The "Straw Man" Fallacy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- www.criticalthi....
This is a sample video from a video tutorial course titled "Fallacies", which you can preview and purchase at the link above.
Part 1: Introduction
1.1 What is a fallacy?
1.2 Categorizing fallacies: pros and cons
1.3 The rules of rational argumentation
Part 2: Some Important Content Fallacies
2.1 Ad hominem (abusive)
2.2 Ad hominem (guilt by association)
2.3 Appeal to hypocrisy (tu quoque))
2.4 Appeal to popular belief (or practice)
2.5 Appeal to authority
2.6 False dilemma
2.7 Slippery slope
Part 3: Fallacies that Violate the Rules of Rational Argumentation
3.1 Straw figure
3.2 Red herring
3.3 Begging the question (narrow sense)
3.4 Begging the question (broad sense)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]](/img/1.gif)
One of the narcissists' most favorite tactics.
I can see that being the case for sure. 👍🏾
Straw Argument in a nutshell:
Aerith: I love fun!
Bob: You know who else have fun? Hitler. Stop having fun.
That taught me everything in one second
Thats more comparative. My example would be:
A: I like snowy places
B: So you enjoy freezing to death?
Thats just something off the top of my head. Comparative would be:
B: You like the snow? 32 people a year in the US freeze to death. Stop liking the snow.
Telling someone to stop liking something is a bit far, but it happens. Sorry to be that guy, though.
Straw "Figure" Argument? Seriously?
InformantNet, Yeah, because who would be obsessive, thorough and demented enough to attach a straw penis to the strawman?
It's called the Straw Man fallacy, and it has nothing to do with the gender of the person committing the fallacy. Is he next going to do a video on the No True Scotsman fallacy and call it the "No True Scotsperson" fallacy? Gender inclusiveness doesn't demand that every word ending in "man" be changed to "person" -- that's a profound misunderstanding of the issue.
Midnight Sparkle I understand the fallacy very well.
im thinking he says it to pander to sjws who might be watching. and also makes the woman out as the logical one so as to have sjws stay and watch the whole video and not ragequit it cuz "sexism". he puts it in hoping they actually learn something and stop being idiots. he trusts that most non sjws like myself can just go with it and learn this strawman fallacy. but i could be wrong and hes just pandering to sjws cuz hes one himself...
@Midnight Sparkle. You could say the exact same thing to OP, because you're right, the name doesn't matter - so why fucking change it in the first place, for the sake of being politically correct? It's stupid. It was a term coined LONG ago.
It's not the fallacy that annoys me, It's the people who actually fall for it and end up accusing you of really over-the-top shit you haven't said.
The biggest threat to a mature debate is not the opposition, it's the ignorance of the people listening in on it.
You won't (or maybe will :/ ) believe how much this has happened to me. It's quite funny for me and others around me who actually understand what's really happening.
AdotLOM I couldn't agree more. The proof is in the pudding is an idiom I find to be truthful about this situation.
I found marshmallows in my pudding once. It was awesome!
;)
Example:
Person A and Person B are having a discussion about superhero movies.
Person A: Yeah I didn’t really like Captain Marvel it uses the same exact formula as every other Marvel film.
Person B: Sounds like you don’t like Marvel Studios or good taste in superhero movies, you must be a DC fan.
With contemporary use, the fallacy is worthy enough to be renamed the "feminist fallacy" as it's being used by a huge number of feminists to prove some half-baked truths and further their political agendas.
qsqua And what you just did is a Hasty Generalization fallacy. Good job!
Eduardo García How so, please explain.
qsqua You generalized feminists, saying that most of them use the "Straw Man" fallacy. It is an exageration, and a Hasty Generalization. Note: I agree that some feminists, or rather misandrists, use this fallacy quite often. But they are not the majority. They are simply the loudest ones.
qsqua Actually, now that I thin about it, it is more a Fallacy of Composition than a Hasty Generalization.
think*
Gender equity when talking about fallacies? *eye roll*
one of the best explanations to this problem that i've ever seen. Well done
Oh for fracks sake! By the word "man" they mean human. Not the gender, man.
