philosophy pure sophistication

A ristophanes knew what it was all about. Here's the relevant exchange from his play, Clouds:

Phidippides: teach him, chastise him and do not fail to sharpen his tongue well, on one side for petty law-suits and on the other for important cases.

Unjust Discourse: Don't worry, I shall return him to you an accomplished sophist.

Phidippides: Very pale then and thoroughly hang- dog looking.

Was that what Sir Richard Scott had in mind when he accused William Waldegrave of sophistry, or was there more to it than his hang-dog expression?

The original Sophists (from the Greek sophos, wise) were itinerant Greek philosopher-teachers of the 5th century BC. Among the best-known were Protagoras, who explained that since knowledge is dependent on experience, all knowledge is relative to the individual, and Gorgias, who pointed out that: 1. Nothing exists; 2. If anything does exist, it cannot be known; and 3. If it can be known, it cannot be communicated to others.

However, it was their younger followers of the next generation, who gave sophistry a bad name by using specious argument to argue their own political beliefs.

Aristotle wrote: "The art of the sophist is the semblance of wisdom without the reality", while Plato added that "words of ambiguous meaning are useful to enable the sophist to mislead". He also points out that: "The tribe of Sophists is not easily caught or defined."

The principal definition of sophistry in the OED includes "employment of arguments which are intentionally deceptive", which cannot be what Sir Richard had in mind, because he accepted that Mr Waldegrave "did not intend... to be misleading".

Two more definitions are obsolete, but the last may hit the mark: "The use or practice of specious reasoning" - in other words, using a superficially sound argument, which deeper inspection reveals to be flawed.

Which leaves the question of whether a Sophist can knowingly use a misleading argument without intending to deceive. Sir Richard Scott appears to believe that such a thing is possible, but his argument may be pure sophistry.