Socratic method 1

Socratic method

Part of a series on

Socrates
"I know that I know nothing"
Social gadfly · Trial of Socrates

Eponymous concepts

Socratic dialogue · Socratic method

Socratic questioning
Socratic paradox · Socratic problem

Disciples

Plato · Xenophon
Antisthenes · Aristippus

Related topics

Megarians · Cynicism · Cyrenaics

Platonism · Stoicism · The Clouds

• v
• t
• e [1]

Part of a series on

Plato

Plato from The School of Athens by Raphael, 1509

• Early life
• Works
• Platonism
• Epistemology
• Idealism / Realism
• Demiurge
• Theory of Forms
• Transcendentals
• Form of the Good
• Third man argument
• Euthyphro dilemma
• Five regimes
• Philosopher king
Socratic method 2

Allegories and metaphors

• Atlantis
• Ring of Gyges
• The cave
• The divided line
• The sun
• Ship of state
• Myth of Er
• The chariot
Related articles

• Commentaries
• The Academy in Athens
• Socratic problem
• Middle Platonism
• Neoplatonism
• and Christianity

• Philosophy portal

• v
• t
• e [2]

Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate), named after the
classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and
answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a
discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict
himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.
The Socratic method is a positive method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily
identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly
held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form
is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs
about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general
characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out
definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the method of
maieutics. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded
as the essence of the scientific method.
In the second half of the 5th century BC, sophists were teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and
rhetoric to entertain or impress or persuade an audience to accept the speaker's point of view. Socrates promoted an
alternative method of teaching which came to be called the Socratic method.
Socrates began to engage in such discussions with his fellow Athenians after his friend from youth, Chaerephon,
visited the Oracle of Delphi, which confirmed that no man in Greece was wiser than Socrates. Socrates saw this as a
paradox, and began using the Socratic method to answer his conundrum. Diogenes Laërtius, however, wrote that
Protagoras invented the “Socratic” method.[3][4]
Plato famously formalized the Socratic elenctic style in prose—presenting Socrates as the curious questioner of some
prominent Athenian interlocutor—in some of his early dialogues, such as Euthyphro and Ion, and the method is most
commonly found within the so-called "Socratic dialogues", which generally portray Socrates engaging in the method
and questioning his fellow citizens about moral and epistemological issues. but Plato in his recent dialogues, as
Theaetetus or Sophist had a different method to Philosophical discussions, namely Dialectic.
Socratic method 3

The phrase Socratic questioning is used to describe a kind of questioning in which an original question is responded
to as though it were an answer. This in turn forces the first questioner to reformulate a new question in light of the
progress of the discourse.

Method
Elenchus (Ancient Greek: ἔλεγχος elengkhos “argument of disproof or refutation; cross-examining, testing, scrutiny
esp. for purposes of refutation”[5]) is the central technique of the Socratic method. The Latin form elenchus (plural
elenchi ) is used in English as the technical philosophical term.[6]
In Plato's early dialogues, the elenchus is the technique Socrates uses to investigate, for example, the nature or
definition of ethical concepts such as justice or virtue. According to one general characterization,[7] it has the
following steps:
1. Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example "Courage is endurance of the soul", which Socrates considers
false and targets for refutation.
2. Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example "Courage is a fine thing" and
"Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing".
3. Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, that these further premises imply the contrary of the original
thesis, in this case it leads to: "courage is not endurance of the soul".
4. Socrates then claims that he has shown that his interlocutor's thesis is false and that its negation is true.
One elenctic examination can lead to a new, more refined, examination of the concept being considered, in this case
it invites an examination of the claim: "Courage is wise endurance of the soul". Most Socratic inquiries consist of a
series of elenchi and typically end in puzzlement known as aporia.
Frede[8] insists that step #4 above makes nonsense of the aporetic nature of the early dialogues. If any claim has been
shown to be true then it cannot be the case that the interlocutors are in aporia, a state where they no longer know
what to say about the subject under discussion.
The exact nature of the elenchus is subject to a great deal of debate, in particular concerning whether it is a positive
method, leading to knowledge, or a negative method used solely to refute false claims to knowledge.
W. K. C. Guthrie in The Greek Philosophers sees it as an error to regard the Socratic method as a means by which
one seeks the answer to a problem, or knowledge. Guthrie claims that the Socratic method actually aims to
demonstrate one's ignorance. Socrates, unlike the Sophists, did believe that knowledge was possible, but believed
that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one's ignorance. Guthrie writes, "[Socrates] was accustomed to
say that he did not himself know anything, and that the only way in which he was wiser than other men was that he
was conscious of his own ignorance, while they were not. The essence of the Socratic method is to convince the
interlocutor that whereas he thought he knew something, in fact he does not."{pg 74}

