I wonder if steelmanning as an act of charity might have two different potential manifestations: focusing primarily on what you think are the best arguments and making them better, or focusing primarily on what those who hold the belief think are the most important arguments and taking those as seriously as possible. Essentially, what happens when you disagree over the best arguments for something you dont agree with? Which form do you think is more helpful in which contexts? What effects does one form have that the other does not? What do you think?
Posted on: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 22:27:31 +0000