Straw Man: Balloon Man
Description:
The Balloon Man is a variant of the Straw Man fallacy through which the goal is redefined in an excessively broad or imprecise method. This expanded definition, the Balloon Man, is taken to incorporate a variety of (normally) dangerous issues. This Balloon Man is then attacked, and it’s concluded that the unique is flawed on this foundation.
Premise 1: A has a longtime definition D.
Premise 2: Individual B offers an excessively broad or imprecise definition V of A rather than D.
Premise 3: Individual B criticizes V.
Conclusion: Individual B concludes that A is flawed (false, dangerous, incorrect, flawed. and so forth.).
Whereas this fallacy is normally geared toward an viewers, it may be self-inflicted: an individual can unwittingly make a Balloon Man. This may be performed by way of harmless ignorance or as a result of affect of prejudices and biases.
It needs to be famous that redefining one thing needn’t be a Balloon Man fallacy. The fallacy happens when the redefinition is excessively broad or imprecise and is completed in an unprincipled method. As could be suspected, there might be good-faith debate about whether or not a redefinition is best or worse than the unique definition.
A very good definition should be clear, believable, and internally constant. It should additionally both be in correspondence with our intuitions or be supported by arguments that present our intuitions are mistaken. Since individuals differ of their intuitions about meanings this is usually a drawback. When unsure about whether or not a definition is intuitively believable or not, it’s preferable to argue in assist of the definition. A definition that fails to fulfill these circumstances could be faulty.
A very good definition should keep away from being round, being too slender, being too broad or being too imprecise. Definitions that fail to keep away from these issues are faulty.
A round definition merely restates the time period being outlined and thus offers no progress within the understanding of the time period. For instance, defining “goodness” as “the standard of being good” could be round.
A definition that’s too slender is one which excludes issues that needs to be included. It leaves out an excessive amount of. For instance, defining “individual” as “a human being” could be too slender since there would possibly properly be non-humans which can be individuals. Angels or aliens, for instance, may also be individuals.
As one other instance, defining “stealing” as “taking bodily property away from one other individual” can be too slender. In any case, there appear to be varieties of theft (reminiscent of stealing concepts) that don’t contain taking bodily property. There may also be varieties of theft that don’t contain stealing from an individual. For instance, if there isn’t any after-life, then grave robbing wouldn’t be stealing from an individual (because the individual is gone). Nonetheless, it’d nonetheless be theft. Naturally sufficient, there might be intensive debate over whether or not a definition is just too slender or not. For instance, a definition of “individual” that excludes human fetuses is perhaps thought to be too slender by somebody who’s against abortion whereas a pro-choice individual would possibly discover such a definition acceptable. Such disputes would must be resolved by argumentation.
A definition that’s too broad is one that features issues that shouldn’t be included. It permits for the time period to cowl an excessive amount of. For instance, defining “stealing” as “taking one thing you don’t legally maintain title to” could be too broad. An individual in a life raft fishing in worldwide waters doesn’t legally maintain title to the fish however catching them would hardly appear to be stealing.
As with definitions which can be too slender there might be vital debate over whether or not a definition is just too broad or not. For instance, a definition of “individual” that features apes and whales is perhaps taken by some as too broad. In such instances, the battle would must be resolved by arguments.
Whereas it may appear odd, a definition might be too broad and too slender on the identical time. For instance, defining “gun” as “a projectile weapon” would depart out non-projectile weapons (reminiscent of laser weapons) whereas permitting non-gun projectile weapons (reminiscent of crossbows).
Definitions may also be too imprecise. A imprecise definition is one that isn’t exact sufficient for the duty at hand. Not surprisingly, imprecise definitions may also are usually too broad since their vagueness will usually permit in too many issues that don’t actually belong. For instance, defining “individual” as “a being with psychological exercise” could be imprecise and too broad. And that’s simply scratching the floor of debating definitions in good religion. Now again to the fallacy.
Whereas the Straw Man has lengthy been a political software, it has confirmed exceptionally efficient in trendy American politics and the Balloon Man variant has grow to be a go-to software. The Balloon Man model of important race idea offers a superb instance of the ability of this fallacy and illustrates why individuals settle for (or fall for) this and different Straw Man fallacies. What follows is a philosophical have a look at a Balloon Man fallacy in some element; some readers would possibly favor to skip this half and go proper to the Protection and Examples.
