This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Strawman is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
A Straw Man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.citation needed 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 In the UK, it is sometimes called Aunt Sally, with reference to a traditional fairground game.
Contents |
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.
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.
- Person A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class.
- Person B: No, because the universe works too well to be here by pure random chance.
B has misrepresented A's position and the theory of evolution as a cosmogony.
- Person A: Life got here by creation.
- Person B: No, the earth could not possibly have been created in 6 24-hour days.
(B is representing A as a young-earth creationist, which is more difficult to defend than other types of creationism.)
See also
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.
External links
- The Straw Man Fallacy at the Fallacy Files
- Straw Man, more examples of straw man arguments
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 6 October 2008, at 02:37.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Strawman".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.