straw man

A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's arguments can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one other statement—being presumably easier to refute than the original position—must be true. If one refutes this weaker proposition, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.

Origin

The origins of the term are unclear; one common (folk) etymology given is that it originated with men who stood outside of courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness. ^{[1] [2]} Another is that a man made of straw, such as those used in military training, is easy to attack. Attacking a straw man can give the illusion of a strong attack or good argument. In the UK, it is sometimes called Aunt Sally, with reference to a traditional fairground game.

Reasoning

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Topic A is under discussion.

2. Topic B is introduced under guise of being equivalent to topic A.

Topic B is usually a distorted version of A. It can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Misrepresenting the opponent's position and refuting the misrepresentation, giving the appearance that it was the opponent's position which has been refuted.^[3]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).^[4]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.^[3]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. A participant (usually the one who introduced B) attacks B, as if it were A.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

Example

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates even when less flawed arguments could be found to support the same position.

• (Hypothetical) prohibition debate:

Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.

Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".^[3] The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern: 1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned.

Debating around a straw man

Strictly speaking, there are three ways to deal with a straw man setup.

1. Using the terms of the straw man and refuting the theory itself: Beach debate: There is no threat to morality with "free" sex. Sex for purposes other than procreation is something that shouldn't be tied to shame or guilt. (Note: A weakness of this retort is that agreeing to use the terminology of the opponent may deflect the debate to a secondary one about the opponent's assumptions).

2. Clarifying the original theory: I said relax laws on beer but nothing about other stronger intoxicants. This may involve explicitly pointing out the straw man.

3. Questioning the disputation: What incitement to nazism do you imagine school uniforms would have? See also Debate.

Informal Uses

The straw man fallacy, or straw figure fallacy, is often utilized informally by speakers who wish to bolster the strength of their argument.

In this case, the dismissal of another weak, or 'straw man' argument is not used to prove the validity of their original argument directly, but instead provides a contrast that can be used to imply that the speaker's conclusions are unique to their original argument, and do not apply in any other case. The speaker, in effect uses the straw man fallacy to emphasize the originality of the argument presented, and any conclusions drawn from that argument.

This is often used in academic settings, where the original discipline with which the presenter is intimately familiar, is contrasted with disciplines with which the presenter has very little background knowledge.

Generally, this can be described as contrasting the conclusions they've reached in one specific context, with other contexts with which they are not very familiar.

Often, this device can be identified with the use of certain phrases, including: "Unlike [unrelated context], [original context] is [insert conclusion]."

An example, taken from a recent science conference in an effort to emphasize the significance of non-scientific words to student success on science tests, is "students who take math tests don't have a problem understanding the questions because of the non-math words included in the problem, but in science that is very much the case." The speaker uses math tests as a straw man. The rhetorical effect does not improve the original argument, but is designed to highlight the uniqueness of the argument. Furthermore, there is no opportunity for someone with specific knowledge in the straw man argument to validate or contradict the comments of the speaker. In the case of the conference, no math teachers were available to confirm or contradict the statement above.

See also

• List of fallacies
• Ad hominem
• Straw man proposal

References

External links

• The Straw Man Fallacy at the Fallacy Files
• Straw Man, more examples of straw man arguments