The Strawman Arguement.

[Amazon 7]

This seems to be a term MUCH bandied about recently.. Some do not appear to know the correct usage of the term... In an attempt to educate the less fortunate masses once again, here is an adequate definition with which to start.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html


The Straw Man Argument
To identify a Straw Man Argument, you must be familiar enough with the topic in question to recognize when someone is setting up a caricature. Understanding when someone is using this deceptive tactic is the best way to call attention to the weakness of the straw man position.
A Straw Man Argument is a statement a person makes if they want to more easily attack an opposing position.

Let's take the following position: "Evolution has been the main engine of speciation throughout natural history."

A person using a Straw Man against that position will intentionally make a ridiculous caricature of evolution, one that only the most ignorant might believe. These are the steps they might use to try to "disprove evolution".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steps used in creating and using a straw man argument:
Step 1: Build the Straw Man: "Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant!?"
Step 2: Knock down the Straw Man by any means necessary: "How could a mouse evolve into an elephant? There would have to be billions of changes for that to occur, and nobody has ever seen speciation anyway!"

Step 3: Connect the original position to the Straw Man:"So it's silly...who has ever seen a mouse evolve into an elephant? Nobody!!"

Step 4: Claim to negate the opposing position by the connection in 3. "Therefore, evolution must be false!"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's easy for the perpetrator to knock down their own Straw Man because they can make the Straw Man themselves. It's a tailor-made position for the person using it. Usually, the person using the argument will knock down the unrealistic caricature in Step 2 as quickly as possible, and then proclaim that the opposing position has been demolished because they were so cleverly able to knock down their own manufactured Straw Man.

They pretend that the Straw Man is the real argument, not the ridiculous caricature they created with deliberate ignorance and made-up facts. A real counter-position could cite facts to support their position. You can point out to them that they just knocked down their own caricature of evolution. Not the facts that support evolution. Straw men are ineffectual in that they leave the facts untouched.


Unfortunately, this tactic fools a lot of people because it can be subtle. In the case of evolution, an anti-evolutionist can take a slightly ridiculous point of view that seems born out of ignorance of science or fact. They then refuse to listen to rational facts, and escalate the ignorance until it's a full-blown Straw Man. This is a related tactic called deliberate ignorance. It will also include attempts to generate numbers out of the air to defend a Straw Man position.

This is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics, since the person using the Straw Man has so little confidence in their own position that they cannot even address the real position of their opponent! At the heart of the Straw Man Argument is deception.

When people use Straw Man arguments, ask for facts. Straw Man arguments are rarely based on undistorted fact.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hypocrite's Straw Men
Another type of Straw Man that anti-evolutionists use is a hypocrite's caricature in which they use criteria for judging evolutionary theory which they will not equally apply to any other discipline. For instance....

"Old hoaxes prove that all of evolutionary theory must be false."

This is also a Straw Man argument. One can remind such people that hoaxes abound all through human history, not just in evolutionary theory. Some examples are:


Spiritual: Religious artifacts, pieces of the "true cross", astrology, ghosts, spirtualism, UFOlogy, etc.

Medicine: Most extreme medical treatments pre-1900, snake oil, modern hoaxes, etc.

Science (recent): Falsification of new heavy element data, cold fusion.
A sane person would not invalidate medicine because of the hoaxes perpetrated by some unscrupulous people in the past. Medicine has come a long way, and is certainly much more advanced than it was. It would be illogical to expect someone to turn away from medical treatment because medicine once had occasional hoaxes and frauds.

You won't hear someone say, "Modern medicine is full of crap because quacks and hoaxes exist! (see for example QuackWatch). Would you expect people to stop going to doctors and deny themselves treatment because past and present frauds "must" prove all of medicine wrong?

Likewise, trying to discredit evolution with stories of previous hoaxes is again a Straw Man. Someone studying evolution won't discredit evolution because of hoaxes earlier in this century, because there are many, many fine studies over the years that are scientific, repeatable, and rigorous, that all point to evolution, and many more of those good studies than the handful of hoaxes the anti-evolutionists like to fixate on.

Ask the people using that kind of Straw Man if they've given up medicine and religion as well as evolutionary theory, on that same criteria? Sometimes they'll pretend they have, just to hold on to their straw man...and sometimes, that can be rather fun to watch.

Some real evidence for evolution can be found in many solid, repeatable scientific experiments. For a link to only 100 of them (you can find many more within this database by searching!), take a look at this PubMed webpage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having fun with Straw Men
Of course, there are many more examples. The Straw Man position is a "lazy argument" which doesn't bother to use facts or knowledge to try to create and defend a real position. The simple fact that you can show that a statement is really a Straw Man will expose their attempts at deception. Using real facts with reference is the only way to avoid using a Straw Man argument.

Understanding the deceptive basis of this tactic will empower you in debate, or help you avoid wasteful debate.


Straw Man statements include:
"Evolution is all random chance."
(Note: In fact, evolution does not state that things evolved by chance. That Straw Man urban myth has been, and continues to be, spread by anti-evolutionists to cause doubt and confusion. Actually, half of evolution is non-random: natural selection. If natural selection were random, evolution wouldn't work!

"Evolution says we all came from monkeys."

"How could complex organs like the eye evolve from chance?"

"How could complex organs like the eye just come into existence?"

"How could life arise from nothing?"

Of course there are far too many examples to list.

[PLFXpert 0]

Fallacies, in general, are common here.

For example, I believe it is a fallacy to state as fact another's intent:

Quote

A person using a Straw Man against that position will intentionally make a ridiculous caricature ..., one that only the most ignorant might believe.

I don't believe such things are safe to assume on a public internet forum.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Amazon 7]

hey you cant use Wikipedia here....

[PLFXpert 0]

I'm lazy.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[SpeedRacer 1]

bumping this up to put it near the religion thread.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Samurai136 0]

Let's vote. I'm in favor of tossing the rules of logic and substituting Scott Adams' "Dilbert's Rules of Argumentation"

Quote

If you are new to the Internet, allow me to explain how to debate in this medium. When one person makes any kind of statement, all you need to do is apply one of these methods to make it sound stupid. Then go on the offensive.

1. Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)

2. Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Republicans are Neo-Conservatives, accuse the person who said it of siding with Neo-Conservatives.

3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

4. Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.

5. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

Those are the basic tools that come to mind. If you think of some more, feel free to leave them in a comment.

edit: April 1st is a good date to install the new rules...

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[Gravitymaster 0]

8. Accuse someone of mischaracterizing what you wrote even though they are quoting your exact words.

btw ...great list!!

[Samurai136 0]

Well, it's a new day.
Building bridges via areas of agreement.
1. David Bowie
2. Traffic Lights
3. Scott Adams
4. ?

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Well, it's a new day.
Building bridges via areas of agreement.
1. David Bowie
2. Traffic Lights
3. Scott Adams
4. ?

Well lets take it slow. I'm not ready to have sex yet.