5 ms·

> It's usually described as, "construct the best possible form of your opponent's argument." If they made some weak points in their argument, steelmanning would

by anjbe 4y ago

> It's usually described as, "construct the best possible form of your opponent's argument." If they made some weak points in their argument, steelmanning would involve either ignoring those or reconstructing them to be stronger. Those two sentences seem contradictory. What definition of steelmanning requires ever ignoring weak points that have been made by one’s opponent?

TulliusCicero 4y ago
I think this may depend on what definition you're using, but generally people have multiple points while arguing their case, and it can make sense to drop weaker or more vulnerable points to strengthen the overall argument. Thus, the best possible form of an argument may involve ignoring or reconstructing certain points. If someone says something vaguely racist while arguing against, say, multi-family housing, the best possible form of their argument would probably involve dropping that -- even if it's actually a significant motivation.
- anjbe 4y ago
  > the best possible form of their argument would probably involve dropping that -- even if it's actually a significant motivation If a point is so significant, then the result of dropping it would no longer be “their argument.” Doing so would not qualify as steelmanning by any definition I’m aware of—it would be a different argument altogether. To steelman is effectively to practice the principle of charity, by not assuming irrationality when a plausible rational view exists that fits the same arguments. But if one’s opponent has made an irrational argument, no assumption is necessary! > I think this may depend on what definition you're using What definition do you use? It doesn’t match how I’ve ever seen the term used.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    > If a point is so significant, then the result of dropping it would no longer be “their argument.” I think that's debatable. People do shift which points they bring up and how they frame things while still feeling that their essential argument is unchanged. > What definition do you use? It doesn’t match how I’ve ever seen the term used. That's probably the rub here: the idea of "best possible form of the argument" leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. I don't have some single authoritative source for my conception of steelmanning, I've just seen people use the term and I've read it explained in various places a few times. In my defense, here's a source that agrees with my conception: https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning > Steelmanning involves arguing against the strongest possible version of the other side's argument, whether they made it or not. And here's a definition that's rather ambiguous: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning > Steelmanning is the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it. It is the opposite of strawmanning.
    - anjbe 4y ago
      > In my defense, here's a source that agrees with my conception: https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning > > Steelmanning involves arguing against the strongest possible version of the other side's argument, whether they made it or not. How bizarre! I would agree that by that definition, “steelmanning” is much less attractive—not something I would never do, but certainly not a practice I would attempt to follow by default.
sokoloff 4y ago
Suppose I argue: “When SAT-math style comparing (square root of 9) to (1 + 2), it cannot be determined which is larger, therefore the correct answer would be “D-cannot be determined”, in part because a salmon is a mammal.” Steelmanning would be agreeing with my conclusion while disputing the incorrect salmon point via pointing out that it’s entirely irrelevant to the correctness of my overall argument, even though I directly said the incorrect thing.

by anjbe 4y ago

TulliusCicero 4y ago

I think this may depend on what definition you're using, but generally people have multiple points while arguing their case, and it can make sense to drop weaker or more vulnerable points to strengthen the overall argument. Thus, the best possible form of an argument may involve ignoring or reconstructing certain points. If someone says something vaguely racist while arguing against, say, multi-family housing, the best possible form of their argument would probably involve dropping that -- even if it's actually a significant motivation.

anjbe 4y ago
> the best possible form of their argument would probably involve dropping that -- even if it's actually a significant motivation If a point is so significant, then the result of dropping it would no longer be “their argument.” Doing so would not qualify as steelmanning by any definition I’m aware of—it would be a different argument altogether. To steelman is effectively to practice the principle of charity, by not assuming irrationality when a plausible rational view exists that fits the same arguments. But if one’s opponent has made an irrational argument, no assumption is necessary! > I think this may depend on what definition you're using What definition do you use? It doesn’t match how I’ve ever seen the term used.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  > If a point is so significant, then the result of dropping it would no longer be “their argument.” I think that's debatable. People do shift which points they bring up and how they frame things while still feeling that their essential argument is unchanged. > What definition do you use? It doesn’t match how I’ve ever seen the term used. That's probably the rub here: the idea of "best possible form of the argument" leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. I don't have some single authoritative source for my conception of steelmanning, I've just seen people use the term and I've read it explained in various places a few times. In my defense, here's a source that agrees with my conception: https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning > Steelmanning involves arguing against the strongest possible version of the other side's argument, whether they made it or not. And here's a definition that's rather ambiguous: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning > Steelmanning is the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it. It is the opposite of strawmanning.
  - anjbe 4y ago
    > In my defense, here's a source that agrees with my conception: https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning > > Steelmanning involves arguing against the strongest possible version of the other side's argument, whether they made it or not. How bizarre! I would agree that by that definition, “steelmanning” is much less attractive—not something I would never do, but certainly not a practice I would attempt to follow by default.

sokoloff 4y ago

Suppose I argue: “When SAT-math style comparing (square root of 9) to (1 + 2), it cannot be determined which is larger, therefore the correct answer would be “D-cannot be determined”, in part because a salmon is a mammal.” Steelmanning would be agreeing with my conclusion while disputing the incorrect salmon point via pointing out that it’s entirely irrelevant to the correctness of my overall argument, even though I directly said the incorrect thing.