Application
Socrates generally applied his method of examination to concepts that seem to lack any concrete definition; e.g., the
key moral concepts at the time, the virtues of piety, wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Such an examination
challenged the implicit moral beliefs of the interlocutors, bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies in their
beliefs, and usually resulting in aporia. In view of such inadequacies, Socrates himself professed his ignorance, but
others still claimed to have knowledge. Socrates believed that his awareness of his ignorance made him wiser than
those who, though ignorant, still claimed knowledge. While this belief seems paradoxical at first glance, it in fact
allowed Socrates to discover his own errors where others might assume they were correct. This claim was known by
the anecdote of the Delphic oracular pronouncement that Socrates was the wisest of all men. (Or, rather, that no man
was wiser than Socrates.)
Socratic method 4

Socrates used this claim of wisdom as the basis of his moral exhortation. Accordingly, he claimed that the chief
goodness consists in the caring of the soul concerned with moral truth and moral understanding, that "wealth does
not bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and to the state", and
that "life without examination [dialogue] is not worth living". It is with this in mind that the Socratic method is
employed.
The motive for the modern usage of this method and Socrates' use are not necessarily equivalent. Socrates rarely
used the method to actually develop consistent theories, instead using myth to explain them. The Parmenides
dialogue shows Parmenides using the Socratic method to point out the flaws in the Platonic theory of the Forms, as
presented by Socrates; it is not the only dialogue in which theories normally expounded by Plato/Socrates are broken
down through dialectic. Instead of arriving at answers, the method was used to break down the theories we hold, to
go "beyond" the axioms and postulates we take for granted. Therefore, myth and the Socratic method are not meant
by Plato to be incompatible; they have different purposes, and are often described as the "left hand" and "right hand"
paths to good and wisdom.

Socratic Circles
A Socratic Circle (also known as a Socratic Seminar) is a pedagogical approach based on the Socratic method and
uses a dialogic approach to understand information in a text. Its systematic procedure is used to examine a text
through questions and answers founded on the beliefs that all new knowledge is connected to prior knowledge, that
all thinking comes from asking questions, and that asking one question should lead to asking further questions. A
Socratic Circle is not a debate. The goal of this activity is to have participants work together to construct meaning
and arrive at an answer, not for one student or one group to “win the argument”.
This approach is based on the belief that participants seek and gain deeper understanding of concepts in the text
through thoughtful dialogue rather than memorizing information that has been provided for them. While Socratic
Circles can differ in structure, and even in name, they typically involve the following components: a passage of text
that students must read beforehand and two concentric circles of students: an outer circle and an inner circle. The
inner circle focuses on exploring and analysing the text through the act of questioning and answering. During this
phase, the outer circle remains silent. Students in the outer circle are much like scientific observers watching and
listening to the conversation of the inner circle. When the text has been fully discussed and the inner circle is
finished talking, the outer circle provides feedback on the dialogue that took place. This process alternates with the
inner circle students going to the outer circle for the next meeting and vice versa. The length of this process varies
depending on the text used for the discussion. The teacher may decide to alternate groups within one meeting, or
they may alternate at each separate meeting.
The most significant difference between this activity and most typical classroom activities involves the role of the
teacher. In Socratic Circles the students lead the discussion and questioning. The teacher's role is to ensure the
discussion advances regardless of the particular direction the discussion takes.

