Straw man

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Straw religion)
(Examples of the straw man argument)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
Straw man arguments against religion are also easy to generate. Defining anyone who is even moderately religious as an unthinking, sheep-like entity who blindly accepts whatever their [[priest]] or [[pastor]] tells them is one (even if it is true in ''[[fundamentalism|some]]'' circumstances).  Positions like these are often held by [[antitheism|anti-theists]] such as [[YouTube]] vlogger [[Theamazingatheist]].  Prominent [[biology|biologist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] is often accused of generating straw man religions to fight in his pro-[[atheism]] writings such as ''The God Delusion''.
 
Straw man arguments against religion are also easy to generate. Defining anyone who is even moderately religious as an unthinking, sheep-like entity who blindly accepts whatever their [[priest]] or [[pastor]] tells them is one (even if it is true in ''[[fundamentalism|some]]'' circumstances).  Positions like these are often held by [[antitheism|anti-theists]] such as [[YouTube]] vlogger [[Theamazingatheist]].  Prominent [[biology|biologist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] is often accused of generating straw man religions to fight in his pro-[[atheism]] writings such as ''The God Delusion''.
 +
 +
=== Straw politics ===
 +
 +
In the political sphere, the easiest way to construct a straw man is by the liberal application of [[stereotypes]]. By making the assumption that a politician believes in ''all'' the ideologies associated with their general political leaning, they can be dismissed more easily. For instance, assuming a fiscal [[conservative]] is also socially conservative or assuming a [[pro choice]] politician is also in favour of extreme wealth redistribution are common fallacious straw men that are made by politicians, pundits and voters themselves. The same is true of conflating ideologies, such as stating that [[liberalism]], [[socialism]] and [[communism]] are identical political ideologies (a [[rhetoric]] notoriously popular in the US).
 +
 +
This is extremely problematic in politics because it is not possible to give an accurate appraisal of political beliefs without knowing what those beliefs are, or by presuming that belief A automatically means subscribing to belief B. This is also used within politics to introduce [[snarl word]]s into discussions.
  
 
=== Straw skepticism ===
 
=== Straw skepticism ===

Revision as of 11:46, 18 June 2011

For detailed instructions see back of packet

A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation[1] of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.

Contents

Constructing the men of straw

Straw men are notoriously easy to construct, and require little more than extending the opponent's arguments beyond their original point until their stance appears ridiculous - a reductio ad absurdum taken the opposite direction. Once the opponent has accepted (or failed to refute) such a set-up, one can simply attack the straw man position instead of the opponent's actual points, and claim any subsequent attempt to correct the situation as a conceding the argument.

Sometimes it's so easy, you can do it without thinking.

Examples of the straw man argument

Straw evolution

Straw men of evolution are particularly common, with creationists setting up a stereotype of evolutionary theory (one that, generally, no scientist would agree with) and demolishing them in debates, with the evolution proponent's real arguments largely being ignored.

In the Leader's Guide document prepared by the producers of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, proponents of Intelligent Design claim:
At its core, Darwinism explicitly excludes purpose or intelligent guidance from the history of the development of life.[2]

Of course, "Darwinism", or as scientists call it, the theory of evolution, never claims this in the first place, Theistic evolution is consistent with Darwinism though it doesn't look like a good argument. As a scientific theory built first upon evidence - like all science - the idea that it assumes a position and then attempts to prove that position completely misrepresents not only what the theory says, but also the scientific method. Evolution by natural selection does not exclude intelligent guidance in the closed-minded way suggested by this phrase - it merely offers a naturalistic explanation based on the evidence available. If sufficient evidence suggested intelligent meddling, the theory would adapt to include it.

Straw religion

Straw man arguments against religion are also easy to generate. Defining anyone who is even moderately religious as an unthinking, sheep-like entity who blindly accepts whatever their priest or pastor tells them is one (even if it is true in some circumstances). Positions like these are often held by anti-theists such as YouTube vlogger Theamazingatheist. Prominent biologist Richard Dawkins is often accused of generating straw man religions to fight in his pro-atheism writings such as The God Delusion.

Straw politics

In the political sphere, the easiest way to construct a straw man is by the liberal application of stereotypes. By making the assumption that a politician believes in all the ideologies associated with their general political leaning, they can be dismissed more easily. For instance, assuming a fiscal conservative is also socially conservative or assuming a pro choice politician is also in favour of extreme wealth redistribution are common fallacious straw men that are made by politicians, pundits and voters themselves. The same is true of conflating ideologies, such as stating that liberalism, socialism and communism are identical political ideologies (a rhetoric notoriously popular in the US).

This is extremely problematic in politics because it is not possible to give an accurate appraisal of political beliefs without knowing what those beliefs are, or by presuming that belief A automatically means subscribing to belief B. This is also used within politics to introduce snarl words into discussions.

Straw skepticism

It is quite easy to make a straw man argument of woo explanations and things like alternative medicine. The classic example being homeopathy, an alternative medicine treatment where active ingredients are diluted until no trace of it remains in the remedy. It is, of course, absurd to think that this could work, but it is also a straw man argument because homeopathy includes a succussion procedure involving striking the solution in a special way. Thus, homeopathic remedies aren't "just dilutions" but dilutions that have been whisked about a bit.

It is contentious whether this is a true straw man position, as the burden of proof lies with homeopaths to prove that the succussion procedure adds anything new to the remedy, such as instilling water memory. Thus, given the balance of evidence, homeopathic remedies are just dilutions. Skepticism, however, requires an honest appraisal of all the facts and ignoring the striking involved in succussion, even if it is just an escape hatch, is still wrong in principle.

See also

Footnotes

  1. Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the individual is guilty only of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of intentional deceit.
  2. Leaders Guide - pdf file
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support