A new theory of proof?
Maybe I'm not the first to propose this. I haven't heard of it before. The idea is challenging each other to steel man each other's position.
If I can steel man your position and it's foundation, as good as if I believed it myself, yet not accept it, that should give you pause.
If you can't steel man me in return, my position AND it's foundation, that should give you pause.
If neither side can steel man the other, there may be no hope.
But if one can steel man the other, and not vice versa, I think this may be a good way to establish at least some kind of victory. It would rely on each side being honest if the other succeeded in steel manning. I think this wouldn't be a problem, as being understood is something most of us like and would feel some rapport with the other as a result, so be comfortable admitting they have been steel manned.
While this doesn't automatically indicate that the person who couldn't steel man their opponent is wrong, it at least warrants telling such a person to study their opponents position more before trying to argue against it.
If anyone is interested I'd like to have a steel man competition with a materialist, myself being an idealist.
Cheers
If I can steel man your position and it's foundation, as good as if I believed it myself, yet not accept it, that should give you pause.
If you can't steel man me in return, my position AND it's foundation, that should give you pause.
If neither side can steel man the other, there may be no hope.
But if one can steel man the other, and not vice versa, I think this may be a good way to establish at least some kind of victory. It would rely on each side being honest if the other succeeded in steel manning. I think this wouldn't be a problem, as being understood is something most of us like and would feel some rapport with the other as a result, so be comfortable admitting they have been steel manned.
While this doesn't automatically indicate that the person who couldn't steel man their opponent is wrong, it at least warrants telling such a person to study their opponents position more before trying to argue against it.
If anyone is interested I'd like to have a steel man competition with a materialist, myself being an idealist.
Cheers
Comments (53)
Steel manning won’t prove the other wrong because they may interpret their inability to understand your position as a result of faulty reasoning on your part.. They can say your position is incoherent.
I’m neither a materialist nor an idealist, but I’m game.
Name one immaterial object and name one thing you know for certain doesn't exist.
The idea of immaterial objects and one sided coins.
I have no idea what "steel man" means in this context.
:ok:
So, I rephrase your argument as a way of putting myself in your shoes?
Yes, kind of like a double agent. Instead of exploding their argument you improve it. The OP may have something more specific in mind. I'm just giving my take on it. Anything to counter the bias of wanting to win an argument.
Thanks..
If I understand what you are saying, this has been around forever in law schools. I've never heard the term "steel man" though.
One should always try to be a theoretical advocate for the opposition. Professors will often assign a student to a side, whether the student agrees with that side or not. The student must then put on zealous advocacy for that side. I've watched it change minds. I've also seen an opponent make a better case, and show a better understanding of his opposition than his opposition does. On this very forum I have, in the past, asked an opponent to please make my case for me just so I knew he understood what I was saying. He declined.
Steelman is a derivative of strawman as I understand it.
Well they need to question the parts that don't make sense to them until they can form a steel man. Even if the position is incoherent, it should at least have a faux-coherency that they can express. There is going to be a reason they believe, even if it's not good, you should be able to see how they got tricked and why the trick has a convincing allure. If they won't bother to be flexible enough to grasp where the other is coming from, then they lose, and the audience or moderator can vote on this. Of course a close minded person won't admit it
Quoting TheMadFool
How might I distinguish a material object from an immaterial object? We have to give a coherent definition of 'material' and 'object'. Objects in our dreams are experienced virtually identically to objects in our waking world, would you agree? I guess I could say any or every object in my dreams are, ultimately, immaterial. And is there a difference between dream objects and other objects? Again, what exactly do we mean by 'object'?
To your second question. I know I exist, I don't know that anything else exists. At best I may be able to say anything that is self-contradictory
doesn't exist.
Quoting Cheshire
I don't see the need to over exaggerate the power of their argument. I mean being charitable enough to express their point of view as well as you reasonably can. For example, maybe their argument isn't horrible, but they aren't expressing it well, so you express their argument in a clear way...rather than focussing on how it is poorly expressed.
