We investigated the principle of Irony using the Socratic prompt: "Why do we call a reaction 'spontaneous' when it sometimes requires heat or a catalyst to proceed? How does this challenge our understanding of spontaneity in thermodynamics?" This prompt compels the model to engage with an apparent contradiction in thermodynamics, encouraging a critical examination of the relationship between Gibbs free energy (∆G), activation energy, and kinetic barriers. The response explains that spontaneity in thermodynamics is determined by a negative ∆G and does not necessarily imply an immediate or rapid reaction. It further clarifies that many spontaneous reactions require initial energy input to overcome activation energy barriers or require catalysts to facilitate the reaction. The response highlights key thermodynamic and kinetic distinctions, explaining that thermodynamic favorability does not equate to kinetic feasibility. In contrast, the non-Socratic prompt, "What is a spontaneous reaction in thermodynamics?" yields a response that defines spontaneity in terms of ∆G and describes general trends of entropy and enthalpy but lacks engagement with exceptions or contradictions. While scientifically accurate, this response remains descriptive rather than analytical, failing to challenge common misconceptions about spontaneity. It does not address why certain spontaneous reactions require external energy input or catalysts, limiting its depth of reasoning. Both responses provide correct information about spontaneity, but the Socratic irony-based prompt encourages deeper reasoning by confronting an intuitive contradiction, compelling the model to refine its conceptual understanding. The non-Socratic prompt remains a straightforward definition, offering little room for reevaluating misconceptions. This illustrates how irony-driven Socratic prompts challenge preconceptions, prompting LLMs to critically assess scientific concepts rather than merely summarizing them.