Hey guys. I am taking a course on philosophy online for college and I have many questions on it because I am so unfamiliar with it. If you guys can help me, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Sorry if there is a thread for philosophy.
Question: The Socratic Method rests on a fundamental presumption, namely that knowledge can be articulated, and can be articulated better than opinion. Those who possess knowledge can articulate it. Opinion, which at best can happen to coincide with truth, like a lucky guess, is not subject to articulation any further than the surface aspect. When questions such as "why is P so?" are put to an opinion holder, even a true opinion holder, the responses gradually start to make no sense, contradictions begin to appear and it becomes obvious that the opinion holder is faking it, even if not deliberately. This was Plato's view and it is a basic presumption of the method. Is the presumption a sound one; a fair one?
My answer was that it is both sound and fair. Those who know facts can articulate the causes of facts --- according to Aristotle. It is very rare that someone who is merely presuming knowledge (a holder of mere, but true, opinion or actually false opinion) runs up against someone who actually knows and has the patience of a Socrates in questioning him/her (the opinion holder) until an actual self contradiction occurs.
Do you guys agree? Disagree? Is opinion much better articulated than knowledge or vice versa?