I agree that the best thing may be to tear down one's own arguments though. The Karl popper thing is ok I guess. I prefer to have some structure Quoting T Clark
I'm saying we should make sure we understand the other before we argue against them, and encourage the other to demonstrate they understand us before we try to defend against their straw man version of our argument.Quoting James Riley
I think it's great for the mind to stretch beyond it's prejudice and bias. Often there may not seem to be a clear answer once one has honestly and vigorously argue from both sides of a position.
It also helps "get down to the nut" and dispense with all the noise, spin, distraction and irrelevant "distinctions without a difference." Once you are down to the nut, argument over that nut becomes WAY more productive.
I’d throw out Popper in favor of Kuhn, abandon the idea that we’re aiming to mirror an independent truth , and instead view both positions as valid but pragmatically useful in different ways. To choose one over the other is to make trade-offs in usefulness. The steel man approach may be useful in showing that one side is unable to comprehend the other’s position well enough to pragmatically compare it with their own.
I’m not talking about when the other person’s position really is incoherent. I’m saying when we disagree with someone’s point of view, it is often because the worldview grounding that position is incomprehensible to us. We then have no choice e to see it as either an outdated version of our own position or incoherent.
Good lord, why does everyone miss the absolutely most central feature of differences in scientific theories, political positions , ethical schemes? You make a colossal mistake in not recognizing that grasping where the other is coming from is the single most difficult thing to do. 99% of the threads on this form concerning racism, gender politics, rationality vs irrationality , logic vs emotion , morality in general and scientific progress would not exist if people realized the monumental difficulty of seeing the world from another person’s perspective rather than impugning the other’s motives ( they’re lazy, deliberately misreading my position , ‘not bothering to be flexible’, ‘close-minded’, racist, emotional, irrational, indoctrinated , lying , etc ). The reason foe the enormous difficulty in achieving this empathy is that worldviews are extremely complex and therefore only can change slowly. Most don’t even have a way to recognize that they operate on the basis. of worldviews. Popper himself didn’t realize it , and empirical scientist , being realists for the most part, still tend to think of evidence as ‘out there’ rather than an interpretative product of worldviews.
To to be clear, I’m not talking about disputes over relatively minor features of a scientific model. These can certainly b lead to both sides coming to see the other side’s argument. But as soon as we find ourselves in the terrain of abstract ideas , political principles , religious and philosophical concepts , in almost all cases incomprehension of the others views will predominate but be masked by accusations of bad or lazy intent.
I've got 99 problems with this; the first being I'm a Popper fan boy from hell. Assuming anything about a position before hearing it seems to be making unnecessary assumptions. Choosing one over the other is how evolution functions. To decide not to choose 1 or neither; again at the onset seems like adopting a blind assumption. Discussing the usefulness of an unknown also seems suspect. I still think we're in a type of competition of sorts the way it is phrased.
Are you suggesting we prove the opposition doesn't understand what we are talking about well enough to assert we are wrong? Is this the course being navigated?
I think this is reasonable.
Yes, we prove it to ourselves. Then we can stop wasting our time focusing on surface details of our model ( which is like arguing biblical verses without knowing through what perspective of faith the other is reading the bible ) and try and make its deeper plumbing understandable to the other.
Subjective proof is pretty cheap in the world. Have you ever considered an objective argument where the goal is to discover what other fact or matter must also be in disagreement. It forces the process through a lateral flow of logic toward agreement regarding a disagreement.
Objective proof is an illusion, since the object must be interpreted via language and there is no intersubjective translation manual, so say Quine, Putnam, Sellers and Davidson and Rorty. For most limited practical
purposes within scientific and technical domains, such issues are hidden, and we can proceeds as though the object were identical for all to potentially see. but they become major obstacles in the social sciences and philosophy, where the subjective basis of all ‘objects’ becomes apparent .
Yeah, I'm using it in a relative sense. The secondary goal would be searching for a point of agreement that is itself expected to be a point of disagreement if done correctly. The parties are no longer out to prove each other is correct rather deviated at the same logical point. So, objective or less bias whichever you prefer.
So a triangulation on an inter-subjectively negotiated point of intersection? Sounds very hermeneutic.
Well put. It's been a hard sell.
