It's Friday, and that means another logical fallacy here on Blogosphere. Permit me to introduce you to The Straw Man
You've likely already met him, even if you didn't know his name. He hangs out at political campaigns. Talk radio is so full of straw men, you'd think they were broadcasting from a Kansas cornfield. The Letters to the Editor section of newspapers and magazines are loaded with them. So are internet forums and blogs.
The straw man is to a real opponent as an air guitar is to a Fender Stratocaster. It's a misrepresentation of the opposition. Instead of dealing with the actual argument of your opponent, you set up a lesser softball argument and then knock it out of the park and hope no one notices the old switcheroo. Set up a straw man, a caricature of your opponent, usually amplifying some negative trait, light him on fire, kick his burning butt around the room, and then do a victory dance as though you've just won the heavyweight championship of the world. Hey, it's a lot easier than having a real argument. We all love to be a winner, even if it's only in our own minds.
Let's face it. We like simple arguments. Extreme positions are easy to argue with. The more extreme, the better. And besides, caricatures are fun, fact checking is hard work, and most people don't have the time or the will to do it. We just assume the caricature is a true portrait and run with it. That's why the straw man does so well at the public opinion poll.
An open letter from a collection clergy supporting the teaching of Evolution in the science classroom produces this whopper of a Straw Man:
"To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris." (From "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science")
I couldn't agree more. The trouble is, no one actually takes the stated position. In fact, many Christians, operating with the full use of their reason and all their senses, still think evolution falls short of the standards of sound, empirical science. In trying to discredit those who disagree with the theory of Evolution, the authors make a scarecrow out of those who disagree with them and then shoot him down. Now that's what I call an act of hubris!
Here's one from the other side that I've been guilty of using:
"I don't see how anyone could think we descended from apes!"
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The truth is, no one actually thinks that. Evolutionists teach that man and modern ape come from a common ancestor. That's takes a little more thought to refute, don't you think?
Even reputable, objective, fact-oriented science types aren't immune from the Straw Man, as this statement from Natural History magazine shows:
"At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith." (Barbara Forrest, "The Newest Evolution of Creationism")
Ms. Forrest is certainly entitled to her opinions, but the fact is that proponents of Intelligent Design believe that the presuppositions of Evolution make for bad science and are trying to show that design can be objectively detected. A clear tip-off of the straw man is when someone states she knows the "real" reason why someone holds a position, in this case to turn science into a "theistic enterprise." What gives Ms. Forrest insight into the hidden motives of her opponents? Is that burning straw I smell?
The Straw Man frequently makes an appearance when religion is the topic:
"The Christian faith is a habit of flouting reason in forming and maintaining one's answer to the question whether there is a god. Its essence is the determination to believe that there is a god no matter what the evidence may be." (Richard Robinson, "Religion and Reason" Critiques of God. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1997. p. 121)
The "essence" of the Christian faith rests not on some leap of faith regarding the existence of God, but on the historic fact of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. ("If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.")
A common objection to the authority of the Bible goes something like this:
"I don't see how anyone could take the Bible literally. Does anyone seriously believe that the earth is 6000 years old?"
Well, there probably are some people who actually do believe that, but the Bible doesn't literally say that anywhere. And the vast majority of Bible-believers don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old. There's often a big difference between what people think the Bible says and what it actually says. A good response would be, "Could you show me where in the Bible it says that the world is 6000 years old?" It always helps to read the book.
Let's face it. Kids aren't above inviting the Straw Man home for a visit when they say something like:
"I just don't understand my parents; they don't want me to have any fun at all."
In truth, your parents don't want you to get pregnant, addicted to drugs, or arrested, none of which are any fun at all.
And yes, parents are just as guilty of entertaining Mr. Straw Man when they say:
"Kids today are lazy; they just want to watch TV and have everything handed to them on a silver platter."
Actually, kids today are fairly busy and active, it just may not be the activities their parents want them to be doing. And in a pinch, paper plates will do just fine.
The straw man is easy to deal with once you've spotted him. Just show that the actual opposing argument is different than the one presented. You need to know the facts if you're going to put the Straw Man in his place. That takes time and effort. If you're in a gambling mood and are dealing with a known spinner of straw, you could just try calling the hand and say, "Show me the evidence!" Chances are, he'll probably come up with nothing but straw.
Watch out for those straw men! They win unsuspecting hearts, minds, and elections.
"At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith." (Barbara Forrest, "The Newest Evolution of Creationism")
Isn't that also ad hominem? It seems to be attacking the proponents of intelligent design, instead of the theories of intelligent design themselves...
Posted On: August 27th, 2005 at 10:16am by revcwirla
Technically, ad hominem is a fallacy of deduction in the major premiss; the straw man is a deductive fallacy in the minor premiss. They are related in that they both introduce irrelevencies into the argument.
Formally deductive reasoning looks like this:
All A are B (major premiss)
C is A (minor premiss)
Therefore, C is B (conclusion)
1. All who want to transform science into a theistic enterprise are wrong.
2. ID proponents want to transform science into a theistic enterprise.
3. Therefore, ID proponents are wrong.
The fallacy lies in the minor premiss. The Straw Man appeals to people because everyone agrees with the major premiss, so the argument sounds compelling.
If the sentence had read, "Proponents of ID are religious fanatics who are not motivated to improve..." you would have an ad hominem and a straw man in one sentence.
.jpg)
