Daniel Dennett’s 4 rules for a good debate
What’s the point in fighting a made up monster?
By Jonny Thomson
A straw man is when you simplify or exaggerate somebody’s argument to make it easier to target, an opponent you can blow down with adversarial flair. For example, if an atheist says that Christianity is just worshipping “some bearded man in the sky,” well, that’s a straw man, because barely any Christian would accept that representation of their religion. Of course, if a Christian says that an atheist does not believe in anything or that life has no meaning, that is also very likely a straw man.
The problem with the straw man argument is that not only does it not actually address someone’s points, but it poisons the entire debate. It’s a bad-faith argument that sees conversation as a brawl and “truth” as only one weapon in the war to win at all costs. But there is a better way.
The steel man
The opposite of a straw man is a steel man. This is where you not only represent someone’s arguments faithfully and with respect, but you do so in the best possible light. You spend a great deal of attention clarifying and double-checking what your debating partner actually means.
In my experience, if you take the time to genuinely inquire about what someone believes, you will find far greater nuance — and often far greater agreement — than you thought at the start. For example, only the most dastardly and venal of politicians are doing it entirely for themselves. Most politicians want to make society and the world a better place. It’s just that left- and right-wing arguments differ about how to achieve that.
In the 2013 book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, philosopher Daniel Dennett described something like the steel man in his four rules for any good philosophical debate:
First, and most important, is that you should “attempt to express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says things ‘I wish I thought of putting it that way.’”
Second, you should list all of the ways in which you and your partner agree on things.
Third, you should recognize the ways in which your partner has taught you something new.
Fourth, only after all of this can you go on to try and rebut or criticize their position.
This doesn’t mean that you have to agree or compromise on your position, though. After all, some people hold repulsive and horrendous beliefs. It just means that you should fight what is there to fight, and not an imaginary shadow or straw man.
The Greek steel man
If you read Plato’s dialogues, you’ll see that Socrates often presents his opponents with a steel man argument. A huge part of the dialogue involves Socrates clarifying, laying out, and even strengthening the other person’s position.
For instance, in the dialogue Gorgias, Socrates pauses and reframes Callicles’ position about strength and domination, often making it sound more coherent than Callicles himself. In Republic, when Thrasymachus argues that justice is nothing but the interest of the stronger, Socrates doesn’t caricature or simplify the idea. Instead, he builds it up until it sounds almost plausible, before patiently showing its cracks.
Debates today are often about trying to grab the six o’clock headlines or ride the viral wave with an entertaining “gotcha” moment. But the Socratic method was about understanding fully before disagreeing deeply. That’s the spirit of the steel man.
Everyday debates
Of course, Plato’s dialogues are not podcast transcripts. They are the fictionalized accounts of Plato’s version of Socrates debating Plato’s version of his opponents. But the fact that Plato was so willing to present rival opinions in such a strong and positive light (before pulling them apart) reveals just how far we have drifted in what we call a good discussion.
In many ways, the problem of straw manning and ridiculing invented beliefs will not go away. Point scoring and cheering to the crowd were present in ancient Greece, and they’re here in modern, prime-time TV debates. But the steel man is something we can try to bring back to our everyday conversations with the people we interact with weekly.
What Plato and Dennett both knew is that if you are to actually grow in your beliefs, you have to see debate as a constructive act, and with good intentions. Debates are not adversarial opportunities to make your opponent look like an idiot — they are opportunities to become better and grow.
Get even more Big Think’s content:
Mini Philosophy | Big Think Business | Starts with a Bang
completely agree about the imperative we have to argue with an open mind and in good faith, and how beneficial that is.
somewhat inclined to disagree, however, with your example — and this truly is a stark indictment on just how bad politics in the united states have gotten — that a majority of our politicians do sincerely care about helping people: i think, in this day and age, as evidenced by our current president, they care a lot more about power and furthering their own interests than anything else.
but i am just nitpicking. this has nothing to do with the premise of your article. thank you, as per usual, for a quality post.
This is such a good article. If only we weren’t so divided and more of us could put aside deeply embedded bias and dogma to consider an attempt to be fair and open minded. I still have Hope.