Are you one of those feminists that made a scientist cry?
Someone who actually understands! Eureka!
the people getting mad at you for not giving the straw figure a gender are the same people who complain that people are "triggered by everything these days"
Since when does straw have a gender? What kind of straw man argument did you lose to change it to figure?
you answered your own question. since straw does not have a gender, it makes sense that someone would decide to refer to it as a genderless thing-a straw figure. 💁🏻♀️
You lost me when you changed straw man to straw figure. Wow.
Oh please 😒
#everythinghastobepoliticallycorrectthesedays
so... why does that put you off??
@@sandrols7 It was not necessary we all know what it meant any sane individual would know this we are all huMAN
@@mysecondemailatl no, it's probably not necessary, but neither is getting upset about it.
Any sane individual wouldn't react in such a stupid way
I encounter straw figures every time I have an argument with my girlfriend. Lol
But your dog never disagrees with you, so your dog obviously loves you more.
If you don't have a dog, it just serves to show how little your girlfriend actually loves you.
You should definitely cheat on her since she is bound to do so eventually!
Using straw figues, I basically went from the premis "I encounter straw figures in arguments with my girlfriend" to conclude that you should cheat on her.
I name thee, "instrawption"!
This is a great way to disable cheap arguing tactics. A lot of girlfriends straw man their way into winning arguments, good thing you found this vid!
@@MrGlies just break up with her then!? What the fuck you're more deranged than her.
One of the best explanations of straw man arguments I've heard. Good job :)
I'm very offended at your use of the term "Straw Figure". This kind of mindset is what's preventing us from moving forward as a society. This kind of outdated garbage needs correcting. People need to learn that *Gelatin* Figures are used nowadays and not Straw Figures. Other than that, it was a very informative video. Thanks for sharing!
Is this true of straw as well as tin? Perhaps “material figure” would be more inclusive of both the heartless and brainless. Thanks for the explanation.
The gender equity part was stupid. Man is both what a man is called, and a woMAN because it comes from huMAN.
Invictus Yes, it used to mean BROADly both. Lol Imsgine if we were a RoMANce language with gender words. Ok, I could keep doing this lol
Just letting you know that as soon as you change the word "man" to" figure"
(absolutely ridiculous)
I stopped the video.
Left this comment and say bye, bye. 👋
Just to let you know, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
a straw man, corporation, ens legis cna only contract with another corporation.
S.C.R 1795., Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54;
“In as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law agency, aspect, court, etc can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” And the contracts between them involve U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property franchise of the federal government as an individua entity.” Wheeling Steel Corp v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
@@ccmitch85 amen
@@mkaberli defending this crap??
@@stsk7 I actually love this video. Forget the intro, where he makes a joke (10 yrs ago) about gender pronouns. It was a joke ahead of its time? The rest of the video is very good from an educational standpoint. Excellent explanation of how straw man arguments should be dealt with and the powerful role they play in modern political discourse. The rules of rational argumentation and fallacies of relevance. That is all this video is about. You should watch it again, or how about this? Find me a video explaining straw-man fallacy better than this one did. Because I have looked for a better or shorter video This one is top notch. Its short and explains the concept PERFECTLY.
I'm an educator. Honestly, if you have another video that explain straw man more clearly? post it here for me. Thank you :)
That straw figure joke was either way ahead of its time or right on time
@Schragmeister Thanks! re your question, I don't think so. Straw man involves distorting or misrepresenting an argument. Circular arguments are bad for a different reason. They're bad because they assume as a premise precisely what's at issue in the argument. E.g. "Capital punishment is wrong. Why? Because the state doesn't have the right to take someone's life as punishment for a crime." But this premise is just a restatement of the conclusion using different words. That's circular.
