How to Win a Debate Without Even Trying | Socratic Questioning

Summary

This script explores Socrates' renowned questioning technique, aiming to enhance critical thinking skills. It emphasizes the importance of pre-arguing to clarify definitions and assumptions, and suggests asking under what circumstances one might change their mind. The script delves into Socratic questions that seek clarification and uncover flaws in arguments, distinguishing between the causes and reasons behind beliefs. It encourages considering alternative perspectives and examining the implications of beliefs. Finally, it advises reflecting on any overlooked questions and maintaining epistemic humility to foster more profound understanding and effective debate.

Takeaways

• 😯 The script emphasizes the importance of critical thinking, inspired by Socrates' method of questioning to challenge beliefs and assumptions.
• 🤔 Pre-arguing is crucial for clarifying definitions and assumptions to ensure a productive discussion.
• 🗣️ Socrates often began discussions by asking for definitions of key terms to align the conversation and avoid misunderstandings.
• 🤝 Asking 'under what circumstances would you be wrong?' helps determine if someone is open to a genuine discussion or just defending their stance.
• 🧐 The 'ignoramus and clarification' technique involves asking for clarification to help uncover potential flaws in an argument without being confrontational.
• 🔍 Distinguishing between the causes and reasons for beliefs is important; causes may be emotional, while reasons are more logical and open to challenge.
• 🌟 Considering alternative perspectives and experiences can open minds to new possibilities and understanding.
• 📚 The 'reductio ad absurdum' argument is a powerful tool for examining the implications of a belief to reveal contradictions or absurd outcomes.
• 🔄 Reflecting on the questioning process itself by asking if there are any unaddressed questions or areas that need further clarification.
• 💡 The script concludes that critical thinking is a skill developed over time with practice, emphasizing the need for epistemic humility and continuous learning.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the video script about?

The main focus of the video script is on Socrates' famous questioning technique and how it can be used to enhance critical thinking, clarify definitions and assumptions, and engage in productive discussions.

Why did Socrates believe critical thinking was important in ancient Athens?

Socrates believed critical thinking was important because he observed that many people held beliefs they could not justify, and he aimed to teach Athens the skill of critical thinking to challenge these unexamined beliefs.

What is the significance of pre-arguing in the context of the script?

Pre-arguing is significant as it involves checking underlying definitions and assumptions before engaging in a debate. It helps to ensure that both parties are discussing the same concepts and can lead to more productive and relevant discussions.

How does the script suggest one should approach an argument about the existence of God with a deist?

The script suggests that one should first clarify the definitions of key terms like 'God' to ensure both parties are discussing the same concept. It highlights the importance of understanding whether the deist believes God is actively involved in the universe or not, as this affects the relevance of arguments used.

What is the purpose of asking 'Under what circumstances would you be wrong?' at the beginning of a discussion?

Asking 'Under what circumstances would you be wrong?' helps to establish whether someone is open to a good faith discussion or just defending their position. It also provides insight into the factors that motivate someone's belief.

Why does the script suggest asking 'What do you mean by that?' during an argument?

Asking 'What do you mean by that?' is suggested to clarify the meaning of terms and expose potential flaws in an argument without making the other person defensive. It allows the person to self-identify inconsistencies or misunderstandings in their position.

What is the difference between asking about the 'cause' and the 'reason' for someone's belief according to the script?

The script differentiates between 'cause' and 'reason' by suggesting that 'cause' refers to the emotional or pragmatic factors that lead to a belief, while 'reason' refers to the logical arguments that support it. Understanding this difference can help in determining which aspects of a belief can be challenged through logic.

How can considering alternative perspectives enhance critical thinking, as discussed in the script?

Considering alternative perspectives can enhance critical thinking by opening the mind to possibilities that one might not have considered. It encourages empathy and understanding of different viewpoints, which can lead to a more nuanced and comprehensive evaluation of an argument.

What is the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument mentioned in the script, and how is it used?

