Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training.[citation needed] In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it[3].[not in citation given] Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.[citation needed]
Contents |
[edit] The Reasoning
Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
- Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
- Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
- Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
- Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
- Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
[edit] Examples
- Hypothetical Marijuana debate.
- Person A: We should liberalize the laws on marijuana.
- Person B: No. Any society with unrestricted access to drugs loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The proposal was to relax laws on marijuana. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend: "unrestricted access to drugs".[1]
- A beach debate.
- Person A: Nude bathing is healthy and nude beaches should be permitted here.
- Person B: No. That kind of free sex threatens the morality of society.
B has misrepresented A's position as a call for sexual promiscuity.
[edit] Use as a verb
The term shows signs of entering the English language in verb form. For example, person A in the above hypothetical debate could retort, "Don't strawman me!".[1][2] An even more advanced usage, seen on an Internet blog:
- "Can we make an agreement: I won't strawman you, if you won't strawman me?" [3]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ a b c d e Pirie, Madsen (2007). How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-9894-6.
- ^ a b The Straw Man Fallacy. Fallacy Files. Retrieved on 12 October 2007.
- ^ Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved on 2006-10-09.
[edit] External links
- The Straw Man Fallacy at the Fallacy Files
- Straw Man, more examples of straw man arguments
