Ok. I've had it.
What is this "strawman" everyone keeps saying? It's popping up on the boards all over where i'm pawing about, and I have no idea what it could mean.
"Hollow Men" maybe? what? seriously.
On the other topic, no one's forcing anyone to read things they don't want to read. Relax.
You'd think with all the booze you imbibe you'd know that thinking too much hurts.
The Straw Man Fallacy
Type: Red Herring
Etymology:
"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.
Quote-Unquote:
"When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don't worry about losing the Strawperson-American community vote." (James Lileks)
Example:
"Some of you may have seen the 90-minute ABC network television show?entitled 'Growing Up in the Age of AIDS'.? I was one of nine guests on that live program.? ?[A] single 45-second sound bite cost me a long journey and two hectic days in New York City.
"Why?did I travel to The Big Apple for such an insignificant role? ?I felt a responsibility to express the abstinence position on national television.? How sad that adolescents hear only the dangerous 'safe sex' message from adults who should know better.
"What follows, then, is what I would have said on television.?
"Why, apart from moral considerations, do you think teenagers should be taught to abstain from sex until marriage?
"?[N]ot one of 800 sexologists at a recent conference raised a hand when asked if they would trust a thin rubber sheath to protect them during intercourse with a known HIV infected person. ? And yet they're perfectly willing to tell our kids that 'safe sex' is within reach and that they can sleep around with impunity."
Source: James C. Dobson, in a fund-raising letter for "Focus on the Family", February 13, 1992.
Exposition:
Judging from my experience, Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion.
The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position?the "straw man"?not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.
Subfallacy:
As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness.
A common straw man is an extreme man. Extreme positions are more difficult to defend because they make fewer allowances for exceptions, or counter-examples. Consider the statement forms:
* All P are Q.
* Most P are Q.
* Many P are Q.
* Some P are Q.
* Some P are not Q.
* Many P are not Q.
* Most P are not Q.
* No P are Q.
The extremes are "All P are Q" and "No P are Q". These are easiest to refute, since all it takes is a single counter-example to refute a universal proposition. Moreover, the world being such as it is, unless P and Q are connected definitionally, such propositions are usually false. The other propositions are progressively harder to refute until you get to the middle two: "Some P are Q" and "Some P are not Q". To refute these requires one to prove the extremes: "No P are Q" or "All P are Q", respectively. So, extremists are those who take positions starting with "all" or "no". For instance, the extremists in the abortion debate are those who argue that no abortions are permissible, or that all abortions are.
Therefore, Straw Man arguments often attack a political party or movement at its extremes, where it is weakest. For example, it is a straw man to portray the anti-abortion position as the claim that all abortions, with no exceptions, are wrong. It is also a straw man to attack abortion rights as the position that no abortions should ever be restricted, bar none. Such straw men are often part of the process of "demonization", and we might well call the subfallacy of the straw man which attacks an extreme position instead of the more moderate position held by the opponent, the "Straw Demon".
From:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
Topic: Clear the Air (Read 8539 times)