3 ms·

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

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.

kragen 5y ago
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.
- twelve40 5y ago
  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.
  - kragen 5y ago
    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.
robbedpeter 5y ago
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.

kragen 5y ago

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.

twelve40 5y ago
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.
- kragen 5y ago
  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.

robbedpeter 5y ago

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.