5 ms·

There seems to be two subtly different definitions of steel manning. The first one, and the one I think should always be done, is to engage with the best argum

There seems to be two subtly different definitions of steel manning. The first one, and the one I think should always be done, is to engage with the best argument that has actually been presented by someone holding the opposing view. The second version, and this one I don't fully understand, seems to involve defining your own strongest argument for the other view. This version, in my experience, can go a few directions. Most often it turns into a more elaborate version of strawmanning ("and so we see, even with this strongest possible argument it still fails!"). It can also be a way toward compromise ("so if you're right, this much more limited form of my proposal still has value"). Or it can go to talking past each other (refuting vegetarianism without touching on the suffering of animals because you don't care about that, but many vegetarians do). The first version is a requisite for truly debating rather than sloganeering. The second version is a mixed bag.

dwringer 4y ago
I think you've nailed why I've always felt slightly uncomfortable with "steelmanning" and I vastly prefer the alternative mentioned in the above rebuttal, "benefit of the doubt". So often "steelmanning" is indeed just another form of strawman, because at some level it's usually easy to misunderstand the perspective from which someone else is arguing (often the whole reason for getting into a heated debate in the first place). Giving someone the benefit of the doubt doesn't require any (possibly false) projection of having mutual understanding, but simply an attitude that "I may not understand it, but your argument is probably just as valid as mine". IMHO the real way to oppose the strawman fallacy or any other is simply to argue coherently in good faith, not to adopt a new potential fallacy on principle.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
I think the second form is supposed to be a superset; you try to find all the best arguments you can for every position. That includes the ones other people are using, but if you can think of a better case to make for them then you should answer that as well. In no event should you ever say "you're arguing X but Y is a better argument and that's false so you're wrong" without also answering X, but "you're arguing X, which is wrong because X', but a better argument for your position is Y" is still legitimate.

dwringer 4y ago

I think you've nailed why I've always felt slightly uncomfortable with "steelmanning" and I vastly prefer the alternative mentioned in the above rebuttal, "benefit of the doubt". So often "steelmanning" is indeed just another form of strawman, because at some level it's usually easy to misunderstand the perspective from which someone else is arguing (often the whole reason for getting into a heated debate in the first place). Giving someone the benefit of the doubt doesn't require any (possibly false) projection of having mutual understanding, but simply an attitude that "I may not understand it, but your argument is probably just as valid as mine". IMHO the real way to oppose the strawman fallacy or any other is simply to argue coherently in good faith, not to adopt a new potential fallacy on principle.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

I think the second form is supposed to be a superset; you try to find all the best arguments you can for every position. That includes the ones other people are using, but if you can think of a better case to make for them then you should answer that as well. In no event should you ever say "you're arguing X but Y is a better argument and that's false so you're wrong" without also answering X, but "you're arguing X, which is wrong because X', but a better argument for your position is Y" is still legitimate.