Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”
An argument in favour of steelmanning is that it is <i>efficient</i>.<p>Using Paul Graham&#x27;s hierarchy of disagreement[1][2], one reason steelmanning is efficient is because <i>if your counterparty&#x27;s best or most central argument is wrong</i> then <i>all</i> of it is wrong.<p>It&#x27;s also highly likely that numerous arguments hinge on that same point.  After all, creationists continue to pull out Pangloss&#x27;s &quot;noses are for eyeglasses&quot; argument despite the original being proposed as a parody in the first place....  Having a refutation of such a point can be useful in countering future bogosity.<p>Your counterparty may not participate.  I&#x27;d attempted to establish any credible basis for a key point in a recent discussion, to which the response was an ever-escallating set of rationales for not answering the question.  I wasn&#x27;t even interested specifically in winning the debate, only in whether or not there was a foundation for the claim presented.  Apparently there isn&#x27;t.<p>It&#x27;s also worth considering that reason and debate are not an especially useful method for arriving at <i>truth</i>.  This has been a challenge since the days of the philosphers and sophists.  Ultimately, it was Francis Bacon who provided an alternative:  scientific method based on empirical observation and hypothesis testing.  Here again the focus is on key propositions or empirical behaviours from which other consequences follow.<p>If you&#x27;re engaging with someone who acts in bad faith, or who is simply incapable of grasping, accepting, or admitting truths, steelmanning won&#x27;t do much to convince them.  It <i>may</i> be of use when you&#x27;re carrying on that discussion before others, however.<p>________________________________<p>Notes:<p>1. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;disagree.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;disagree.html</a><p>2. Diagram:  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;issuepedia.org&#x2F;File:Graham&#x27;s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;issuepedia.org&#x2F;File:Graham&#x27;s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreeme...</a> [3]<p>3. Issuepedia itself is a useful resource for exploring didactic discussion and methods.  Graham&#x27;s Hierarchy is referenced on the &quot;Hierarchy of Truth&quot; article:  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;issuepedia.org&#x2F;Hierarchy_of_truth" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;issuepedia.org&#x2F;Hierarchy_of_truth</a>  RationalWiki is another generally useful site, with a broader coverage and authorship:  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rationalwiki.org" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rationalwiki.org</a>