|
|
|
|
Straw man
|
| |
|
| |
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
It should be noted that presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Straw man' Start a new discussion about 'Straw man' Answer questions from other users |
Recent Posts
Encyclopedia
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
It should be noted that presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
Origin
A man made of straw, such as those used in military training, is easy to attack. Attacking a straw man can give the illusion of a strong attack or good argument. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, "straw person" or wooden dummy argument. In the UK, it is sometimes called Aunt Sally, with reference to a traditional fairground game.
Reasoning
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
- Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
- Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).
- Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
- Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
- Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
Examples
- Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
- Person B: No - any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
(The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e. "unrestricted access to intoxicants").
- Person A: Nude bathing is healthy and nude beaches should be permitted here.
- Person B: No, that kind of free sex threatens the morality of society.
(B has misrepresented A's position as a call for sexual promiscuity).
- Creation-evolution debate:
- Person A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class.
- Person B: No, because the universe works too well to be here by pure random chance.
(B has misrepresented A's position and the theory of evolution as a cosmogony).
- Person A: Life got here by creation.
- Person B: No, the earth could not possibly have been created in six 24-hour days.
(B is representing A as a young-earth creationist, which is not the only creation theory).
- Person A: Pretty pictures, drawn with great imagination, form the basis of much of the "evidence for evolution"
(Person A is misrepresenting the evidence for evolution)
Debating around a straw man
Strictly speaking, there are three ways to deal with a straw man setup.
- Using the terms of the straw man and refuting the theory itself:
Beach debate: "There is no threat to morality with "free" sex. Sex for purposes other than procreation is something that shouldn't be tied to morality, shame, or guilt".
Note: A weakness of this retort is that agreeing to use the terminology of the opponent may deflect the debate to a secondary one about the opponent's assumptions).
- Clarifying the original theory:
"I said evolution should be taught, not that I believe in the big bang".
This may involve explicitly pointing out the straw man.
- Questioning the disputation ("Why could it not have been made in six 24-hour days?").
See also Debate
See also
External links
- at the Fallacy Files
- , more examples of straw man arguments
|
| |
|
|
