So, I've noticed something, looking at the classic example:
Do the gods know everything?
Do some gods disagree with others?
So gods disagree about what is true?
I suppose they must.
So gods can be wrong?
I suppose so.
Therefore the gods don't know everything.
There are some presuppositions here. The Socratic method shows contradictions between the arguments made, but it doesn't determine which arguments must be false. There's just this assumption that because there is a contraction, the gods don't know everything and that the gods do disagree with each other. By rights, couldn't this exact dialogue be used but the conclusion at the end is "Therefor the gods must not disagree with each other" (and the gods may or may not know everything)?
So far as I can understand, all arguments except for the one in question need to be unquestioningly true for an actual conclusion to come out of this. Is this issue ever addressed or dealt with?