Talk:Straw man/Archive1

Joke
There is a ghastly 'Children of the Corn'/Straw Man joke somewhere. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Strawman theory
There is a duplicate Strawman theory as well. should they be joined? or one "Goated" (if i'm using said term correctly) more to make them valid duplicates?--En attendant Godot 14:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read strawman theory first, they are distinct from on another. -  π    14:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So it's a specialized argument just for this legal setting? can we put something in parens, or add as "for the other kind, see X".  I'd never heard of this specialized one, thanks! --[[Image:sun mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  14:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

quote
After reading this on the cp talk page I thought if it was relevant to strawman as an article?

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."

Especially the last bit which says you have to know the best argument, as in not just make up your own opposition. 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * do you know who said it?--[[Image:sun mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). It was mentioned [here] Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 14:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the quote. why not add it?[[Image:sun mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism
We say that the following statement is a straw man: But doesn't Methodological naturalism oblige it to do just that? All of science starts off with the assumption that there are only naturalistic causes. Or does the "At its core..." quote mean something different?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At its core, Darwinism explicitly excludes purpose or intelligent guidance from the history of the development of life.
 * Again, i always beg that while i read a lot, i'm not a scientists - nevertheless, i'm not sure Darwinism does exclude guidance. If god is all knowing, and established the laws of the universe with the full minded intention of making us, exactly as we are, he would be able to, right? and then it would be guided? Or are they meaning "ok, everything was going along nice and naturally, but god needed critters to have a distinct head, so he went "zap" and they had a full head and alimentary canal"? --[[Image:sun mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But science always excludes supernatural explanations. Of course, if any phenomena can be shown to be happening then they cease to be supernatural and fall into the world of the natural. But the possibility of supernatural intervention is axiomatically not part of science.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a straw man because I don't know that Darwin gave a damn as to whether or not the supernatural was at hand. It could very well be, just now in a fashion science is capable of distinguishing.  If not a straw man, it's at least a distraction from actual arguments.--  15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even in that case it's a very bad example - even if it is a straw man at all.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think it EXCLUDES the supernatural, its more like evidence AGAINST the supernatural being involved. Not quite the same thing, is it?? Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 15:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read methodological naturalism it excludes it. I don't understand what you mean my "evidence against".--BobSpring is sprung! 15:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As in it doesnt *need* to exclude the supernatural. Darwin didnt start by thinking "I need to destroy god" right? So its "core" doesnt exclude the supernatural, buts developed to not need it. I dont think I can express myself well Im a little confused about it, sorry. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only suggest yet again that you read methodological naturalism. Science explicitly excludes the supernatural.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, read a little more closely. Im still stuck where we *must* to exclude the supernatural. I think what I'm thinking of is what is says under "Arguments against methodological naturalism". Its not that we exclude it from the beginning, moer that we didnt needed it so we conclude we never need it.... and that makes us think we should exclude it from the beginning. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Philosophical naturalism explains it better I think. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 16:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Though they are slightly different ideas.  One treats naturalism as tool to use when doing science and the other says that naturalism is what's "real". But in any event it excludes any and all things supernatural from science. All science.  Including evolution.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we simply settle with At its core, Darwinism explicitly excludes purpose or intelligent guidance from the history of the development of life. being a bad argument?-- 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It may or may not be. My point is that it's a bad example of a straw man.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Especially since there are so many better ones, we hear each day from the Creationists. "Evo says that man comes from monekys, why are there still monkees?"  "evo says dogs gave birth to cats, I've never seen that, have you?"  "evo says life is improving, so we must be the best, but if we are improving why are there X and Y's?"  god, the creationists love their strawmen. :-)
 * Off the top of my head Peanut butter argument? --BobSpring is sprung! 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I've cut it for now and replaced it with a link to Peanut butter argument.

Funspace suggestion
"Strawpersons - evolution of" (by their nature they are genderless - unless creationists go in for mpreg). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

mpreg - SF term (similar derivation to 'moobs') - antithesis of creationist outlook. Genderless reproduction probably preferrable. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Straw skepticism and creationism
Does the whinging of the cdesign proponentsists ("Straw man! Creationism and intelligent design are not the same thing!") qualify here? Because, y'know... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)