@killmicrosoft
Deductive arguments have three stages:
premises
inference
conclusion
However, before we can consider those stages in detail, we must discuss the building blocks of a deductive argument: propositions.
@Bristow42 It's true there are other uses of the term "straw man", and the legal sense is one of them. But in the legal sense one wouldn't describe the term as a fallacy, it's not meant to describe an error in reasoning. Hopefully most people can won't be confused by this. The fallacy as I describe it here is the standard definition you'll find in dozens of critical thinking textbooks (none of which are mine!).
@killmicrosoft
An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."
Many types of argument exist; we will discuss the deductive argument. Deductive arguments are generally viewed as the most precise and the most persuasive; they provide conclusive proof of their conclusion, and are either valid or invalid.
I share this link every time I see it being used in a debate. Thanks!
@killmicrosoft
The word "obviously" is also often viewed with suspicion. It occasionally gets used to persuade people to accept false statements, rather than admit that they don't understand why something is "obvious." So don't be afraid to question statements which people tell you are "obvious"--when you've heard the explanation you can always say something like "You're right, now that I think about it that way, it is obvious."
i'm disheartened by these comments. i'm a feminist (which means i believe in equal rights) and i don't mind the term straw man. but i can see why the author decided to change the name. i moved on to the POINT OF THE VIDEO and learned the definition of a straw man fallacy. to all those who get so easily offended by gender neutral terms, get used to it and calm down.thank you, Kevin deLaplante. Subscribed.
Feminists aren't the only ones to have a monopoly on equal rights. Egalitarians by definition is all about equal rights and not just advocating for a specific group based on gender,creed, or sexual orientation.
@@ssingh6197 You must be one of those "All Lives Matter" a-holes
We're learning fallacies in my critical thinking class, and I love this! I thought they were boring at first, but this makes them fun! :D
"Straw figure" really?? Gimme a break call it what it's CALLED. gheez
@killmicrosoft
Once the premises have been agreed, the argument proceeds via a step-by-step process called inference.
In inference, you start with one or more propositions which have been accepted; you then use those propositions to arrive at a new proposition. If the inference is valid, that proposition should also be accepted. You can use the new proposition for inference later on.
I use this quite often. It pisses people off.
can you give me an example of it?
most feminist and SJW rebuttals are straw man arguments. take your pick lol
most people of lower than average intelligence depend on it. But so what, if pissing people off is your only objective then you will always win right??
Freaking Pepe! I knew it!
Jordan Michael perfect example
Debates, debates everywhere.
@killmicrosoft
A proposition is a statement which is either true or false. The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the precise arrangement of words used to convey that meaning.
For example, "There exists an even prime number greater than two" is a proposition. (A false one, in this case.) "An even prime number greater than two exists" is the same proposition, reworded.
Good video! A really easy to understand explanation. Seems like these arguments are becoming more and more prevalent these days.
Let's clarify and begin with the fact that the "Separation of church and state", is NOT in the constitution
@neoaeonian Thanks for the comment! I'm starting a podcast this month (both an audio and a video version) so there should be more content coming soon. I'll post the video version on my RUclips channel.
Guys, he didn’t make this. Read the description. I kind of think that it would be a straw man fallacy for the video to talk about what the straw man fallacy is and then you attack it because the video called it straw figure. But please don’t attack this channel, because he didn’t make the original video. Check the description if you don’t believe me.
Great Job! Could I translate it into portuguese and post in my channel?
This is an accurate description of the straw man fallacy. An ad hominem argument would attack Alice herself (ex. her personal life) instead of her argument.
You're certainly right about that. False accusations of fallacies seem to occur nearly at the same frequency as the fallacious arguments themselves. I think FACTvsEVOLUTION was addressing Kevin deLaplante, but I'm not sure.
If someone dismisses my counterargument as a strawman argument, what kind of fallacy is that?
