'Straw Man' arguments

[Saqs]

Thought this was interesting and very relevant to certain posts on PP ;)

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1.Person A has position X.

2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways.

3.Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Here is a "PP" example:

Person A: Rahul Dravid is integral to India's success.
Person B: Are you trying to tell me Sachin had nothing to do with India's success?

In this case B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only Rahul Dravid is integral to India's success, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.

Another classic Strawman technique is thus:

Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

This happens very often in 'religious' threads where, for example, the non-religious team will hone in on a comment made by a 'religious person' which may/may not be the view of the majority of religious people - pick that argument apart and act as if they have defeated the remainder. Obviously, this goes both ways.

I feel robbed that 'logic' was not taught at our schools.

[Robert]

PP has more straw tham a hayrick!

[Anfield]

That's what internet does to you.. No one gives up. It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and type nonsense.

[chaiwala]

Another one I often see here is Appeal to Ignorance, which claims that:

There is no evidence against statement x, so statement x is true.
or
There is no evidence for statement x, so statement x is false.



For example, the following statements exhibit this fallacy:

1. Nobody has proven Evolution, hence it must be false.
2. There is no evidence for Creationism, hence it must be false.


The proper way to avoid this fallacy would be to state something like:
There is no compelling evidence for statement x, so it would be irrational to accept it as true.

There's a seemingly subtle, yet, very important distinction between the two statements.

[Saqs]

Originally Posted by chaiwala There's a seemingly subtle, yet, very important distinction between the two statements.

There is no evidence to suggest this subtlety exists, and hence there is absolutely no distinction between your two statements.

[chaiwala]

Originally Posted by Saqib S There is no evidence to suggest this subtlety exists, and hence there is absolutely no distinction between your two statements.

[insaan]

Apart from the illogical arguments, what I don't enjoy reading in posts are statements like these:

Anyone with an IQ over 40 will understand this/Only a fool will not agree to this point. -- Way to prove a point.

Don't get your *insert any underwear* in a twist. -- Sounds very cliched.

Son/kid/beta, when were you born/you know nothing. -- Bestowing automatic respect on oneself by reducing the other as a subordinate.

[Saqs]

Originally Posted by insaan Son/kid/beta, when were you born/you know nothing. -- Bestowing automatic respect on oneself by reducing the other as a subordinate.

Hey c'mon bro that's a part of our culture.

[insaan]

Originally Posted by Saqib S Hey c'mon bro that's a part of our culture.

Part of our culture yes, but on the forum it seems as if the word "son" is used by the person to elevate himself to a higher level compared to the other.

[ElRaja]

Originally Posted by Saqib S There is no evidence to suggest this subtlety exists, and hence there is absolutely no distinction between your two statements.

[RexRex]

Then there is the 'Genetic fallacy which atheists always use to denounce religious belief.

[Saqs]

Originally Posted by insaan Part of our culture yes, but on the forum it seems as if the word "son" is used by the person to elevate himself to a higher level compared to the other.

Yes, which is part of our culture.