How to Argue Like Socrates, Franklin, and Columbo

Reports of actor Peter Falk's serious illness bring to mind his best known role, that of a homicide detective--and a classic "wise fool"--in the long-running TV series Columbo.

"I don't thinks it's proving anything," Falk said in one episode. "As a matter of fact, I don't even know what it means. It's just one of those things that gets in my head and keeps rolling around in there like a marble."
If you remember Lieutenant Columbo, you're already familiar with the Greek notion of eironeia (from which the word irony is derived). It refers to the sort of false modesty or self-deprecating professions of ignorance employed by Socrates during philosophical debates. By fooling his opponents into thinking that he knew nothing, Socrates (like Columbo) was able to unmask the contradictions in their arguments and then ("Just one more question, sir") nail down his case.
I can't tell you where Columbo picked up his Socratic method, but American statesman Benjamin Franklin adopted the strategy after reading Plato's dialogues. As Franklin explains in his autobiography, sly modesty is often more persuasive than a full-frontal assault. But to play the role of the wise fool convincingly, Franklin first had to give up his habit of boosting--that is, enforcing an argument through such arrogant adverbs as obviously, undoubtedly, inevitably, and of course.

There was another Bookish Lad in the Town, John Collins by Name, with whom I was intimately acquainted. We sometimes disputed, and very fond we were of Argument, & very desirous of confuting one another. Which disputatious Turn, by the way, is apt to because a very bad Habit, making People often extremely disagreeable in Company, by the Contradiction that is necessary to bring it into Practice, & thence, besides souring & spoiling the Conversation, is productive of Disgusts and perhaps Enmities where you may have occasion for Friendship. I had caught it by reading my Father's Books of Dispute about Religion. Persons of good Sense, I have since observ'd, seldom fall into it, except Lawyers, University Men, and Men of all Sorts that have been bred at Edinburgh. . . .

While I was intent on improving my Language, I met with an English Grammar (I think it was Greenwood's), at the End of which there were two little Sketches of the Arts of Rhetoric and Logic, the latter finishing with a specimen of a dispute in the Socratic Method. And soon after I procur'd Xenophon's Memorable Things of Socrates, wherein there are many Instances of the same Method. I was charm'd with it, adopted it, dropt my abrupt Contradiction and positive Argumentation, and put on the humble Enquirer & Doubter. And being then, from reading Shaftesbury & Collins, become a real Doubter in many Points of our Religious Doctrine, I found this Method safest for myself and very embarrassing to those against whom I used it. Therefore I took a Delight in it, practis'd it continually & grew very artful and expert in drawing People even of superior Knowledge into Concessions the Consequences of which they did not foresee, entangling them in Difficulties out of which they could not extricate themselves, and so obtaining Victories that neither my self nor my Cause always deserved.--

I continu'd this Method some few Years, but gradually left it, retaining only the Habit of expressing my self in Terms of modest Diffidence, never using when I advance anything that may possibly be disputed, the Words Certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the Air of Positiveness to an Opinion; but rather say, I conceive, or I apprehend a Thing to be so or so, It appears to me, or I should think it so or so for such & such Reasons, or I imagine it to be so, or it is so if I am not mistaken. --This Habit I believe has been of great Advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate my Opinions & persuade Men into Measures that I have been from time to time engag'd in promoting.--

And as the chief Ends of Conversation are to inform or to be informed, to please or to persuade, I wish well-meaning sensible men would not lessen their Power of doing Good by a Positive assuming Manner that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create Opposition, and to defeat every one of those Purposes for which Speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving Information or Pleasure: For If you would inform, a positive dogmatical Manner in advancing your Sentiments, may provoke Contradiction & prevent a candid Attention. If you wish Information and Improvement from the Knowledge of others and yet at the same time express your self as firmly fix'd in your present Opinions, modest sensible Men, who do not love Disputation, will probably leave you undisturb'd in the Possession of your Error; and by such a Manner you can seldom hope to recommend your self in pleasing your Hearers, or to persuade those whose Concurrence you desire.
(Part One of The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1793; from The Library of America edition of Benjamin Franklin: Writings, 1987)

Oh, and just one more thing. In the words of the lieutenant, "The whole place is one big magic trick. You can't believe anything you see. Always remember it's a trick. Keep that in mind and you can figure out how it's done."
More by Benjamin Franklin:

Image: Peter Falk as Lieutenant Columbo, 1971 to 1978 on NBC, 1989-2003 on ABC