The Iron Man Argument
thank you
it’s a pleasure and a genuine honor to
be here with you this evening
i’d actually like to start tonight with
a joke
it’s an old joke arguing with the
philosopher
is like wrestling with a pig in the mud
after a few hours you realize the pig
enjoys it
now i can hardly lay claim to being a
philosopher myself
but having taught philosophy for the
past decade and having been a student of
philosophy
since long before that i can confidently
say that this is one thing that i
certainly do
share with the great philosophers of
human history
i enjoy getting down in the mud for a
good argument
indeed my family are here tonight and
i’m sure that they will be happy to
testify
to that fact
as this man understood arguments
are wonderful things discussions debates
arguments these are wonderful things the
thumping heart rate the surge of
adrenaline the quickfire retorts and
rebuttals
the thrill of landing on that perfect
example at just the right moment
when we engage in an earnest exchange of
ideas and perspectives we start to dig a
little bit deeper
get a little bit closer if not to an
answer at least
to a better understanding of the
question
arguments are wonderful things
but there are five words which are
poison
to a good argument when you hear this
ominous phrase you know
that the earnest exchange of ideas is
about to be put into grave danger
these are those five ominous words
so what you’re saying is so what you’re
saying is
so what you’re saying is what invariably
follows this line
think of the last time you heard someone
say this in a discussion or debate
and what followed was it a clear concise
summation of your argument
no experience tells us the reformulation
of our argument that we’re about to bear
witness to
is at best an oversimplification of the
argument that we just laid out
and at worst it will be a rendition of
the argument that is so thoroughly
mutilated
it couldn’t even be identified by its
dental records
it’s special cases you might even be
treated to this
six word variation
so what you’re really saying is
the beauty of this formulation is that
it boldly presumes
that we are incapable of saying what we
really mean
or perhaps even that we’re maliciously
obfuscating our true meaning
moreover it signals that we’re in for a
treat
we’re about to hear a translation of our
real meaning
a translation that let’s face it would
probably make google translate envious
in its ability to cling tenuously to the
literal
meaning of the original statement and
yet simultaneously transform the
substance of it entirely
so what are we talking about here what
is it quivering on the horizon when
on the horizon when we hear those five
fateful words
well this phenomenon is common enough
and as this is a room
full of tok students all very well
versed in logical fallacies
i think you probably recognize where
this is headed
these five words are indeed the common
prelude to
a straw man argument you may be familiar
with this
straw man argument is an informal
fallacy whereby one deliberately
misrepresents
their opponent’s argument in order to
make it easier
to attack now before i get too
comfortable up here on on my high horse
it’s important to note that it’s not
only other people that commit this
fallacy we’ve all fallen back on this
lazy
trope at some point some argument in our
history possibly earlier today
whoever the perpetrator is the signally
frustrating thing about the deployment
of these
straw man armies is that it derails the
debate
all the time and energy is now wasted on
mischaracterizing
each other’s arguments or lamely
attempting to salvage our own
all of which detracts from the primary
function
of discourse in the first place which is
to develop
through rational debate a clearer
understanding
of the relative merits of a set of
competing ideas
as karl popper noted the aim of an
argument
or of a discussion should not be victory
but progress
it is my contention tonight that a key
factor in the current unhinged state of
the world is our increasing inability to
engage in constructive discourse
it’s abundantly apparent to anyone who
has made the foolish mistake
of trying to engage in a critical debate
on the internet
foolish i know the discourse and debate
has become much
more about winning about defeating your
opponent
than it’s been about progress
well in a bid to help us reclaim this
lofty and noble aim
to help equip you with a means of
navigating hostile debates and moving
towards a more productive
discourse i present to you tonight
the antithesis of the straw man argument
i present the iron man argument
now before i outline the iron man
argument i just want to make take a
moment to elaborate briefly on the
problem
we live in what mark manson has dubbed
the age of
outrage manson suggests that we’ve
become addicted to our own
self-righteous outrage and in an attempt
to satiate our lust
for outrage we willfully and perhaps
even sometimes gleefully
misinterpret and misrepresent other
people’s arguments and ideas
in order to find for us a new source
of disgust and moral indignation
to illustrate this problem consider how
words of wisdom from thinkers
throughout human history would be
received today in the current climate
imagine for a moment that socrates
had shared his ideas not in the ancient
agora
but on twitter today
famous line from socrates here it’s a
disgrace for a man to grow old
without seeing the beauty and strength
of which his body is capable
imagine the sorts of replies that such a
comment might elicit in the current
climate
how swiftly would socrates be pilloried
for his narrow-minded body shaming
labelled a superficial jim bro accused
of self-absorbed vanity
a barrage of strawmen armies would
descend on that tweet and tear it apart
within moments now obviously to some
extent there’s always been a combative
element