The 'reductio ad absurdum' argument is a philosophical technique where the implications of a position are examined to show that it leads to a contradiction or absurd consequences. It is used to challenge the validity of a belief by demonstrating that accepting it leads to an untenable outcome.

Why is it important to ask about the implications and consequences of a belief, as per the script?

Asking about the implications and consequences of a belief is important because it allows for a deeper understanding of the belief's logical consistency and practical ramifications. It helps to identify potential flaws and ensures that the belief is not only internally coherent but also aligns with broader logical and moral considerations.

How does the script suggest one should reflect on their own questioning process?

The script suggests reflecting on one's own questioning process by considering whether all aspects of an argument have been sufficiently examined, whether any questions have been overlooked, and if there is a need for further clarification. This reflection involves epistemic humility and an ongoing commitment to critical self-examination.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 The Power of Critical Thinking

This paragraph introduces the concept of critical thinking and its importance in personal and societal discourse. It highlights Socrates' role as a pioneer in questioning established beliefs and promoting critical examination of one's own and others' viewpoints. The paragraph emphasizes the value of challenging narratives and engaging in debates with a strong foundation in logic and facts. It also introduces the idea of pre-arguing, which involves mentally preparing for a discussion, clarifying key terms and assumptions, and determining the worthiness of the argument. The goal is to ensure that debates are productive and aimed at uncovering the truth rather than merely winning an argument.

05:02

🤔 The Art of Clarification in Debates

This paragraph delves into the Socratic method of questioning, specifically focusing on the importance of clarification. It suggests that acknowledging a lack of understanding and asking for clarification can be a powerful tool in debates. This approach not only shows genuine interest in the opponent's perspective but also helps in identifying potential flaws in their argument. The paragraph provides examples from Plato's dialogues, such as Socrates' discussion with Thrasymachus in 'The Republic,' to illustrate how asking for clarification can lead to the exposure of contradictions in one's beliefs. It also encourages self-reflection and the examination of one's own beliefs to ensure coherence and avoid blindly holding onto opinions.

10:03

🧐 Exploring Reasons and Causes Behind Beliefs

This paragraph explores the distinction between the reasons and causes behind our beliefs. It explains that reasons are logical arguments that support a belief, while causes are often emotional or pragmatic factors that influence our views. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of understanding both the reasons and causes behind one's own and others' beliefs to have a more nuanced and honest discussion. It also touches on the idea that sometimes beliefs are not purely logical and that recognizing the extra-rational factors can help in self-awareness and more empathetic debates. The paragraph encourages asking questions that separate the logical from the emotional, allowing for a deeper understanding of the motivations behind different viewpoints.

15:03

🌟 Considering Alternatives and Consequences

This paragraph discusses the importance of considering alternative perspectives and the potential consequences of one's beliefs. It suggests that imagining different life experiences can lead to a broader understanding of various viewpoints. The paragraph also introduces the method of reductio ad absurdum, where the implications of a belief are examined to reveal contradictions or absurd outcomes. It encourages questioning the implications and consequences of beliefs, both our own and those of others, to ensure that our views are well-founded and not leading to untenable positions. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the value of epistemic humility and the continuous practice of critical thinking to improve one's reasoning skills.

Keywords

💡Socrates

Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher known for his method of inquiry now known as the Socratic method. In the video, Socrates is presented as a figure who sought to challenge unexamined beliefs and promote critical thinking. His questioning technique is central to the video's theme, as it is used to illustrate how to engage in thoughtful debate and argumentation.

💡Critical Thinking

Critical thinking refers to the process of analyzing and evaluating information or arguments in a logical and objective manner. The video emphasizes the importance of critical thinking in everyday life, suggesting that it can help individuals avoid accepting beliefs without justification and engage in more productive discussions.

💡Questioning Technique

The Socratic questioning technique is a method of inquiry that involves asking probing questions to stimulate critical thinking and expose contradictions or lack of knowledge. The video discusses this technique as a way to disarm arguments and uncover the underlying assumptions and definitions that may be leading to disagreements.