Various approaches to Socratic Circles

Teachers use Socratic Circles in different ways. The structure it takes may look different in each classroom. While
this is not an exhaustive list, teachers may use one of the following structures to administer Socratic Seminar:
1. Inner/Outer Circle or Fishbowl: Students need to be arranged in inner and outer circles. The inner circle
engages in discussion about the text. The outer circle observes the inner circle, while taking notes. The outer
circle shares their observations and questions the inner circle with guidance from the teacher/facilitator. Students
use constructive criticism as opposed to making judgements. The students on the outside keep track of topics they
would like to discuss as part of the debrief. Participants of the outer circle can use an observation checklist or
notes form to monitor the participants in the inner circle. These tools will provide structure for listening and give
the outside members specific details to discuss later in the seminar. The teacher may also sit in the circle but at the
Socratic method 5

same height as the students.

2. Triad: Students are arranged so that each participant in the inner circle (called a “pilot”) has two “co-pilots”
sitting behind him/her on either side. Pilots are the speakers because they are in the inner circle; co-pilots are in
the outer circle and only speak during consultation. The seminar proceeds as any other seminar. At a point in the
seminar, the facilitator pauses the discussion and instructs the triad to talk to each other. Conversation will be
about topics that need more in-depth discussion or a question posed by the leader. Sometimes triads will be asked
by the facilitator to come up with a new question. Any time during a triad conversation, group members can
switch seats and one of the co-pilots can sit in the pilot’s seat. Only during that time is the switching of seats
allowed. This structure allows for students to speak, who may not yet have the confidence to speak in the large
group. This type of seminar involves all students instead of just the students in the inner and outer circles.
3. Simultaneous Seminars: Students are arranged in multiple small groups and placed as far as possible from each
other. Following the guidelines of the Socratic Seminar, students engage in small group discussions.
Simultaneous seminars are typically done with experienced students who need little guidance and can engage in a
discussion without assistance from a teacher/facilitator. According to the literature, this type of seminar is
beneficial for teachers who want students to explore a variety of texts around a main issue or topic. Each small
group may have a different text to read/view and discuss. A larger Socratic Seminar can then occur as a
discussion about how each text corresponds with one another. Simultaneous Seminars can also be used for a
particularly difficult text. Students can work through different issues and key passages from the text.
No matter what structure the teacher employs, the basic premise of the seminar/circles is to turn partial control and
direction of the classroom over to the students. The seminars encourage students to work together, creating meaning
from the text and to stay away from trying to find a correct interpretation. The emphasis is on critical and creative
thinking.

Text selection
Socratic Circle texts
A Socratic Circle text is a tangible document that creates a thought-provoking discussion. The text ought to be
appropriate for the participants' current level of intellectual and social development. It provides the anchor for
dialogue whereby the facilitator can bring the participants back to the text if they begin to digress. Furthermore, the
seminar text enables the participants to create a level playing field – ensuring that the dialogical tone within the
classroom remains consistent and pure to the subject or topic at hand. Some practitioners argue that "texts" do not
have to be confined to printed texts, but can include artifacts such as objects, physical spaces, and the like.
Pertinent elements of an effective Socratic text
Socratic seminar texts are able to challenge participants’ thinking skills by having these characteristics:
1. Ideas and values
2. Complexity and challenge
3. Relevance to participants' curriculum
4. Ambiguity
1. Ideas and values - The text must introduce ideas and values that are complex and difficult to summarize.
Powerful discussions arise from personal connections to abstract ideas and from implications to personal values.
2. Complexity and challenge - The text must be rich in ideas and complexity and open to interpretation. Ideally it
should require multiple readings, but should be neither far above the participants' intellectual level nor very long.
3. Relevance to participants and curriculum - An effective text has identifiable themes that are recognizable and
pertinent to the lives of the participants. Themes in the text should relate to the curriculum.
4. Ambiguity - The text must be approachable from a variety of different perspectives, including perspectives that
seem mutually exclusive, thus provoking critical thinking and raising important questions. The absence of right and
Socratic method 6

wrong answers promotes a variety of discussion and encourages individual contributions.

Two different ways to select a text
Socratic texts can be divided into two main categories:
1. Print texts (e.g. short stories, poems, and essays) and non-print texts (e.g. photographs, sculptures, and maps); and
2. Subject area, which can draw from print or non-print artifacts. As examples, language arts can be approached
through poems, history through written or oral historical speeches, science through policies on environmental issues,
math through mathematical proofs, health through nutrition labels, and physical education through fitness guidelines.

