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

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#111

Post by faeriechangling »

newbamboo wrote: post #95
roenxi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’ve absolutely seen a narrative along the lines of “don’t take the leaky mRNA vax with it’s dangerous spike proteins, make ivermectin and vitamin D”

I’ve also seen pro-vaccine pro-ivermectin narrative, but all the same.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#112

Post by zamadatix »

Traster wrote: post #59

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…

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.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#113

Post by zmgsabst »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #108
zmgsabst wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 argu…

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 thro…

Yes — it has:

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.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#114

Post by jfray2k22 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #36

> “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…

I thought that was reductio ab absdurdum?

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#115

Post by lupire »

drdeca wrote: post #4
polka_haunts_us wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don’t understand your explanation for the reason for your comment.

Polka is ironically cheaply insulting Jeff because Polka believes thet Jeff didn't steelman Gelman's argument and instead went for a cheap insult.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#116

Post by lupire »

andrewclunn wrote: post #73

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.

> How about asking people who actually hold the position who the best advocates for it are, and listen to them

Because those advocates aren't here?

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#118

Post by jamesrom »

andrewclunn wrote: post #98
jamesrom wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pos…

I’d like to steelman this. Let me know if this adequately summarises your arguments:

1. Steelmanning is a practice in arrogance and egotism because it makes the assumption you already know all of your interlocutor’s arguments.

2. Some arguments are not worth steelmanning (eg flat earth) because it can be refuted without having to sympathise with your interlocutor’s position.

I just want to make sure I have a clear understanding of your points.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#119

Post by dredmorbius »

Jiro wrote: post #99
notahacker wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#120

Post by travisjungroth »

jfray2k22 wrote: post #114
TulliusCicero wrote: post #36

> “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…

I thought that was reductio ab absdurdum?

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).
Post reply on HN