HOME | DD
BWS — You don't prove anything with a Straw Man
Published: 2017-01-17 15:34:28 +0000 UTC; Views: 2119; Favourites: 59; Downloads: 33
Redirect to original
Description
From a series of memes I published at my blog: www.webomator.com/2017/01/17/t…
Of all the lousy tactics in arguments, the straw man is one of the two I like least.
The straw man argument is lazy. You don’t dispute the things that people have said, because that would be hard. No, instead you invent the most ridiculous possible paraphrase of what you claim they really mean; then you belittle and mock that paraphrase.
You use the straw man when you have no way to deal with the real opinions of real people. That says a lot more about you than it says about the people you’re “arguing against”.
If you’re right, and they’re wrong, it’s their actual words you need to address. Arguing with imaginary people is pointless and sad.
Related content
Comments: 6
Certainly the Straw Man is an informal logical fallacy, and I've seen it on many occasions. There does, however, seem to be one scenario in which one is justified in arguing against not-specifically-the-very-words of an opponent, without it being a Straw Man, and that would be if those words lead logically to an absurdity or an incoherence which is not recognized by the speaker of the words themselves. An example of this would be a person who believes that abstract concepts are just useful fictions, but who also believes in the existence of objective beauty. These two beliefs are contrary to each other, yet it's not obvious to many (even most) people. One could argue against holding these two views concurrently, even though the logical incoherence is not part of the opponent's stated position. Yet, this is not a Straw Man, because it does address the opponent's actual views. It merely does so with a logically-critical eye.
Would you say that this is a responsible way to handle the views of an opponent?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, since you're dealing with your opponent's actual words - not rephrasing them - I don't see why not. What you're describing is carrying your opponent's statement to a conclusion without (I hope) adding absurdities along the way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's precisely it. Thanks for replying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
