Why do people use this phrase? Do you believe what you said in your comment? If so, why not accept attribution to yourself? If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil".
I use that phrase on occasion but speak only for myself.
To me it's a way of steel-manning the other side. If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don't agree with the argument but I (in good faith) view it as the strongest counter-argument to my (and the person I'm talking too') position. I like this a lot because it makes for much deeper and more interesting conversations with someone who already shares the same opinion as me. If we just sit around agreeing then IMHO the conversation is dull. Using the phrase "Devil's advocate" is a way of communicating that this is not my personal opinion, but rather my attempt to argue/articulate "the other side." Generally speaking) nobody worships the devil - we think him the opposite of good/true/etc, so presenting "his" argument attributed to him implies well that meaning.
Most people do seem to think as you though, that it's really my hidden opinion that I'm afraid to embrace. This especially becomes evident on HN and Reddit because so many people are always suspecting and looking for some hidden agenda in everything. For that reason I'd love to find a better phrase, but I don't know of one. Do you have any ideas?
> If I use the phrase, then typically it means I don't agree with the argument but I (in good faith) view it as the strongest counter-argument to my (and the person I'm talking too') position.
Ok, but why do so-called Devil's advocates always stop there? If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? It's fine to present the strongest counter-argument and then go on to explain why that argument doesn't hold in the end, but a simple Devil's advocate comment, by itself, does give the impression that it's really your hidden opinion that you're afraid to embrace.
I think it's weird, and also somewhat hostile, to insincerely present an argument that's not your own and then implicitly place the burden of proof on everyone else to refute it.
Not to mention, there are surely some sincere defenders of Google out there? Why not let them do the arguing? Of course, if nobody is a sincere defender of Google, that seems to prove that Google doesn't actually have good reasons for its actions.
> Generally speaking) nobody worships the devil
Metaphorically speaking, current events prove this to be quite false.
> If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response? It's fine to present the strongest counter-argument and then go on to explain why that argument doesn't hold in the end, but a simple Devil's advocate comment, by itself, does give the impression that it's really your hidden opinion that you're afraid to embrace.
I do go on to explain why it doesn't hold, but not until the other parties have had a chance to consider as well, otherwise it defeats the point (which again is to get conversation going). I also don't presume to always have the answers, and part of my hope is that the other people will consider the devil's argument and come up with an interesting reply I hadn't considered before.
There is one exception: back when I was a (religious) believer, I would frequently pose "literal devil's advocate" questions that were essentially atheist arguments against whatever religious teaching I was presenting at the time (or the instructor was presenting). In those situations I usually would immediately lay out my counterargument because otherwise the religious people would visibly squirm from cognitive dissonance and in one case actually berated me for not being "uplifting." He went on to say that church should be a safe place where you are never challenged in your belief, only reinforced. That was one of the final straws for my faith. Also though, it noticeably reduced the interestingness of the conversations because nobody spent any time thinking about the devil's advocate argument since they already had an/the answer.
Honest question: Does it bother you that somebody might be interested in and want to explore oppositional perspectives, without holding those perspectives themselves?
I think it does bother a lot of people, even people that I wouldn't have expected (like well-respected professors at prestigious colleges like Stanford, for example). I think some people just aren't capable or comfortable with the idea that there aren't rock-solid right and wrong, and can't accept that someone might respect another perspective without agreeing with it. That's purely observational though.
> it defeats the point (which again is to get conversation going)
Why is that a useful purpose? It's not like we're sitting in a room together, and there's a lull in the conversation, an uncomfortable silence. There's no inherent reason why HN threads need to continue indefinitely.
> part of my hope is that the other people will consider the devil's argument and come up with an interesting reply I hadn't considered before
If you're looking for help or education, then just explicitly ask for that. The phrase "Devil's advocate" doesn't give the impression of intellectual modesty.
> Honest question: Does it bother you that somebody might be interested in and want to explore oppositional perspectives, without holding those perspectives themselves?
That doesn't bother me - a personal, private exercise, anyway. What does bother me is insincerity and duplicity. I think that people should be open and honest about what they believe and what they don't believe; IMO the phrase "Devil's advocate" is obscurantist at best.