Briefly put, critical race theory was developed as an academic theory in the 1970s and was defined in 1994 by law professor Roy L. Brooks as “a collection of critical stances against the existing legal order from a race-based point of view.” Whereas one can debate the deserves of important race idea, there isn’t any query that it has been made right into a Straw Man. It’s because Christopher Rufo tweeted that that is precisely what he did: “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think “critical race theory.” We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”
This superbly illustrates the creation of a Balloon Man, which is to take a goal and redefine it each vaguely and negatively. On this method, as Rufo tweeted, the target market might be persuaded to fallaciously settle for a variety of unpopular issues as being the identical factor because the goal of the Balloon Man. This strategy has proven effective, which offers a superb instance to make use of in discussing how this fallacy can work even when the creator publicly admits what they’re doing.
Typically, any sort of Straw Man might be efficient as a result of the target market is unaware that the fallacy is getting used as a result of they’re ignorant in regards to the fact in regards to the goal.
Though I’ve been a philosophy professor since 1993, I had solely a imprecise notion of important race idea since it’s taught at sure legislation faculties was by no means talked about in my graduate philosophy lessons. So, it is sensible that most individuals would don’t know what important race idea actually is. However for any sort of Straw Man primarily based on ignorance to stay efficient, the meant viewers should both not examine the matter critically or should refuse to simply accept any criticism of the Straw Man.
The viewers would possibly grow to be willfully ignorant and actively keep away from critically assessing the Straw Man. This may be as a result of affect of different fallacies. If the goal accepts the Straw Man as a result of they need to imagine it, this may very well be Wishful Considering. In the event that they settle for it out of concern or anger, it may very well be the results of an Attraction to Concern or Attraction to Anger. Different fallacies, reminiscent of the assorted Advert Hominem fallacies, the Genetic Fallacy or Attraction to Group Id may encourage individuals to simply accept the straw model as the actual factor. These and different fallacies may also be used to encourage the viewers to reject efforts to criticize the Straw Man. For instance, somebody who presents the information about important race idea may very well be topic to Advert Hominem assaults accusing them of being a radical Marxist.
The viewers may imagine the Straw Man model as a result of they’re being misled by a fallacious Attraction to Authority or Attraction to Authoritarian. For instance, the viewers would possibly imagine within the Straw Man model of important race idea as a result of a media character or politician they mistakenly belief tells them to imagine within the straw model. If the viewers distrusts credible sources of knowledge, they’re prone to imagine that there isn’t any purpose to doubt the misinformation from sources they belief.
Whereas the above would clarify why people who find themselves unaware of Rufo’s Tweet would possibly settle for the Balloon Man, what’s most attention-grabbing is the matter of why people who find themselves conscious that Rufo was the creator (or inflator) of this Balloon Man nonetheless settle for it. That’s, how can an individual be instructed that one thing is a fallacy and nonetheless settle for it?
One rational purpose rests on the truth that fallacious reasoning doesn’t entail {that a} declare is fake (see the Fallacy Fallacy). As such, somebody may acknowledge {that a} Balloon Man is being inflated, but nonetheless imagine that the Balloon Man is appropriate. However for this perception to be well-founded, they would wish satisfactory proof to assist it.
There may also be pragmatic causes to go together with a fallacy. The Balloon Man of important race idea has confirmed a really efficient political software. If somebody can acquire by pretending the Balloon Man is the actual factor, then they’d have a superb pragmatic purpose to faux to simply accept it.
An individual may interact in Rationalization to simply accept a fallacy (or false declare) they discover interesting or helpful. On one stage, they’re conscious that one thing is a fallacy and that they don’t have (logical) purpose to simply accept the declare it’s speculated to assist. However they could see going together with such a deception as unethical, even whether it is interesting or advantageous. Rationalization permits an individual to have it each methods: they’ll interact in a self-deception that permits them to assume they’re believing one thing true whereas additionally with the ability to exploit the fallacy for their very own benefit.
Protection: As with all Straw Man sort fallacy, the primary protection towards falling for the Balloon Man is to test to see if a misrepresentation is being substituted for the unique. Within the case of the Balloon Man, the particular factor to look at for is the dangerous religion redefinition of one thing utilizing a definition that’s excessively broad or imprecise.
Instance #1
Instance #2
“The objective is to have the general public see one thing loopy on social media or the information and instantly assume “racism” or “sexism.” Now we have expanded the time period to incorporate an unlimited vary of behaviors which can be unpopular with People.”
Instance #3
“In fact, I oppose feminism. Feminism is only a large dangerous burrito of all of the man-hating, all the ladies whining about why they can not have all the pieces they need for nothing, all of the false accusations towards males, and all that different stuff.”
Instance #4
“In fact, I oppose capitalism. Capitalism is only a large dangerous burrito of theft, racism, sexism, conflict, and all the pieces dangerous on the earth. Is one thing dangerous taking place? Effectively, that’s in all probability capitalism.”
