Talk:Straw man

Untitled

Another use of man of straw is that you should not attempt to sue a man of straw as they will have no money to pay for the case even if you win! Paul Ancill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.56 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Example(s)

Editors seem to be having difficulties providing example(s) of straw men arguments. Perhaps being neutral about citing arguments that are bad, political, inflammatory or any combination of the above is more than your average amateur editor can manage. Here is what has happened recently:

Anonymous 75.141.210.137: deleted the 2nd example. No explanation, no discussion.

Myself: Reverted and asked "Please use talk page to discuss any objection to the 2nd example before repeating an old delete."

Anonymous 75.141.197.24: deleted the 2nd example. No explanation, no discussion.

Hu12: Changes heading "Example" to "Examples" which makes no sense if there is to be only one example!

Folks can behave better than this. I ask the 3 (or is it 2?) involved: Just what is your problem? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a horribly tendentious interpretation of the writer's intent? It's not a clear example, and has to make some fairly strained assumptions to be an actual strawman argument. Try again. And no, swapping out the name changes nothing. --Calton | Talk 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Calton for explaining the lacks that you observe in the "felons are humans" example. This is the way that I wish everyone would discuss. Of course we can all agree to Try again. Have you an example to show of a straw man argument?

COMMENT: I think it unlikely that any supporter of a POV that gets supported by a straw man argument will be comfortable with the fallacy being exposed. Some people may never realize that a worthy issue is sometimes promoted by unworthy claims, and from those people can come knee-jerk responses like "Pot shots at feminism will be deleted." (- by an anonymous user 75.141.194.92). Whether Wikipedians can be intimidated from citing examples of this notable logical fallacy from the overheated arenas of sex/religion/politics may be tested here.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really stretching the idea of the example and ignoring the context that it was created in to call it a straw-man. Plus "The writer of the bumper sticker refutes an alleged consensus that maintains that women are not human, knowing that such a claim is indefensible." is a POV stance against feminism. Want to take it to a criticism against feminism section, or better to a forum or blog and elaborate on this thesis? Go ahead. But here it's a pot-shot.75.141.207.198 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Above we see FOUR anonymous IPs that ALL begin 75.141.xxx.xxx and seem too obsessed with their POV to understand, let alone tolerate, an example of the logical fallacy straw man. It is clear that the bumper sticker text concerned could not stand in "a criticism against feminism section" in Wikipedia, and the deleter's other suggestions just demonstrate their unworthy predisposition to mockery.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing the bumper sticker without acknowledging the context in which it was created or acknowledging the ideas that went into it and then calling it a straw-man is dishonest. It looks too much like an attempt at Poisoning the well against feminism when placed here on Wikipedia, where the dishonest label can gain credence on the appearance of being backed by neutrality and authority, to just let go without correction.75.141.216.5 (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Make that FIVE anonymous IPs that ALL begin 75.141.xxx.xxx and seem intent on silliness. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try explaining why you think the bumper sticker is a straw-man instead of making insinuations against me? You are the one who wanted discussion, so lay out your reasons. And yes, my IP does change, I think it's because my cable goes out sporadically, is that a problem for you? 75.141.216.5 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You have chosen to interpret the explanation given of the fallacy in the bumper sticker argument as being a "a POV stance against feminism". I see that as reactive nonsense on your part, and I don't see any interest on your anonymous part in contributing to the article. What you call discussion seems only to be a wish for confrontation. I am sure there are excellent arguments in support of feminist causes, and if you want to advance them I suggest that you get an account (i.e. name) in Wikipedia, supposing this is the arena for them. So far, your anonymous accusations of "dishonest(y)" and Poisoning the well and your threat to delete anything you dislike are the behaviour of a troll.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So far I've seen a lot of evasion, dismissal, and strained assumptions about my character, but 0 reasons from you explaining why you are maintaining that the bumper sticker is a fallacy. If you know how to explain why the bumper sticker is fallacy in a neutral fashion without ignoring or misinterpreting its meaning then you should share your ideas. It's your chance to educate not just me, but anyone else reading this thread, and all you have to do is redirect the energies you are currently expending on not explaining yourself to explaining yourself. You've wished for discussion, and wanted to know what "my problem" is. I've given you latter and we've still the opportunity for the former.75.141.216.5 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll, the fallacious reasoning on the bumper sticker was explained in the text you have deleted, likely because you can't understand it. Someone else may like to respond to your ridiculous anonymous "outraged feminist" posing but I shall waste no more time giving you the educating that you need/crave. Have a nice day. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed with the nature of and the so-called neutrality of the reasoning. If you are unable to handle disagreement and are unwilling to explain yourself so that we could work towards a more nuanced understanding of issue then you should not have complained that others aren't explaining themselves or discussing the issue. It's unfortunate that in this situation not engaging in conversation was actually far more productive than attempting discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.216.5 (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TIGRESS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddlyable3 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So it's been over 2 weeks. Are you willing to engage in a dialog with me now?75.141.216.5 (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm not really sure why my example of universal healthcare was modified. i realized that it was a bit long, but it was intentionally written as such to provide insight on exactly what a strawman does, and how it commits a fallacy. personally, i think that in it's modified version, it is oversimplified, and as such isn't a convincing example. i'd like to change it back to it's original form, but i'd like to see a reply first. thanks -xenfreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenfreak (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This example confused me when I initially read it. B's misrepresentation of A's argument is very subtle, since it could be argued that support for universal healthcare, while not a sufficient condition for being a communist, is a necessary one. Also, in real-world debates, A's reasoning is typically labeled "socialist" rather than "communist," and there's an argument to be made that A is objectively speaking a socialist to the extent that he supports universal healthcare, just as many (most?) Americans are socialist to the extent that they support public education. In summary, calling A's position "communist" is much easier to establish as false than calling A's position "socialist;" this is relevant and problematic because while the article's hypothetical example is good per se, it could easily be tainted by the real world experience of readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.70.195 (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I shortened the healthcare example because it was too long, much longer than all the other examples, and it tended to being an independant essay explaining the strawman fallacy. Examples should support the Reasoning section rather than having one particular example as the fundament for the article (and why this particular example above the others?). As to whether we should have B labelling A as a communist or a socialist, I think we are on safer ground by keeping B's rebuttal clearly fallacious i.e. "only communists believe...so A (implied) is a communist" on closer inspection is exposed as the 4th kind of strawman set up. User 161.253 please sign your posts. It is not clear why you think the easy to establish falsehood is problematic because it could be tainted. This is not the place for a debate about socialism in America. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

