Additionally Identified As: Straw Individual, Aunt Sally
Description:
A Straw Man is made when a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented model of one thing is substituted for the unique. The substitute (the straw man) is then attacked, and on this foundation it’s concluded that the unique is flawed.
One model of the Straw Man fallacy happens when a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented model of a declare or argument is substituted for the unique. It has the next sample:
Premise 1: Individual A makes declare or argument X.
Premise 2: Individual B presents Y (a distorted model of X).
Premise 3: Individual B assaults Y.
Conclusion: Due to this fact, X is fake/incorrect/flawed.
That is fallacious as a result of attacking a distorted model of a declare or argument doesn’t represent a criticism of the unique. This fallacy typically entails hyperbole, a rhetorical machine during which one engages in exaggeration.
One other model of the Straw Man creates a straw particular person of an individual by exaggerating or distorting their qualities, beliefs, actions, and so forth. This model has the next type:
Premise 1: Individual A has or is P, Q, R.
Premise 2: Individual B presents X, Y. Z (distorted variations of P, Q, R and even full fabrications).
Premise 3: Individual B assaults A one the premise of X, Y, Z.
Conclusion: Due to this fact, particular person A is flawed/dangerous.
That is fallacious as a result of attacking a distorted model of an individual doesn’t present there’s something flawed with the particular person.
This tactic is only when the assault matches the viewers’s biases, fears, or stereotypes. They’ll really feel that the distorted model is the true model. This tactic is widespread in politics and is commonly used to arrange Advert Hominem assaults towards the straw man.
The Straw Man tactic can be utilized towards different targets as properly, utilizing the identical primary methodology of presenting a distorted or exaggerated model of the goal rather than the unique. For instance, an idea or idea may very well be focused by this fallacy.
Straw Man assaults typically make use of an enchantment to an unknown reality. This entails claiming to know the “actual cause” an individual or group believes the straw model. This “cause” is commonly offered as a Depraved Motivation.
For instance, suppose {that a} local weather scientist recommends decreasing meat manufacturing to assist gradual local weather change. In response, somebody would possibly craft a Straw Man by claiming the scientist desires to ban hamburgers as a result of they hate capitalism. As one other instance, a conservative who favors offering tax breaks to these investing in underfunded communities is perhaps focused by a Straw Man during which it’s claimed that they need to pay the wealthy to take over poor neighborhoods as a result of they hate the poor.
Whereas an individual or group may need a depraved motive, they’re conserving secret, proof could be wanted to assist such a declare. And even when an individual or group did have an evil motive, this could not show that their declare is fake, or their argument is dangerous. To suppose in any other case could be to fall for the Depraved Motivation fallacy.
Protection: The protection towards a Straw Man, self-inflicted or not, is to take care to get an individual’s declare or argument proper. This entails making use of the precept of charity and the precept of plausibility.
Following the precept of charity requires deciphering claims in the very best mild and reconstructing arguments to make them as sturdy as potential. There are three causes to observe the precept. The primary is that doing so is moral. The second is that doing so avoids committing the straw man fallacy. The third is that the criticism of one of the best and strongest variations of a declare or argument additionally addressed the lesser variations.
The precept of charity have to be tempered by the precept of plausibility: claims have to be interpreted, and arguments reconstructed in a means that matches what is thought concerning the supply and in accord with the context. For instance, studying quantum physics into the works of our good lifeless pal Plato would violate this precept. An individual can overdo the precept of charity, committing the Metal Man fallacy.
Instance #1
Prof. Jones: “The college simply reduce our yearly funds by $10,000.”
Prof. Smith: “What are we going to do?”
Prof. Brown: “I believe we must always remove one of many instructing assistant positions. “That will handle it.”
Prof. Jones: “We might scale back our scheduled raises as a substitute.”
Prof. Brown:” I can’t perceive why you need to bleed us dry like that, Jones.”
Instance #2
“Senator Jones says that we must always not fund the Tremendous Poseidon assault submarine program. I disagree solely. I can’t perceive why he desires to go away us completely defenseless.”
Instance #3
Invoice and Jill are arguing about cleansing out their closets:
Jill: “We must always clear out the closets. They’re getting a bit messy.”
Invoice: “Why, we simply went by means of these closets final yr. Do we’ve to scrub them out day-after-day?”
Jill: I by no means mentioned something about cleansing them out day-after-day. You simply need to preserve all of your junk without end, which is simply ridiculous.”
