1. The presumption is a sound one but only to a certain extent. In the description it says that only those who possess knowledge can articulate the false opinions. What about all the others who do “not” possess knowledge ? How then will they be able to move forward to either prove or disprove the hypotheses ? Who determines who has the knowledge to articulate ? In being a sound presumption it makes sense that one who has a specific set of skills would be able to articulate a certain hypotheses, but that does not mean that only they are then able to articulate all of the opinions . Right or wrong? Individualism aids in untangling a opinion to figure out whether it is “false” or “true”. Not everyone will have the same set of skills to determine if a variety of opinions on a variety of topics are correct. With this being said the presumption is sound and fair only if the individual testing it has the knowledge to articulate that specific opinion.
2. Metaphysics is the knowledge that is just for the sake of knowing, and not for any practical purpose. In contrast to science. It inquires into the meaning of existence and ask questions regarding the nature of reality. An example is when Aristotle compares practical art with speculative art. He shows that a speculative art is wisdom to a greater degree than a practical art because practical art is discovered for the sake of utility while speculative art is discovered merely for the sake of knowing. Hence, he proposes the thesis that wisdom deals with the causes of things and is about first causes and principles.
these two are people’s discussions about socratic method and plato. pleas write a response to each of these discussions. it doesn’t have to be very long. just a paragraph each of them with your argument.