Straw man epidemic

[Kriminal99]

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. :shade:

 

Ah yes that was the other reason such metaphors are dishonest debate tactics - by making your claim not blatantly obvious you are trying to create the situation where the opponent must do one of two things:

 

A) Recognize the meaning of your abstract argument which in a debate setting seems to imply acceptance of what you are saying even if the person is not in fact agreeing with what you are saying

 

or

 

:cup: Disregard what you say in which case you simply claim that they are stupid for not being able to piece together the meaning of your statement.

 

Which is exactly why I disregard such statements out of principle. Now that you have finally spit out what you are trying to say, I can address your claim. A tiff elsewhere? The title is straw man EPIDEMIC. If by elsewhere you mean almost everywhere I go and in my dealings with the vast majority of people then you are correct. This is also not a new sentiment.

 

Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men.

 

Charles Peirce, The Fixation of Belief

 

However I fail to see the signifigance of the fact that I am making the thread based on the observations that the ideas presented in the thread are true. As for seeking a third party to make people see the error of their ways, yes it would be a good thing if everyone challenged everyone else to be more objective and mature in their dealings with other people.

 

Finally as to the claim that this thread itself is somehow a straw man I fail to have any clue what you are talking about. The thread addresses a category of behavior, and the thread itself is outside that category of behavior. This can be seen by the fact that the thread and the recognition of straw man fallacy are attempts to seek out opposing opinions and defeat them, and create a lack of susceptability to such tactics in readers which would make the topic self defeating if it was itself a straw man.

[Kriminal99]

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.

 

Great post!

 

Well the pope obviously saw it as the negative version of the straw man. Would I consider it so? Well it depends.

 

Iron man

 

I would like to propose a related tool which I refer to as the iron man. Allow me to provide an example. I am an atheist. I once worked with a rather strange man who believed lightsabers were real and who became quite angry in response to religious claims. I once happened upon a conversation between him and another coworker in which he was loudly proclaiming the stupidity of the bible's claim that God made the earth in 7 days. I responded to him by stating that perhaps god's inertial frame of reference was different than ours. Now I know that there are plenty of christians who don't know anything about inertial frame of references and still believed in genesis, and I made this argument up myself I didn't hear it from a christian. But I found his anger distasteful.

 

Of course if the topic switched to my beleifs I might then turn right around and knock down this argument by saying something like it is simply more likely that their claims were based on a human need for something resembling a god and ignorance of scientific data now available to us.

 

If I did this would this make my original claim about inertial frame of references a straw man? I think not - I think I created an argument against my own beliefs stronger than one I had previously heard perhaps giving ammunition to someone who wanted to challenge my beliefs and who might be able to use the argument better than I.

 

Difference between them

 

So can I define a precise algorithm for determining the difference between the two? Well let me gather some information about the two. In the case of the obvious straw man the intent is to misrepresent your opponent's claims and present them in crippled form. Often methods to limit the opponent's ability to respond are employed in concert.

 

On the other hand in the case of the obvious iron man, the person is presenting what might otherwise be unheard of defenses against their own arguments. This very fact means that it cannot be the person's intent to misrepresent anything, for he could have simply not stated the argument and it would never have been considered.

 

So the first way to tell the difference between them is to consider that it is the objective of the person making a strawman to conceal and misrepresent opposing arguments and the intention of a person making an iron man to suggest alternative ideas to his own and challenge anyone to use them better than he had.

 

Practical Use

 

I think that in everyday life it is quite easy to tell the difference between straw man fallacy and the use of the similar tool which I have dubbed iron man. If your coworker says negative things about you behind your back such that you cannot defend yourself then he is using straw man fallacy. If your friends dislike your roomate and you defend him to some degree (even if not succesfully because at least then you have made him appear more reasonable) giving potential reasons for his behavior your are making an iron man.

 

When it is a necessary evil

 

Consider this very forum where people debate different ideas. It is quite impossible to have such a debate without each person giving their opinion and or attempting to debunk the opposing opinion. However again here we know that people are capable of responding to our claims. I believe that we make such counterarguments to our opponents in faith that if they have something valid to say they will do so. Therefore I would not classify every response to every argument in a medium of discussion as a straw man.

 

Rather I would call them straw men only in conjunction with attempts to prevent your opponent from responding to your arguments.

[Turtle]

Ah yes that was the other reason such metaphors are dishonest debate tactics - by making your claim not blatantly obvious you are trying to create the situation where the opponent must do one of two things:

 

A) Recognize the meaning of your abstract argument which in a debate setting seems to imply acceptance of what you are saying even if the person is not in fact agreeing with what you are saying

 

or

 

:cup: Disregard what you say in which case you simply claim that they are stupid for not being able to piece together the meaning of your statement.