So, should we start changing the "man" in last names like Goodman or Goldman, to Goodpeople and Goldpeople?
The sad thing is that many supposed "skeptic" magazines that will often use this fallacy.
Just to add a bit. I find that when arguing with some people they are not just trying to sidestep the argument and deceive the listener to give the appearance of 'winning' but that it is used to try and classify the opponent and their argument as something other than what they really are. To try and negatively portray the opponent and allude to some other deeper agenda. In this way they don't really have to win the argument, just connect the opponent with something negative.
Great video. I was wondering if the final example you have could be considered as a False Dilemma as well, since he seems to be arguing that it is either allowing religious practices in school, or state atheism.
Love how everyone in these comments gets triggered by him changing the name, lul.
And they say SJWs get easily upset...
I can't even say something without my statements being misrepresented in RUclips anymore. Uhh, I can't even have a decent argument.
Heres a good argument, your names to long.
@killmicrosoft
You should always state the premises of the argument explicitly; this is the principle of audiatur et altera pars. Failing to state your assumptions is often viewed as suspicious, and will likely reduce the acceptance of your argument.
The premises of an argument are often introduced with words such as "Assume," "Since," "Obviously," and "Because." It's a good idea to get your opponent to agree with the premises of your argument before proceeding any further.
@willsonbruce "Deflecting someone away from material facts and evidence" suggests something closer to a "red herring" fallacy, which involves deflection (a subtle change of subject). "Straw man" involves misrepresentation of a position. "Talking down" to someone isn't a fallacy per se (it's just rude), but when you combine it with intentionally misrepresesenting a position, or deflecting away from the point at issue, then we're in fallacy territory.
I've seen people using the term "Straw man fallacy" but I couldn't really get my hand around it until now. Thank you kind sir. This is one heavily committed fallacy as well.
I just come from Jordan Peterson interviewed by Cathy Newman Chanel 4 clip which confirmed a use of straw man argument by the interviewer (Cathy), it was a bit hard to watch simply by a strong attempt to dominate the interviewee but really worth the time to watch.
@PatriotsRepublic The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" first appeared in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802, and he was using it to describe the intended effect of the clause about religion in the First Amendment. The exact words might not appear in the Constitution itself, but it's not a straw-man misrepresentation of what the founders intended.
scratch the don't there. He said: And that is why I think.." is what I was supposed to type.
Louis Pasteur existed in time where he didn't know as much about the world as we do now and he didn't even know what abiogensis was.
@killmicrosoft
Unfortunately, it's very easy to unintentionally change the meaning of a statement by rephrasing it. It's generally safer to consider the wording of a proposition as significant.
It's possible to use formal linguistics to analyze and rephrase a statement without changing its meaning
Its indeed complicated and mind boggling topic. Mr. Behe does offer couple of chapters in his book to present an analysis of scientific papers on a span of decades on this topic. He clearly shows that the topic of a apparent design is almost left out and barely covered. As I said mind boggling topic.
Yea, everybody would just be calling out each other on what fallacies they're making.
@killmicrosoft
A deductive argument always requires a number of core assumptions. These are called premises, and are the assumptions the argument is built on; or to look at it another way, the reasons for accepting the argument. Premises are only premises in the context of a particular argument; they might be conclusions in other arguments, for example.
The sheer arrogance of renaming long-standing concepts seems to be totally lost on the virtue-signaling left. This video provides the added bonus of offering a glimpse into the world of progressive indoctrination in academia.
I have a problem with the so called "Straw Man" fallacy.I am a Mathematician by background and in Mathematics one commonly uses "reductio ad absurdum" arguments.These show that the logical consequence of a set of axioms is a contradiction.I find that very commonly when these kind of arguments are used in debate people are accused of using a "Straw Man" argument,because they show that the logical consequence of someone's position is completely absurd and so easy to knock down.
Thank you for this video, it really helped me understand what a straw figure argument is!
