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.
Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
11–20 of 131 posts
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#12Am 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.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#13I don't think that steelmanning a position you're arguing against is unfair or dismissive of that argument's opponents.
> Alexander was “steelmanning” and bending over backward to understand the position... but in doing so he was swallowing whole a “strawman”...
It's only "swallowing whole" if you actually believe the argument, not merely contemplate it.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#14"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 s…
It all goes in waves.
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.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#15"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 s…
Dude Finnegans Wake is waiting for you. It’s right there.
No need to pray to god (GPT-41) for enlightenment. It’s already all around you.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#16I'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 tha…
What Scott is doing there is a hyper-advanced blogging technique called "making a joke" and he's using hyperbole to do it.
You're right. I misrepresented his work here and edited my comment as appropriate.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#17I 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 clear…
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.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#18Perhaps 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".
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#19Steelmanning 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.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#20Am 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 executi…
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.