To steelman an argument is to present the argument in the best possible formulation. In a sense it's presenting your opponents argument in an even stronger manner than he or she would state it.
The idea being that once you give the best possible version of such an argument, you can proceed to show why it is defective, even when presented in this manner.
Some of the issues you raise seem like waypoints that should've already been passed to discuss materialism vs idealism. You know, like what "object" and "material" mean.
Anyway, you bring up an important topic in this debate - dreams, by extension the mental phenomenon known as hallucination. Granted that as the great idealist George Berkeley claimed, "esse est percipi" (to exist is to be perceived), dreams & hallucinations demonstrate that,
1. To be perceived is to exist is false.
Returning to Berkeley's statement, it implies,
2. to not be perceived is to not exist. (note this statement).
Coming to what "immaterial" means, off the top of my head I can say, to be material is to be perceived. That means,
3. To not be perceived is to be immaterial.
Compare statements 2 and 3 above. If not perceived then, either nonexistent or immaterial. In other words, there's no difference between nonexistence and immaterial. That's why I asked you to name one immaterial object and one nonexistent object, secretly hoping that you might just pull it off but I wasn't holding my breath if you know what I mean. Basically, idealism can't tell the difference between nonexistence and immaterial and that isn't good, right?
If you feel that following should be true,
a) To be immaterial is to not be perceived, you'd have to agree that,
b) To be perceived is to be material, is true
Idealism can't/won't accept b.
Let's summarize,
1. To be perceived is to exist [false]. Dreams, hallucinations. So, to be perceived is either to exist or to not exist.
2. To not be perceived is to not exist.
3. To not be perceived is to be immaterial
4. Either perceived or not perceived
Ergo [from 1, 2, 3, 4],
5. Either (to exist or to not exist) or (to not exist or to be immaterial)
Simplifying 5,
6. To exist OR not to exist OR to be immaterial
The bottom line is, whether you perceive or not, you can't tell the difference between existence, nonexistence, and the immaterial. :chin:
Hence, Descartes' cogito ergo sum.
As for the nonexistence of the self-contradictory, I agree but that definition doesn't seem relevant to idealism & materialism.
First, though, it's important to be clear on the differences between (1) proof or demonstration or inference, (2) debate, and (3) cooperative inquiry.
Question: Is it merely a matter of demonstrating understanding of your opponent's argument and being articulate to present it well? Or should you also strive to make an even better argument with more facts and better logic?
Only vaguely related, I heard a good joke today: "I got a college degree, but I didn't learn anything. I had a double major in Psychology and Reverse Psychology."
We have such little point of agreement that I think you even disagree that we have little point of agreement. I feel as much hope trying to convince you against materialism as I would trying to convince someone the world doesn't rest on the back of a giant turtle.
IOW, whenever you say "matter" I think of an extraneous thing like a turtle, that is premised to exist and be necessary without justification.
Are you suggesting we clarify that here, or are you saying that we should establish which of those we are using as a goal and framework?
Quoting TonesInDeepFreeze
I don't know if there is a rule. I focus more on clarity than adding substance. The latter is hard to do if I believe the argument is lacking in substance. Its harder to do than I thought.
For an idealist this is a tautology, or self-evident. It can't be disproven from second order logic. (to be is to be perceived) Quoting TheMadFool
But didn't you agree that dreams are immaterial? Are they not perceptions?
For an idealist dream matter and non-dream matter are both ultimately immaterial, that is, mental. Material is a perception, but perception isn't material.
I'm only saying that in any given context, it would help to be clear which of those frameworks are intended. As far as I can tell, ordinarily Steelman is used for a kind of debate that is a "reverse" debate. But I find it to be an interesting concept, no matter the context.
[quote=Aristotle]....we must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed,
on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are....[/quote]
I love that quote. Thanks for sharing.
Well there goes partisan political BS.
In other words, if perceived then either exists (like a stone) or doesn't exist (like a dream/hallucination). There's nothing to disprove since the consequent is a tautology (exists or doesn't exist). If the idealist agrees to this, as you seem to be claiming, as I said, fae can't distinguish between that which exists (say a stone) and that which doesn't (a dream or a hallucination). This is where Descartes comes in I believe.
