Talk:Straw man/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 September 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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! --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?--En attendant Godot 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). It was mentioned [here] 14:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I like the quote. why not add it?En attendant Godot 15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism

We say that the following statement is a straw man:

• At its core, Darwinism explicitly excludes purpose or intelligent guidance from the history of the development of life.

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?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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"? --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.--Bob^{Spring 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.--User:Brxbrx/sig 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.--Bob^{Spring 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?? 15:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Read methodological naturalism it excludes it. I don't understand what you mean my "evidence against".--Bob^{Spring 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. 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I can only suggest yet again that you read methodological naturalism. Science explicitly excludes the supernatural.--Bob^{Spring 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. 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Philosophical naturalism explains it better I think. 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.--Bob^{Spring 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?--User:Brxbrx/sig 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.--Bob^{Spring 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. :-)^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

Off the top of my head Peanut butter argument? --Bob^{Spring 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)

Straw skepticism

The main thrust of the fist part of the Straw skepticism section claims that calling homoeopathy "just water" is a straw man argument because it ignores the magic banging.

But come on! It is just water!

The second paragraph then relationally doubts the first paragraph. We should delete the whole section. If we really want to show a bit balance fallacy then we should find a different bit of sceptical straw-manning.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It might have been garbled since, but the point is that you can't just consider some mocked-up version of an alternative medicine and then dismiss it based on that. Far too often on RW articles especially you find people trying to second guess what creationists or alt med advocates "might" say about something - forming their own straw man in the process. It's true that homeopathy hasn't proven that succussion alters the water in any way, but "dilution" is still a false impression of the claim. ^postate 18:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What it says at the moment is:

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 seems to me that calling "homeopathic remedies "just dilutions" is perfectly fair. Are we going to consider every justification of "flood geology" when we dismiss the flood?--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wordplay

What is the connection between strawpeople/strawcreatures and basket cases? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Does 'goat' eat straw man'? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And where do 'straw dolls' fit into the argument? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

From

The following has been added twice to the article under "form"

1. 1st person puts forward argument A.
2. 2nd person puts forward argument B falsifing A.
3. 2nd person puts refutes argument B.
4. It appears superficially that argument A has been refuted.

I feel that it should not be in the article for two reasons. Firstly it does not make sense. If objection B is falsified then argument A is apparently bolstered - not refuted. Secondly, and most importantly, even if this could somehow be written so that it made sense it still wouldn't be a demonstration of a straw man argument.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it makes sense. The verb 'to falsify' has multiple meanings and this "form" section utilizes the more obscure meaning of it, which is: 'to alter (information, a document, or evidence) so as to mislead'.

I would also like to point out that "puts refutes" should be changed to "refutes".

Whether we need to have a "form" section at all, though, is a matter worth discussing. Nullahnung (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Then point two would need to be clarified and it should read:

1. 1st person puts forward argument A.
2. 2nd person changes argument two to make it false.
3. 2nd person refutes argument argument A - which he had previously made false.
4. It appears superficially that argument A has been refuted.

But now it's simply trite.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your "clarification" made it even more confusing and now it doesn't make sense to me anymore. :/

Here, let me try the clarification:

1. 1st person puts forward argument A.
2. 2nd person puts forward argument B which is a misleading alteration of argument A.
3. 2nd person refutes argument B.
4. It appears superficially that argument A has been refuted.

Nullahnung (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't proofread that very well. Sorry about that.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I added what Nullahnung wrote to the article but made it into a footnote. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Penny for the Guy

Some link to Guy Fawkes night (and effigy burning) perhaps? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A straw poll told us that would be the last straw, so you're probably clutching at straws there. Sophie^Wilder 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with the prettiest girl I ever saw, who was sippin' cider through a straw. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Straw pole dancing? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)