+Vanessa Reich-Shackelford Straw man, not figure. Political correctness won't advance society, it will only damage it.
@jumbabrother this is actually a sample, it says in description you can purchase the whole lecture
Oh, I get it now. Does this mean response "all lives matter" is a straw man?
Yes. How smart of you. It distorts BLM to mean that no other lives matter which isn't what it ever claimed. That would've been called 'Only Black Lives Matter." Lol. Sometimes it's an accidental straw man but sometimes people misunderstand on purpose.
Thank you for explaining this. I kept hearing that term and had no idea what it meant.
no, you can't shove disbelief down someone's throat. but you can shove your belief that something is false down someone's throat. because the two things are subtly different - one simply doesn't accept the claim as true, one asserts that the claim is false.
@McGuzik What I gave her is a fairly standard textbook definition of the straw man fallacy. It's not clear from your comment what the objection is.
So it's basically Katie Newman's tactic. "So you're saying... "
I love how you said you'd use the term "straw figure" because it's more gender neutral and you said that it's not just men who use or fall for the straw fallacy. But in both examples used here, it was the man who was using the straw figure fallacy. Would have been nice to see an example where a man used a strong argument and a woman argued a straw figure.
Excellent views, interpretations. Thank you for making your resources available.
i heard that the origin came from british troops setting up "straw men" on a hill in the US colonies, then attacking the straw men, and then reporting a resounding, overwhelming victory to the royal crown in britain.
Whenever I debate christian or atheist apologists they always straw-man the heck out of my arguments, thanks for letting me know of the concept, now I can respond to their straw-manning by pointing it out
Or they try and change the subject entirely. They're SUPER dumb.
I say this because to be objective one has to put aside one's feelings and consider the world how it truly is, not how we wish it to be. Of course, in choosing what we should do our wishes come into it, but our wishes can not cause something to be objectively true.
And the reason objectivity is key is because no one person has a monopoly on the truth and to claim otherwise is to claim special and selfish privilege.
@McGuzik If you could provide a link to a video that better explained the "true nature of the strawman" it might help me understand the objection better. My only claim is that this is the standard way the strawman fallacy is understood in critical thinking textbooks and courses. I'm happy to grant that there are other uses of the term in circulation (another example is "beg the question", for which there are several meanings in use, but only one is standard in logic).
It is only an ad hominem if you say "You're wrong *because* you're an idiot". Stating someone is an idiot is perfectly logical if the assertion can be backed up.
@netheroni The Puritans didn't go to Virginia for what I would call religious freedom. They had religious freedom in Holland, as did everyone there. The Puritans didn't like having other belief systems around them and thought this was a threat to them and their children. They went to Virginia to live in isolation and control the religious beliefs of the community they lived in. They didn't actually believe people should be free to pick their religion nor did they want other beliefs near them.
Anyone care to classify a few fallacies here? I read many posts about the argument of wrestling entertainment being fake or scripted. One person makes the argument that wrestling is fake because they are not actually fighting or competing to win. Is it straw man, red herring, or begging the question when a person replies: 1 "It is not fake, it is scripted because they really get hurt, and the outcome of who wins is scripted." or 2 "They can kick your ass if you saw them in real life so it is not fake, wrestling is scripted not fake." or 3 "The chairs they hit each other with are not fake, it is only scripted." These people always admit that who wins a match is decided by the writers of the show and that the wrestlers aren't actually trying to hurt each other, but for some reason always make these same arguments over and over about it not being fake but rather it's scripted, and seem to want to avoid the word "fake". So what fallacy would the argument of 1, 2, and 3 fall into? Thanks
No it is not, in Faulty analogy argument is based on misleading, superficial, or implausible comparisons.For example, saying tht people who have to have a cup of coffee every morning before they can function have no less a problem than alcoholics who have to have their alcohol each day to sustain them. Whereas in Straw Man fallacy, person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
So is the strawman similar to that of a red herring?
these comments are literally calling him out for calling them straw figure instead of the helpfulness of the video
Are false dichotomies closely related to straw man fallacies?
