I'm
posting this because it's good information for anyone anywhere in the world to
know...
A note
to Christians - this fallacy has been used both to defend our position and to
criticize it.
Let's be careful not to use it - or fall for it!
Straw man
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected
from Straw man argument)
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw
man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by
replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the
"straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted
the original position.[1][2]
Origin
The origins of the term are unclear. One common (folk) etymology given is that it originated
with men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate
their willingness to be a false witness, but it is unlikely that individuals
would publicly declare their willingness to commit a crime outside a
courthouse.[3][4] Another more popular origin is
a human figure made of straw, such as practice dummies used in military training.
Such a dummy is supposed to represent the enemy, but it is considerably easier
to attack because naturally, it neither moves nor fights back.
[edit]
In the UK
[edit]Reasoning
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern
of argument:
1.
Person A has position X.
2.
Person B disregards certain key
points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position
Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in
several ways, including:
1.
Presenting a misrepresentation
of the opponent's position.
2.
Quoting an opponent's words out
of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual
intentions (see fallacy
of quoting out of context).[2]
3.
Presenting someone who defends
a position poorly as the defender, 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]
4.
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are
then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the
speaker is critical.
5.
Oversimplifying an opponent's
argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.
Person B attacks position Y,
concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious,
because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to
constitute an attack on the actual position.
[edit]Examples
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates
such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We
should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No,
any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and
goes only for immediate gratification.
The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B
has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted
access to intoxicants".[1] It is a logical fallacy because
Person A never made that claim. This example is also a slippery slope fallacy.
Another example:
Person A: Our
society should spend more money helping the poor.
Person B: Studies
show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the
recipients. That money could be better spent.
In this case, Person B has transformed Person A's
position from "more money" to "more handouts", which is
easier for Person B to defeat.
[edit]See
also
[edit]
