Straw-man and it over use on revleft.

[Hiero]

Why is it that every thread on revleft has someone claiming that this or that arguement is a "straw-man". Its over use has gotten to a point where i can't see it meaning more in this context. I never heard the term before hearing it on revleft, do most people even know what it means?

From Wikipedia:


A straw man is a type of argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) and is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) 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.

I assume there has to be some intent to discredit the opponents arguement by misleading it to conclusion that are not in the opponents intention and hence misleads the audience about the opponents arguement.
An example:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer).Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
On the other hand on revleft, I find sometimes people will bring in information that can be deemed irrelevant, wrong, or does not add to the overall debate, but that does not make it a a straw-man. I imagine there has to be two components, changing a key part of the arguement, like changing liberalize to unrestricted, and then leading on that path to a conclusion that is sensationalist.

[Book O'Dead]

C'mon! You're just using that as a straw man to tell us you're in favor of banning light beer!

Who you trying to kid?

Seriously, though, many people are guilty of raising straw men in defense of or opposition to an argument.

Also, there might be another equally true origin to the metaphor. Did you ever see the movie "Wicker Man"?

But, now that I think about about it, its origins might be less sinister: The common scarecrow.

[RedAtheist]

A Strawman Argument is when you misrepresent your opponent's argument and the refute the misrepresentation rather than the actual argument. So you are right about the first component being required but the second requirement about the sensationalist conclusion is not part of the Strawman Argument (it is a seperate fallacy called the 'Slippery Slope' Fallacy.) A more clear Strawman would be:

Person A: We should liberalise beer laws
Person B: So you want people to be able to drink drive and buy beer when they are seven years old? This is clearly an absurd position, hence I have proven my opponent wrong.

Sometimes it is not entirely clear whether a Strawman Fallacy is being committed or not. I got accused of committing the fallacy when I repeated asked someone whether they supported a particular position, which struck me as the logic conclusion of what they were saying. I do not believe that I was committing a Strawman Fallacy because I did not accuse them of supporting a position, on the contrary my questions were rhetorical (they were meant to realise the absurdity of what they were trying to justify.) I may have done so in a snotty, mean manner but that does not mean I was committing a fallacy.

I'm also not sure whether the term applies only to deliberate misrepresentations or to simple misunderstandings. It's probably a better idea not to accuse someone of being deliberately deceptive and instead suggest that they might simply not have understood your argument. This is probably less likely to tick people off (as is avoiding the use of terms which are not entirely familar to everyone.)

[Book O'Dead]

[...]

I'm also not sure whether the term applies only to deliberate misrepresentations or to simple misunderstandings. It's probably a better idea not to accuse someone of being deliberately deceptive and instead suggest that they might simply not have understood your argument. This is probably less likely to tick people off (as is avoiding the use of terms which are not entirely familar to everyone.)

Wise choice of words.

More than once I've been guilty of accusing others of being "intellectually dishonest" (mostly by insinuation) only to discover that they were either misinformed or better informed or were simply interpreting the same information in a different modality than me (subjective/objectice, whatever). In a few occasions I discovered, to my shame and mortification, that those same people whom I accused of "intellectual dishonesty" were closer to the truth than me.

That's why I think that an ideal argument between people is one in which everyone involved is interested solely in discovering a truth that is common to all without doing violence to individual truth, that is, to each person's interpretation of his own subjective experience.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is it that every thread on revleft has someone claiming that this or that arguement is a "straw-man". Its over use has gotten to a point where i can't see it meaning more in this context. I never heard the term before hearing it on revleft, do most people even know what it means?

Hiero just wants to shut down debate by preventing people from countering his arguments, so "strawman" clearly isn't overused on RevLeft.



:lol:

[Lynx]

You wouldn't have to worry about any of this if you present facts instead of arguments.

[Hiero]

Well saying "straw man" is hardly a counter argument. Is a staw man to say:


Hiero just wants to shut down debate by preventing people from countering his arguments, so "strawman" clearly isn't overused on RevLeft.


You wouldn't have to worry about any of this if you present facts instead of arguments.

Isn' that a case of when "misrepresent your opponent's argument and the refute the misrepresentation rather than the actual argument." As I never mentioned myself be accused of using a straw man argument. The discussion on the use and meaning of 'straw man' is somehow turned back onto me and my integrity.

Here is an example from Jimmie Higgins in the What should a Communist in the US have done during WWII? in repsonce to 9mm's commenent:


The best tool proletarians have against fascism is proletarian revolution, not class collaboration and popular fronts.
and Jimmie Higgins reponse:

It's a strawman to say that the only choice for radicals is a popular front method of fighting fascism.

How is that a strawman? It is overtly simplified and it did detract away from the argument (which I was on Jimmie Higgins side), but I don't see it is a strawman. It is just a pointless blank statement that doesn't mean or contribute to the debate.

Here The Douche gets called a strawman fro this comment:


My point is that the PSL's conception of communism is not actually something that is at odds with capitalism. If communism is jobs and medicine then communism is nothing. Communism is not a welfare state, ee shouldn't define it as such, we shouldn't make it appear as such in an attempt to build for communism, or a welfare state is what we'll end up with, but then again, i think that might not be to far off from what the PSL actually wants.
KurtFF8 then says:

This is simply a straw man against the PSL's conception of communism, nothing more. The PSL doesn't claim that socialism is merely social programs. When the PSL focuses on those things: it is an attempt to focus on what capitalism has failed to provide in the US, and that an alternative system would be able to provide. That is a different thing than saying that the alternative system is equal to or defined by those social programs.

I mean everytime some disagrees with someone it gets called a strawman. I would think you would have to be engaged in a debate, if for instance KurtFF8 said "the PSL is a communist organisation that fights for jobs and welfare" and then The Douche says "the PSL think communism is fighting for jobs and welfare", that would be a stay man to me.

What wrong with people just saying "your wrong because: a, b, c" or "that is poinltess and blanket statement that does not deal with with the complexity or focuses on the subject in hand".

I just find the term and use 'staw man' to be smug and elitist

[Lynx]

I guess its overuse doesn't bother me because I'm not involved in most of the debates I choose to read.

[MarxSchmarx]

Actually one reason it gets used so much is because most people's positions are nuanced enough that any criticism of your position based on a characterization of your views you don't agree 100% with is ipso facto a strawman.

[aquaruis15000]

Yea like when some left communist says, you're talking about post 1939 Bordiga when I'm talking about the years between 1917-1919 or something crazy like that? Oh, you're talking about the NCPCC-M(Leninist). I'm talking about ehjfhgreygr. :laugh: