Steelmanning is not the same as agreeing with an argument. According to the article, there can be situations that if you are steelmanning position X, you can be 'strawmanning' position Y. This however is not true. You can always steelman both positions (take the most charitable interpretation of both or multiple sides of the argument even if they contradict each other).
Don't confuse agreement with interpretation. As soon as you are stating some hypothesis is plausible (as in the article), you are starting to agree with the hypothesis, not just interpreting it.
Also imho the author is overanalyzing the concept. For me it just means argue in good faith so you can have a fruitful debate about the matter at hand instead of a distrustful word fight. All within reason of course.
I agree the author is massively overthinking this. Steelmanning just means treating your opponent charitably in good faith.
If you interpret your opponents beliefs as having absurd outcomes which are gravely insulting to other people, such as believing that all doctors are part of some global conspiracy, than you honestly probably are pretty bad at imagining a good counterargument to your own position. I can come up with WAY more plausible ways that a false belief could become commonly held among a profession than some sort of evil conspiracy, in fact medicine has REPEATEDLY collectively held false beliefs throughout its history so all one needs to do is draw from history to come up with plausible explanations as to why such things could happen.
>I agree the author is massively overthinking this. Steelmanning just means treating your opponent charitably in good faith.
I don't mean this to sound pernickety: steelmanning from what I've seen normally is a lot more active than just treating the opponent charitably. Often it involves a lot of work trying to rework the other people's ideas from the ground up. It goes beyond charity in a way that's probably too labour intensive to apply except selectively.
It's interesting to compare with other flavours of charitability:
Take the definition of steelmanning from lesswrong:
> Steelmanning is the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it. It is the opposite of strawmanning.
> "You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, 'Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way.'"
These mandates aren't exactly the same ( It might be that your strongest way of phrasing an argument wouldn't be accepted by the original argument-giver, for instance), though both could be seen as kinds of charitable engagement.
It is easier to treat steelmanning as a hazy middle ground and pick examples that clearly are or clearly aren't.
Eg, the strongest pro-ivermectin argument was "There is all this evidence that lots of people who take ivermectin have much better outcomes after COVID. We should let people take ivermectin". Scott Alexander was literally the first person I saw to acknowledge the evidence before arguing against taking ivermectin to treat COVID. Which is quite an impressive first since I'd seen a lot of weirdly authoritarian people trying and failing to argue effectively against the drug up until then. Those people had failed to steelman the pro-ivermectin position.
Lots of people acknowledge the evidence, almost everyone who is in a position to evaluate that evidence then points out that the existing evidence is, at best, of extremely poor quality, and at worst, outright fraudulent. They also usually acknowledge that there are higher quality studies underway that will answer the question definitively.
It’s honestly one of the most kind blowing instances of alternative thinking that is out there, this constant shifting of the goalposts in the pursuit of freedom from the big pharma conspiracy and the evils of fauci. Like, we have perfectly good evidence that this whole conspiracy is bunk, because we have an example of the exact same thing (a generic, cheap as chips medication that markedly improved survival with severe covid - steroids) but actually backed by good quality studies and not some alternative paper mill
None of that is steelmanning either. You're making a very common mistake of dismissing evidence ("the existing evidence is, at best, of extremely poor quality, and at worst, outright fraudulent") which with benefit of hindsight appears to be both accurate and in good faith [0].
Now that evidence wasn't conclusive (indeed, the argument for ivermectin in 1st world countries has been more or less demolished), but someone has to do what Scott did and come up with a better reason to dismiss the evidence than an appeal to authority. Just claiming you want to ignore it because experts ignore it is hardly a strong argument compared to a pretty reasonable number of studies showing a positive effect. And it is easy to see why some people would turn to conspiracy theories if that is the best other people can come up with in casual conversation.
[0] I mean, you go to a region where 10% of the population has parasites and hand out ivermectin. That'll have a fantastic effect on COVID outcomes. There'll be an obvious positive impact that any study would pick up.
Never been pro-ivermectin as a primary tool for Covid, but can you actually back up, “indeed, the argument for ivermectin in 1st world countries has been more or less demolished.”
I read Scott’s piece the day it was published and was over all impressed but don’t buy the conclusion. Westerners are filled with all sorts of parasites and as far as I’m aware we are not universally cleaner in that regard, for example with worms, than other places. That to me suggests that to the extent a significant fraction of the population would benefit from deworming, ivermectin’s widespread use in some of our hospitals during the pandemic was not entirely illfounded and may have even played a part in more than one life saving treatment regimen.
So I would love evidence that says clearly why it doesn’t work here but works in poorer places because somehow Americans are too good for parasites. My experience tells me this is wrong, and many Americans are carrying all sorts of bugs. Go read the Amazon reviews for proguard!
Is this just your feeling, that western countries have just as many parasites as developing countries?
That makes me think you don't have much experience in developing nations. Sanitation is a serious problem in large parts of the 3rd world. Availability of clean water is a problem. Sewage capture and treatment is a big problem. These are not big problems in most of the western world.
I'm sure there are studies finding that most people regardless of where they live have some parasites. But the question is whether you have large amounts of the kind of parasites that make you sick and more specifically, the kinds of parasites that can be treated with ivermectin.
“the question is whether you have large amounts of the kind of parasites that make you sick and more specifically, the kinds of parasites that can be treated with ivermectin.”
It would be a useful study, to the extent Covid remains a concern for public health agencies. If you are familiar with poverty in America, you wouldn’t think sanitation and parasites aren’t issues here. They just aren’t as common.
They're all components of charitable debate, being charitable doesn't end at interpretation.
Steelmanning takes resources you're essentially donating to the opposition's view in the pursuit of forward progress, it's in a very literal sense charity.
On my mind of late is the degree to which human social trust cannot be replaced by money and rank in social media.
A well-established method in discussion is of course to state agreement or some degree of agreement (if possible) with the opposing view, then to ask questions about it.[1]
However, the commitment to having a discussion depends on a) trust, b) honesty, c) mutual goodwill, and d) the suitability of the medium of discussion.
The values of a) and d) cannot be substituted. But they can be gamed and monetised.
> distrustful word fight
Social media is a monetisable distrustful word fight.
yeah i don't get why 'strawmanning' Y is necessarily bad in this case. You also automatically strawman your own position, so what? that's kind of the point, to entertain another theory, possibly one by one.
Strawmanning is bad because it's fallacious reasoning, so it cannot serve as valid evidence for a proposition. It's a waste of time if what you're interested in is figuring out what the truth is; it only serves to pull the wool over an audience's eyes, or (perhaps more commonly) feed your ego by giving you a stupid and evil imaginary enemy to fight with, like children playing GI Joe or Batman.
"Steelmanning" doesn't involve strawmanning any position, unless the position you're "steelmanning" is inherently dependent on a fallacy—specifically, a fallacious strawman version of some other position. If you can find a non-fallacious argument for a proposition, you have to use it instead if you're "steelmanning."
So I don't agree that "steelmanning" involves strawmanning some other position Y, except in the most extreme cases, in which the position you're "steelmanning" can be trivially dismissed. Most positions that people actually hold have some valid argument in their favor, and therefore are not necessarily dependent on strawmanning other positions.
Actually, reading it once again, I think the author of the original article takes "strawmanning" for downplaying or picking the weakest link, probably not quite correct. In my understanding, strawman means something different - tearing down a similar, weaker, but not necessarily related argument. In that sense, it is disingenuous and fallacious, you are right.
I don't think strawmanning is necessarily disingenuous; honest people can do it by accident if their sources of information are bad. For instance, it's common for atheists to strawman religious beliefs and for religious people to strawman atheism, not because they're disingenuous or even somewhat dishonest, but merely because they're ignorant about the beliefs they're criticizing.
Steelmanning is your own good faith attempt to understand the opposing argument so well that you can articulate it as coherently as your own position.
If you're simply repeating what the other person said, you're not using the concept to full effect.
If you're framing your own argument as a strawman instead of clarifying the opposing argument, you've missed the plot entirely (unless your opponent is arguing for the use of strawmen in debate?)
The utility of steelmanning is to minimize assumptions. Everyone has to demonstrate their comprehension. You can take it further and in order to 'pass' the steelman stage, you have to agree with your opponent's steelman argument, or have a dialog to refine it until you're satisfied that both of you understand your argument.
Honestly I see "steelmanning" as an emergent property of a completely broken discourse in the first place. The whole concept derives from the idea that we need specific terminology for when we're going to actually discuss things in a reasonable manner. It's basically a response to a group of public intellectuals who have emerged on the internet that spend more time building their brand and dunking on their opponents within their own echo chamber than actually trying to persuade people. And these public intellectuals are so well-read that they reinvented devils-advocate in their own bubble. It also stems from a kind of silly idea that the things we disagree over boil down to finding logical errors in each others positions, rather than emerging from deep-rooted differences in values.
In the example in the article there is just a fundamental difference in how those people see the world. One person thinks that by and large people are free to openly disagree with the consensus and would do so if they wanted to, and the other person thinks that disagreeing with the public consensus on controversial topics has such a high price that people choose not to do it. Depending on your experience in the world either of those two views can be right. In fact, you can pull examples on both sides of this - where contrarians have successfully changed the consensus and are celebrated for it, or have spoken out and been stigmatized for it. These opposing positions stem from such a deep difference in world views it's useless to talk about Ivemectin. So the issue here isn't steelmanning, it's that you're not actually discussing the point of contention.
Talking to your opponent's viewpoint isn't being a Devil's advocate and you can't steelman a viewpoint that doesn't exist. Devil's advocate is about inventing an opposing viewpoint when none exists to allow for debate to strengthen the case of the held viewpoint. Steelmanning is about solidifying the opposing viewpoint instead of minor errors specific to the original formulation of the opposing viewpoint allowing for a stronger defence of the held viewpoint.
I'd agree steelmanning used to be considered standard part of discussion but its breakout seems unrelated to reinventing Devil's advocate and more about reinventing that missing piece of discussion which doesn't usually occur in online debate. Regardless what steelmanning is or isn't that part of discussion was never supposed to be referred to as playing Devil's advocate.
> It also stems from a kind of silly idea that the things we disagree over boil down to finding logical errors in each others positions, rather than emerging from deep-rooted differences in values
I lived with the same roommate for 3 years in university who was across the isle from me. We had many long conversations and I would say that ~70% of our differences in opinion boiled down to having different values.
Does this need to be rediscovered every generation, and has it been in past generations? Could this be taught in standard curriculum as a core value instead?
This should be the top comment. The utility of the word "steelman" is already mostly covered by words like "Devil's advocate". Instead, the real purpose of the term is to signal "look at how smart I am, I'm putting in way more effort than anyone else". Posture first, discuss second.
The equivocation in the current top comment thread stems from that ego problem. People use words they don't understand that they think sound smart. When confronted by more effective & but less smart words, they're too lazy and prideful to switch so they instead pretend they mean the same thing.
> We’re often encouraged to bending over backward to see things from the other person’s point of view, to be kind, to be charitable
This seems to be a misunderstanding of steelmanning. My understanding was that, it's a way to ensure that you counter the opposing argument decisively - not allowing for repeated "oh but I really meant x" or "let me put it a better way".
It's not about "niceness" (which really is beside the point). Steelmanning is still an adversarial debating technique - it just aims to be a more effective one. The aim is ideally to reach the "truth" faster for everyone's benefit.
The OP irritated me so much that I wrote a 2200 word comment. I'll spare the world that (and my steelmanning of the OPs position) to just say that I think the discussion of "steelmanning" here is a pretense in order to continue an argument from his comments as an abstraction, and with that an excuse to use ad hominem and vague associative arguments that wouldn't normally be seen as constructive.
It's a sign of weakness, not strength. The reason you steelman opposing arguments is to make your arguments look strong and convincing, not to be "charitable and kind." It's the same reason you sell a knife by cutting through a steel pipe and not a marshmallow.
Instead, the OP is taking on "Ted Cruz" to protect "all the health officials in the world." Who exactly is this supposed to convince?
>The reason you steelman opposing arguments is to make your arguments look strong and convincing, not to be "charitable and kind."
I agree it's nothing to do with kindness but I disagree that it's (entirely) to do with making your arguments look strong and convincing. I think it's a good practice because (in my experience) people tend towards strawmanning even if they don't mean to. We're so used to adversarial debates where you're trying to "win" the argument by presenting the opponent's argument in a poor light that it's helpful to consciously avoid that by attempting the opposite. If we don't then arguments tend to degrade rather quickly.
The comments to the original article contains a good example of a common argument pattern. Someone makes a point about antibiotics not being a miracle drug and one reply is "So you’ll just dismiss millions and millions of years of life saved, untold suffering prevented, and vast economic and qualify [sic] of life benefits by virtue of availability of antibiotics because antibiotics aren’t perfect". It feels unlikely anyone would dismiss millions of years of life being saved so if they've been in anyway ambiguous we should apply the principle of charity (which is not directly to charity in the normal sense) and assume they don't mean that.
> “strawman” (argue against your opponent’s weakest point).
That's not what a strawman is -- if it was, it wouldn't be considered an informal logical/argumentative fallacy.
A strawman means taking your opponent's position to a new extreme, turning it into a caricature of itself. E.g. if they argue for lower taxes, the strawman version could be acting as if they want no taxes whatsoever. It's bad form because it's not something they actually said, or implied; and realistically, the extreme form of almost any position is bad.
I thought a strawman was a totally made up position then arguing against it. Which comes off a bit like someone having a fight with themselves. Thinking about it that is more likely on the internet forums like HN where it is easy to just comment without there really being a “conversation”
It's misrepresenting your opponent's argument, generally by exaggerating it, so that it's easy to argue against.
> Which comes off a bit like someone having a fight with themselves.
Yes, that's basically it. Inventing a related position that your opponent didn't actually take to argue with.
Like if my opponent wants a new tax for more school funding, I could be like, "well when does it end? Are we gonna buy every teacher a BMW by raising taxes 300%? I can't afford that!!" That's a strawman.
No, reductio ad absurdum is showing a position is correct because the opposite would be impossible/ridiculous. You take the opposing position to its logical conclusion, not a made up one (straw man).
I'm not sure that what Alexander was doing in that one instance nor what this author is talking about are "steelmanning". If in order to "steelman" your argument I also have to accept every point where you beg-the-question then where can there possibly be any argument?
I don't think I have to accept the argument that every fetus has an immortal soul to steelman a pro-life position. But I do however have to accept that the people making a pro-life argument are engaged in a good faith disagreement about when the state has an interest to protect the life of what is or will be one of its citizens (depending upon your definition).
> If in order to "steelman" your argument I also have to accept every point where you beg-the-question then where can there possibly be any argument?
Yes — when you’re presenting the “steelman” version of someone else’s argument, you have to use their premises.
You outline two distinct arguments in your question:
1. A secular pro-life argument
2. A religious pro-life argument
Substituting a secular for religious argument is a strawman: you’re responding not to the best form of their argument, but to another argument they didn’t make.
In the case of a religious argument, the “steelman” case would be to articulate the religious argument to the best of your ability — and then dispute it by discussing which of the premises you disagree with and why. In your example, disputing the premise fetuses have souls.
The reason for “steelman” arguments is because that allows you to directly dispute the disagreed upon premise by clearly defining it and showing how it is integral to their argument.
Ok. Feel free to conduct that exercise in a context free mindset. But at a certain point litigants are just going to disagree on some fundamental aspect of reality. I can steelman young Earth creationism but that steelman now rests upon a foundation which assumes radio isotope dating doesn't work. Which I'm not going to accept. And I'm just not going to bother arguing the other aspects with that particular point thrown as a gimme.
So we can sit around looking at our lovely steelman like it's a yard sculpture but it really hasn't done us any good.
Having defined the steelman version of their argument, you can show why radio isotope dating is a contrary fact.
Without that, you’re not demonstrating anything by yammering about radio isotopes — it’s a context free fact that can’t influence the debate.
It’s only once you have shown that their argument depends on radio isotope dating not being true that the fact radio isotope dating does work becomes relevant to a refutation. You need both their argument and a contrary fact to demonstrate a contradiction.
That’s the purpose of a steelman: to use the best version of their argument in your own argument — and so avoid the strawman fallacy when refuting their point.
Ok, so the philosophical scalpel approach is useful. I'm probably just cynical from seeing so many writers present two steelman arguments essentially to "both sides" an issue and then shrug themselves into their next article. So steelmaning is great, as long as you actually do the difficult work of making choice of what to believe or in the cases where the facts are inconclusive outline what information would actually make the difference.
You can make the broader point that governments ought to be invested in protecting human life regardless if that human is officially a citizen or not.
We are not allowed to kill tourists or other travellers.
Presumably governments can take away your citizenship, and it has been done before, but I think this shouldn't be a de facto license to kill.
I suppose secular people would argue that it is forbidden to kill them without appealing to their soul. And a secular pro-life argument would most likely revolve around the usual justification for why we don't kill other humans.
I'm agnostic and currently neutral on the abortion question. Both sides have good points, neither side is completely convincing.
I do want people to have autonomy over their bodies, and the extent to which a fetus can be considered a separate person seems like an unsolvable philosophical question to me.
Is this article’s definition of strawman argument the accepted one? I don’t think it is arguing against your opponent’s weakest point. That’s just debate. To strawman you have to misrepresent your opponent’s position and then counter your own misrepresentation.
I agree. What's even more annoying is a commenter on the blog goes on to "correct" the definition by providing several more examples which have nothing to do with strawman (voter rights, climate change). And the Captcha is broken so I can't reply there.
So what you're saying is that the author is arguing in bad faith and therefore we shouldn't trust anything they say? I think that is an entirely too unchairitable view to be taking in civil discourse, and frankly, the author deserves better.
^^^That's a strawman, I took something you didn't say, and argued against it. I did so because, you're right, the author didn't exactly use it correctly in this article, however, I want to feel important and self righteous by belittling everyone else on the internet, or sometimes in real life if I really don't like them.
I find this paragraph in the article to be, ironically, a straw man.
> But it’s not “extremely plausible” that there’s a vast conspiracy among medical researchers (many of whom stated open to the view that ivermectin has some benefit) and public health officials to perpetrate the most significant fraud in human history
Because Alexander’s actual argument is the following.
“Sometimes these people even have a specific theory for why elites are covering up ivermectin, like that pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead. This theory is extremely plausible.”
The latter does seem plausible
given the examples Alexander cites of Big Pharma doing unethical things to promote use of more expensive drugs. But I don’t know if these examples are actually legit: if the author was steelmanning Alexander, he might have explored those questions.
One way to steelmanning Alexander's argument is to assume that what he is calling extremely plausible is only the general claim "pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead [of alternatives]", and not the whole passage. This leaves plenty of room to argue that this does not make the specific claim plausible.
I am not so sure the author's response here can be steelmanned. He says "Alexander was 'steelmanning'... but in doing so he was swallowing whole a 'strawman' about pharmaceutical companies and public health officials." It is not clear, from the author's quote, that Alexander accepts the straw man. More generally, steelmanning may sometimes be done via a tacit or explicit "even assuming, for the sake of argument,..."
Exactly this. Gelmann pulls a quote out of context and omits the core of the argument as to _why_ it is extremely plausible. Alexander doesn't just leave that statement hanging, he cites other instances where this exact thing has occurred. Including a first hand account dealing with this in a clinical setting https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/11/ketamine-now-by-prescr...
If Gelmann had decided to steelman Alexander here, it would have been a productive conversation! Instead it's a squabble over the definition of "extremely plausible".
I’m pretty confused about how bad this post is considering how smart Gelman is? He’s making facile arguments even if you ignore that he hasn’t understood what either steelmaning or strawmaning are. I would say more, but other people have covered the errors in other comments, and I just wanted to explicitly note my confusion about how Dr. Gelman could have written this.
I am impressed that a professor of polisci and stats could write a whole article about strawmanning and steelmanning without realizing how badly he misunderstands what those things mean.
He could be autistic. Autists will have problems, severe problems, with grasping the concept that someone else can have different views, and they will struggle with seeing the virtues of trying to understand those views. They will, indeed, perceive it as if they're being asked to 'bend over backwards'. I'm not sure how common high functioning autism is within academia. But I don't see it as entirely implausible that a high functioning autist could also be a professor.
An argument in favour of steelmanning is that it is efficient.
Using Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement[1][2], one reason steelmanning is efficient is because if your counterparty's best or most central argument is wrong then all of it is wrong.
It's also highly likely that numerous arguments hinge on that same point. After all, creationists continue to pull out Pangloss's "noses are for eyeglasses" argument despite the original being proposed as a parody in the first place.... Having a refutation of such a point can be useful in countering future bogosity.
Your counterparty may not participate. I'd attempted to establish any credible basis for a key point in a recent discussion, to which the response was an ever-escallating set of rationales for not answering the question. I wasn't even interested specifically in winning the debate, only in whether or not there was a foundation for the claim presented. Apparently there isn't.
It's also worth considering that reason and debate are not an especially useful method for arriving at truth. This has been a challenge since the days of the philosphers and sophists. Ultimately, it was Francis Bacon who provided an alternative: scientific method based on empirical observation and hypothesis testing. Here again the focus is on key propositions or empirical behaviours from which other consequences follow.
If you're engaging with someone who acts in bad faith, or who is simply incapable of grasping, accepting, or admitting truths, steelmanning won't do much to convince them. It may be of use when you're carrying on that discussion before others, however.
3. Issuepedia itself is a useful resource for exploring didactic discussion and methods. Graham's Hierarchy is referenced on the "Hierarchy of Truth" article: https://issuepedia.org/Hierarchy_of_truth RationalWiki is another generally useful site, with a broader coverage and authorship: https://rationalwiki.org
> It's also worth considering that reason and debate are not an especially useful method for arriving at truth.
And this is why all those "XYZ is good/bad: debate me" arguments that make up so much of politics, religion and philosophy are so, so tedious. They do nothing to advance anything or find anything new.
They may be useful as a training ground. Otherwise, I largely agree.
The more I've dug into the history of philosophy, particilarly rhetoric, logic, moral philosophy, and many of the debates from religious, enlightnement, and modern philosophers, the more I'm coming to recognise ancient tropes which keep re-emerging in these debates. I'm not sure if that's deliberate or simply because the patterns are so wired into both human psychology and cultural knowledge and behaviour. But the exploration itself tends to be rather more illuminating than the debates, most of which retread not only the same ground but the same very basic methods and arguments.
It's a bit like the old saw about the difference between ten years of experience, and one year repeated ten times.
But often the counterparty's best or most central argument isn't wrong, or is a core belief which is particularly hard to undermine. Easier to defeat the detail of a tangential argument of the form "noses are for eyeglasses" than contest the creationist's core claim that it's fundamentally reasonable to believe God exists (a belief shared by many who have been persuaded the detail of creationism and especially young earth creationism is silly misunderstanding). And it's certainly more efficient to point out areas where Qanon is an incoherent mess with a long history of failed prophecy than to attempt to convince people that people in power can be trusted and definitely never have any relations with sex traffickers.
If the strongest form of an argument can be defeated with such effortless efficiency it's a waste of time delving into the weaker parts of the argument, it's probably not a very strongly held belief in the first place. Indeed people attempting "steelmanning" of more complex beliefs like the Scott Alexander invermectin example often concede the semi-strong bit to gain trust for the rest of what they have to say.
- If someone's just bullshitting you straight up, and you can find multiple instances of this by examining the more straightforward parts of their statements, then you can choose this route. This also often applies where there is no there there --- where an "argument" is simply an endless firehose of muck, as with the Qanon case.
- If the core is solid, and your goal is gaining knowledge rather than Winning Imaginary Internet Points (or playing at more substantive rhetorical games, of which there are in fact many) ... then you've won by learning something.
- If the core proves difficult to untangle or validate --- pointing this out is a valid criticism as you're putting additional valid burden of proof on the party arguing that case. Without substantiating their points, the argument is based on confusion, uncertainty, or ignorance rather than empirical merits.
- In many ways, empiricism is a Steelman argument of the form "evidence trumps theory". If there's some theoretical argument and you can show that the evidence clearly contradicts it ... I'd argue that's a form of steelmanning. Of course in reality such evidence may be tremendously hard to obtain, or not clearly decisive, or require extensive interpretation to judge.
- There are arguments which come down to statements of values. As was pointed out on the Ezra Klein podcast earlier this year, it's really hard to definitively argue for the superiority of one set of value judgements over another (though not necessarily impossible). You can point out that this is the nature of the disagreement, however. In the sense of steelmanning, this would be a case of pointing out begging the question in its correct sense --- if you presume that your argument's conclusion is a superior value, then you cannot invoke that assumption to prove the conclusion as the argument is the conclusion. I'd had a recent discussion of tenant vs. landlord rights on HN where this seemed to be the case. You can state that property rights are important, but if you're using the assumption to prove that property rights are superior to tenancy rights ... you don't have a logically sound argument.
If creationists argue based on a belief in God, yes, it's a core belief that's hard to undermine. But a lot of creationists argue in contexts relating to teaching creationism in schools. Youre not allowed to teach religion as truth in schools, so the creationists use flimsy scientific arguments, not religious ones.
Beliefs founded in faith cannot be argued or proven.
If they can be proven, they're not based in faith.
And if they are based in faith, then those beliefs themselves prove nothing, as once again, they beg the question. They merely confirm the conclusion as grounded in faith rather than some deeper argument.
Perhaps. Statistics seems like a way for us to quantify uncertainty under certain assumptions. We can formalize this, but I'm not sure that's helpful for me to help articulate my thoughts in the matter.
The Skeptic's Dictionary has a fairly lengthy definition of faith that I suppose is a suitable working definition for maybe making the question more clear:
>Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition. A non-rational belief is one that is contrary to the sum of the evidence for that belief. A belief is contrary to the sum of the evidence if there is overwhelming evidence against the belief, e.g., that the earth is flat, hollow, or is the center of the universe. A belief is also contrary to the sum of the evidence if the evidence seems equal both for and against the belief, yet one commits to one of the two or more equally supported propositions.
I'm not sure how far we can take this, but there appear to be some shades of meaning in which:
1. Faith is a wrong belief. (The earth is flat, nothing you say can convince me otherwise.)
2. Faith is a wrongly-held belief. (I should be agnostic about which face is visible in my next coin flip, but I believe it will be heads in my heart of hearts.)
It's this second point that brings out more of my question, which I suppose could be phrased, "At what point is a belief warranted?" I've seen some arguments for example that physicists require five sigma to announce a discovery (or is it six?). Is that the point at which we say that faith is no longer faith?
Really the specific limit isn't of particular interest to me, but more understanding what constitutes reasonable belief in general and how far one can take skepticism before it sinks under its own weight.
On the whole, the popularizing of "logical fallacies" has been a net negative for debate. instead of recognizing a strawman and saying "youre not accurately representing my position, heres clear evidence why", the conversation devolves into a juvenille meta-argument that adds no value.
i wonder how much more our societal attention span can shorten.
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of what steelmanning is but this isn't exactly how I know it. I'm not aware of any requirement to take or believe your opponents argument as your own.
This seems more an argument for the adage "don't be so open minded your brains fall out".
Am I the only one who found this incredibly - hard is the wrong word but - annoying to read?
If it weren't for all the parentheticals, I'd say this reads like extemporaneous speech passed through some very poor speech to text software. There's typos, missing words, spell-corrected words, and far too many unnecessary words.
Not saying I disagree with the content, which is thoughtful and worth the read, but the execution hurt the reception quite a bit.
I'm one to talk though, this comment is the most I've written for public consumption in weeks if not months, and sometimes quantity is a form of quality when it comes to writing. That being said, editing is a skill of its own.
I gave it a desultory chance, but an argument hidden amongst distracted parentheticals is not going to be a strong argument. And as I plodded along I became increasingly depressed at the low standards of the US elite academies. Such a bummer.
In regard to the points brought up in the article -- one could say there is a case for maybe what you could call "premature steelmanning" or "poorly justified steelmanning" -- meaning that somebody is asking you to see their point from their perspective when minimal information or effort is used to justify the point in the first place. Like if somebody asked you to steelman the point that bigfoot exists. You ask for some evidence and they say that you are part of some conspiracy to cover up bigfoot. It is pretty unfortunate how challenging the situation around discussion of covid related topics has become -- but does make a bunch of sense since beyond the politics, many people were dramatically impacted by covid -- so asking people to have a rational conversation around things like keeping kids at home for a long time, losing their job, being asked to behave in certain ways in public -- is super hard to do without some sort of leadership to help move things in a positive direction. But then you end up with various leaders attempting to out maneuver each other, so it is super hard to deal with the situation.
This is argument about argumentation, but it's worth examining what's wrong with the overall picture:
Empathy is obviously not empathy if you make a spectacle of bending over backwards to look empathetic. It's an insulting act of selfishness unless the other person feels they've earned it. I think Jesus said something like this, but I can't recall it directly, since I'm drunk.
To be an honest person you have to admit you're essentially selfish at the core first. To be a decent person, you have to acknowledge your feelings of empathy toward others - well, hopefully you have them. Your feelings of selfishness and empathy will always be in tension with each other.[0]
Acknowledging your selfishness means criticizing other people. Acknowledging your empathy means giving them the benefit of the doubt. Being authentic requires the ability to honestly do both in the same breath.
But being authentic/brutally honest with yourself and others, in all cases, is more important than either your own selfishness or your feelings of empathy. It outweighs them by an order of magnitude. That's what's lacking from all this discourse. Because like my mom always said, honesty's the only story that comes out the same twice. Honesty==consistency, consistency==personality, personality==autonomy. Autonomy buys you the grace and latitude to be honest and authentic. That's the virtuous loop.
This meta-discourse about whether it's more FTW to argue dishonestly with strawmen versus steel-manning just makes me go a big rubber one. It's like listening to a dickless academic argue about whether picking up women using PUA techniques should be countered as ineffectual or immoral. The answer is both, and you're a dickless academic who's missing the point.
[0](This is a philosophy I devised when I was 14 years old and stoned as fuck, but now it seems like someone has to say it.)
Your feelings of selfishness and empathy will always be in tension with each other.
uhm, no they won't, because my well-being depends on your well-being.
showing empathy is in itself a selfish act, because i want you to show empathy for me too, but i can't expect that if i am not showing empathy myself.
so there is no tension at all. the tension may be between prioritizing your needs over mine, but even if i prioritize my own needs i can and do still empathize with yours.
i can't even properly evaluate what should be prioritized without emphasizing. it is necessary to understand the consequences of prioritizing my needs over yours.
the end result is some kind of balance. how that balance looks like depends on our relationship and the nature of the conflict.
Was looking for someone who went for the moral heart, had to get past 50 comments hung up on definitions.
This whole thing is missing a trick and inverting genuine empathy. Empathy is being someone else, and this whole deal is "what if someone else was actually me". If you "steelman" someone else's stated position, you're filtering it through your values to make it more palatable to you. It's marking with a red pen, emotionally hollow.
I read a bit of the leaked supreme court roe v wade article yesterday, and had a moment of vertigo when it made sense for a second. There's a moral core there, something about consequence and family values and nosy neighbours and, yes, restricting women's freedom. Like, liberals try to make everything easy, but some things are supposed to be hard.
The title & subtitle don't seem to match the content.
The body of the article indicates the author simply doesn't want steelmanning to provide a negative incentive to present a more complete argument even if parts of it are not as strong as others. It seems reasonable that this should be avoided, but also an extremely small concern:
If people are streelmannig you, then pretty much by definition they are not going to dismiss your entire argument just because a part of it isn't as strong. If premises $A and $B are sufficient to support claim $F then presenting weaker premises $C and $D take away nothing at all while still adding some small value.
I just don't see how this is at all an issue for a group of people already engaging in productive discussion techniques. And if a reader/audience is not, then they're not going to steel man you to begin with, so it's a moot issue.
The examples provided where an argumenter "paints themselves into a corner" are example where the argumenter did a poor job of trying to make a counter claim, in one case engaging in their own strawman argument. That's on them, not the principle of charity.
And what's the alternative? The author says "take a step backward, look at what your saying to see if it makes sense." Which seems trivially obvious to the point of not really needing to be stated
It applies as a general rule.
It just seems like there's really not much of an issue here, and could instead be summed up with a single statement: Don't allow steelmanning to don't descend into commiting fallacies of your own.
I am gonna steelsraw this and make a point that the author is simply arguing for benefits of intolerance when dogmas misalign which maybe good or bad and depends entirely on one’s commitment to her dogmas
That's not unreasonable, but the author's justification for this is a cautiounary tale of self-censoring one's own arguments or descending into fallacies in the process.
Neither of these are specifically or inherently the product of steelmanning. Poor arguments can occur while using any discussion technique, and I don't see anything special about the principle of charity that requires people to be warned off of it in any way. "Don't make poor arguments while trying to understand the counter claim" seems perfectly sufficient without going to these lengths & recommend skepticism of steelmanning in general.
Trying to "steelman" a position you don't know the real arguments for is to "strawman" it with good intentions. How about asking people who actually hold the position who the best advocates for it are, and listen to them? This pretending at fairly representing an idea you disagree with is more about signaling, feigning objectivity, and ego stroking than an earnest attempt to grapple with the idea.
To better understand your point, I'd like to know what you think steelmanning is. Can I ask, why do you think steelmanning doesn't involve asking and listening?
Steelmanning is the process of imagining the "best" arguments for a position you don't hold. The term requires both that the person expressing the arguments doesn't hold them them self and that they do so intending to strengthen that position.
The meaning of the term is not in dispute. Rhetorical questions about definitions are not clever.
The meaning of the term is not in dispute, but your interpretation of it is. I’m not asking a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely interested in your answer:
why do you think steelmanning doesn't involve asking and listening?
The "see how easy it can be" gave me impression you were not, but if you are being genuine, then I apologize.
If there is a position which is novel, where there is no known advocate (either individually or as a group) to represent it, then imagining why a theoretical person might take that view can be helpful. However, this is the age of the internet, where finding people who genuinely hold the most outlandish of positions is really quite simple. Why do I need to imagine or speak on behalf of another person to present their argument for them? If they are not an adequate representative, and are merely parroting ideas, then surely they will be able to point me in the direction to the source of those ideas.
There is a lot of discussion regarding appropriation thrown around these days. I find that it's often applied to situations where empathy is very possible, and there's nothing keeping many of us from understanding other's positions. But if instead of genuinely asking them to represent their own, and feeling that my attempts to speak for them are just as sufficient, or an even better means of expressing an idea, which I freely admit I disagree with... that's some arrogant shit right there.
If one is so egotistical that they believe only they can adequately present opposing views, instead of allowing people who actually hold those views to do so, then what chance do they leave themselves to grow and learn? And that is putting aside the card stacking tactics playing at steelmanning, which is perhaps even more common.
I am not a flat Earther. I think they're wrong about reality. I can explain why I think they're wrong, but I would not presume to know why someone might or ought to be one. There is no way for me to honestly do so. Pretending like I could would not help me to convince, learn from, or relate to anyone holding said position. Merely playing at being an advocate for an idea as a thought experiment is not a heuristic that bestows enlightenment. It gives one the false impression that they understand people and ideas which they do not.
My first thought was, things have gotten so bad with public discourse, that we need a new word for arguing respectfully and in good faith, as opposed to whatever sad state of affairs now passes as "normal" discourse.
I don't see what's implausible about the medical community following orders from big pharma. Both tobacco and sugar were once promoted as healthy lifestyle even though it was patently obvious exactly the opposite were true. If a bunch of sugarcane farmers can convince doctors that eating sugar is good for you, it should be no trouble at all for one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. The author has clearly also never tried to express a controversial opinion. Social hell is absolutely real, e.g. this very post will be downvoted to oblivion and if I were stupid enough to use my real identity, I could expect to be out of a job for a really long time.
Nobody cares this much about you. In this context you would only be out of a job if you worked for "big pharma", or a sugar/tobacco company (maybe). While it is true that you simply can no longer say certain things (such as that you don't "believe" in the holocaust), I'd say this is not broadly an issue. Perhaps you feel differently, that's fair. But based on these examples it doesn't really make sense to me.
It's not because something is partially untrue or even globally misleading that it doesn't has a gist of useful information/reflection to be extractee by steelmanning.
Even if the thought that got steelmanned was totally wrong and had no useful gist, it still enable an "exploration on the mental search space" which in itself can be useful by the exercise and the byproducts it can generate.
"Do not sympathize too much with jesus because you may turn to one of his followers"
I really hate this era of discourse. It's mostly dominated by emotionally-driven americans with juvenile opinions who take twitter and facebook too seriously. A dumbed down elite making dumb meta-arguments using the emotional drivels of the most vocal but equally dumb sample of humans as input data. Meanwhile, european intellectual social commentary has either completely stopped or is hidden deep inside academic meetings and is afraid to meet the public. The UK doesnt seem to have much to offer also, and the bleak russians seem to have decided on collective suicide.
What's left? I guess i will wait for GPT-41 to write an actual intellectully challenging novel
Renaissance, Enlightenment and Modernism were famous for bringing science and reason mainstream, but they were surrounded by the Middle Ages, Counter-Reformation and Romanticism etc. These periods were surely not devoid of intellectuals making great strides, just, as you say, hidden deep inside academic meetings.
I think the stochastic pendulum is clearly thinking about slowly turning around; if it is though, it also means it is currently at an extreme.
Tend to agree with your sentiment. What are, in your opinion, three undervalued novels from the last 100 years that you would consider to be among the highest human achievements in fiction?
I didn’t know this was true for the rest of Europe but it’s certainly true for Germany. At least in the US you have interesting personalities the likes you’ll find on podcasts. On the other hand the discourse in Germany isn’t nearly as extreme. I suspect those things correlate.
I read the title and decided to strawman the author without reading further I decided the author is against steelmanning because they're a disingenuous fraud who simply wants to ruin the reputation of everybody who steel mans. Boom roasted.
1. People are often not, in fact, arguing in good faith. It's easier to see this if we look at things in hindsight, though sometimes it's super obvious even in the present. One could look at Russian state media on Ukraine as an example where trying to take their arguments at face value would have you contorting yourself into knots. This takes you further from reality, further from the truth.
