Strawman
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
The Strawman Fallacy is an informal logical fallacy (and a generally considered rude argumentative tactic), where an individual misrepresents his opponent's argument, followed by attacking the weaker misrepresented argument, and finally declaring that the original argument has been demolished.
This is a fallacy because the Strawman fails to deal with the arguments an opponent is actually making.
[edit] Word Origins
The strawman gets its name because, figuratively, one could imagine two people in a conflict, where one individual builds a straw dummy of his opponent, destroys this dummy, then claims his original opponent has been defeated.
[edit] Examples
Example 1:
- Antagonist: Stem cell research is immoral, it takes human lives!
- Protagonist: Stem cell research doesn't take human lives. Stem cells come from surplus blastocysts left over from in vitro fertilization; the cells were going to die with or without research. Better we put those cells to use than let them go to waste.
- Antagonist: By your logic, if we can just experiment on things that are going to 'just die anyway', why don't we just perform experiments on old people then?
Example 2:
- Protagonist: I see no reason to believe in God, so I don't.
- Antagonist: The only way you can say you don't believe in God is if you have 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. The only way you can be that certain is if you examine every part of the universe, and as you obviously haven't done that then your position is indefensible.
Obviously, in both cases, the antagonist is taking his opponents arguments out of context, and misrepresenting them in a weaker form that the antagonist can more easily argue against.
[edit] Other Kinds of Strawmen
The strawman fallacy covers a lot of ground, it includes but is not limited to:
- Intentionally misdefining words
- "Evolution is a religion, therefore it should not be taught in schools."
- "Evolution is only a theory, not a proven fact."
- Putting words in your opponents mouth
- Quoting an opponent out of context (this is a special case of the strawman fallacy called quote mining)
[edit] Exceptions to the Rule
It is a strawman fallacy in itself to falsely claim one's opponent is using a strawman argument, when in fact one's opponent isn't.
Example 1:
- Antagonist: Abortion is wrong because imaging techniques show the fetus writhing in pain before it's completely aborted. The fetus suffers.
- Protagonist: So, if abortion is wrong because it presumably causes the fetus to suffer, then you would have no objections to abortion if fetal anesthetic were used beforehand.
- Antagonist: What? Of course not!
- Protagonist: Alright, if the fetus suffering or not suffering makes no difference in how you feel about abortion, then obviously suffering is not one of your reasons to believe abortion is wrong, so there was no point in bringing it up in the first place.
- Antagonist: I don't have to defend myself against your strawman attacks!
In this case, the antagonist calls the protagonist's rebuttals a strawman attack in an attempt to discredit the author's persuasive appeal. However, the protagonist's rebuttal is acceptable, because it deals with the antagonist's argument in context and in the terms that the antagonist defined in the beginning. The antagonist is guilty of the strawman.