💡Definitions and Assumptions

In the context of the video, 'definitions and assumptions' are the foundational understandings that participants in a discussion hold about the terms and concepts being debated. The video suggests that clarifying these before engaging in debate is crucial to ensure that all parties are discussing the same concepts and can lead to more productive conversations.

💡Deist

A deist is someone who believes in a higher power or God but does not believe in a deity that intervenes in the world or human affairs. The video uses the term 'deist' to illustrate the importance of understanding one's debate partner's definitions and assumptions, as a misunderstanding of this term could lead to irrelevant or ineffective arguments.

💡Theist

A theist is someone who believes in a personal God who is actively involved in the universe. The video contrasts theist with deist to highlight the importance of understanding the specific beliefs one is arguing against, as this can significantly affect the relevance and effectiveness of the arguments made.

💡Causality

Causality in the video refers to the reasons or causes behind someone's beliefs. It is distinguished from reasons for believing, as causes may be emotional or circumstantial, whereas reasons are more logically derived. Understanding causality can help in identifying the types of arguments that are most likely to be effective in changing someone's mind.

💡Reasons for Believing

Reasons for believing are the logical arguments or rationales that support a person's beliefs. The video suggests that understanding these reasons is key to engaging in productive debate, as it allows for the logical refutation of beliefs, as opposed to attacking the emotional or circumstantial causes of those beliefs.

💡Implications and Consequences

The video discusses examining the implications and consequences of a belief or argument to identify potential flaws or contradictions. This involves considering what would logically follow if a belief were true and can help in demonstrating the weaknesses in an argument or the unacceptability of a position.

💡Epistemic Humility

Epistemic humility is the recognition that one's knowledge is limited and that there is always more to learn or consider. The video encourages this attitude as a way to approach discussions with an open mind and a willingness to revise one's beliefs in light of new information or perspectives.

💡Fallacies

Fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of arguments. The video mentions fallacies in the context of avoiding logical mistakes in one's own thinking and recognizing them in the arguments of others. Understanding fallacies is crucial for engaging in sound critical thinking and debate.

Highlights

The unexamined life is not worth living, a Socratic principle emphasizing the importance of critical thinking.

Socrates' method of questioning aimed to challenge unjustified beliefs and promote critical thinking in ancient Athens.

Pre-arguing involves checking underlying definitions and assumptions to set a foundation for productive discussions.

Clarifying key terms and assumptions before a debate prevents arguments based on different definitions.

Asking under what circumstances one would be wrong can reveal the genuineness of a discussion partner's intent.

Socrates often began discussions by asking for definitions of key terms to align understanding.

The Ignoramus and Clarification technique involves admitting lack of understanding to encourage clarification.

Asking for clarification can help uncover flaws in an argument without putting the opponent on the defensive.

Examining the causes and reasons behind beliefs can separate emotional from logical justifications.

Understanding the reasons for a belief can help identify potential logical flaws and areas for challenge.

Considering alternative perspectives can open minds to possibilities not initially considered.

Implications and consequences of a belief are examined to test the validity of a position.

Reductio ad absurdum is a method of showing contradictions or absurd outcomes of a position.

Modus tollens is a logical argument form used to challenge beliefs by their implications.

Questioning Questions is a final step to ensure all aspects of a discussion have been adequately explored.

Epistemic humility is essential in recognizing the potential for oversight in our reasoning.

Practice is key to refining critical thinking skills over time.

Transcripts

the unexamined life is not worth living

here we will find out why have you ever

just known that someone was wrong about

something but were unable to put your

finger on how perhaps you wanted to

challenge the dominance narrative in a

friend group or to debate with

unparalleled skill or just dominate

imaginary people with facts and logic

while you have a shower if so you would

not be alone in this wish the father of

westom philosophy Socrates wanted to do

the same thing though maybe not the bit

about the shower Socrates would look

across ancient Athens and everywhere he

saw people holding beliefs they could

not possibly justify he could not let

things go on like this Athens had to be

taught critical thinking and Socrates

was going to do it even if it killed him

here we are going to look at socrates's

Famous questioning technique with a few

bonus additions from me and see why it

worked so well by the end of this video

perhaps you too will be able to

transform history forever get ready to

learn how Socrates would disarm an

argument without anyone even noticing

how to ensure that your worldview is not

full of holes and how we can apply

critical thinking in our everyday lives

let's get started one pre- arguing I

find that critical discussions can be a

little bit like heavy exercise it is

helpful to mentally stretch beforehand

to put yourself in the right mindset and

to see if this argument is worth your

time or your opponents and this is where

pre- arguing comes in it is something

you see socres do quite a lot in Plato's

dialogues and it often comes in the form

of checking underlying definitions and

assumptions

say you and I are having a debate about

God's existence however you happen to be

a deist that is someone who does not

believe that God controls the universe

but just kicked it off I may not know

this and assume that you are a theist

someone who believes that God is still

actively involved in the universe as a

result if I were to challenge your

worldview on the basis of some classic

theological questions like the problem

of evil then that would not be strictly

relevant here we have ended up working

with two different definitions of God

you have a definition of God where he is

uninvolved with the universe as it

currently exists whereas I have a

definition where he is the problem here

is that while we disagree over

definitions no productive discussion can

take place if I say God doesn't exist

and you say God does exist then we don't

actually contradict one another this

happens in political arguments all the

time people have vastly different

definitions of words like socialist or

capitalist or left-wing or right-wing

and then get into discussions that from

the very outset even if both parties are

arguing in good faith cannot be

productive this is a practical example

of why it is so important to clarify key

terms and assumptions before you enter a

debate that is if you want it to be a

productive discussion aimed at truth to

return to our argument about the

definition of God if I had stopped to

ask what your definition of God is I

might discover that we disagree a lot

less than I initially thought it would

also tell me not to invoke arguments

that are leveled specifically at a

theist position at the very least this

can save you and your interlocutors some

time but it its most extreme it can

prevent shouting matches over a

disagreement based on an illusion one of

the first question question Socrates

tends to ask people in Plato's dialogues

is for their definitions of some key

terms be it justice or beauty or love

Socrates wants to know how they are

using the word if they have a

disagreement Socrates often changes the

discussion to be about which definition

they should use so that they can agree

on this before they move forward without

doing this all of the dialogues would

just be a waste of everyone's precious

time and I want to make a short addition

to socrates's questions here I think a

good question to ask both ourselves and

our interlocutors at the beginning of a

discussion is under what circumstances

would you or I be wrong this works

wonderfully for a couple of reasons the

first is that it establishes whether

someone is interested in having a real

good faith discussion or whether they

are simply interested in defending their

position to the death if someone really

cannot imagine that they would change

their mind under any circumstances then

chances are the debate just is not worth

having and secondly it gives a real

insight into the factors that motivate

someone's belief if I was arguing in

favor of legalizing euthanasia I still

might concede that but I would change my

mind if most people were pressured into

the decision that would give you an

insight into the underlying ideas that

maintain my position for instance I'm

likely to think that laws should be

justified on their consequences rather

than believing they should mimic a

pre-ordained set of moral rules and I

know it can get tedious but it is

genuinely worth going through this pre-

argumentation stage before a debate

enters full swing the two key questions

to ask here are what definitions are we

using for the key terms in our

discussion and under what circumstances

would we change our our minds but

obviously we can't stop there now we

have to actually have the argument and

next we will look at my favorite type of

Socratic question one that can easily

find potential flaws in a position

without making someone Retreat into a

