to themselves, that makes them
see what their opinions really amount to. C. D. C. Reeve, professor of
philosophy at Reed College, gives the standard explanation of an elenchus in
saying that its aim is not simply to reach adequate definitions" of such
things as virtues; rather, it also has a "moral reformatory purpose, for
Socrates believes that regular elenctic philosophizing makes people happier
and more virtuous than anything else. . . . Indeed philosophizing is so
important for human welfare, on his view, that he is willing to accept
execution rather than give it up."
Socrates method of examination can indeed be a vital part of existence,
but I would not go so far as to say that it should be. And I do not think that
Socrates felt that habitual use of this method "makes people happier." The
fulfillment that comes from Socratizing comes only at a price - it could well
make us unhappier, more uncertain, more troubled, as well as more fulfilled.
It can leave us with a sense that we dont know the answers after all, that we
are much further from knowing the answers than wed ever realized before
engaging in Socratic discourse. And this is fulfilling - and exhilarating and
humbling and perplexing. We may leave a Socrates Caf - in all likelihood
we will leave a Socrates Caf - with a heady sense that there are many more
ways and truths and lights by which to examine any given concept than we
had ever before imagined.
In The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche said, "I admire the courage and
wisdom of Socrates in all he did, said - and did not say." Nietzsche was a
distinguished nineteenth-century classical philologist before he abandoned
the academic fold and became known for championing a type of heroic
individual who would create a life - affirming "will to power" ethic. In the
spirit of his writings on such individuals, whom he described as "supermen,,
Nietzsche lauded Socrates as a "genius of the heart. . . whose voice knows
how to descend into the depths of every soul . . . who teaches one to listen,
who smoothes rough souls and lets them taste a new yearning . . . who
divines the hidden and forgotten treasure, the drop of goodness . . . from
whose touch everyone goes away richer, not having found grace nor amazed,
not as blessed and oppressed by the good of another, but richer in himself,
opened . . . less sure perhaps... but full of hopes that as yet have no name." I
only differ with Nietzsche when he characterizes Socrates as someone who
descended into the depths of others souls. To the contrary Socrates enabled
those with whom he engaged in dialogues to descend into the depths of their
own souls and create their own life - affirming ethic.
Santayana said that he would never hold views in philosophy which he did
not believe in daily life, and that he would deem it dishonest and even
spineless to advance or entertain views in discourse which were not those
under which he habitually lived. But there is no neat divide between ones
views of philosophy and of life. They are overlapping and kindred views. It is
virtually impossible in many instances to know what we believe in daily life
until we engage others in dialogue. Likewise, to discover our philosophical
views, we must engage with ourselves, with the lives we already lead. Our
views form, change, evolve, as we participate in this dialogue. It is the only
way truly to discover what philosophical colors we sail under. Everyone at
some point preaches to himself and others what he does not yet practice;
everyone acts in or on the world in ways that are in some way contradictory
or inconsistent with the views he or she confesses or professes to hold. For
instance, the Danish philosopher Sren Kierkegaard, the influential founder
of existentialism, put Socratic principles to use in writing his dissertation on
the concept of irony in Socrates, often using pseudonyms so he could argue
his own positions with himself. In addition, the sixteenth-century essayist
Michel de Montaigne, who was called "the French Socrates" and was known
as the father of skepticism in modern Europe, would write and add
conflicting and even contradictory passages in the same work. And like
Socrates, he believed the search for truth was worth dying for.
The Socratic method forces people "to confront their own dogmatism,"
according to Leonard Nelson, a German philosopher who wrote on such
subjects as ethics and theory of knowledge until he was forced by the rise of
Nazism to quit. By doing so, participants in Socratic dialogue are, in
effect,"forcing themselves to be free," Nelson maintains. But theyre not just
confronted with their own dogmatism. In the course of a Socrates Caf, they
may be confronted with an array of hypotheses, convictions, conjectures and
theories offered by the other participants, and themselves - all of which
subscribe to some sort of dogma. The Socratic method requires that -
honestly and openly, rationally and imaginatively - they confront the dogma
by asking such questions as: What does this mean? What speaks for and
against it? Are there alternative ways of considering it that are even more
plausible and tenable?
At certain junctures of a Socratic dialogue, the "forcing" that this
confrontation entails - the insistence that each participant carefully articulate
her singular philosophical perspective - can be upsetting. But that is all to the
good. If it never touches any nerves, if it doesn't upset, if it doesn't mentally
and spiritually challenge and perplex, in a wonderful and exhilarating way, it
is not Socratic dialogue. This "forcing" opens us up to the varieties of
experiences of others - whether through direct dialogue, or through other
means, like drama or books, or through a work of art or a dance. It compels
us to explore alternative perspectives, asking what might be said for or
against each.
Keep this ethos in mind if you ever, for instance, feel tempted to ask a
question like this one once posed at a Socrates Caf: How can we overcome
alienation? Challenge the premise of the question at the outset. You may need
to ask: Is alienation something we always want to overcome? For instance,
Shakespeare and Goethe may have written their timeless works because they
embraced their sense of alienation rather than attempting to escape it. If this
was so, then you might want to ask: Are there many different types, and
degrees, of alienation? Depending on the context, are there some types that
you want to overcome and other types that you do not at all want to overcome
but rather want to incorporate into yourself? And to answer effectively such
questions, you first need to ask and answer such questions as: What is
alienation? What does it mean to overcome alienation? Why would we ever
want to overcome alienation? What are some of the many different types of
alienation? What are the criteria or traits that link each of these types? Is it
possible to be completely alienated? And many more questions besides.

Those who become smitten with the Socratic method of philosophical

inquiry thrive on the question. They never run out of questions, or out of new
ways to question. Some of Socrates Cafs most avid philosophizers are, for
me, the question personified.
http://www.philosopher.org/Socratic_Method.html