Questioning methods in Socratic Circles

Socratic Circles are based upon the interaction of peers. The focus is to explore multiple perspectives on a given
issue or topic. Socratic questioning is used to help students apply the activity to their learning. The pedagogy of
Socratic questions is open-ended, focusing on broad, general ideas rather than specific, factual information. The
questioning technique emphasizes a level of questioning and thinking where there is no single right answer.
Socratic circles generally start with an open-ended question proposed either by the leader or by another participant.
There is no designated first speaker; as individuals participate in Socratic circles, they gain experience that enables
them to be effective in this role of initial questioner.
The leader keeps the topic focused by asking a variety of questions about the text itself, as well as questions to help
clarify positions when arguments become confused. The leader also seeks to coax reluctant participants into the
discussion, and to limit contributions from those who tend to dominate. She or he prompts participants to elaborate
on their responses and to build on what others have said. The leader guides participants to deepen, clarify, and
paraphrase, and to synthesize a variety of different views.
The participants share the responsibility with the leader to maintain the quality of the Socratic circle. They listen
actively in order to respond effectively to what others have contributed. This teaches the participants to think and
speak persuasively using the discussion to support their position. Participants must demonstrate respect for different
ideas, thoughts and values, and must not interrupt each other.
Questions can be created individually or in small groups. All participants are given the opportunity to take part in the
discussion. Socratic Circles specify three types of questions to prepare:
1. Opening questions generate discussion at the beginning of the seminar in order to elicit dominant themes.
2. Guiding questions help deepen and elaborate the discussion, keeping contributions on topic and encouraging a
positive atmosphere and consideration for others.
3. Closing questions lead participants to summarize their thoughts and learning and personalize what they’ve
discussed.

Law schools
The Socratic method is widely used in contemporary legal education by most law schools in the United States. In a
typical class setting, the professor asks a question and calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered an
answer. The professor either then continues to ask the student questions or moves on to another student.
The employment of the Socratic method has some uniform features but can also be heavily influenced by the
temperament of the teacher. The method begins by calling on a student at random, and asking about a central
argument put forth by one of the judges (typically on the side of the majority) in an assigned case. The first step is to
ask the student to paraphrase the argument to ensure they read and basically understand the case. (Students who have
not read the case, for whatever reason, must take the opportunity to "pass," which most professors allow as a matter
of course a few times per term.) Assuming the student has read the case and can articulate the court's argument, the
professor then asks whether the student agrees with the argument. The professor then typically plays Devil's
advocate, trying to force the student to defend his or her position by rebutting arguments against it.
Socratic method 7

These subsequent questions can take several forms. Sometimes they seek to challenge the assumptions upon which
the student based the previous answer until it can no longer be defended. Further questions can be designed to move
a student toward greater specificity, either in understanding a rule of law or a particular case. The teacher may
attempt to propose a hypothetical situation in which the student's assertion would seem to demand an exception.
Finally professors can use the Socratic method to allow students to come to legal principles on their own through
carefully worded questions that encourage a particular [citation needed] train of thought.
One hallmark of Socratic questioning is that typically there is more than one "correct" answer, and more often, no
clear answer at all. The primary goal of the Socratic method in the law school setting is not to answer usually
unanswerable questions, but to explore the contours of often difficult legal issues and to teach students the critical
thinking skills they will need as lawyers. This is often done by altering the facts of a particular case to tease out how
the result might be different. This method encourages students to go beyond memorizing the facts of a case and
instead to focus on application of legal rules to tangible fact patterns. As the assigned texts are typically case law, the
Socratic method, if properly used, can display that judges' decisions are usually conscientiously made but are based
on certain premises, beliefs, and conclusions that are the subject of legitimate argument.
Sometimes, the class ends with a discussion of doctrinal foundations (legal rules) to anchor the students in
contemporary legal understanding of an issue. At other times the class ends without such discussion leaving students
to figure out for themselves the legal rules or principles that were at issue. For this method to work, the students are
expected to be prepared for class in advance by reading the assigned materials (case opinions, notes, law review
articles, etc.) and by familiarizing themselves with the general outlines of the subject matter.
Several excellent examples of the Socratic Method are portrayed in the 1973 film The Paper Chase, based on a 1970
novel by John J. Osborn, Jr., also titled The Paper Chase. Several scenes involve the interaction of members of
Professor Kingsfields's first year Contracts Law course and clearly show how the Socratic method is used as a
framework for presenting concepts in contract law to the students.

