Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Difference between revisions of "strawman"
(-) |
Anarchangel (Talk | contribs) (polishing a turd, perhaps? at least it isn't erroneous anymore) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | In logical argument, a '''strawman''', also spelled straw man, is a misrepresentation of an opponent's position or argument, so as to make said position or argument appear logically weaker or otherwise worse than it actually is. As with all logical arguments or logical fallacies, the correctness or otherwise of the argument used is only part of the process of arriving at a logical conclusion. Thus, it is important to note that criticism of arguments supporting a conclusion can at best remove those arguments from the discussion; the weakness of the arguments in favor of a conclusion is not a basis for discounting the conclusion as a whole, until all arguments have been removed. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | For example, suppose that one person uses an [[ad hominem]] argument against {an} opponent{s} who believe{s} that the Earth is flat, saying that they only believe in the Flat Earth because they lack intelligence and/or judgment. Should the Flat Earth proponent{s} point out that this is an ad hominem argument, they would be perfectly correct. However, they have not countered the entirety of arguments against the proposition that the Earth is flat, and if they say so or imply so, they have created a strawman. | ||
[[Category:Fraud and deception]] | [[Category:Fraud and deception]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:33, 15 October 2013
In logical argument, a strawman, also spelled straw man, is a misrepresentation of an opponent's position or argument, so as to make said position or argument appear logically weaker or otherwise worse than it actually is. As with all logical arguments or logical fallacies, the correctness or otherwise of the argument used is only part of the process of arriving at a logical conclusion. Thus, it is important to note that criticism of arguments supporting a conclusion can at best remove those arguments from the discussion; the weakness of the arguments in favor of a conclusion is not a basis for discounting the conclusion as a whole, until all arguments have been removed.
For example, suppose that one person uses an ad hominem argument against {an} opponent{s} who believe{s} that the Earth is flat, saying that they only believe in the Flat Earth because they lack intelligence and/or judgment. Should the Flat Earth proponent{s} point out that this is an ad hominem argument, they would be perfectly correct. However, they have not countered the entirety of arguments against the proposition that the Earth is flat, and if they say so or imply so, they have created a strawman.
