Information AboutStraw Man |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT STRAW MAN | |
| relevance fallacies | |
| logical fallacies | |
|
A straw man (or '''straw dog''' {Link without Title} ) argument is a Rhetoric al technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful Rhetoric al technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted. Its name is derived from the use of straw men in combat training. SETUP OF A STRAW-MAN One can set up a straw man in the following ways: # Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. # Present someone who defends a position poorly as ''the'' defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that ''every'' upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated. # Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. Some logic textbooks define the straw man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of Media Manipulation . However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a Proof By Exhaustion . As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous. An example of this is when person A says "I don't think children should run into the busy streets". Person B will say "I think that it would be foolish to lock up children all day with no fresh air". This insinuates that person A's argument is far more draconian than it is. SEE ALSO
FURTHER READING |
|
|