The NEW argue for the opposite of your beliefs thread

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, I've had this idea multiple times, and the notion is simple:
1) Everybody has beliefs.
2) Many people have a difficult time really operating through the lens of another side's beliefs.
3) Therefore, the idea is to practice seeing things from multiple sides so that way you are better at finding truth, better at arguing even your side, and etc.

So, basically, what's required is that a poster identify something they believe. Identify an opposing belief. Then try to argue as well as they can through the lens of the opposing belief so that way they can stretch out their arguing muscles. Ideally as if you're trying to persuade someone else, or even yourself, of the other belief.

Note: This skill is also useful in another way for argument: http://themerelyreal.wordpress.com/2012 ... elmanning/ To steelman an argument is to build up your opponent's argument into the strongest it can be to try to knock it down. In order to do that, you need to be able to see how your opponent could develop his argument if he really ate his Wheaties, and so this exercise helps you do that so you can be a better arguer in general.

So, DO IT! NOW!!

This is an interesting idea, but I think it has some holes in it.

First, some of the opinions I hold (and I imagine it's not just me) are due to my not being able to see how anyone could possibly think that. I've been trying to understand OOP (a style of computer programming) over the past 6 months or so, and my efforts have included taking a class that promoted it from a smart professor, spending hours in the library reading up on it, trying to use it the same way an OOP fan would, and lots of reading up on it from the web. I can recite the definitions of the major elements and discuss them intelligently, but I still cannot give you any idea why someone would deliberately program like that.

I'd like to be able to steelman OOP, since then I would either be comfortable with it or else I could debunk it more effectively, but I can't, and it's not for lack of trying.

Second, if the goal is still to knock down the opponent's arguments, it's likely to lead to slightly less half-assed strawmen, rather than real attempts at understanding.

Third, there have been psychological studies showing that arguing against your opinion on something can cause you to change your mind due to cognitive dissonance. For that reason, I'd be much less willing to do this sort of thing with any opinion of mine that I'm strongly emotionally attached to, even though those are the sorts of things where I would likely get the most benefit from steelmanning.

Fourth, when I consider some of the debates that I have opinions on, I find that if I were to switch sides, I would not simply adopt the common beliefs of those on the other side, but that I'd end up with a rather unusual twist on things. I'm not sure if this is just me or not. If the goal is to make the other side's argument and then knock it down, any unusual part of your interpretation of their ideas will make the steelman no more effective than the strawman, since you're still putting words in the other side's mouth.

I don't believe that Jesus had supernatural abilities.

Here is some evidence supporting the idea that Jesus had supernatural abilities.

- After Jesus was killed, the followers of Jesus were willing to die in the name of their belief. If the followers hadn't witnessed something that proved to them that Jesus was divine, then surely Jesus' death would have been the ultimate proof that they were wrong, and they would have dropped their beliefs.

- The story of the resurrection of Jesus does not conform to any of the tropes that you would expect from a made-up story. For example, it relies on the witness of women.

- The beliefs that Jesus spread were so revolutionary and counter-cultural that they would never had been accepted by anyone unless Jesus had miracles to back them up.

I can see this happening if it's an opinion I'm not really so certain of. Otherwise, I see no reason why I would change views that I'm very fairly certain of and that would demand sudden solid evidence to the contrary for me to ditch them.

I already spent two years arguing and fully vested with what are the opposite of my current beliefs. Reductive materialism isn't particularly difficult to understand the ins and outs of, nor was seeing theism or any kind of immaterial belief from that blick.

I'm going to see if I can get a more exact reference than "I remember having heard about something like this", although I might not get to it right away, since I'm rather busy at the moment.