Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning, Part II

The last column introduced the concept of Socratic questioning, viewed from a critical thinking perspective. It then focused on the questions one can ask in analyzing reasoning: the purpose of the reasoning, the questions being asked, the information being used, the beliefs being taken for granted or assumed, the points of view embedded in the reasoning, the concepts guiding the reasoning, the inferences being made, and the implications of the reasoning.This column focuses on questions that target the assessment of reasoning. It includes a checklist for Socratic questioning, which can be used to assess one's own questioning abilities or that of students.A Taxonomy of Socratic Questions Based on Assessing ReasoningQuestions that Target the Quality of ReasoningUniversal intellectual standards are the standards by which thinking is judged by educated and reasonable persons. Yet, most people are unaware of these standards. Standards include, but are not limited to, clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness, and fairness. Skilled thinkers explicitly use intellectual standards on a daily basis. They recognize when others or they themselves are failing to use them. They routinely ask questions specifically targeting the intellectual standards.Following are some guidelines for assessing thinking, along with some questions routinely asked by disciplined thinkers, questions that can be used in a Socratic dialogue.1. Questioning clarity. Recognize that thinking is always more or less clear. Assume that no thought is fully understood except to the extent one can elaborate, illustrate, and exemplify it. Questions that focus on clarity in thinking are:* Could the thinker elaborate on the topic?* Could one provide an example or illustration of the point?* The message conveyed is ______. Is this understanding correct?2. Questioning precision. Recognize that thinking is always more or less precise. Assume that no thought is fully understood except to the extent that one can specify it in detail. Questions that focus on precision in thinking are:* Could the thinker provide more details about that?* Could the thinking be more specific?* Could one specify the allegations more fully?3. Questioning accuracy. Recognize that thinking is always more or less accurate. Assume that no thought is fully assessed except to the extent that one has checked to determine whether it represents things as they really are. Questions that focus on accuracy in thinking are:* How could one check that to see if it is true?* How could one verify these alleged facts?* Is the accuracy of these data trustworthy given the questionable source?4. Questioning relevance. Recognize that thinking is always capable of straying from the task, question, problem, or issue under consideration. Assume that no thought is fully assessed except to the extent that one has ensured that all considerations used in addressing it are genuinely relevant to it. Questions that focus on relevance in thinking are:* Does the support provided bear on the question? How is it relevant?* Please explain the connection between supporting deliberation and the question focused on.5. Questioning depth. Recognize that thinking can either function at the surface of things or probe beneath that surface to deeper matters and issues. Assume that no line of thinking is fully assessed except to the extent that one has determined the depth required for the task at hand (and compared that with the depth that actually has been achieved). To figure out whether a question is deep, determine whether it involves complexities that must be considered. Questions that focus on depth in thinking are:* Is this question simple or complex? Is it easy or difficult to answer?* What makes this a complex question?* How are the complexities inherent in the question addressed? …