defensive shell if you want to help me

make more videos like this then consider

subscribing to either my email list or

my patreon the links are in the

description two the ignoramus and

clarification one of the most disarming

things you can say in an argument is I'm

not sure I completely understand your

position and the reason for this is too

fault first it concedes an imaginary

point to your opponent and lets them

know you are not just in this to batter

or humiliate them you are genuinely

interested in what they think and

secondly it opens up the possibility of

asking clarificatory questions and this

is often key to a productive discussion

anecdotally people are much more likely

to change or shift their position when

they spot a flaw in their argument

themselves rather than having them

pointed out by some bastard like me so

often the best way to highlight the

flaws in someone's position is to ask

them to clarify what they mean let the

holes in their argument be exposed that

way in Plato's Republic the character of

Socrates debates with thimas who argues

that Justice is whatever the stronger

person desires so Socrates asks him

exactly what he means by this and thimas

replies by saying that Justice is

whatever advantages the stronger person

but then he has immediately revealed his

mistake because what the stronger person

desires and what the stronger person

benefits from are two separate things

someone very powerful might be mistaken

about what benefits them and in such a

situation frim marus is caught in a

contradiction and it is only through

asking him exactly what he means that

Socrates was able to uncover this

contradiction in his world view to give

a more upto-date example imagine that

you and I are having a discussion and I

say we should not listen to the opinions

of immoral people you might challenge

this position by asking me what do you

mean by immoral that makes someone's

opinions no longer worth listening to I

might reply that immoral people are more

likely to make mistakes due to their

poor character but you can then ask me

what do you mean by mistakes I might

reply by saying that they will mistake

good actions for bad ones and bad for

good but at this point you can point out

that my argument only actually covers

moral debates and it leaves it open that

immoral people might be perfectly worth

listening to on other topics without

having to outright challenge my position

you've transformed it from a grand claim

into a much more circumspect one which

you could now attack in other ways

should you choose to do so the key

question here is what do you mean by

that it sounds so simple but it is

devastatingly effective and it is

important to approach this with genuine

curiosity it might expose your

interlocutor as having an outright

contradiction in their views but it

could just as easily reveal its

indisputable coherence either way you

will understand your opponent's position

much better and this is essential for a

productive discussion and it is worth

asking this question to ourselves as

well it can help us understand our own

positions when was the last time you sat

back and examined your worldview to see

where there are unclarified terms or

where you couldn't explain it simply

this can be an excellent exercise to

check that we truly know what we think

and that we are not accidentally parting

an opinion we have picked up from

somewhere else but there is a key type

of question we have yet to examine and

without it any accounts of Socratic

questioning would be woefully incomplete

three causes and reasons this is the

quintessential philosophical question

why do you think that but it's worth

noting that this in turn can split into

two further questions each with their

own purposes the first is what has

caused you to think that and the second

is what are your reasons for thinking

that I know they look SAR but there is a

crucial difference say I am again

arguing in favor of Ethan's legality and

you want to know the cause of my belief

I might answer by saying that I've heard

the testimony of many suffering people

who say in Earnest that they would like

to end their own lives and the emotions

I felt in response have to a certain

extent motivated my position this is a

causal Story one thing happened and my

belief was affected by it but

importantly the causal process did not

run through my reason or my deliberation

and this might be different to my

reasons for supporting the legalization

of euthanasia it could be that the

primary reason for my position is that I

think everyone has the right to do what

they wish with their own body provided

it is not directly harming other people

and that I think euthanasia falls into

this category of action this is not just

a cause it is a reasoned argument it's

worth noting that in some accounts all

reasons are also causes whereas in

others they are totally separate

categories but I don't want to get into

this debate here for our purposes the

distinction is important because whereas

a reason for believing can be refuted by

Logic a cause of a belief might be

emotional or pragmatic to quote a common

phrase online you can't logic someone

out of a position that they haven't

logic themselves into so these two

questions are good at separating the

types of things that are worth

challenging with reason and those logic

probably won't make much Headway on if

someone believes something because it

was their father's dying words you're

very unlikely to convince them otherwise

