Excellent points. I’ve never been a huge fan of steelmanning. A couple more:
People talk as if steelmanning is inherently a virtue, but in practice they’re selective about what they steelman. You won’t see many steelmannings of Young Earth Creationism around these parts—or even plain vanilla theism. If people are going to steelman, it would be nice for them to be more up-front about why they chose to steelman this particular argument (or when they’re telling someone else “hey why aren’t you steelmanning the person you’re attacking,” be upfront about what that particular argument deserves steelmanning.
If you choose which arguments to steelman more or less at random, or for bad reasons, it seems like it’s a violation of privileging the hypothesis.
What would steelmanning Young Earth Creationism even look like? Young Earth Creationism is already the playdoughman* version of Creationism. If you steelman it, it wouldn’t be Young Earth anymore.
*If I’m never remembered for anything else in the rationalosphere, I would like to be known as the creator of the term “playdoughmanning”.
If I’m never remembered for anything else in the rationalosphere, I would like to be known as the creator of the term “playdoughmanning”.
Please stop with the prismatticmanning of tortured neologisms. The ensuing syllabilistic explosion might pose a memetic hazard (Great Filter = Tower of Babble).
It would be amusing if the single primary reason that the universe is not buzzing with life and civilization is that any sufficiently advanced society develops terminology and jargon too complex to be comprehensible, and inevitably collapses because of that.
What would steelmanning Young Earth Creationism even look like? Young Earth Creationism is already the playdoughman* version of Creationism. If you steelman it, it wouldn’t be Young Earth anymore.
I don’t dispute this, except that this is also how I feel about some of the views some other people in the rationalist community think deserve to be steelmanned.
Indeed, is there ever a case where it isn’t at least plausible that the steelman version of view X wouldn’t be view X anymore?
Both points—the lack of consistency, and privileging the hypothesis.
(In fairness, it’s more than “tribal affliliations”. There are probably all sorts of biases creating this particular danger in being half a rationalist.)
Excellent points. I’ve never been a huge fan of steelmanning. A couple more:
People talk as if steelmanning is inherently a virtue, but in practice they’re selective about what they steelman. You won’t see many steelmannings of Young Earth Creationism around these parts—or even plain vanilla theism. If people are going to steelman, it would be nice for them to be more up-front about why they chose to steelman this particular argument (or when they’re telling someone else “hey why aren’t you steelmanning the person you’re attacking,” be upfront about what that particular argument deserves steelmanning.
If you choose which arguments to steelman more or less at random, or for bad reasons, it seems like it’s a violation of privileging the hypothesis.
What would steelmanning Young Earth Creationism even look like? Young Earth Creationism is already the playdoughman* version of Creationism. If you steelman it, it wouldn’t be Young Earth anymore.
*If I’m never remembered for anything else in the rationalosphere, I would like to be known as the creator of the term “playdoughmanning”.
Please stop with the prismatticmanning of tortured neologisms. The ensuing syllabilistic explosion might pose a memetic hazard (Great Filter = Tower of Babble).
It would be amusing if the single primary reason that the universe is not buzzing with life and civilization is that any sufficiently advanced society develops terminology and jargon too complex to be comprehensible, and inevitably collapses because of that.
?Que?
That’s what the Great Filter is, no?
I don’t dispute this, except that this is also how I feel about some of the views some other people in the rationalist community think deserve to be steelmanned.
Indeed, is there ever a case where it isn’t at least plausible that the steelman version of view X wouldn’t be view X anymore?
http://squid314.livejournal.com/327646.html
Aliens Did It? Seems to be used in that capacity sometimes.
That’s a real view so weak it resembles a strawman of a real belief, yes?
Yes, that would be tribal affiliations showing. I always assumed the cure for this was more steelmanning...
Which part? Is lack of interest in steel manning YEC just a sign of tribal affiliations?
Both points—the lack of consistency, and privileging the hypothesis.
(In fairness, it’s more than “tribal affliliations”. There are probably all sorts of biases creating this particular danger in being half a rationalist.)