> Why is that a useful purpose? It's not like we're sitting in a room together, and there's a lull in the conversation, an uncomfortable silence. There's no inherent reason why HN threads need to continue indefinitely.
It's useful if you care about intellectual curiosity and/or arriving at truth. For the same reason that high school and college debates happen where people are assigned a position rather than allowed to argue their "real" position. I agree that it's preferable to know somebody's real position/bias when going into a discussion, but there's also a lot of value in being able to pass the Ideological Turing Test. The whole point of saying "devil's advocate" is to let the person know "this isn't my personal position," otherwise I agree, just saying the argument would be better. However some people get defensive/emotional if they think you actually disagree with them, and many more make assumptions. Especially on a forum like HN which lives forever and is public, not being allowed to argue anything other than your real position would hamper conversation and the intellectual curiosity that many people (myself included) come to HN for.
Ultimately though, if what you want is a discussion where everybody already agrees and hasn't/doesn't consider actual (non-strawman) arguments against their position which turns into a circle jerk of good feelings, then devil's advocate would not be welcome (just as in my religious example above).
I love Christopher Hitchens philosophy about sharpening your mind against the best arguments. Your mind is a tool and tools need to be maintained otherwise they decay. Without "devil's advocate" such sharpening becomes significantly more difficult, especially if a person only converses/discusses with people that already agree with them (which I would hypothesize is increasingly nearly everybody).
> It's useful if you care about intellectual curiosity and/or arriving at truth.
I disagree.
> For the same reason that high school and college debates happen where people are assigned a position rather than allowed to argue their "real" position.
Haha, I hate debate clubs and think they're largely useless grandstanding. They might be nice to put on your résumé, but other than that, sound and fury, signifying nothing.
By the way, I feel the same way about our "adversarial" legal system. It often feels like truth is actually the last thing it's concerned with.
> The whole point of saying "devil's advocate" is to let the person know "this isn't my personal position
That may be what you think, but from what I've seen on HN and social media broadly, it's often a cover for stating distasteful opinons while attempting to avoid personal criticism for those distasteful opinions.
> Ultimately though, if what you want is a discussion where everybody already agrees and hasn't/doesn't consider actual (non-strawman) arguments against their position
That's not what I said. Here's what I actually said: "there are surely some sincere defenders of Google out there? Why not let them do the arguing? Of course, if nobody is a sincere defender of Google, that seems to prove that Google doesn't actually have good reasons for its actions."
> not being allowed to argue anything other than your real position
Again, that's not what I said. "I think that people should be open and honest about what they believe and what they don't believe; IMO the phrase Devil's advocate is obscurantist at best." But you appear to believe that "Devil's advocate" is a clear statement of disbelief in the stated opinion, whereas I don't agree with that, as a universal generalization.
> Your mind is a tool and tools need to be maintained otherwise they decay. Without "devil's advocate" such sharpening becomes significantly more difficult
But this isn't just an intellectual exercise. Some people, including myself, consider the existence of browser extensions and the utility of browser extension API to be an important social and/or technological issue. We're not here just for "fun". That's something to keep in mind if your aim is merely to sharpen your own mind.
To repeat, though: Devil's advocacy is not the same thing as intellectual curiosity. If one is curious, one usually asks questions rather than making bold statements. "Refute me" is an incurious position.
Google are being depicted as the bad guys (devil) in the original comment, and the person you're replying to was advocating for Google's stated position of trying to improve user security. They were being an advocate for the devil. Is this not pretty much a perfect use of the saying?
> why not accept attribution to yourself?
Because this is Google's claim, being repeated here by their advocate.
> If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil".
The counterargument was the very first comment saying that the changes are really about adblocking.
Google's statement on Manifest V3:
> Manifest V3 aims to be the first step in our platform vision to improve the privacy, security, and performance of extensions. Along with the platform changes, we are working to give users more understanding and control over what extensions are capable of. The changes will take several years to complete.
