Steel Manning Views and Arguments

[Sunstone]

NOTE: To 'steel man' an argument or point of view is to present the argument or view in its strongest possible formulation. One must not add anything to the argument or view that wasn't there to begin with, but without that bound, one seeks to present it in its hardest to criticize form.​

As an undergraduate in philosophy, I was taught to steel man opposing arguments. At the time I was naive enough to believe steel manning was the norm for intellectuals of all descriptions, from philosophers to scientists, from scientists to theologians, and from theologians to just about everyone else who works with ideas in more or less the same way a carpenter works with wood.

I could not have been more wrong.

The practice of steel manning arguments is no more the de fault mode for intellectuals -- especially publicly prominent intellectuals -- than serving oeuvres in a strip club. A few high-end clubs do it, but not most. The much more common practice is to to formulate the opposing argument in the weakest way possible. It is even considered intellectually honest if you do so without actually mischaracterizating it! But to intentionally formulate an opposing argument in the weakest way possible, when a stronger formulation can be legitimately had, is contemptible.

In fact, I think one of the better phrases for describing people who present opposing views and arguments in their weakest form is "intellectual dilettantes."

 

[SigurdReginson]

NOTE: To 'steel man' an argument or point of view is to present the argument or view in its strongest possible formulation. One must not add anything to the argument or view that wasn't there to begin with, but without that bound, one seeks to present it in its hardest to criticize form.​

As an undergraduate in philosophy, I was taught to steel man opposing arguments. At the time I was naive enough to believe steel manning was the norm for intellectuals of all descriptions, from philosophers to scientists, from scientists to theologians, and from theologians to just about everyone else who works with ideas in more or less the same way a carpenter works with wood.

I could not have been more wrong.

The practice of steel manning arguments is no more the de fault mode for intellectuals -- especially publicly prominent intellectuals -- than serving oeuvres in a strip club. A few high-end clubs do it, but not most. The much more common practice is to to formulate the opposing argument in the weakest way possible. It is even considered intellectually honest if you do so without actually mischaracterizating it! But to intentionally formulate an opposing argument in the weakest way possible, when a stronger formulation can be legitimately had, is contemptible.

In fact, I think one of the better phrases for describing people who present opposing views and arguments in their weakest form is "intellectual dilettantes."

Hmmm... I guess it depends on what one wants to achieve with the argument. Is it to get at the truth, or is it to win? They both have their uses depending on the setting.

 

[Sunstone]

Hmmm... I guess it depends on what one wants to achieve with the argument. Is it to get at the truth, or is it to win? They both have their uses depending on the setting.

True. I assume it is clear which of those goals I have in mind.

 

[Eyes to See]

I have come to the understanding that there are people that will argue and criticize everything to death. And these people think they are looking for truth at times, but it seems the exact opposite is happening. If one is so close-minded so as to never consider a valid piece of evidence or fact stated that is in contradiction to their preconceived prejudices and ideas, of what use is the criticism? These people are usually the most arrogant and overbearing in their assault on others who differ in beliefs to them. And often they display the very characteristics that they falsely claim the others who believe differently display.

I will give a simple recent example of this. Jehovah's Witnesses are often accused of not having fun because of not celebrating unscriptural holidays. But when I brought out the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses do not need a special unbiblical holiday to get together to celebrate, to sing, to eat together, to have fun, the very person who formerly accused the JWs of not having fun, then said they were bigots for getting together and having fun, but not sharing in the unscriptural holidays of the world (which is curious because this individual is atheist and attacks religion with a fury). That person was actually showing extreme bigotry and prejudice, and has continuously done so, even changing sides in order to continue to do it.

There was another individual here that loves to attack Jehovah's Witnesses and will jump on any bandwagon to do so, even when many times without any justification and is just outright wrong. And when shown such they do not change their view or retract their ignorant statements, or apologize. They just ignore the truth and go on with their prejudicial and critical attitude that blinds them to seeing facts.


I will give you a simple example. I recently made a thread about the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14. Now a person came into the thread and said that in Hebrew they don't count that high and that well the argument was so absurd, I don't even remember it...I wish there was a way to go back and look at my past threads, but alas that option is not available so I cannot go and just find the statement and quote it here.

In any event an opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses, who usually says stupid things out of his ire and prejudice, joined in and said, something to the effect of Ha! Look at all this reasoning from the scripture disproved easily with this statement that in Hebrew 144,000 is not written out that way or something along those lines.

Then I simply made the poster aware of the fact that Revelation is part of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

The person came back with something along the lines of his argument having to do with the Septuagint.

I left it at that and never replied further. The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures into Greek that the 1st century Jews and Christians used. It is not the Christian Greek Scriptures that were written in the first century in Greek. The entire argument of the 144,000 not being in the original Hebrew was swept away with the fact that they were not written in Hebrew originally to begin with. The people can be considerably dense in their ignorance. And usually these are the most vocal and vicious in their arguments. And sometimes it is impossible to get the blinders out of their eyes to actually see clearly. You just got to ignore them. I'd rather reason with reasonable people, than argue with critical people who aren't really interested in truth.

