Two Forms of the Straw Man

Abstract

The authors identify and offer an analysis of a new form of the Straw Man fallacy, and then explore the implications of the prevalence of this fallacy for contemporary political discourse.KEY WORDS: argumentation, dialectic, fallacies, political discourse, straw man fallacy I According to a widely accepted characterization, one commits the straw man fallacy when one misrepresents an opponent's position in a way that imputes to it implausible commitments, and then refutes the misrepresentation instead of the opponent's actual view. 1 This analysis of the fallacy has given rise to a range of theoretical and practical concerns about how one should discern what an arguer's actual (as opposed to her misrepresented) position is and how to correct such misrepresentations. Additionally, there are questions concerning the precise relation of the straw man fallacy to other fallacies; some theorists have wondered whether the straw man fallacy so described is a sub-species of hasty generalization (Chase, 1956, 40), ad hominem (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1987, 286), or a failure of internal proof or a secundium quid fallacy (Vernon and Nissen, 1968, 160; Walton, 1992, 75-80).In this paper, our objective is not to challenge the standing theoretical, practical, or classificatory work regarding this fallacy. Instead we will make a case for broadening our conception of the fallacy beyond the form presented in the standard analysis. 2 Specifically, we will introduce a distinction between two forms of the straw man fallacy: the form of representation, and the form of selection.

‘Everything causes cancer’: how Australians respond to the message that alcohol causes cancer

“…water, air, toothpick, coffee, etc. ; see also Extracts 3 & 4), and representing them as being unsafe, respondents essentially put forth a straw-man argument (Talisse & Aikin, 2006). The use of these flawed, extreme, responses work to weaken the intended message and resist any implied need for change.…”

The appeal of medical quackery: A rhetorical analysis

“…22 A straw-man metaphor or argument involves inaccurately representing an opponent's position, and then countering the misrepresentation in lieu of the actual position. 23 The metaphors used by alternative medicine amplify genuine critiques of the medical community to extremes, attacking the ethos of modern medicine and its practitioners while moralizing the healing process and dichotomizing medical treatment. 22,24 In this dichotomy, modern medicine is a cold, disjointed, toxic, "evil" and unnatural force of technology in contrast to a more natural, holistic, pure, good, and balance-driven force for unity that seeks to create conditions of health instead of merely treating specific pathologies.…”

The Ethics of Argumentation

“…As Dawkins (2006, 273) points out, to infer that Hitler and Stalin did their terrible deeds because they were atheists is arguably as absurd as saying: Hitler and Stalin had a moustache; they did terrible things; therefore leaders with a moustache are dangerous. Likewise, the confirmation bias also seems to induce unintentional occurrences of the "straw man" fallacy, which typically involves some sort of misrepresentation of the opponent's standpoint (Talisse and Aikin 2006, Johnson and Blair 1983, Walton 1989a. It seems plausible, for example, that my commitment to a philosophical position may lead me on some occasions to misinterpret or even caricaturize my opponent's account without being aware of it.…”