Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 131 posts

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#21

Post by zmgsabst »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #7

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 tha…

> 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.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#22

Post by twelve40 »

blablablerg wrote: post #19

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…

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.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#24

Post by ndr »

jdrc wrote: post #8

"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…

I hate it too, but in a way it's true.

"Thought contagion" is exactly how memes replicate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Memetic_lifecycle:_transm...

In that way it's dangerous to let some people (or ideas/memes) have write-access to your brain.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#26

Post by jmmcd »

jeffbee wrote: post #2

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.

Well, I've got that off my chest, I guess.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#27

Post by bruhvinston »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #7

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 tha…

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.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#28

Post by faeriechangling »

blablablerg wrote: post #19

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…

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.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#29

Post by [deleted] »

ndr wrote: post #24
jdrc wrote: post #8

"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…

I hate it too, but in a way it's true. "Thought contagion" is exactly how memes replicate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#Memetic_lifecycle:_transm... In that way it's dangerous to let some people (or ideas/memes) have write-access to your brain.

[deleted]

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#30

Post by andybak »

> 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.

Post reply on HN