Navigation
Finalize the course by learning how to debate with integrity and respect for the truth.
Imagine you are in a heated debate about your favorite game. Suddenly, you realize you're wrong, but everyone is watching. Do you keep arguing just to 'win,' or do you have the courage to admit the truth?
In many debates, people treat the conversation like a sports match where there is a winner and a loser. However, in philosophy, the goal isn't to 'win'—it is to find the truth. This is called Intellectual Honesty. It means being fair to the facts, even if they don't support your side. When you practice intellectual honesty, you value being right in the long run more than looking right in the moment. You avoid 'cheap shots' and logical fallacies because you know that a fake victory doesn't actually help you learn anything new.
Quick Check
What is the primary difference between a typical 'argument' and an intellectually honest debate?
Answer
A typical argument focuses on winning, while an intellectually honest debate focuses on finding the truth.
Most people use a Strawman—they make their opponent's argument look weak or silly so it's easy to knock down. Intellectual honesty requires the opposite: the Steelman. To Steelman an argument, you try to describe your opponent's position so well that they say, 'Exactly! I couldn't have said it better myself.' By arguing against the strongest version of an idea, you ensure that your own conclusions are actually solid. If you can defeat a Steelman, your argument is truly powerful.
1. The Topic: Should students have less homework? 2. The Strawman: 'You just want to be lazy and play video games all day!' (This attacks a weak version of the idea). 3. The Steelman: 'You believe that excessive homework can lead to burnout and that students need more time for physical activity and sleep to stay healthy.' (This addresses the strongest point of the argument).
Quick Check
Why is 'Steelmanning' better for a philosopher than 'Strawmanning'?
Answer
It ensures you are dealing with the best possible version of an idea, which makes your own search for truth more accurate.
Changing your mind isn't 'losing'; it's an upgrade. Think of your beliefs like software. When you get better data, you should update the version. Philosophers sometimes use a simple logic of probability. If your confidence in an idea is , and you receive new evidence that contradicts it, your new confidence should naturally decrease. If you started at certainty () and see strong evidence against it, staying at isn't 'strong'—it's logically broken. Admitting you were wrong means you are now closer to the truth than you were five minutes ago.
You are debating whether school uniforms are good. Your opponent points out a study showing that uniforms don't actually improve grades, which was your main point. 1. Acknowledge: 'That is a strong point. I didn't know about that study.' 2. Evaluate: Check if the study is reliable. 3. Pivot or Update: 'If that study is correct, my argument about grades is wrong. However, do you think uniforms might still help with social equality?' 4. Result: You've maintained your integrity and kept the search for truth alive.
What is a 'Strawman' argument?
If you realize your argument is wrong during a debate, what is the most 'intellectually honest' action?
Steelmanning means you agree with everything the other person says.
Review Tomorrow
In 24 hours, try to explain the difference between a 'Strawman' and a 'Steelman' to a friend or family member.
Practice Activity
The next time you disagree with someone, try to repeat their argument back to them starting with: 'So, if I understand you correctly, your strongest point is...' and see how they react.