[meowface]

Maybe "devil's advocate" was the wrong term for me to use. In this thread I am sharing only my honest beliefs and perspectives and was referring to the genuine initial willingness I had to show charitability to the concept of Grokipedia before its release.

[lapcat]

> In this thread I am sharing only my honest beliefs and perspectives

That's one of the reasons I object to the term. People often use "devil's advocate" to state their opinions while providing plausible deniability in the face of criticism of those opinions. Just be honest, stand behind your stated opinions, and take whatever heat comes from that honesty.

[cowboylowrez]

Sure sure, but what happens if someone isn't 100 percent behind their opinions? Initial assessments for instance could very well attempt to see problems or anticipate arguments for or against particular viewpoints.

[lapcat]

That's fine, but you should attribute your certainty or uncertainty, as the case may be, to yourself and not to "the devil."

It's vastly more honest to say, "I'm not sure about this" than "Devil's advocate: blah blah blah". Besides hiding behind the devil, the devil's advocate makes the devil look more confident than he should be.

[cowboylowrez]

yeah but you're sort of attributing dishonesty to someones post when I don't think it merits it.

>There's a big difference between listening to other perspectives and inventing other perspectives.

while there's a big difference, the difference doesn't invalidate thinking through issues and searching for the actual conflicting views. "Devil's advocate" is a common enough term, whats the big deal? Is it the word "devil"? Do you think someone is calling you Satan?

[lapcat]

> yeah but you're sort of attributing dishonesty to someones post when I don't think it merits it.

There's a potential for dishonesty, but lack of honesty can also mean just opacity or reticence. Either way, openness and honesty are superior.

I do think that sometimes people say "devil's advocate" when it's their own opinion but an "unpopular" opinion that they may be embarrassed to admit, so they hide behind the devil, pretending they're not the devil themselves.

> "Devil's advocate" is a common enough term, whats the big deal? Is it the word "devil"? Do you think someone is calling you Satan?

No. The issue is not the term. A different term would not help. But the term is instructive about its own usage. In the Catholic Church, nobody wanted to argue against a potential saint, so someone had to be specifically appointed by the Church to argue the other side, a position the arguer didn't necessarily believe. The problem with devil's advocates online is that they're self-appointed for some reason, despite the fact that usually there are already people who sincerely believe that opinion and would argue for it, without the need for a devil's advocate. The Catholic Church canonization process is completely different from online arguments, and there's no need for the special role of the devil's advocate.

[cowboylowrez]

I actually like the role of devils advocate and can appreciate it. This fondness is not decreased by your assertion that there is no need. I do like your history on the terms origin, but again I don't think it follows that there is "no need" for the role, but maybe the role can exist without the appropriation of the historical term.