Quoting Yohan
As I said, the idealist, through perception (percieved or not perceived) alone can't tell the difference between existent things, nonexistent things, and immaterial things.
1. If perceieved then either exists or doesn't exist
2. If not perceived then doesn't exist or immaterial
That's all I have to say and can say. Steel man that for me, will ya?
You are equating existence and materiality. I only said dream objects are immaterial. I didn't say dream objects don't exist.Quoting TheMadFool
To exist is to be perceived means if it's perceived, it exists. Where are you getting "or doesn't exist from"?
Quoting TheMadFool
For an idealist existence=perception. Therefore, if perceived, exists. If not perceived, non-existent.
For material vs immaterial we have not yet agreed upon a definition.
You said in the last post that, off the top of your head, to be perceived is to be material.
To me, there is nothing self-evident about that in experience nor logically necessary about it.
Further, it leads to a problem. By definition hallucinations would be material. In other words hallucinated rocks would be made of matter because they are perceived...
I can try to offer my own definition of matter if you'd like.
I think the most important thing is we are clear about our premises and definitions. I can steel man what I think are your definitions and premises, after I have enough info.
They are the same thing. That was my point!
Quoting Yohan
If to exist is to be perceived, to not be perceived is to not exist. The problem is to not be perceived is immaterial. Thus, you can't distinguish between, nonexistence and immaterial.
Suppose there are additional facts and logic that would improve your opponent's argument. Then you might easily win the Steelman by bringing in the additional facts and logic.
For example (this is simplified, but you can see the point):
Suppose your opponent's argument is "Capital punishment in the United States should be abolished because it results in racial inequity".
Then you could come back with "Capital punishment should be abolished because (not necessarily in order of importance) (1) it is cruel and unusual punishment violating the Constitution, (2) it societally institutionalizes cruelty, (3) it executes some people who are not guilty, (4) it wrongfully makes some people who are not guilty endure the deprivations of Death Row and the anguish of dreading execution, (4) it is not a deterrent, (5) it violates a philosophical principle that even a person who has committed great evil should be allowed redemption in this life, (6) it results in racial inequity, (7) some victims' families passionately don't want it, (8) the purpose of justice is not always to bring emotional closure to victims' families, (9) it is more expensive than the alternative, (10) imprisonment is punishment enough, (11) it drags the society and state down to the level of the murderer, (12) many democracies, especially allies who have greatest ideological affinity the United States, have abolished it, leaving the United States in a class of nations that are mostly authoritarian and totalitarian".
Then you could win the Steelman decisively.
Then Steelman truly is the opposite of Strawman.
Strawman is either (1) Claiming your opponent has taken a certain position, though your opponent has not, then knocking down that position or (2) Knocking down only the weakest parts of your opponent's position.
So if Steelman is truly the opposite, then Steelman should actually strengthen your opponent's arguments not just paraphrase them better. That would go along with the method of preparing rebuttals. To prepare a rebuttal, one should devise responses not just to what your opponent is likely to argue, but responses to the very best argument your opponent could conceivably argue. And exceptionally convincing argument can be made by presenting affirmatives and also proactively incorporating pre-rebuttals by saying "My opponent may argue that Jones had good reason to believe the gun was not loaded, but here's evidence that he did have good reason, moreover, even if he did not have good reason, then [fill in more pre-rebuttal here]."
Of course as a materialist you believe that.
You say I can't distinguish between non-existence and immaterial. In their ontological status, of course I can't. Both are absences of something. But there is a difference in what they deny, in scope. Non existent means no existence at all. Immaterial means no material existence. That's all. It doesn't mean no existence.
Therefore, it's possible something may exist without having material properties.
Again, hallucinations exist, and are immaterial.
However, it's true that I can't distinguish a hallucination from a non-hallucinstion. And we are back at the cogito. This a epistemological limitation. It's equal for a materialist and an idealist. The difference is the idealist doesn't assume there must be something independent of consciousness.