Psychotherapy
The Socratic method, in the form of Socratic questioning, has been adapted for psychotherapy, most prominently in
Classical Adlerian Psychotherapy, Cognitive Therapy and Reality Therapy. It can be used to clarify meaning,
feeling, and consequences, as well as to gradually unfold insight, or explore alternative actions.

References
[1] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:Socrates& action=edit
[2] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:Platonism& action=edit
[3] Jarratt, Susan C. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press,
1991., p 83.
[4] Sprague, Rosamond Kent, The Older Sophists, Hackett Publishing Company (ISBN 0-87220-556-8), p. 5.
[5] Liddell, Scott and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th Edition.
[6] Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition; Oxford English Dictionary.
[7] Gregory Vlastos, 'The Socratic Elenchus', Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy I, Oxford 1983, 27– 58.
[8] Michael Frede, "Plato's Arguments and the Dialogue Form", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 1992, Oxford
1992, 201– 19.
Socratic method 8

Further reading
Articles
• PE Areeda, 'The Socratic Method' (1996) 109(5) Harvard Law Review 911-922 ([Link]
1342257)
• Dariush Darvishi, " Distinction between Dialectical methods of Socrates and Plato ([Link]
3611239/_distinction_between_Dialectical_methods_of_Socrates_and_Plato)", Logical Study, Volume & Issue:
Volume 2, Number 4, Winter 2012, pp. 49– 76.
Books
• Benson, Hugh (2000) Socratic Wisdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Frede, Michael (1992) 'Plato's Arguments and the Dialogue Form' in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy,
Supplementary Volume, 201-19.
• Guthrie, W. K. C. (1968) The Greek Philosophers from Thales to Aristotle. London: Routledge.
• Jarratt, Susan C. (1991) Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale and Edwardsville:
Southern Illinois University Press.
• Sprague, Rosamond Kent (1972) The Older Sophists. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company ISBN
0-87220-556-8.
• Vlastos, Gregory; Vlastos (1983). "The Socratic Elenchus". Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1: 27– 58.

External links
• Robinson, Richard, Plato's Earlier Dialectic, 2nd edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1953).
• Ch. 2: Elenchus ([Link]
• Ch. 3: Elenchus: Direct and Indirect ([Link]
• [Link] ([Link] - 'Tips on Starting your own Socrates Cafe',
Christopher Phillips, Cecilia Phillips
• [Link] ([Link] Socratic Method Research Portal
• [Link] ([Link] - 'The Socratic Method', Elizabeth
Garrett (1998)
• Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling ([Link] an example from Rick
Garlikov
• Project Gutenberg: Works by Plato ([Link]
• Project Gutenberg: Works by Xenophon ([Link] (includes some
Socratic works)
• Project Gutenberg: Works by Cicero ([Link] (includes some
works in the "Socratic dialogue" format)
• The Socratic Club ([Link]
• Socratic and Scientific Method ([Link]
Article Sources and Contributors 9