 

Which is exactly why I disregard such statements out of principle.

Ahh, but you didn't disregard my statements out of practice, for here we are discussing them at length. So the honesty of my tactics aside, they are effective as you say, but with the caveat the word 'stupid' is not my choice.

 

Finally as to the claim that this thread itself is somehow a straw man I fail to have any clue what you are talking about. The thread addresses a category of behavior, and the thread itself is outside that category of behavior. This can be seen by the fact that the thread and the recognition of straw man fallacy are attempts to seek out opposing opinions and defeat them, and create a lack of susceptability to such tactics in readers which would make the topic self defeating if it was itself a straw man.

 

Well nows, it seems to me that the fallaciousness of strawman arguments is well established in syllogistic logic, therefore the strawman argument is easy to attack. By aligning an easy to attack premise with a broad conclusion implied by the term 'epidemic' and its associaterd ills, I see it as self-similar. Logical errors happen, and over more than scarecrows. The proper application is to call them out when they occur rather than musing over their distribution. :shade:

[Kriminal99]

Ahh, but you didn't disregard my statements out of practice, for here we are discussing them at length. So the honesty of my tactics aside, they are effective as you say, but with the caveat the word 'stupid' is not my choice.

 

Well nows, it seems to me that the fallaciousness of strawman arguments is well established in syllogistic logic, therefore the strawman argument is easy to attack. By aligning an easy to attack premise with a broad conclusion implied by the term 'epidemic' and its associaterd ills, I see it as self-similar. Logical errors happen, and over more than scarecrows. The proper application is to call them out when they occur rather than musing over their distribution. :shade:

 

Ignoring the subject of the metaphor and instead identifying the use of such tactics as itself innapropriate is rejecting the statement out of principal. Such tactics are normally effective, but I don't play by the same rules and exposing such tactics for what they really are is quite an effective countermeasure. And rightfully so, since the very fact that such tactics are an immoral form of deception simultaneously creates this foolproof defense against them.

 

As for your second paragraph I don't really have the slightest clue what you are trying to imply. But with that stated let me attempt to respond to what it looks like you might be saying.

 

The idea that everything you already understand is objectively trivial is itself a fallacy. At best the fact that you understand the fallaciousness of straw man fallacy simply shows that it CAN be understood. This does not mean that everyone else understands it a priori or even with a quick glance at an explanation of it. I find it unlikely that the people most prone to gossiping or passive aggressiveness are familiar with the concept of straw man fallacy.

 

Being easy to attack is hardly the defining attribute of a straw man. The straw man is a straw man because it cannot fight back rather than because it is easy to attack.

 

Unfortunately the proper application of something such as straw man fallacy is not determined using declaration by fiat. In summary this thread addresses a category of behavior rather than some specific debate fallacy identified by some other philosopher.

[IDMclean]

Just to point out, the key difference here is one of style. Rhetoric versus Dialectic, I do believe.

 

When I identify a purely rhetorical arguement I generally note it as most likely dishonest, if not out right fallacious. Rhetorical arguements are those which are ment to pursuade, or otherwise influence. They have an implicit agenda which often is obfuscated.

 

That is I consider Rhetoric to be propaganda, and circumspect.

 

Dialect is the style of debate that I respect the most, as like scientific study, it requires ridged testing and logical practice. Infact, if I am not mistaken the unspoken form which is supported by the rules of this forum is that of Dialect and Grammar.

 

Rhetoric, The study or practice of persuasion

Dialect, the study or practice of the invention, or examination of knowledge

Grammar, the study or practice of the rules of communication

 

I would admit that epidemic is perhaps a strong word, however I would also admit that perhaps it is an apt word to describe the widespread use of rhetoric in debate and discussion.

[sebbysteiny]

I'm not going to get too involved here, but I will add my two cents.

 

You have said that

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.

 

Is there a link between the inability of people to properly listen, acknowledge and understand other people's ideas or beliefs and the strawman? On the one hand, my immediate instinct says no (and my immediate instinct is damned good :hyper:).

 

On the other hand, there was a debate over the rights and wrongs of the death penalty and I noticed that the arguments on both sides was riddled with strawmen. So strawmen is a definate hinderence to understanding, and therefore peace and love to all mankind.

 

But on the other hand, sometimes people say something and the immediate implications of that statement are criticed rather than the argument itself, which is not a strawman but legitimate criticism.

 

One example of such a thing is when people criticise, say, Israeli policy for, say, bombing a house of civilians in Lebanon. Dousands of civilians died and many people used this as a justification that 'Israeli policy is barbaric'.