---

This 'what is a good example' thing being accused of being POV or NPOV seems rather silly to me. The question should not be whether you agree or disagree with the argument presented, but whether it is an example of the logical fallacy itself. Better yet, cite something that has 'actually been used and identified by some textbook author, journalist (although there you have POV questions regarding said journalist..)

Perhaps another way to resolve this 'what is a good example' question once and for all is to actually copy a example of a straw-man argument from a good logic textbook (I don't know of one though), and then reference it? Then any question about how 'appropriate' the example is will fall not to the Wikipedian who put it there (who after all is just copying what is in a textbook), but to the author of the textbook. (Write to the publishing company if you want to continue to argue..)

Now mind you, I am not a logician, so perhaps this edit itself contains some logical fallacy or is POV (well, it 'is' POV - POV toward not having these seemingly endless discussions..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.185 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the NPOV of the first four examples: all four of them seem to have been written by someone whose views are extremely liberal in nature and so they chose examples which would favor their own POV by making the person using a straw-man argument someone who could very well be a misinformed or seemingly stupid person with conservative views. I say we could have some variation to represent more than one or two views and to make it more NPOV in general. If you truly seek NPOV, fairness, and tolerance, then there should be no opposition to changing an example or two. Invmog (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Use as a verb

I added this section a month ago or so. The background was that someone used the expression on me on a Wikipedia talk page, saying, "Don't strawman me!". I didn't know what the hell he meant, so I looked at the Straw man article, and was still unsure. Then I did a Google search, and finally figured it out, seeing a fair number of examples.

