The point is, how do we bring that into books ? (And this is the wrong/easy way to look at the problem, the one that we cannot really solve, and will be pretty meaningless to solve anyway.)
Or even better, how can we apply the socratic method without a Socrate ? (where with Socrate I mean somebody who keep asking question)
Smart books. (Using something like an iPad.)
Not sure if your question was supposed to be a Socratic one... In general I'm skeptical of using the Socratic Method on people who have been shown capable of teaching themselves. It's a more engaging form of spoon feeding, but it's still spoon feeding and some people hunger for steak. I'm also skeptical about expanding the process as The Way beyond the legal field. (It's interesting to see law schools start questioning the method too: http://abovethelaw.com/2014/06/former-law-prof-says-the-socr...) Finally I think it would be less successful in engineering disciplines where there are clearly right answers you can get from calculation, not intuition. (It's also frustrating for the 'Socrate' and maybe amusing for the student when the student answers along a line the 'Socrate' doesn't expect, e.g. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1879)
Just because you were able to grasp it temporarily in class, does not mean you'll get to keep it when the excellent teacher is not around.
It is a lot like when somebody guides you through cooking something step by step with you doing all the work. It is definitely great because it inspires confidence in you doing new things. But when you are by yourself and you try to repeat the experience, you'll stumble and fumble quite a bit.
So in short - teaching anything using logical steps makes a lot of sense and is a great way to do it. Caveat: you still have to put in the work to solidify that knowledge.
Problem being: solidifying things is oftentimes tedious unless the task you're learning is intrinsically interesting/pleasing (solving math puzzles is just fun for some folks), so there is no revolution around the corner. People will put up with a lot if they have the natural dexterity for it, good teachers/methodology makes the whole experience more pleasant is all :)
I am not sure I agree completely, what you mean by "knowledge" ?
Let's suppose I don't know how to multiply numbers, however I do know how to add numbers and I also know what multiplication is... Do I know how to multiply numbers ?
The real caveat here is another one, the author prepared a sequence a question, for what I can recall from my philosophy class Socrate did not...
It was more a random exploration...
Finally we all know that some work is necessary to retain knowledge (again, what we mean by knowledge ?), but a logic, inductive work is way more enjoyable (read easier) than a mere mnemonic one.
He/she left out the part where you have to go home and solidify what you learned in class. That's where kids will struggle.
That home part is not solved by socratic method or otherwise. Nothing solves it, except doing the work.
All the socratic way of teaching in a classroom does, is make it more fun and interactive than a traditional lecture. If it gets people excited about learning, they may feel more inclined to put in the work at home.
Hence what you were proposing - putting the socratic method in a book, doesn't make sense to me. In a book, you want concise explanations. In a lecture, you do want more interactivity to get people excited to go home and look up the concise information.
That's my take on it anyway. I don't know where you were going with defining 'knowledge' - I don't find defining words useful, as long as we both know what we're talking about, we should be fine :)
And computers still do a lousy job in talking to people. Try to make people to answer a 10-question online survey. Harder to motivate than in face-to-face meetings.
I think that is what a FAQ does to some extend. Of course, quesions do have to be asked frequently to be part of the FAQ but a lot of people don't have to ask any questions but consume the FAQ instead.