I would not even dare to dream being compared to good old Socrates.
Then why do you compare our reasons for rejecting your arguments to the reasons why Socrates was rejected? You argue that Socrates was rejected because people didn't understand his method. On the contrary, we understand your method very well, having seen numerous examples of it in the past. I don't accept for a moment that anything you're doing here has anything to do with Socrates. People are giving very good reasons for rejecting what you argue, and you are simply calling sour grapes on it.
I only meant to say that perhaps you haven't recognized the Socratic method...
What you do here has nothing to do with the Socratic method. In the Socratic method the interlocutors don't abandon their positions as soon as the become untenable, pretending they never actually held them. The key principle of the method is to drill into one's claims and identify the unstated premises on which they are based, so that they can be exposed and argued as first-class ideas. Unfortunately as soon as your hidden premises are exposed (e.g., the assumption of meaning in NIST's report, the inconsistency of your claims regarding ASME's code of ethics, the absurdity of authority in attributed motives), you deny that any argument was ever made on the basis of it.
The Socratic method has about as much to do with your hit-and-run, passive-aggressive style of obfuscation as Tiger Woods does with Wernher von Braun.
Further, the Socratic method is intended to investigate questions in morality and other notions that defy concrete explanation or definition. It is utterly out of place in a criminal or accident investigation. Where questions don't have objectively right or wrong answers, the Socratic method helps shape the axioms on which they are based. This is often very helpful in understanding why certain ideas are commonly held. But when the question does have a right and wrong answer -- such as, "Did a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon in Sept. 11, 2001?" the Socratic method is largely a waste of time.
Which is by no means to say that my skill in employing that method is comparable to his.
I don't believe your intent is the same as his.
|