The term “critical thinking” did not exist in Ancient Greece. Neither Plato nor Aristotle called themselves critical thinkers, although they were conscious of the differences between their ideas and what most people believed in Ancient Athens.
In the case of Socrates, it is fair to employ the term “critical thinking” because his debates aimed at debunking false beliefs. Plato’s dialogues “Meno,” “Gorgias” and “Protagoras” illustrate how Socrates debated his opponents by pointing to gaps and contradictions in their arguments.
Today’s conception of critical thinking implies scepticism towards unwarranted claims, the readiness to reject arbitrary or contradictory statements, and the willingness to propose sound, logical solutions.
Socrates fulfilled the two initial requirements, but not the third. He was indeed sceptical and outspoken, but not much of a problem-solver. In his debates, he was great at debunking the falsehoods put forward by his opponents, but fairly deficient at figuring out the truth.
Socrates as a critical thinker
By modern standards, Socrates was two thirds of a critical thinker because his debates revolved more around debunking falsehoods than identifying the truth.
Although he repeated at every opportunity that his objective was to seek the truth and gain wisdom, his actions contradicted his words. In the few cases in which he did propose a solution, he often got it wrong; thus, instead of gaining wisdom, he only made the confusion wider and deeper.
In Plato’s “Meno,” Socrates affirmed that humans learn by remembering, and claimed to have proven so by asking a boy to help him solve an arithmetical problem, feeding him a series of questions, and letting them guide him to the solution.
Socrates’ assertion that humans learn by remembering is not true, and his alleged proof is unsound. Socrates’ questions did help the boy to think logically and solve the problem, but this does not mean that the boy had remembered an answer he did not know in the first place.
How much of a critical thinker could Socrates be if, at the end of the process, he arrived at the wrong answer? To make things worse, he had a knack for making unwarranted claims, counting that nobody would dare to challenge them.
Plato’s “Phaedo” revolves around Socrates’ claim that souls are immortal. He exclusively meant the souls of good people, amongst which he placed himself.
The souls of bad individuals, he added, are not immortal because they cannot leave the body after death. Why not? Because their past immorality and crimes have rendered them too heavy to fly away.
Any critical thinker in the audience would have challenged Socrates’ statements; he would have asked for tangible proof of the soul’s immortality, and of the different treatments reserved to the souls of good and bad people.
Socrates and Aristotle
Plato (427-347 BC) was in agreement with Socrates’ theory of the soul’s immortality and, as a result, he did not bother to raise any questions. In this respect, he seems to have forgotten about the pursuit of truth.
In his essay “De Anima,” Aristotle (384-322 BC) proposed an alternative theory of the soul, one that contradicted Socrates and Plato. In doing so, Aristotle wasn’t trying to appear overly critical or controversial. No, he just aimed at describing what he could readily observe and prove.
Aristotle defined the soul as the intangible element that, in each creature, accounts for liveliness and individuality. If there is no soul, it means that the creature has died. According to Aristotle, all creatures have souls, including cats and dogs for instance, not only human beings.
In contrast to Socrates, Aristotle did not consider the soul as immortal because, as far as he could see, there was no proof of such immortality. He knew of the Ancient Egyptian practice of preserving the corpse after death to supply a home for the soul, but he was not willing to endorse their beliefs without proof.
The fact that Socrates is regarded as the first practitioner of critical thinking only serves to undermine the width, breadth, and depth of the concept. In order to be categorised as a critical thinker, is it enough to ask questions that don’t lead anywhere?
Socrates and Karl Popper
Karl Popper (1902-1924) redefined the scientific method in a manner that is strongly reminiscent of Socrates’ approach to debating. If critical thinking corresponds to what Socrates did, the Popperian method stands just one millimetre away.
Socrates taught critical thinking through public debating in which he followed four steps. First, he restated the claim made by his opponent; he would usually ask a few questions to make sure that his opponent’s claim was perfectly clear.
Second, Socrates tested the claim by asking questions. His initial questions probed the claim for accuracy and consistency. He would often present real-life examples of the claim, asking his opponent to confirm if that’s what he meant.
Third, as soon as Socrates had detected a flaw or gap in the answers, he began to drill with further questions. Alternatively, he pretended not to understand his opponent’s answers. He just wanted to prompt his opponent to talk and incur contradictions or errors, so that he would end up disproving his own claim.
Fourth, Socrates would then declare the claim as erroneous or invalid, and invite his opponent to seek the truth; at the end of the debate, one would have expected Socrates to provide the right answer to the initial question, but he seldom did so.
The standard of proof
Karl Popper expected scientists to state their hypothesis in a clear manner at the beginning of their investigation; that’s close to the Socratic debating practice, but Popper added an element that wasn’t present in Ancient Greece, namely, the definition of the standard of proof for the claim.
For Socrates and for any critical thinker, it is sufficient that a claim is logical and aligned with reality. Sometimes, a claim might be disproven because it contradicts the facts; on other occasions, the problem might be the lack of solid proof, or the lack of internal logic.
Popper went a step further by requiring scientists to define their standard of proof, that is, the procedure or test necessary to confirm the claims’ validity. If the claim fails to conform to the standard of proof, it is then declared false or “falsified.”
As in the Socratic version of critical thinking, Karl Popper’s approach does not lead us to the answer. It only points out that the initial claim was false, or partially false, or incomplete, or deficient in some aspect.
I recognise the value of Karl Popper’s scientific method and the Socratic version of critical thinking. Popper gave detailed explanations of his method, and Socrates opted for teaching through practice. Both methods possess substantial value.
Nevertheless, I must point out that, in the face of pressing problems, few people will use Socrates’ and Popper’s methods because they are too slow. When we need to find a solution, we cannot be satisfied with proving that something does not work.
It is great to criticise and disprove false claims, but the goal of human action is, more often than not, to achieve values and gains of some sort. When we spend time experimenting with a new technique, our goal is to get it running successfully, not to disprove an abstract claim.
Let us employ critical thinking and the Popperian scientific method in the proper context, but we should not regard them as the primary methods for solving problems in life. Facts, logic, and observation can reveal the truth in many different ways.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Consistency: The key to permanent stress relief.”