No post body was provided.
Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
91–100 of 131 posts
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 iver…
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…
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.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#93An 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 de…
> 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.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#94It'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.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 someon…
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!
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
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? (see how easy it can be)
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. EDIT - typo fixed.
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?
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#97The 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?
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. EDIT - typo fixed.
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.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#99An 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 de…
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…
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.
Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.