I'm not big into politics but I don't really understand how two different parties can both use "science and data" to reach totally separate conclusions. Which one is lying/wrong?
As a programmer, it just doesn't compute. Input and output and all that.
Think of stuff that programmers do argue about. Type systems, databases, architecture, agile development, etc.
Logic is a great tool, but it's also more limited than people realize.
That's not at all how a steel man argument works. You're supposed to commit to building the best form of your opponent's argument and verify that they themselves agree with it. You don't ask someone to do it for you.
With steelmanning I mean "the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it."[1] If you dispute that definition[2] then mentally swap the term to one you think better fits what I proposed.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning
[2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...