to discourse and debate i’m not
suggesting this is some entirely new
phenomenon
however as ideological tribalism
political polarization have intensified
markedly in recent years
the animosity has become increasingly
palpable
one need only look at the verbs that are
starring in your favorite youtube titles
to get a glimpse
of this antagonism
think about the words that leap out here
these verbs
what we’re presented with destroy
annihilate
shred crush eviscerate
this is the language of destruction
these are videos garnering millions of
views by predominantly young people
across the globe
this this is the current state of the
discourse that is consumed by people
and imitated by people a world unhinged
indeed
and so what is the remedy what can we do
how can we counteract this animosity
how can we return to a state of
productive meaningful progressive
discourse
well as with basically all forms of
improvement it starts at home
we must start with ourselves with the
way that we choose to engage in
arguments and debate it’s not about
putting an end to arguments
but improving the way that we argue
importantly the iron man argument the
solution that i want to suggest to you
tonight
is not a tool for dismantling other
people’s arguments
it is not some surefire way for you to
win your next debate
i’m sorry in fact i want to suggest
quite the opposite
the iron man argument is not about
bolstering your own argument at all but
rather it’s about
refining rephrasing patching up
or in whatever way possible
strengthening your opponent’s argument
now i can see the gears turning in
people’s minds at this stage
so what you’re saying is but be careful
if you’re going to say so what you’re
saying is we should invest time
and energy in helping the person we’re
debating with to more effectively and
efficiently
win the argument then yes essentially
that’s correct
but hear me out before you storm out the
door what i’ve done the iron man
argument is really an approach to
discourse with a very long history
in philosophy sometimes goes by the name
the principle of charity
ultimately this is a methodological
presumption
that we make when engaging in an
argument or a discussion
whereby we first seek to understand
this view that we’re challenging here in
its strongest
most credible form before we subject the
view to appraisal
this is a really important point we must
reframe it in its strongest
most credible form
before
we’re permitted to evaluate the merits
of that argument
so here’s how it works when you engage
in a debate or argument next somewhere
out there in the wild
step one we momentarily suspend our own
beliefs
or disbelief as the case sometimes may
be
be open to the possibility that when
they claim what what they claim
may be true however outlandish it may
first appear
now this is a much more challenging step
than many people anticipate
but it is crucial as it helps us to
avoid slipping into a combative posture
from the outset step two
we presume the best of intentions this
is sometimes referred to
as hanlon’s razor now a common trap in
our current mode of discourse is
that we so frequently presume malicious
intent
our desire for outrage perhaps fuels
this impulse
but it’s important that we repress this
we must presume
the most noble intent step
three avoid the urge to first hunt for
weaknesses
one of our first impulses is to try and
spot fallacies and to spot a weakness in
an argument
and oftentimes we feel we’re being
remarkably clever when we dismiss an
argument for its use for fallacy but in
reality
i suggest you that we’re simply taking
the easy way out
of confronting the substance of that
argument
and if you really need convincing
remember the fallacy fallacy
which states that it’s an error in logic
to assume that a conclusion is false
simply because it commits a fallacy
checkmate
fallacy hunters
step four in cases of ambiguity in an
argument presume the most
cogent meaning for suppressed premises
for missing premises
for confusions of inductive or deductive
logic or simply when somebody uses
misleading or inaccurate phrasing when
they don’t have the right words
do your best to fill in the blanks with
the most reasonable and logically
consistent
amendments
and step five finally with all of the
above taken into consideration
we outline the argument of our opponent
as vividly
fairly and clearly as possible
they should respond to you with wow
i could have said it better myself if
and only if they’re happy with the
summation
that you’ve given them can you proceed
with the evaluation
exploring the merits of the argument
this is your starting point for a
discussion
importantly this approach does not
entail ultimately agreeing
with the arguments that are presented
with to you but it does ensure you are
engaging with the argument
in its most robust form in adding this
bulletproof layer of iron cladding we
undoubtedly lower our chances of winning
the argument
indeed we’ve actively stacked the odds
against ourselves
but we have gotten much closer to
actually gaining something from the
debate itself
and ironically a beneficial side effect
of this methodology
is that it begets imitation the
charitable act of interpreting someone’s
argument
in the most generous possible way
diffuses that simmering animosity
and it often fosters a willingness to
return the favor
it has a very potent disarming effect
and so my challenge to you tonight then
is to disband the straw man army stand
them down
and adopt instead the iron man argument
you will lose more arguments certainly
debates will be longer they will be more
difficult without a doubt
but you will ultimately revive that
capacity for a productive discourse
and so the next time you get down in the
mud for a good argument
and utter that fateful phrase so what
you’re saying is
surprise everyone around you thank you
[Applause]