then honing in on the reasons someone

believes something can give us an idea

of where the flaws in their argument

might lie to return to the example of

euthanasia you might challenge the idea

that euthanasia does not directly harm

others or that we have unrestricted

rights to our own body if you are

religious you might say that our bodies

are partly the domain of God or you

might say we owe it to our community to

continue living the point is now you

have a good idea of why I believe what I

believe and can challenge my reasoning I

know that this to a certain extent

sounds really obvious but you don't have

to go far to see people completely

misunderstanding the reasons for someone

else's belief or even worse just

assuming their reasons possibly

strawmanning them in the process think

of the times you hear people say well of

course you believe that you just want to

see people suffer or all Christians are

the same you're just scared of death

instead of asking for the reasons or

causes behind someone's belief we just

make up our own and argue with them

instead it is quite tempting after all

it's much easier and these questions

also encourage us to be more honest

about why we hold our own views we can

learn to identify when we have a good

set of reasons for a belief and when

extra rational factors have crept in

there is nothing necessarily wrong with

holding a belief that is not Hune

straight from the granite rock of logic

but it's worth recognizing this just so

we're aware of what Mater material is

supporting our viewpoints but this line

of inquiry links very well with another

type of Socratic questioning one that

places the emphasis on empathizing with

the views of other people in order to

open our minds to all the possibilities

we have not yet considered four the

Alternatives there is a really famous

clip in the UK of an Italian TV chef

shouting if my grandmother had Wheels

she would have been a bik he meant it to

mock someone who had just compared what

he was cooking to a British style

carbonara but I actually think this is

kind of a fun thought experiment if you

had Wheels in place of all of your limbs

how would that affect the way you see

the world you would probably think more

in continuous distances than in

individual steps you would definitely

have a greater awareness of which

buildings in your area had ramp access

the whole orientation of your life would

be subtly changed in innumerable ways

and I think this is a great thing to ask

ourselves in discussions if I had

different experiences how would I see

this question differently if I had grown

up in a collapsing Nation I might

understandably value security a little

bit more than Freedom a lot of people

say that when they have children or go

through near-death experience their

priorities shift in a way that they

could not possibly have predicted

considering this can have a brilliant

mind openening effect on our worldview

because Downstream of these perspective

changes are all the alternative

propositions that we could inadvertently

be ignoring for instance by considering

how we might view the world differently

if we were raised in a highly

competitive and borderline toxic

environment we might understand why some

people are not so naively trusting as

ourselves on this channel I cover a lot

of philosophers with pretty cynical

views and this is partly because by

Nature I am such a crude Optimist and so

looking at these thinkers helps to

counterbalance my own biases this is

also another great way of encouraging

people to engage in critical thinking

without directly confronting them

imagine you are having a discussion with

someone who is hellbent on defending the

death penalty and you don't necessarily

want to disagree with them head on but

you want to encourage them to the idea

there might be other perspectives like

we said before a good start is to ask

them under what circumstances they would

change their mind these might be both

emotional and non-rational circumstances

like imagining someone that they knew

had been falsely sentenced to have but

also considering rational Alternatives

like what the level of false convictions

would have to be in order for them to

shift their position this obviously

links a lot with what I said in the

first section about asking under which

conditions you would abandon your

position but it is broadened in scope to

asking what perspectives or Alternatives

you are just not yet considering you

might still end up believing the same

things and so might your discussion

partner but you will have a fuller

consideration of the alternatives on

offer and if one seems more plausible

you will then have the opportunity to

switch your position a lot of the time

we don't know what we don't know and

this type of question is a good way of

simulating what the discussion would

look like through different eyes we also

might connect this with our previous

question about the reasons and causes

people hold certain beliefs even if your

opponent is obviously mistaken what

about their lives and experiences have

brought them to this point you can even

ask them this directly provided you do

so tactfully this does not mean that you

will end up agreeing with your opponent

but it helps prevent the argument from

descending into chaos and it encourages

both speakers to understand where the

other is coming from but but no

questioning model is complete without

our next point where we will have to

crack open our logic textbooks and thumb

its well-worn Pages five implications