So when Alex Jones said, "Hitler took the guns!!! Stalin took the guns!!!" he was engaging a strawman. I get it now.
Ahhhh, no, the video says the strawman fallacy is "criticising a distorted, exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented version of an argument and claiming to have refuted the original argument".
No one suggested to Alex Jones, "taking away the guns" was the answer. They merely asked for more gun control. Alex knew that was a sensible thing to argue for, so instead of engaging with that he turned his opponent's argument into "take away the guns". This is a distorted version of the argument he was presented with. Textbook strawman.
Peace.
@PatriotsRepublic "There are no implied rules, ordinances or laws in our Constitution. If it does not say it directly, it isn't there"
9th amendment
Separation of Church of State is very much in the Constitution. It's in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" couldn't be more clear on this. Established religion means there is no separation of church and state- they are one and the same. Not establishing a state religion effectively creates separation of church and state. The writer of the Constitution himself, Thomas Jefferson, made that clear in his own words.
Wow the example he gave at the end is an extremely popular one!
What about vagueness of arguments? Many arguments have sufficient vagueness in them to warrant different interpretation. In this case the different interpretations can be thought of as equally valid. So, if a person critiques one interpretation of the argument, can we call it a straw man?
What if someone does call it a straw man. How should we respond to it?
older woman: with age comes wisdom; wisdom is an attractive quality; therefore, a woman's beauty is like wine, it improves with time.
guy: oh yeah, i dont see trump or hef marrying 80 yr olds
like that?
Pretty interesting video. The only thing is that you're assuming that people are generally going to be straight with you when presenting their arguments. i.e. that their motives will be clearly seen by the way they present their argument.
Pretty interesting. I definitely learned something here.
I am a Christian, and MOST DEFINITELY not that many are like that, it's a "loud minority" thing.
PS: The irony is, by studying said loud minority and applying it to all/many Christians, that is also a fallacy (Hasty generalisation).
A person makes the claim - The federal government, more particularly, the president is held more accountable because everyone knows who the president is and probably don't know your local officials. And the opponent gives an example comparing the claim to people blaming the president for the many potholes on your street because everyone knows who the president is but don't know their local officials. The example was distorted but the claims are the same. Is it a straw man fallacy? if so, then can we never evaluate an argument and say.... "so your basically saying that....", or ...."in other words", ....or "thats like....".
"Straw figure." Wow.
Argument: Ariel from Disney's "The Little Mermaid" should not be played by a woman of color in the live action remake because she was originally modeled after a white woman.
Ok, let's see some straw man fallacies.
man or woman is used in english because English has man as a defacto descriptor. As a woman, I don't see any problem with this. Other languages doen't make distinctions or have a neuter term, like Mandarin Chinese, where tā can mean he, she, or it, only way to tell is in the written form. But that's Chinese, and this is English. Context determines in English if the male gender means only men or describes a generality.
Using capitals in your point does not make it stronger, and federal institutions are the weakest form of argument you could possibly make noting that federalism is actually founded in indigenous principles that it has oppressed for at least a century.
Your Straw Figure is a fallacy!
Is the use of analogies, to help the other see the argument from a different perspective, considered a type of strawman?
@MrBigEnchilada
true. Those kind of debates usually end up full of ad hominems.
How many variations of the straw-man fallacy are there?
"Evolution sucks as an explanation for life's origins" Yes it does suck to explain origins of life for the sole reason that would be Abiogenesis, Evolution only talks about the diversity of life.
Is this related to the fallacy of using a faulty analogy?
People being offended by something that is going out of its way to try not to offend anyone. lol. I cleaned up a mess at my job once and someone got upset at me. People just like being offended i guess.
Could it be that many of the cases that you are describing, actually involve a straw man fallacy?