 

[Sunstone]

@Eyes to See, hyper-critical people are indeed prone as a group to the contemptible practice of formulating opposing arguments in their weakest form while failing to acknowledge that stronger formulation or formulations can also be made, and then implying or declaring themselves 'victorious' -- as if such were even a possibility, given they failed to address the stronger formulations.

However, I have known -- and known well -- a handful of such people, and each case they were wrestling with demons of their own that seemed to me to be causing their contemptible behavior. One, for instance, had been verbally abused by her father as a child. Seems she turned to hyper-criticism as some sort of internalization of his abuse.

Their demons do not change or alter their reprehensible behavior, but our knowledge of them might move us to compassion.

Perhaps chronically annoyed compassion, but still compassion.

 

[Eyes to See]

@Eyes to See, hyper-critical people are indeed prone as a group to the contemptible practice of formulating opposing arguments in their weakest form while failing to acknowledge that stronger formulation or formulations can also be made, and then implying or declaring themselves 'victorious' -- as if such were even a possibility, given they failed to address the stronger formulations.

However, I have known -- and known well -- a handful of such people, and each case they were wrestling with demons of their own that seemed to me to be causing their contemptible behavior. One, for instance, had been verbally abused by her father as a child. Seems she turned to hyper-criticism as some sort of internalization of his abuse.

Their demons do not change or alter their reprehensible behavior, but our knowledge of them might move us to compassion.

Perhaps chronically annoyed compassion, but still compassion.

Well put. It shows insight into why a person may act the way they do, and insight slows down anger.

A good statement indeed

 

[Sunstone]

Well put. It shows insight into why a person may act the way they do, and insight slows down anger.

A good statement indeed

Thanks. After I wrote that, I remembered an expression some of my Christian friends use. "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Seems fitting here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

NOTE: To 'steel man' an argument or point of view is to present the argument or view in its strongest possible formulation. One must not add anything to the argument or view that wasn't there to begin with, but without that bound, one seeks to present it in its hardest to criticize form.​

As an undergraduate in philosophy, I was taught to steel man opposing arguments. At the time I was naive enough to believe steel manning was the norm for intellectuals of all descriptions, from philosophers to scientists, from scientists to theologians, and from theologians to just about everyone else who works with ideas in more or less the same way a carpenter works with wood.

I could not have been more wrong.

The practice of steel manning arguments is no more the de fault mode for intellectuals -- especially publicly prominent intellectuals -- than serving oeuvres in a strip club. A few high-end clubs do it, but not most. The much more common practice is to to formulate the opposing argument in the weakest way possible. It is even considered intellectually honest if you do so without actually mischaracterizating it! But to intentionally formulate an opposing argument in the weakest way possible, when a stronger formulation can be legitimately had, is contemptible.

In fact, I think one of the better phrases for describing people who present opposing views and arguments in their weakest form is "intellectual dilettantes."

I have at times given debaters the benefit of the doubt of one or more of their obviously false claims and all that has done is to have them say "Oh you admit that this is true." Sadly one all too often is almost forced to drop to the level of one's opponents.

 

[Sunstone]

I have at times given debaters the benefit of the doubt of one or more of their obviously false claims and all that has done is to have them say "Oh you admit that this is true."

I've seen that myself. Only I have never seen it done by anyone I respected as a thinker.

Sadly one all too often is almost forced to drop to the level of one's opponents.

Speaking in general, I think that is sadly sometimes true. Fight fire with fire, and all that. But I try not to 'sink to the level of my opponents' in intellectual arguments. Just knife fights.

 

[joe1776]

As an undergraduate in philosophy, I was taught to steel man opposing arguments...

I never heard the term before but the concept makes sense to me. If we don't understand the most persuasive argument our debate opponent can make; and if we can't counter it persuasively, maybe we should change our mind.

 

[Sunstone]

I never heard the term before but the concept makes sense to me. If we don't understand the most persuasive argument our debate opponent can make; and if we can't counter it persuasively, maybe we should change our mind.

Well said!

In a philosophy class -- at least one with the professors I used to know -- the perfect technique would be to lay out all of ways the opposing argument could be formulated from weakest to strongest, then critique each in succession. (If you could do that well, you got an "A". But if you only critiqued the weakest formulations, the best you could expect was a "C".) However, that's perfection. Can't really expect people here to have the time for it. So I'm content if they just lay out the strongest formulation, and skip over the weakest.

 

[shunyadragon]

@Eyes to See, hyper-critical people are indeed prone as a group to the contemptible practice of formulating opposing arguments in their weakest form while failing to acknowledge that stronger formulation or formulations can also be made, and then implying or declaring themselves 'victorious' -- as if such were even a possibility, given they failed to address the stronger formulations.

