2 ms·
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 demons
by zmgsabst 5y ago
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.
- DubiousPusher 5y agoOk, so the philosophical scalpel approach is useful. I'm probably just cynical from seeing so many writers present two steelman arguments essentially to "both sides" an issue and then shrug themselves into their next article. So steelmaning is great, as long as you actually do the difficult work of making choice of what to believe or in the cases where the facts are inconclusive outline what information would actually make the difference.