Summarizing your exchanges below, you can't seem to make up your mind why you can't accept the meaning of the idiom or how you'd re-define it.
Take these two statements, which prove inconsistent:
> why do so-called Devil's advocates always stop there? If you don't agree with the strongest counter-argument, then why would you present it without your own response?
> Who cares about the "completeness" of all possible, hypothetical beliefs?
My point was that there's no inherent value in simply stating and defending one of many possible, hypothetical claims. On the other hand, there is value in stating someone else's actual claim as clearly as possible, and then showing why that claim is wrong.
> there is value in stating someone else's actual claim as clearly as possible, and then showing why that claim is wrong.
You're making my point re: your intrinsic dissatisfaction with a commonly accepted meaning for "devil's advocate."
You're prescribing that people have to not only present counter-arguments, but also disprove the counter-arguments. This is overly critical. They may not have the color, and further, there's no contract for someone to do this.
There's no contract to be a Devil's advocate. It used to be a specific job assigned by the Catholic Church during the canonization process, but it wasn't something that random people would volunteer to do. To me, it's very suspicious that so many people on social media positively relish the role that was once considered a somewhat distasteful but "necessary evil", as it were.
Some people are paid to do PR for Google. The corporation doesn't need unpaid volunteers. If you sincerely agree with Google, then so be it, but that's not a Devil's advocate.
Devil's advocate was a way for the Catholic Church to argue against the canonization of a saint by providing a contrarian point of view about his life (everybody possibly loved the guy who was about to be canonized, after all he was a saint-to-be, but it was the Church's responsibility to provide an objective judgement on him).
Today it's synonym with providing an explanation of the facts which goes against public sentiment, for sake of completeness.
In this case, it means "I don't know what is the truth, but Google's angle, which wasn't reported before, is this: ...", which seems a perfectly reasonable and informative comment to me.
Who cares about the "completeness" of all possible, hypothetical beliefs?
> Google's angle, which wasn't reported before, is this
That's actually a claim, which is disputable. Unless it's simply reporting what Google has said publicly, which as I noted in another comment would be much better phrased as "Google said X" rather than "Devil's advocate: X".
As you noted, the Catholic Church origin of the phrase carries the implication of insincerity behind it, which is one reason I find the use of the phrase in other contexts to be objectionable.
Why insincerity? Doing the devil's advocate is all about painful sincerity: we'd all love to proclaim a new saint but we have to nitpick his life adversarially first, to be really sure. In this case, we all love to say "Google bad", but there's an alternative explanation to explore first.
No, we don't love to say it for no reason. Google has demonstrated repeatedly over the years that they are in fact bad and have made a mockery of their previous motto "Don't be evil".
That is besides the point. I also believe that Google has been acting badly for years. Even more so it's intellectually honest to do the devil's advocate and examine their motivations.
> to do the devil's advocate and examine their motivations
These are two different things.
Examining their possible motivations is fine. Consider them, weigh them, criticize them.
But that's not what a so-called "Devil's advocate" does. The Devil's advocate takes just one side, one possible motivation, and argues for that, come what may, possibly insincerely. The Devil's advocate is dogmatic, single-minded, intransigent. When does the Devil's advocate ever admit that they're wrong?
He has to, because no one is willing to take that side.
> The Devil's advocate is dogmatic, single-minded, intransigent. When does the Devil's advocate ever admit that they're wrong?
He doesn't need to, because he announces he's the devil's advocate in the first place. Everyone knows that he's taking a contrarian, artificial (and much less popular) position that no one else wants to take.
> He has to, because no one is willing to take that side.
If we're talking about a small number of Catholic priests deciding on sainthood, then yes. But if we're talking about any other matter of public dispute on social media where self-described devil's advocates pop up, then no. I've never seen one advocating for a position that's unique in the world. Indeed, in the comments on this very HN submission, there are other defenders of Google who are advocating their own opinon and don't pretend to be devil's advocates.
Why do people use this phrase? Do you believe what you said in your comment? If so, why not accept attribution to yourself? If not, then perhaps you should make a counterargument to balance out the "Devil".