Straw man epidemic

[Kriminal99]

Straw man is usually talked about in the context of a debate, but its use is really much more widespread than that.

 

What is it?

The general idea behind straw man is that a person creates a fake version of a person, an argument or belief such a person has made and then beats the faulty argument down with ease expecting praise and recognition from anyone watching. The metaphor is supposed to be the idea that someone creates a resemblance of their greatest enemy made of straw, and then beats down the straw man with great bravado.

 

Outside the context of a debate

One thing to recognize about straw man is that is basically assumed that any time you talk about someone negatively behind their back you are engaging in straw man fallacy. This is because the person is almost always going to have an alternative viewpoint they will use to defend against yours. If you have a discussion with the person to their face, it shows that you are honestly trying to reconcile differences in opinion or determine whose viewpoint is actually correct even if it is not yours. On the other hand talking about someone behind their back negatively shows that you are attempting to prevent the other person from having a chance to defend theirself such that your claims are more likely to be left standing and you are less likely to be shown to be wrong regardless of the truth.

 

Why is it immoral?

 

If we consider Mill's utilitarianism which states that moral action are those actions which add the most amount of happiness to the most amount of people, but instead of his "competent judges" we recognize that people are not fully capable of knowing what will make themselves happy much less what would make anyone else happy, we are left with a sort of "free market morality". In this situation everyone decides how to use their limited resources to best benefit themselves. However this enviornment shares the same weaknesses as a free market economy. The weakness of particular interest to us here is the need for "Free flow of information". If a person has been greatly decieved about the nature of their surroudings, they will not be able to effectively decide how to benefit themselves using their limited resources.

 

This relates to straw man fallacy because people commiting the fallacy are trying to project their self serving views on to the world around them. This projection often involves decieving people around them into accepting their views, and these decieved people are less able to determine how to benefit themselves. It is important to recognize here that (as skepticism teaches us) noone can know themselves to be correct such that they would be justified in preventing their opponent from voic- Rather only by actively seeking out the viewpoint of one's opponent can one honestly maintain and share their views.

 

What harm does it cause?

 

Straw man fallacy in one form or another can be said to be responsible for ALL of the world's ills. Anytime 2 people disagree, it can be said that at least one of them does not understand the other person's view. However since NOONE can know which is which, one must always assume it is possible that it is infact themselves that does not understand the opponent's viewpoint. Only by admission of one's opponent can one rest assured that the opponent's argument does not undermine their own.

 

But more relevant to this topic because the person who does not understand the opponent's viewpoint does not know this is the case, he is just as likely to resort to force believing he is "in the right" as the person whose argument stands in spite of everything the opponent believes. The only way to avoid this violent scenario is an honest discussion of the two parties with the goal of resolving differences. Straw man is the opposite of such a discussion, and a slippery slope towards a violent end.

 

How can it be stopped?

 

The main problem with this type of behavior is that people who are neutral to a disagreement between two people do not act objectively. Rather they tend to "enable" such behavior by listening to straw man arguments without objection. Some may believe they simply have nothing to gain from objecting to the behavior, some may share the same insecurities as the person making the straw man arguments, some may be skeptical of such behavior but not know how to object to it and feel confident in doing so.

 

It is important that everyone understand why such behavior is immoral and why enabling it hurts everyone. You might dislike someone and not see any obvious reason to defend him against lies or straw man arguments. But there are reasons to defend him anyways. To begin with you risk inciting the person to violence or similar tactics against you. You might also reason that you don't like it when people behave that way towards you so you will not do it either.

 

But perhaps more important is realizing that you must do this when you are a neutral party in a disagreement. The same reasons apply but also what you would be doing by objecting to such behavior is challenging the two parties to be more honest and come to an agreement through discussion. The result could be that two people you know get along and help each other rather than hate each other.

 

It is more important for the objective parties to realize this because if a person who reguarly uses deception and straw man tactics meets with resistance and disapproval wherever he goes he will soon alter his behavior and hopefully for the better. Although it is also possible for such a person to just become more devious and result to outright and carefully designed lies. Dealing with the latter case just involves behaving such that it becomes difficult or impossible to get away with such lies.

[Turtle]

Straw man is usually talked about in the context of a debate, but its use is really much more widespread than that.

 

...

But perhaps more important is realizing that you must do this when you are a neutral party in a disagreement. The same reasons apply but also what you would be doing by objecting to such behavior is challenging the two parties to be more honest and come to an agreement through discussion. The result could be that two people you know get along and help each other rather than hate each other.