 

Israel naturally responds with ' but how can you deny us the right to self defence?'.

 

The Israeli critics then may respond 'we are not denying Israel's right to defend itself, we are criticing unnecessarily brutal tactics leading to the deaths of the civilians. Therefore, the Israeli argument is a strawman'.

 

But the truth is that the Israeli argument is correct. All Israel did was drop bombs by plane on a house their intelligence mistakenly believed was Hezbollah. However, since intelligence is never perfect, criticing Israel on these grounds is tantamount to a denial of Israel's right to 1) Use and act on intelligence, and 2) use planes in war and either of these denials amounts to a blanket denial of a nation's right to self defence from a Hezbollah type threat.

 

I'm not saying Israel's policies are correct. But I am saying that Israel's argument that 'it has a right to self defence' is not a strawman in cases like the above even though Israel's critics do not actually deny the principal or even occasionally give lip service given lip service to it.

 

And there are many other arguments that have implications beyond the specific use of the argument and these are all valid targets of attack in any argument.

 

So it is not always obvious how to distinguish a strawman from an unintended but absurd statement logically implied by the other side's argument.

[Kriminal99]

Strawman IS the inability or unwillingness of people to listen and understand opposing belief sets. (See plurality of coherentism again)

 

However the problem with straw man is not that during the course of an honest debate people tend to misrepresent their opponent's argument. Rather it is that people tend to justify:

 

-Yelling over the other person, unconnected metaphors and other dishonest debate tactics which prevent debates from resulting in a better understanding on all sides

 

-Refusing to stop actions which negatively affect others despite those others having arguments as to why such actions should not be taken

 

using straw men arguments. Another problem with straw men is that they are used by people to decieve third parties into doing whatever benefits the straw man maker by preventing the object of the straw man from defending himself. This is little different than outright lying to get what you want.

 

@KAC The rhetoric in my arguments is limited to titles. However I would not even classify the use of "epidemic" as rhetoric. Most people really do make frequent use of straw man, and it is a very bad thing for the human race.

[sebbysteiny]

Yelling over the other person, unconnected metaphors and other dishonest debate tactics which prevent debates from resulting in a better understanding on all sides

 

I might be being slow here but I can't see where the 'strawman' logical fallacy comes into any of the above examples of unfair debating tactics.

 

Refusing to stop actions which negatively affect others despite those others having arguments as to why such actions should not be taken

Didn't follow what you meant here either.

 

Another problem with straw men is that they are used by people to decieve third parties into doing whatever benefits the straw man maker by preventing the object of the straw man from defending himself. This is little different than outright lying to get what you want.

I understand and agree with this.

[cwes99_03]

Kriminal have you been reading some of the debates I've had with other members? :)

I particularly like your definition of an iron man. The putting forth of a weak but valid argument for your side and then crushing it with another argument so that the second argument seems much much stronger and some of its weaknesses will be avoided simply because it crushes the first suggestion.

 

I suppose I use this from time to time, myself. Is this a bad practice? I dont' necessarily think so. It is simply putting forth one argument that has a lower probability of being correct so that the second possibility will be seen as having a much better footing. I always hope that this leads to further discussion of the second suggestion and removes the first suggestion from the argument alltogether.

 

A strawman, however, is intended (as you say) to misrepresent the opposition and make them appear to stand on weak footing.

 

The other options you have suggested, I have pointed out a couple of times. That is to attempt a change of subject, attempt to yell over the competition, or a subtle attempt to draw the topic off subject slowly. While the last one I think is the weakest because we all tend to drift from time to time, I think it can be effective, but that is the reason for having a moderator (mod) to steer the thread properly. The biggest problem arises when the mod is the culprit., not that I have any direct evidence of this.

[Kriminal99]

I might be being slow here but I can't see where the 'strawman' logical fallacy comes into any of the above examples of unfair debating tactics.

 

Didn't follow what you meant here either.

 

I understand and agree with this.

 

Not at all, I guess I should have clarified what I was claiming the connection was.

 

First to relate to the other thread, strawman is the main way lack of respect for the limitations of induction is realized. That is people claiming to have considered alternate views have not put any effort at all into understanding others views and instead have constructed straw men versions of those opposing views.

 

Now the second paragraph you just quoted refers to acting upon someone in contradiction to that person's views. A good example is the idea of a government that abuses its people in the views of those people. A government is a social contract in which the people give up some of the freedoms they might have in an anarchy (like the freedom to kill people they don't like or taxes etc) in exchange for a government that works to benefit them.

