Straw man
m (added a "not to be confused with", cause WFG is clearly, easily confused.) |
(Undo revision 816309 by WaitingforGodot (talk) that redirects to straw man. make an article first) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
[[File:Wdzydze strach.jpg|thumb|For detailed instructions see back of packet]] | [[File:Wdzydze strach.jpg|thumb|For detailed instructions see back of packet]] | ||
A '''straw man''' is an [[deceit|intentional misrepresentation]]<ref>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.</ref> 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. | A '''straw man''' is an [[deceit|intentional misrepresentation]]<ref>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.</ref> 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. | ||
Revision as of 14:55, 20 June 2011
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.
The title of the argument comes from the art of practising fighting techniques against men made of straw; a problem in that straw men don't fight back, don't wear armour, don't bleed and generally aren't anything like the sort of thing you would actually encounter in a battle. Therefore someone arguing against a straw man is just arguing against an idealised opponent that only exists in their own head.
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
- Bullshit
- Gish Gallop
- Jack Chick, who's often accused by people of being a straw Evangelical Christian. These people are often surprised to find out that he's a real person.
- Logical fallacy
- Stereotype
- Term of art
- Deadliest Warrior, A show that pits straw men against each other in a fight to the death.
Footnotes
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Leaders Guide - pdf file
| Articles about logical fallacies | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal fallacies | |||||
| Affirming the consequent | Denying the antecedent | ||||
| Informal fallacies | |||||
| Red herrings | |||||
|
Straw man |
|||||
| Conditional fallacies | |||||
| Fallacious argument styles | |||||