Research is to be unintelligible to be successful By Prof Dr Sohail Ansari & MISINTERPRETING THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY JANICE MOULTON

·       In Pakistan a researcher has to tell people in such a way as to be not understood by anyone, as everything everyone knew before. A researcher has to make it sure that no one should cut through the gobbledygook.

Poetry and Science

"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite." --- Paul Dirac

MISINTERPRETING THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

Under any paradigm we are likely to reinterpret history and recast the positions of earlier philosophers. With the Adversary Paradigm we understand earlier philosophers as if they were addressing adversaries instead of trying to build a foundation for scientific reasoning or to explain human nature. Philosophers who cannot be recast into an adversarial mold are likely to be ignored.  But our reinterpretations may be misinterpretations and our choice of great philosophers may be based not so much on what they said as on how we think they said it. One victim of the Adversary Paradigm is usually thought to be a model of adversarial reasoning: The Socratic Method. The Socratic method is frequently identified with the elenchus, a method of discussion designed to lead the other person into admitting that her/his views were wrong, to get them to feel what is sometimes translated as “shame” and sometimes as “humility”. Elenchus is usually translated as “refutation”, but this is misleading because its success depends on convincing the other person, not on showing their views to be wrong to others. Unlike the Adversary Method, the justification of the elenchus is not that it subjects claims to the most extreme opposition, but that it shakes people up about their cherished convictions so they can begin philosophical inquiries with a more open mind. The aim of the Adversary Method, in contrast, is to show that the other party is wrong, challenging them on any possible point, regardless of whether the other person agrees. In fact, many contemporary philosophers avoid considerations of how of convince, supposing it to be related to trickery and bad reasoning. In general the inability to win a public debate is not a good reason for giving up a belief. One can usually attribute the loss to one’s own performance instead of to inadequacies in one’s thesis. A public loss may even make one feel more strongly toward the position which wasn’t done justice by the opposition. Thus the Adversary Method is not a good way to convince someone who does not agree with you. The elenchus, on the other hand, is designed just for that purpose. One looks for premises that the other person will accept and that will show that the original belief was false. The discussion requires an acceptance by both parties of premises and reasoning. Of course, one could use the elenchus in the service of the Adversary Paradigm, to win a point rather than convince. And it has been assumed by many that that is what Socrates was doing, that his style was insincere and ironic,  that his criticisms were harsh and his praise sarcastic. But in fact Socrates’ method is contrasted with that of an antagonist or hostile questioner in the dialogues. Socrates jokes frequently at the beginning of a dialogue or when the other party is resisting the discussion, and the jokes encourage the discussion, which would not be the case if they were made at the expense of the speaker. Any refusals and angry responses Socrates received occurred when cherished ideas were shaken and not as a result of any adversary treatment by Socrates. Socrates avoided giving an opinion in opposition to the THE ADVERSARY METHOD.

One being discussed lest it be accepted too easily without proper examination. His aim is not to rebut, it is to show people how to think for themselves. We have taken the elenchus to be a duel, a debate between adversaries, but this interpretation is not consistent with the evidence in the dialogues. I suspect that the reason we have taken Socrates’ method to be the Adversary Method, and consequently misunderstood his tone to be that of an ironic and insincere debater instead of that of a playful and helpful teacher, is that under the influence of the Adversary Paradigm we have not been able to conceive of philosophy being done any other way.