Article Sources and Contributors

Socratic method Source: [Link] Contributors: 11chanza, A Stop at Willoughby, Aboluay, Afterwriting, Ajarnpaul, Akhilleus, Alan Au,
Alanmossman, Alansohn, Albeiror24, Altenmann, Andycjp, Antaeus Feldspar, Antandrus, Antireconciler, Arthena, Asrghasrhiojadrhr, Asterion, Austriacus, Banno, Bart133, Basketballbi,
BigBetch, Bodnotbod, Brianga, Brianlinzy, Brighterorange, Bruceroyl, Bryan Derksen, Bryan121, Bsimmons666, Btyner, BullRangifer, CLGroup1, CactusWriter, Cadwaladr, Calen11, Calmer
Waters, Calor, Catalographer, Cburnett, Charles Matthews, Chick Bowen, Chris the speller, Codeculturist, Cor87, Countedx58, CptCutLess, Crazycoolalex, D, DARTH SIDIOUS 2,
DanBlanchard, DanielDeibler, Dankuck, Davidiad, Daynadew, DerHexer, Deucalionite, Dialector, Dieter Simon, Discospinster, DocWatson42, DoctorW, Doomhydra, Douglas Jack, Doyley,
DrStein, DrSteintstein@[Link], Dysmorodrepanis, ERcheck, Eastlaw, Edgar a poe, Editor510, Edlitz36, ElTchanggo, Eleazar, Epbr123, Espoo, Everyking, Everything Else Is Taken, FF2010,
Facius, Filthychimp03, Flosfa, Freelion, Fuhghettaboutit, Furrykef, G-Dett, Gaborhor, Gary King, Gdr, Golf Bravo, Graymornings, Gregbard, Grichards2, Griffin147, Griffinofwales, Grimbeard,
Grumpyyoungman01, Guanaco, Guitargirl1996, H2g2bob, Heah, Herschelkrustofsky, Heyitspeter, Hoplites, Hriber, Hu12, Iamjmb, Iheartcorruption, Immunize, Into The Fray, Ioscius, Ixfd64,
[Link], JESL2, JFreeman, JRR Trollkien, JRSpriggs, JYolkowski, Ja 62, JaGa, Jackvinson, Jadelynx, Jandalhandler, Jdavidb, Jeff G., Jevergreen, Jgarnant, Jk2q3jrklse, Joefromrandb,
John2000, Jollyroger2343, [Link], Joshblan, Jossi, KSchutte, Kinema, Kizor, Kusyadi, L Kensington, La goutte de pluie, Leonard G., Lfevola, LightSpectra, Lx 121, Machine Elf 1735,
Magioladitis, Mainsail, Marek69, Master Scott Hall, Mayur, MeUser42, Menchi, Metazeitgeist, MickeyDonald, Mikeo, Mild Bill Hiccup, Mitico, Mnrsiat, Mojo Hand, Monty845, Mpolo,
MrOllie, N256, Nadiatalent, Nathan Johnson, Nbellows, Nealmcb, Nesbit, Netgrrrl, Netkinetic, NewEnglandYankee, Newbyguesses, Nihiltres, NocturneNoir, Nuno Tavares, Olivier,
Ombudsman, Omnipaedista, Oxymoron83, [Link], Pharaoh of the Wizards, Philip Trueman, Pinethicket, Pollinosisss, Polyphebus, Quebec99, RG2, RJHall, RainbowOfLight, Rastus
Vernon, Ray Van De Walker, RetiredUser2, RexNL, Rivertorch, Rjd0060, Rjwilmsi, Room316, Rsg221993, Ruben31, Rwflammang, SMcCandlish, SammysIsland, Samohtar, SchreiberBike,
Scott Martin, Sgeo, Sgsilver, Shanafme, ShelfSkewed, Shelleyesque, Skovoroda, Skunkboy74, Slightsmile, Smatthewman, Snowolf, Snoyes, SpaceFrog, Spitfire19, Spm5a, Spykesinmahshoe,
Srich32977, StillWouldVoteBush, The Individual, Tim Q. Wells, Tlegge, Tom harrison, Tomasz Raburski, Tomaxer, Tomisti, [Link], Tpbradbury, Trusilver, TruthPolice,
TuringTestPilot, Twindewling, Unused0030, Vaughan Pratt, Vegas949, Vinsont, Vipinhari, Voidxor, WAS 4.250, Wiki alf, Wikidea, Wknight94, Wran, X-factor, Xiahou, Yahussain, Zantiago,
Zigger, ZomBGolth, ТимофейЛееСуда, ‫ﻋﻠﯽ ﭘﯿﺮﺣﯿﺎﺗﯽ‬, 454 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

File:UWASocrates gobeirne [Link] Source: [Link] License: GNU Free Documentation License
Contributors: Photograph by Greg O'Beirne. Cropped by User:Tomisti
file:[Link] Source: [Link] License: Public Domain Contributors: Aavindraa, Bibi Saint-Pol, Chris 73, Infrogmation,
Maarten van Vliet, Mattes, Morio, Sailko, Tomisti, 3 anonymous edits
File:[Link] Source: [Link] License: Public Domain Contributors: Original uploader was Magnus Manske at [Link] Later
versions were uploaded by Optimager at [Link].

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//[Link]/licenses/by-sa/3.0/