However, I have known -- and known well -- a handful of such people, and each case they were wrestling with demons of their own that seemed to me to be causing their contemptible behavior. One, for instance, had been verbally abused by her father as a child. Seems she turned to hyper-criticism as some sort of internalization of his abuse.

Their demons do not change or alter their reprehensible behavior, but our knowledge of them might move us to compassion.

Perhaps chronically annoyed compassion, but still compassion.

I believe the hyper-critical aggressive is a personality not suited to debate or a worthwhile dialogue.

To me a debate is more a short term prepared presentation of contrasting views followed by one or more responses and followed by concluding arguments. The dialogue argument may follow a more protracted back and forth dialogue with multiple individuals and very often no conclusion. My approach varies from simple dialogue to understand different perspectives, to yes, 'strong man' strategies depending on the circumstances.

 

[Heyo]

NOTE: To 'steel man' an argument or point of view is to present the argument or view in its strongest possible formulation. One must not add anything to the argument or view that wasn't there to begin with, but without that bound, one seeks to present it in its hardest to criticize form.​

It takes two to tango. Steel manning only works if your interlocutor is working with you. To represent her/his argument in the strongest possible form, s/he has to be willing to give a coherent, strong argument. Coherent arguments are good for dissecting intellectually but they make bad political slogans or appeals to emotions.
Lamenting the lack of steel-manned arguments may only reveal that there never was anything but fluff. You can't steel-man fluff.

 

[Sunstone]

It takes two to tango. Steel manning only works if your interlocutor is working with you. To represent her/his argument in the strongest possible form, s/he has to be willing to give a coherent, strong argument.

I can only agree to an extent. If I had the time and inclination, I believe I could -- say, for example -- present a Cartesian argument for the existence of deity, demonstrate that it was open to at least two or three interpretations or formulations ranging from weak to strong, and critique each in turn -- without even once seeking or needing the cooperation of the dead man himself.

You can't steel-man fluff.

That much I agree with.

 

[Sunstone]

It takes two to tango. Steel manning only works if your interlocutor is working with you. To represent her/his argument in the strongest possible form, s/he has to be willing to give a coherent, strong argument. Coherent arguments are good for dissecting intellectually but they make bad political slogans or appeals to emotions.
Lamenting the lack of steel-manned arguments may only reveal that there never was anything but fluff. You can't steel-man fluff.

Re-reading your argument, I see you were making a better point than I gave you credit for. My apologies. Yes, of course, you cannot steel man fluff. At least not in the sense of perfect it. But to perfect an imperfect argument would not be intellectually honest to begin with. In my view, Steel Manning an argument should stop short of improving upon it. It's just presenting it as best it can be presented.

 

[Heyo]

I must disagree. If I had the time and inclination, I believe I could -- say, for example -- present a Cartesian argument for the existence of deity, demonstrate that it was open to at least two or three interpretations or formulations ranging from weak to strong, and critique each in turn -- without even once seeking or needing the cooperation of the dead man himself.

When your interlocutor is dead, you have little chance to get an affirmation for your interpretation. So, yes, you are right for the case of dealing with an argument.

I was referring to debates with real and alive interlocutors. Steel-manning their argument involves getting affirmation of an interpretation.
Here on RF we rarely argue with dead people.

 

[Sunstone]

Here on RF we rarely argue with dead people.

You're not including clinically brain dead, are you?

 

[Heyo]

You're not including clinically brain dead, are you?

Answering that truthfully would get me a (deserved) warning, so I don't.

 

[shunyadragon]

Re-reading your argument, I see you were making a better point than I gave you credit for. My apologies. Yes, of course, you cannot steel man fluff. At least not in the sense of perfect it. But to perfect an imperfect argument would not be intellectually honest to begin with. In my view, Steel Manning an argument should stop short of improving upon it. It's just presenting it as best it can be presented.

Some the comments on debates and arguments: (1) Become knowledgeable of your opponents arguments and background of the subject. (2) Acknowledge the limits of subjective and anecdotal knowledge and 'beliefs' Avoid 'steel manning here.' (3) Use empathic reflections acknowledging your opponents knowledge, beliefs, views, position, and when there is agreement.

 

[joe1776]

Well said!

In a philosophy class -- at least one with the professors I used to know -- the perfect technique would be to lay out all of ways the opposing argument could be formulated from weakest to strongest, then critique each in succession. (If you could do that well, you got an "A". But if you only critiqued the weakest formulations, the best you could expect was a "C".) However, that's perfection. Can't really expect people here to have the time for it. So I'm content if they just lay out the strongest formulation, and skip over the weakest.

The class you describe sounds like a useful approach to instruction on critical thinking. I'm of the opinion that debate should provide the framework for such instruction. I'm skeptical of the value in usual way critical thinking is taught.