|
We are all familiar with the "Scientific
Method". Many consider Francis Bacon to be the father of modern
science, but his famous book was not called "The Scientific Method".
It was called "The New Method" or Novum Organum. The
use of the word "new" should lead us to wonder what the "old" method
was.
Before
the Novum Organum (Latin), there was the Organon (Greek).
The Organon was written by Aristotle and taught the art of Logic.
Therefore, what the Scientific Method replaced was Logic as the method
of seeking truth. Moreover, when we consider Logic as a means of
truth-seeking, we find two different kinds of reasoning:
Dialectical and Demonstrative. Dialectical reasoning is the first
of the two to be studied and is conversational. This is the
reasoning we find in the dialogues of Plato where Socrates questions men
on all sorts of topics. Through Dialectic we address debatable
questions, using premises granted by our audience. This is what we
refer to as "the Socratic Method". Demonstrative reasoning,
which reasons not from granted premises, but from self-evident truths,
is studied later, as we begin our formal study of Philosophy.
Despite the popularity of science today,
they are some serious dangers in accepting the Scientific Method as our
method of seeking truth in life. The Scientific Method requires
that we ask a question, propose an answer (hypothesis) and then check
our hypothesis by means of an experiment. What happens when our
questions turn to issues we cannot observe such as questions of the
soul, or of God, or virtue, or beauty and so on? The Scientific
Method fails to answer the most important questions of human life and
should never be allowed to replace the Socratic Method as our primary
means of truth seeking. To be sure it is modern education's
abandonment of the Socratic Method that has led to the materialistic
mind that characterizes modern American society. The CLAA prevents
this error by restoring the classical approach to truth-seeking.
WARNING 1: "RHETORIC"
WITHOUT DIALECTIC
For all the talk in "classical education"
circles, there's really not much of value--it's unbelievable.
There's talk about Rhetoric, but you can't study Rhetoric without
learning Dialectic first. For proof of this we need look no
further than the first line of Aristotle's The Art of Rhetoric.
He says explicitly that:
"Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic."
The art of Dialectic (as well as Grammar) is
assumed knowledge in any classical book on Rhetoric, yet students are
offered courses in Rhetoric without every studying Dialectic. How
can this be?
When this is found, you can be sure that
your child is receiving only a shadow of the true classical art of
Rhetoric. The first skill required for the composition for a
speech or essay is Invention, or finding an line of reasoning to answer
a question. This art must be learned in Dialectic or the student
will not even know how to be go about finding a line of reasoning.
Don't expect your children to provide bricked before they are given
straw
WARNING 2: "SOCRATIC METHOD"
WITHOUT DIALECTIC
Beware of other study programs claiming to
employ "The Socratic Method" in their courses. Often they hijack
this name to sell their pricey "live discussion" services. The
Socratic Method is not open discussion. It is a METHOD, an ART--a
skill founded upon a system of specific principles. Why would
anyone call an open discussion a method! It is the exact
opposite of a method.
For example, Classical Homeschooling
Magazine, published by the Angelicum Academy has defined the Socratic Method
as,
"a conversation, a discussion, wherein two or more people assist one
another in finding the answers to difficult questions."
Classical Homeschooling "What is the Socratic Method?"
(Summer 2000)
This is simply false--historically and
philosophically. By this description the Scientific Method would
also qualify as the Socratic Method, yet it is these that are opposed to
one another! Scientists propose questions then work together
to answer them, yet they reject the Socratic Method. The
difference is not in whether we discuss questions or not, but in how
we answer them. Are we to think that
what made Socrates so wise was that he asked questions and discussed
their answers?
Socrates employed a complex yet efficient
strategy based not on mere discussion, but on a carefully organized
system of philosophical principles. First of all, the Socratic
Method only addresses dialectical (i.e., debatable) questions. It
would not be used to answer a question of perception, such as whether
snow is white. It would also not be used to answer a contentious
question, such as whether a child should obey his parents. Second, it uses the
opinions of the audience as its starting premises and thereby differed
from Logic proper or demonstrative reasoning. For example, if an
audience believes it is wrong to harm the innocent, that premise would
be assumed as true and used to examine other related or analogical
issues, such as whether it is also wrong to abort a child or go to war
with a weaker country. Third, it employs
the system taught in Aristotle's Topics, the textbook for the art of
Dialectic.
Students who don't first learn the art of
Dialectic cannot use the Socratic Method anymore than a child with no
tools can learn the art of carpentry. Other programs that speak of
their use of "the Socratic Method" are
simply attempting to use an impressive name to make their
discussion services seem somehow "classical". We must make sure our children are provided with
the necessary principles upon which they may learn to reason rightly in
the classical tradition.
Now, if you are new to the CLAA and this all
seems new to you, it should be. After all, true classical liberal
arts education is available only here. No that you're here, you're
going to learn all sorts of wonderful things--and we'll give you
historical and philosophical proof to back up everything we teach.
|