and consequences one of the most famous

types of philosophical argument is the

reductio ad absurdum this is essentially

where you examine the implications of

your opponent's position to show either

that it is outright contradictory or

that it just has absurd consequences it

involves drawing out what would follow

from a given position actually being

true you see examples of this a lot in

debate around moral relativism a very

crude form of this position states that

an action is good if I believe it is

good is true in this scenario if I say

that murder is wrong and someone else

says that murder is Right both our

positions would be rendered true hence

there is a contradiction of course this

is a straw man version of moral

relativism they tend to respond by

saying that we've misunderstood their

position they might instead say that the

meaning of Truth in the moral sphere is

just relative to individual people so I

have my moral truths and you have yours

but they don't contradict this is

normally countered with another reductio

argument stating that if that were the

case we could never resolve moral

disagreements since every one of our

moral beliefs would be true by

definition the moral relativist might

then alter their position and so on and

so forth I don't want to get sucked into

a debate about moral relativism I just

want to look at the structures of the

arguments involved the responses to the

moral relativist here are all of the

form well if you take that position then

this also must follow but that's absurd

so the original position must be false

to use a technical term they are modus

Tolen arguments a modus OPP's argument

is of the form if a then B A therefore B

whereas a modus tolan's argument is of

the form if a then B not B therefore not

a so in the above example the argument

was as follows if moral relativism were

true then we would not be able to solve

moral disputes we can solve moral

disputes therefore moral relativism

cannot be true and this is not just

helpful for examining other people's

positions it is fantastic for putting

our own views to the test some of the

greatest critical thinkers in history

have used this approach for instance

much of St Thomas aquinus great work

Summa theologica is about working out

the consequences of different

theological and philosophical views to

see if they are acceptable likewise a

huge proportion of Plato's dialogues

consist of Socrates testing out the

consequences of his opponent's position

and working out where they might end up

contradicting themselves or asserting

something that is philosophically

tenuous he doesn't always do this

successfully there's an Infamous passage

in the Mino that comes to mind but it is

still a Cornerstone of his approach the

key questions to ask here are if I

believe this what else would follow or

conversely if I did not believe this

what would follow from that then after

we've seen the implications of a

position we can ask ourselves if it is

worth accepting the worldview given the

consequences this is a type of question

it's great to explore after having gone

through all the stages we've already

covered this is because it involves

having a clear conception of the reasons

behind someone's belief and a full

clarification of the contents of that

belief but there is one final thing

worth asking in any discussion or

self-interrogation and it's intended to

ensure that we have not missed a spot in

our logical cleaning six questioning

questions this is where we come full

circle and ask ourselves if we have

questions to our satisfaction do we

truly understand our opponent's position

or do we still need some clarity have we

really got to grips with why we believe

something or have we got our reasons and

our causes confused are there any

questions we want to ask that don't fall

into any of these camps and if so what

are they this is slightly different to

previous sections as it does not provide

a series of questions that we can list

off or a neat type of inquiry we can

make it instead outlines a sort of

General attitude to discussion or debate

it is essentially a moment where we sit

back and consult our intuitions if we

have been involved in a lot of

discussions or self- interrogations in

the past we might ask what we questioned

then that we have not questioned now or

double check that we have not made

mistakes that were previously

commonplace above all it involves a

certain level of epistemic humility of

recognizing that despite our best

efforts we might have missed something

there is no step-by-step guide I can

give you to asking this question and

arguably there shouldn't be learning how

to think critically is like any skill it

is a slow and steady process refined

over many years of practice I have

written and learned an awful lot about

formal logic and I've had a metric ton

of arguments but there is still so much

I have yet to learn the primary way to

get better from here is just practice if

we use these questions in our everyday

lives interrogating the propositions we

find out in the world and our prior

beliefs then we will increase our skills

little by little until we instinctively

know which questions to ask where the

weak points in an argument are likely to

be and what are the biases and flaws in

our own reasoning but of course none of

this will matter if our logic is full of

fallacies so check out this video to

learn the three types of fallacy and how

to avoid them and stick around for more

on thinking to improve your life