As far as I know, everything is immaterial at its base. I can't tell material from immaterial. Can you? If you can't, then is it possible everything is immaterial?
[quote=George Berkeley (father of idealism)]Esse est percipii[/quote]
1. If x exists then x is perceived.
1a. If x is not perceived then x doesn't exist
Now, what about x doesn't exist? What does that imply in terms of perception?
Can we say, if x doesn't exist then x is not perceived? We have to say yes because if it were false it leads to a contradiction.
Also, what about x is perceived? What does that indicate for existence? This is just the mirror image of the above question.
So we agree,
2. If x is perceived then x exists
In other words, perception = existence, they're one and the same thing.
However, there's a catch - the classic chicken and egg problem. According to idealism, you can't exist without first being perceived first but then you can't perceive with existing first. This has to do with God as a necessary being who ensures the existence of the universe via his perception.
CORRECT
~(~E -> ~P) is inconsistent with ~P -> ~E.
INCORRECT
What is the definitive statement of Idealism here? What specific proposition of the form
"Idealism is true if and only if [fill in definiens here]"
is the Pro so that Materialism is the Con?
Or, equivalently
"Idealism is true if and only if [fill in definiens here]"
is the Pro so that Idealism is the Con?
Otherwise, this is just an open ended airing of disagreeing points of view.
Or there could be two propositions or sets of propositions, not necessarily one the actual negation of the other, and each party supports their own proposition and attacks the other party's proposition.
Some things are material
Everything is material vs
Some things are immaterial
Everything is immaterial vs
Some things are material and some things are immaterial
Everything is material vs
Some things are material and some things are immaterial
Everything is immaterial vs
Everything is material
Which of those are being debated?
What is the definition of 'is material'?
Experiencer of emotion- feelingness- emotion felt
Is the emotion seperate from the perception of it? What is an emotion like when it's not being felt? What does it even mean for an emotion to exist without being felt?
Another example:
Thinker-thinking-thought
Which came first. The thought or the thinking of it. Is there difference between the two? What is a thought like independent of thinking?
Most people will acknowledge the questions as nonsensical. Having a thought is the same as thinking. Feeling an emotion is the same as emoting.
It's clear to most that thoughts and feelings are subjective experiences...and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to suppose thoughts and feelings could exist independently of thinkers and feelers.
When we try to imagine what a feeling is like when it's not being felt, we imagine no feeling at all. And what do we imagine a thought is like when it's not being thought about? Like nothing at all?
But imagine if everyone thought that thoughts and feelings had independent existence. They are out there waiting to be felt and thought about before being felt and thought about. Imagine asking them what a thought is like independent of a thinker. They say the thought has any number of qualities, and that the only difference between a thought in consciousness and a thought outside of consciousness, is consciousness.
Well, the idealist has examined more than his thoughts and feelings. He has examined all his experiences, smell, taste, touch, sight, hearing, and determined in each case that the same formula applies to these as to thought and feeling...all can be reduced to subjective experience
What is a flavor? A flavor IS tasting. What is an image? And image IS seeing.
Broadly, the perceived IS perception. In other words, to be is to be perceived.
Can we at least agree on this?
Then, we can ask: Is quality a feature of matter, or is matter a kind of quality.
If quality is more fundamental than matter, then matter is an emergent quality of being, rather than the essence of being.
We can likewise question, is quality a feature of consciousness, or is consciousness a kind of quality. To me I can't imagine a quality without consciousness, consciousness seems fundamental to all qualities. But I guess materialists don't agree.
You can't imagine unless you are conscious. But the things you imagine might not be conscious.
I can imagine a cup having the quality of roundness, if by that is meant just that the cup is round. I'm supposing that the roundness of the cup is not itself conscious of anything. I have no idea what it would mean for the roundness of the cup to be conscious.
I agree with that
Being consciousness is different than having consciousness. I doubt anything has consciousness. Consciousness is like the cinema screen, and objects are like the light projected onto the screen.
[quote = Austin] moderate-sized specimens of dry goods[/quote]
I think 'dry' refers more to Austin's tone than to the goods. We could include liquids and gases.
Matter and mind are both made of consciousness.