 

Suppose the citizens of a particular government were grossly overtaxed and the people objected. The government might have some argument for why they are taxing more than necessary (maybe they think the people too incompetent to handle signifigant resources) The people might have some well thought out objections that they carefully created in order to avoid having to resort to other means. But the government discards them - not because they carefully examined them and determined them to be false (although that is no doubt what the government would claim) but because they were emotionally dependent on their own views, or because members of the government stand to personally benefit from the taxes etc. They might continue to use the "people are too incompetent to handle signifigant resources" argument to justify their actions in their own man. This would of course be a straw man.

 

But this doesn't matter except for the fact that they will continue to enforce their rediculous taxes in accordance with their views and without careful consideration of their peoples' argument.

 

Another example would be if you were a jewish person and you believed diversity was the key to success of the human race but the nazis refused to pay attention to your argument yet acted upon you in accordance with their views including the straw man of your counterargument.

 

Lying is sometimes used in a similar manner in that even though you may not be able to honestly convince others your view is correct, you believe you are justified in decieving others to make them act on your viewpoint (which includes a straw man of opponents views)

 

Yelling over others in a debate, unconnected metaphors, and other actions which impede the ability of the debate to result in a better understanding are also things someone might feel they are justified in doing because they believe their views are right (including the straw man of alternatives)

 

Of course on the other hand someone might use force, lie or cheat just because they think they can get away with it (IE they believe in might makes right) and perahps these people can only be taught using force. However many people still use the above tactics even as they think they are being reasonable because they think their "superior understanding (read: ignorance)" justifies it.

 

Unfortunately these people might necessitate use of force as much as any unreasonable person, since their actions effectively make them the same as those who follow might makes right.

[cwes99_03]

Is another form of the strawman is to attribute properties to your opposition that just aren't real, such as a claim that all republicans want to cleanse America of all non-white people, or that the Democrats want to ban all religion from all aspects of life? Or is this another type of fallacious argument?

Would it only be a straw man if then you attacked them for holding that view?

[IDMclean]

Would it only be a straw man if then you attacked them for holding that view?

 

Yes, it would be a straw man if you attributed a false arguement to your opponent. By false I mean, an arguement that the opponent themselves did not espouse.

 

Take for instance, Noam Chomsky. He was attributed by a number of opponents of supporting this man's work regarding the falsification of the gas internment camps, Robert Faurisson. However his arguement was not for the content of the work that Robert Faurisson was espousing, but rather his right to publish it. That is he argued for freedom of speech, and expression.

 

In many cases, in fine rhetorical fashion, it was argued that he held views that he may or may not have, that were none-the-less falsely attributed to Noam.

 

For more on it, check out the Faurisson affair.

[cwes99_03]

This likewise is done by people here on this very site all the time, particularly in the Theology forum. But no one ever finds a problem with it.

[sebbysteiny]

This likewise is done by people here on this very site all the time, particularly in the Theology forum. But no one ever finds a problem with it.

 

Still, isn't it great when you can dismiss pages and pages of written arguements with just one word: 'strawman'?

[cwes99_03]

Yah, but it is also a strawman when all you say is strawman and offer no reasoning as to why someone's argument is a strawman.

 

Several as of late have called another's argument a strawman when there was no such argument made.

 

Would you feel that the following argument has anything to do with a strawman?

 

 

Likewise, in order to tell you whether or not a fake $100 bill is real or not, I do not have to study every possible fake $100 bill in the world. I simply have to have full knowledge of what a real $100 bill looks like.

 

I don't see a strawman argument? But the person who quoted it thought there was (which leaves me wondering if they even know what a strawman is or if they were simply slandering the original writer by crying "strawman").

 

Thus accusing another on this site of a strawman argument is not simply enough. One must demonstrate how the argument is a strawman, and if one is unable to do so, then there is no strawman (at least none that you can argue.)

[sebbysteiny]

Yah, but it is also a strawman when all you say is strawman and offer no reasoning as to why someone's argument is a strawman.

 

Several as of late have called another's argument a strawman when there was no such argument made.

 

Would you feel that the following argument has anything to do with a strawman?

 

No I don't. I'll be bolder. There is no conceivable way that could be a strawman. No attempt to represent the argument of another was made; only an analogy whose purpose was to explain their own arguments.

 

Thus accusing another on this site of a strawman argument is not simply enough. One must demonstrate how the argument is a strawman, and if one is unable to do so, then there is no strawman (at least none that you can argue.)

 

Agreed. But a simple sentence is sufficient for this. One can still counter pages and pages with just a quick satisfying, logically valid and highly pursasive sentence.

[cwes99_03]

Agreed.