Socratic vs. Scientific Methods
For quite some time I’ve been trying to formulate how to explain how Creationists and ID thinkers express themselves in a very different way from those engaged in the sciences, and how these differences seem almost like the Christian and the scientist are speaking different languages. I don’t have a complete explanation yet, but in thinking about it, I see that it happens both in methods of debate and in differing standards of proof. Here, I’ll talk about the differences in methods of debate, and why both sides often don’t understand the other.
On the political front, where most Creationists and ID believers stand, the basic method of debate is the Socratic Method:
The Socratic method is a negative method of hypotheses elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. The method of Socrates is a search for the underlying hypotheses, assumptions, or axioms, which may subconsciously shape one’s opinion, and to make them the subject of scrutiny, to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances.
Compare this “negative method” of questioning to “drill down” to a core with the scientific method that forms the basis of science instruction (and therefore, the standard that scientists adhere to):
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
The science-trained mind cannot comprehend why the socratic questioner asks a few questions and draws a conclusion; that’s not how it is supposed to work. For the science-trained mind, you assemble the facts and work forward; in the Socratic method, you drill down to what you already know.
In debate, these two forms of thinking “speak past each other”. The audience hears the version they are more familiar with, and bizarre results ensue … “bizarre” to the other side, at least.
Its not a well formed argument yet, and needs some work. But like my nascent theory about differing standards of proof, where the scientist is looking for testable results and the faithful are looking for a looser “legal standard” (such as “preponderance of the evidence”), it can help explain the confusion in the arguments themselves.
