Employing Socratic Questioning In Deductive Reasoning
Alternative Title: Why being Asked Stupid Questions Can Yield Effective Results
I’m not the type of man who often refers to the Greek philosophers in the context of my scientific endeavours. My knowledge on the subject could be described as minimal. Though it may be said philosophers like Socrates were a cornerstone in the creation of modern science you wouldn’t equate his rudimentary musings to what science has become. One would just as soon see a doctor praising Hippocrates for his work with phlegm. However, I must concede I greatly overlooked the effectiveness of Socratic questioning until I began working with John.
The concept of Socratic questioning outlines the importance of asking questions to develop a deeper understanding of a subject, prompting an individual to identify and assess their preconceived notions and biases to test the validity of their supposition. When I began working with John and explaining my deductions I would find him asking questions, which in some instances I was unable to answer. On a rare occasion, John would ask a question which would point me to a glaringly obvious, yet overlooked aspect of a crime scene. For the readers’ benefit, I shall supply an example of such a situation.
John and I were standing before the body of a twenty-something law student. I’m not one for embellishments but it must be noted that the death was gruesome. There were lacerations to the wrists, ankles, and neck of the body. The victim had four broken ribs and their face was covered by a pillowcase. The cause of death was asphyxiation. At first, I supposed the crime to be one of passion, a violent crime motivated by revenge or anger. The student’s body was found in their apartment building but it was clear they had died elsewhere. There was no sign of forced entry.
“How did they get into the apartment without breaking in?” John had asked.
It was obvious the attacker must have been known to the victim. This was no surprise and I explained as much to John, postulating my theory of malicious intent. The student had a string of lovers, perhaps one had discovered the presents of the others.
“Why didn’t they defend themselves?” John asked again and oh, Sherlock had missed that.
Of course, he noted the signs, which pointed to a lack of a struggle. There was no skin under the victim’s nails and despite the deep lacerations, likely caused by some kind of rope or twine, there were little signs of thrashing. The injuries had occurred before death, John had confirmed as much. Were they unconscious? No. No drugs detected in the toxicology report. The victim had willingly been restrained. After their death, the body had been placed back in their bed, tucked under the covers. There was nothing malicious about that. It was, in a twisted way, loving. The pillowcase over the head, guilt. The body was placed somewhere they were likely to be found, in the apartment they shared with three other university students. It couldn’t be premeditated, too idiotic, and why the broken ribs?
It was an accident. A sexual act gone very wrong. There was no struggle because the victim trusted their assailant implicitly. The broken ribs, a result of failed CPR. They had panicked and like a child that breaks an expensive family ornament they had tried to stick the pieces back together and when that failed, swept them under the carpet.
It was not my first line of thought. I would have spent much more time on the case if it had not been for John’s line of questioning. Yes, I still would have solved the case upon talking to one of the victim’s partners as obvious guilt could be established in their body language, but it would have taken longer. Human emotions always were more John’s area. His line of questioning has been invaluable to me within many of the cases we have worked together.
It was surprising he hadn’t proposed the solution to the case, as sexual relationships are more his area than my own. Of course, I’m not naive when it comes to sex as it is often entangled with crime but my knowledge is far more theoretical, while John’s is practical. It would be interesting to pick his brain on the topic and lead my own line of questioning.
When John is gone, I use the skull on my mantelpiece for a replacement but asking oneself questions is never as effective. Moreover, there are some questions that I cannot ask John, particularly those which concern him. This type of questioning just leads to more confusion than answers. Perhaps one day I shall discuss these questions with him.
S.H.