 

It is more important for the objective parties to realize this because if a person who reguarly uses deception and straw man tactics meets with resistance and disapproval wherever he goes he will soon alter his behavior and hopefully for the better. (Although it is also possible for such a person to just become more devious and result to outright and carefully designed lies)

 

 

Or perhaps not act deviously to outright provoke disagreement to the benefit of other parties. Moreover, a person convincced against their will, is of the same opinion still. :fly:

[Kriminal99]

It's true that people often do not take straw man arguments seriously even as they might pretend to agree or rather just fail to object. However I believe in order to reduce the problem, reduce the amount of hate and violence in the world, and to increase the efficiency of the human race in general people can't be passively respond to such behavior.

 

Rather everyone must actively object to such behavior to make it clear to the person doing it that such childish efforts are futile.

[Turtle]

Rather everyone must actively object to such behavior to make it clear to the person doing it that such childish efforts are futile.

 

[pithy retort]Before you take the splinters out of your siblings' eyes, take the logs out of your own. [/pithy retort] :fly:

[IDMclean]

One must acknowledge the behavior, make clear that the behavior itself, and not the context it is used in, is immoral, and then promptly, and if at all possible, remove one's thoughts and interactions from the behavior if it is continued.

 

Those who do not play by the rules, are not allowed to play at all.

[Kriminal99]

[pithy retort]Before you take the splinters out of your siblings' eyes, take the logs out of your own. [/pithy retort] :fly:

 

Please speak english. Such tactics only serve to confuse with the purpose of making one's argument seem more profound than they really are. If what you are trying to say actually makes any sense you don't need to speak in obscure metaphors.

[Southtown]

He says walk the walk.

[Kriminal99]

Yet another potentially unconnected metaphor. Rather than using such dishonest debate tactics, why not try stating how it is that you think I am not "walking the walk".

[pgrmdave]

Turtle's "obscure metaphor" is a relatively well-known biblical reference. It means that before you point out other people's flaws (your sibling's splinter), you should look at yourself, and realize that you have flaws of your own (your log). It is commonly used to remind people that while they might be right about other people being wrong, it is not always their place to point that out. This can be applied to this thread in two ways -

 

1. To you, Kriminal99. You are saying that not enough people actively object to strawman arguments, and that too many people make them. Well, you might be right, but we all make errors, we all make mistakes, and it may be unnecessary to start a thread calling out other people's errors if you haven't paid attention to your own.

 

2. You are calling on people to be more active against strawman arguments, but perhaps they are taking this message to heart, and know that while there may be a problem, it is not up to them to call somebody out on it.

[Kriminal99]

Turtle's "obscure metaphor" is a relatively well-known biblical reference. It means that before you point out other people's flaws (your sibling's splinter), you should look at yourself, and realize that you have flaws of your own (your log). It is commonly used to remind people that while they might be right about other people being wrong, it is not always their place to point that out. This can be applied to this thread in two ways -

 

1. To you, Kriminal99. You are saying that not enough people actively object to strawman arguments, and that too many people make them. Well, you might be right, but we all make errors, we all make mistakes, and it may be unnecessary to start a thread calling out other people's errors if you haven't paid attention to your own.

 

2. You are calling on people to be more active against strawman arguments, but perhaps they are taking this message to heart, and know that while there may be a problem, it is not up to them to call somebody out on it.

 

A possible connection of the obscure metaphor to the current topic is unnescessary as the obscure metaphor had no place here to begin with. One might eek a counterargument from such a statement, but why bother when you realize that the person could have just directly stated the counterargument without any such attempts to make themselves sound unjustafiably profound?

 

 

As to your #1 claim- The first obvious response to this is to simply to point out that I do not make straw man arguments like other people do. If you were trying to claim that a specific argument I had made was a straw man of someone else's argument, that would be one thing but otherwise the obvious implication of my stating that straw man tactics are immoral is that I do not use them...

 

The second response is to say that EVEN IF I did make a habit of using straw man fallacy that would not make it unnecessary to state that it was immoral or call other people out on it. This is because the necessity of eliminating the use of straw man fallacy and my use of it are completely unrelated.

 

If this still does not make sense to you consider the following model for eliminating the use of straw man fallacy: I dislike it being used against me so I call you out on it when you do it, you dislike it being used against you so you call me out on it when I do it. Rather than me just stopping myself from doing something that would benefit me for some arbitrary reason, you are stopping me. In practice this is how morality actually works. You don't steal because people who don't like having their stuff stolen would stop you.

 

And in fact this is how one such as I would motivate myself to refrain from straw man - I simply realize that if others knew what I was doing they would stop me from using such deceptive tactics.

 

I think that might be a response to #2 as well.