2. There are often good points to be made on exactly where your opponent is weak. That they're weak on some point isn't a reason to shy away -- if the end goal is more knowledge and understanding for all, then ignoring certain aspects of an issue just because you're trying to be "nice" is a net negative.
To use #2 against myself: I'm generally pro multi-modal transportation, but it's true that car dominance has some advantages for larger families, and that the 'transition period' where you're taking away car resources but transit/walking/biking still aren't all that great is awkward. Someone arguing against my points should not just ignore these areas because they're areas of weakness for me. They're things people deserve to know about, issues that would have to be handled.
But... I mean... you're doing steelmanning with your last paragraph!
You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is!
I'm demonstrating what would be lost if someone steelmanned me in an actual argument about transportation.
> You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is!
No it isn't? Or at least, that's not how I've understood it. From how I've seen people discuss it, I thought it included avoiding attacking your opponent's weak points, not just engaging them on strong ones. I don't think we should preemptively avoid points within an issue just because our opponent is either weak or strong on them.
I have no problem looking at the good points of my opponents and even acknowledging they have some validity, but I'm not gonna avoid attacking their weak points too.
To put steelmanning in software terms: if we’re arguing about what algorithm to use to solve a certain problem, I can assume you’ll work out all the bugs in your implementation (in your example: e.g. getting capacity/speed numbers slightly wrong for some modes of transportation), and focus on the core algorithm instead (e.g. that transitional period is something that definitely needs to be addressed)
While this lady was courageous enough to be willing to put her bigotry out in the open, for every person like this, there's 10 more locals with similar sentiments who are self-aware enough to not say the quiet part out loud. This is a weak point within NIMBY arguments -- that often they don't want "those people" around, whether that be a matter of race or class -- but it's not merely a bug you can iron out, because it's actually a core motivator for their political position. It has to be, or at least should be addressed.
"Act as if your opponent isn't racist or classist" means partially detaching yourself from the reality of the situation, if the current situation is that they are, in fact, racist or classist.
In other words, steelmanning risks misrepresenting your opponent's
actual position -- exactly the same flaw as strawmanning, but in the opposite direction.
There's two things at play here. One is your political opinions vs theirs, the other is your arguments for how you should handle a specific concrete situation. Crucially, the former doesn't (edit: necessarily) change the merits of the latter.
Would you accept the thrust of their argument if it came from a different (non-racist/classist) speaker? Then their racism is just a bug you can dismiss. Focusing on it is actually a straw man, because that's not germane to the argument they're actually making!
Does the argument hinge, at its core, on unspoken racist assumptions? Then it's a fundamental part of the argument and you need to tackle it.
That's not how steelmanning is generally described. It's usually described as, "construct the best possible form of your opponent's argument." If they made some weak points in their argument, steelmanning would involve either ignoring those or reconstructing them to be stronger.
"Avoid attacking points that your opponent never made" is just the absence of strawmanning, it's not steelmanning.
> It's usually described as, "construct the best possible form of your opponent's argument." If they made some weak points in their argument, steelmanning would involve either ignoring those or reconstructing them to be stronger.
Those two sentences seem contradictory. What definition of steelmanning requires ever ignoring weak points that have been made by one’s opponent?
I think this may depend on what definition you're using, but generally people have multiple points while arguing their case, and it can make sense to drop weaker or more vulnerable points to strengthen the overall argument. Thus, the best possible form of an argument may involve ignoring or reconstructing certain points.
If someone says something vaguely racist while arguing against, say, multi-family housing, the best possible form of their argument would probably involve dropping that -- even if it's actually a significant motivation.
> the best possible form of their argument would probably involve dropping that -- even if it's actually a significant motivation
If a point is so significant, then the result of dropping it would no longer be “their argument.” Doing so would not qualify as steelmanning by any definition I’m aware of—it would be a different argument altogether.
To steelman is effectively to practice the principle of charity, by not assuming irrationality when a plausible rational view exists that fits the same arguments. But if one’s opponent has made an irrational argument, no assumption is necessary!
> I think this may depend on what definition you're using
What definition do you use? It doesn’t match how I’ve ever seen the term used.
> If a point is so significant, then the result of dropping it would no longer be “their argument.”
I think that's debatable. People do shift which points they bring up and how they frame things while still feeling that their essential argument is unchanged.
> What definition do you use? It doesn’t match how I’ve ever seen the term used.
That's probably the rub here: the idea of "best possible form of the argument" leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. I don't have some single authoritative source for my conception of steelmanning, I've just seen people use the term and I've read it explained in various places a few times.
> Steelmanning is the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it. It is the opposite of strawmanning.
> > Steelmanning involves arguing against the strongest possible version of the other side's argument, whether they made it or not.
How bizarre! I would agree that by that definition, “steelmanning” is much less attractive—not something I would never do, but certainly not a practice I would attempt to follow by default.
Suppose I argue: “When SAT-math style comparing (square root of 9) to (1 + 2), it cannot be determined which is larger, therefore the correct answer would be “D-cannot be determined”, in part because a salmon is a mammal.”
Steelmanning would be agreeing with my conclusion while disputing the incorrect salmon point via pointing out that it’s entirely irrelevant to the correctness of my overall argument, even though I directly said the incorrect thing.
Don't confuse agreement with interpretation. As soon as you are stating some hypothesis is plausible (as in the article), you are starting to agree with the hypothesis, not just interpreting it.
Also imho the author is overanalyzing the concept. For me it just means argue in good faith so you can have a fruitful debate about the matter at hand instead of a distrustful word fight. All within reason of course.