Talk:Straw man

	This logic related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Straw Evolution

Bulverism much? According to your own page on bulverism, it's deciding without discussion someone is wrong and explaining how they became so silly. Creationists do understand evolution probably a lot better than evolutionists do. After all, the Origin of Species is one of the top ten people lie about having read. The scientific community relies on brainwashing idiots who just repeat what they hear on the Discovery Channel and from secondhand accounts of scientific texts, but never see for themselves.68.188.68.66 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

First, The Origin of Species doesn't even make the top 20 list of people lie about reading. The only source I could find that actually had Darwin's book on it was an article on The Federalist, which was the author's "attempt to drill [a list from Huffpost] down to a more realistic list" of books (Which, need I point out, has Homer's Odysseus as the top book just because the author owns a copy and has never read it).

Also, ^{[citation needed]} <-- So tell us what you've "seen for yourself".

Also, the relevant articles do go into why each of them are wrong. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Straw men and evolution

As straw men arguments are used in evolution - should there be a funspace article on the evolution of straw men (how do they breed by the way?). 127.0.0.1 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"Straw man arguments are used in evolution" <- See me after class. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but how do straw people evolve - and where do 'little dollies made of straw' and [1] fit into the straw evolutionary tree?

In the beginning there was some straw and God wanted to see what it was good for, so asked all the creatures of the world for ideas.

One little piggy asked for straw to make a house - which did not work.

A woman, crowned with iron came by and took some.

So did the owners of various small 'pets' (who actually owned them).

The straw then evolved.

First there were dollies, and then there were 'straw men.' 127.0.0.1 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Intentional?

What is the source (reference) for claiming a fallacy of this type is only Straw Man if done deliberately? In common usage I see people uninformed on a topic parroting back such an argument from what they heard elsewhere (and believed) and this being claimed by those on the other side to be Straw Maning. A review of the topic on Wikipedia and elsewhere does not back-up the claim it must be deliberate! ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.186.55.163 / talk}

I'm sort of inclined to agree. But it may depend on what you mean by "intentional". The typical argumentative straw man "So what you are saying is (followed by some gross exaggeration or misrepresentation of the other speaker's point)". So is that a "deliberate" straw man or just bad style?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Straw soldiers

Are actually used towards the end of episode 40 of 'Three Kingdoms (2010). Anna Livia (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

... So? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

An example of the 'proper' use of straw-persons (to acquire a large number of arrows from the enemy). Anna Livia (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Logical fallacy or rhetoric?

In most cases, the latter is probably more accurate. The most egregious examples are those published as news articles, opinion pieces, and so forth. In other words, strawmanning is generally a propaganda technique. To define the term as a logical fallacy or imply that it usually occurs in the course of debate/conversation ignores most examples of strawmanning and makes the concept seem rather more quaint and less relevant than it actually is. Accumulator (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If someone uses a strawman argument in conversation, one can always point out they're not addressing the argument that was actually presented. It's only an effective ruse when the strawman isn't juxtaposed with the real argument, such as in an article or on television. Accumulator (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"Steelmanning"?

This is vaguely similar to the minimax decision rule, but only in an informal sense and under certain assumptions. It would probably only work this way if you could ignore the persuasive value of rhetoric and specious argument. In real disputes you must assume your opponent will use a dishonest argument when they'd profit from doing so (however you wouldn't necessarily have to make such arguments yourself). It has been some time since I last studied graph search techniques, so correct me if I'm wrong or abusing the jargon here. Accumulator (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)