Straw manThis article is about the logical fallacy
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] 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.[1][2]
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 other statement - being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes this weaker proposition, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
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 other statement - being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes this weaker proposition, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.
Origin
The origins of the term are unclear; one common (folk) etymology given is that it originated with men who stood outside of courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness.[3][4] Another is that 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. In the UK, it is sometimes called Aunt Sally, with reference to a traditional fairground game.
The origins of the term are unclear; one common (folk) etymology given is that it originated with men who stood outside of courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness.[3][4] Another is that 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. 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 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y.Thus, Y is a resulting 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.[1]
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).[2]
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.[1]
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.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y.Thus, Y is a resulting 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.[1]
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).[2]
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.[1]
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.
Example
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates.
(Hypothetical) prohibition debate:
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".[1]
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates.
(Hypothetical) prohibition debate:
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".[1]
Debating around a straw man
Strictly speaking, there are three ways to deal with a straw man setup.
1. Using the terms of the straw man and refuting the theory itself. (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).
2. Clarifying the original theory. This may involve explicitly pointing out the straw man. In the example above, such a response might be: I said relax laws on beer but nothing about other stronger intoxicants.
3. Questioning the disputation. See also Debate
Strictly speaking, there are three ways to deal with a straw man setup.
1. Using the terms of the straw man and refuting the theory itself. (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).
2. Clarifying the original theory. This may involve explicitly pointing out the straw man. In the example above, such a response might be: I said relax laws on beer but nothing about other stronger intoxicants.
3. Questioning the disputation. See also Debate
External links
The Straw Man Fallacy at the Fallacy Files
Straw Man, more examples of straw man arguments
The Straw Man Fallacy at the Fallacy Files
Straw Man, more examples of straw man arguments
HEY SENATOR BAYH WHY DID YOU JUST UP AND QUIT YOU LOSER!? INSTEAD OF GIVING AN IMPASSIONED SPEECH ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS ON THE SENATE FLOOR, YOU JUST UPPED AND QUIT. GO BACK TO YOUR HUCK-A-BUCK SUPPORTERS DOWN THERE IN THE CORN FIELDS OF INDIANA AND LICK YOUR WOUNDS. YOU ARE UNFIT TO BE A SENATOR AND REPRESENT INDIANA IN THE SENATE CHAMBER! ALSO, FORGET ABOUT ANY ASPIRATIONS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, BECAUSE, LIKE SARAH PALIN, YOU JUST UPPED AND QUIT! MAYBE JOHN COUGAR MELLENCAMP CAN GET THE WRITE IN VOTE AND INDIANA CAN GET A TRUE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVE IN THE US SENATE!
Israel
Speaking to 2002 luncheon hosted by AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby group, Bayh "described his lifelong affection for the state of Israel, beginning with a boyhood vacation there, and deepening with his many official visits as a governor and senator."[41] A report of the luncheon continued:
The senator also stated his support for increased foreign aid to Israel. "We have to make the kind of investments necessary to prevent loss of life," he said. "Israel is in jeopardy, they're a strong ally of ours, and I think there would be congressional support for further aid to Israel, particularly regarding security issues."
On the subject of the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, he said, "Yasser Arafat is no partner for peace. Not until there is new and better leadership within the Palestinians will there be a chance for peace."[41]
Speaking to 2002 luncheon hosted by AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby group, Bayh "described his lifelong affection for the state of Israel, beginning with a boyhood vacation there, and deepening with his many official visits as a governor and senator."[41] A report of the luncheon continued:
The senator also stated his support for increased foreign aid to Israel. "We have to make the kind of investments necessary to prevent loss of life," he said. "Israel is in jeopardy, they're a strong ally of ours, and I think there would be congressional support for further aid to Israel, particularly regarding security issues."
On the subject of the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, he said, "Yasser Arafat is no partner for peace. Not until there is new and better leadership within the Palestinians will there be a chance for peace."[41]
No comments:
Post a Comment