[pgrmdave]

Kriminal - I was simply trying to explain the possible reasons that Turtle would have for posting that well-known metaphor. As for your second response, and your following example - I agree with you, however, those ideas aren't in line with the well-known metaphor that Turtle used. I think that it is okay to point out (kindly, at least at first) if a person makes an error such as a strawman argument. However, the well-known metaphor would advise against that. At this point we have a seemingly basic, fundamental difference in the way that you and I would approach a situation, and the way that the well-known metaphor would have us handle it. Having come to this junction, it is clear that we must simply agree to disagree with the well-known metaphor that Turtle posted.

[Kriminal99]

so you are saying lighten up on turtle? I do not wish to appear as though I am attacking turtle the person, but rather the use of metaphor in debate in addition to the possible implication of the metaphor. I guess I felt that the use of the metaphor to sway the debate opens the tactic itself up for criticism... is this wrong?

[IDMclean]

I personally do not see what relevance the biblical reference has in this thread. Though it has high rhetorical value, it's pragmatic value would seem to be highly in question. It would seem to me that it is a badly obfuscated reference to the character of the person posting, namely Kriminal99, rather than the content or form of the thread topic itself. In which case I would categorize it as genetic fallacy.

 

In formal debate style, when a fallacy is made, it is prudent to acknowledge it as just that, and address it. Most often these types of arguements are made either in ignorace, or in-advertently. Rare is it that the person knowingly, and willing commits a fallacy.

 

The only way to improve on such things is as Kriminal99 says, call them out on it. In the case of written debate such as this it may even be prudent to start a thread, or a PM on the subject of the style of debate, and the formal rules.

 

As often as formal logic and debate is called on this site, it would seem that a number of even the more nuanced members either do not acknowledge the use of formal debate style as important, often taking on a rhetorical approach over and informative, or do not seem to know enough about it.

 

You are calling on people to be more active against strawman arguments, but perhaps they are taking this message to heart, and know that while there may be a problem, it is not up to them to call somebody out on it.

 

I would ask then, who's responsibility is it?

 

Sure we all make mistakes, that does not dimmish the fact that it is our responsibility to make clear our communications between one another. If you have a tree sticking out of your teeth, I sure as hell am going to tell you. Even if I can't feel the tree sticking out of my teeth. Often enough I just don't notice myself as keenly as I notice others.

[Turtle]

I personally do not see what relevance the biblical reference has in this thread. ...

Sure we all make mistakes, that does not dimmish the fact that it is our responsibility to make clear our communications between one another. If you have a tree sticking out of your teeth, I sure as hell am going to tell you. Even if I can't feel the tree sticking out of my teeth. Often enough I just don't notice myself as keenly as I notice others.

 

Mmmmm...and yet you employ it yourself as part of the argument against it‽ Which brings to mind the observation that Krim's thread idea here on strawman arguments is itself a strawman argument and he failed to see that as he wailed away on it. From the title we can further infer Krim had a little tiff here elsewhere and sought a third party to make his opponent see the error of their ways, ergo log in the eye, as well as my taking such a third party position.

Well done on the rest of you who gathered the import of my retort, as I thought it patently obvious. :cup:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Speak english. Such tactics only serve to confuse with the purpose of making one's argument seem more profound than they really are. If what you are trying to say actually makes any sense you don't need to speak in obscure metaphors.

 

edited to remove pithy retort whose comic timing was way off.

 

Damn it, you people posted like ten things, and my pithy retort to the pithy retort lost all of it's punch.

 

Oh well.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

Turtle, is that an interrobang?! (How do I make it?)

 

Any chance you know how to make the irony mark?

 

TFS

[CraigD]

An immoral epidemic in one form or another responsible for ALL the world’s ills – Kriminal certainly has strong words of condemnation for the concept of the straw man, and draws an interesting connection between what is conventionally considered a rhetorical technique and the wider social phenomena of failed empathy, depersonalization and demonization.

 

However, as I see it, the straw man has positive qualities. Constructing a metaphorical character with holding positions opposed to you own is an effective technique for emphasizing your position – an example of negative definition, which can be well complement positive definition. Students of science history will likely recall that the famous 17th century work “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems”, contained a charater, Simplicio, who’s whole function was to voice every wrong idea Galileo’s could work into the dialog, in order to be soundly knocked down by the autobiographical character Salviati, while a third character, Sagredo, looks on. Simplicio is clearly as straw man.

 

What distinguishes a bad, hateful straw man from a good, enlightening one is, I believe, the presence or absence of disingenuity. Galileo’s Simplicio is so obviously a straw man that one cannot reasonably equate him to a real person or group of people - though a number of high-ranking cardinals, and possibly Pope Urbane VIII, seem to have, leading to some serious problems for Galileo! Other writers’ (eg: Adolf Hitler’s) straw men have been identified with real people and groups of people, to grave ill ends.

 

As with other tools, the virtue of a straw man is less in the rhetorical tool than in how one uses it.