That's why I added the information to this article, and think that it is relevant. A couple of weeks ago it was deleted with the comment "deleted irrelevant and largely unsupported section".

Any other opinions? --RenniePet (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RenniePet you have documented convincingly that straw()man is seen in use as a verb. To conclude that usage is already established English usage seems premature and I think it prudent not to speculate beyond saying that it shows signs of entering the language.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. --RenniePet (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else?

I know this is unrelated but does anyone else have the urge to remove fingers everytime they get strawmaned the way I do? ((I don't think I have a user name, so I'll just go by "Dae.")) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.145.224 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it me, or do the vast majority of explanations of this pseudo-algorithm have some heavy chip on thier sholder? Most are really opinionated with otiose examples that only aim to shout "this idea is ****!!", sotto voce. Now, i know from all these big words that if you don't extricate things, you'll probably end up providing something along the lines of what i mean: keep things simple; don't get subjective - you'll waffle and overkill like this; and when you're trying to define x, don't use arbitrary things for your own agenda, stick to "algebraic" stuff - remain objective. I'm sorrry, this may seem irrelavent; but it's not. Just look up Straw Man on google and you'll see what i mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.95.3 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(P.S: Oh, and i haven't made any contribution at all to this "debate" - people like you think you're so smart.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.95.3 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

reference

It seems unusually hard to find a reference for the history of this phrase. (I agree the Etymology Online link should be removed, it doesn't discuss the rhetorical meaning of the phrase, which of course is what this article is about)

I've found this but aren't sure it's reputable enough: http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970611 CapnZapp (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Triple Strawmen

The following was added recently by Intigfx as an often-seen example of a straw man fallacy regarding evolution:

• Evolution vs. Creationism debate.

Person A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class.

Person B: No, it doesn't say why and how the world was made, and has no morals. Besides, it is only a theory.

B has misrepresented the theory of evolution as a cosmogony, a moral code and an hypothesis instead of a scientific theory.

Here Person B is accused of using no fewer than 3 strawman arguments! An anonymous editor who may not be familiar with WP:AGF declared the above "a blatantly biased point of view and was there for no reason other than making a jab". Subsequent edits seem to reflect opposing positions in the actual debate rather than interest in notable occurences of strawman fallacy, or in seeking consensus on changes.

I suggest keeping the example in this reduced and hopefully less inflamatory form:

Person A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class.

Person B: No, it doesn't say how the world was made.

B has misrepresented the theory of evolution as a cosmogony.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the creationism/evolution examples from this page. The factual explanation of the 'straw man fallacy' does not benefit by using examples that might invoke a high level of editing. --Andywingate (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the deleted examples. Andywingate you may be unfamiliar with how we work here. Wikipedia is created by many editors who seek to improve pages by consensus. That will often involve a "high level of editing" which is, in general, welcomed as constructive. The examples that you thought should be deleted reflect both sides of a debate. This degree of balance has been obtained through work by several editors who believe that the article benefits from these real world examples. Please see the comments below and remember that WP:NOTCENSORED. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually think they're fairly poor examples. I would certainly favor replacement of them with better examples. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples are one sided

currently all the examples are one sided, rectify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.231.243 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Examples all represent a single side of the (American, at least) political spectrum. Try to keep in NPOV, folks. The Jade Knight (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Best way to do this would probably give examples of straw men from both sides of any issue. That would ensure fairness. The Jade Knight (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Does "best way" mean caving in to anticipated vandals? The examples must be individual examples of the straw man fallacy. It is irrelevant that a cause supported by faulty logic may be a good or a bad cause.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What is not irrelevant is which examples are chosen to be included on this page. NPOV should be, of course, the order of the day, and the best way to handle NPOV in an issue such as this is to include examples of straw men from both sides of any given issue. This, of course, has nothing to do with vandalism, but everything to do with improving encyclopedic content. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone uses a faulty argument to support viewpoint X, Wikipedia is NOT obligated to contrive an equally faulty argument against X. (If there really are opposing strawmen arguments on the same issue that both make credible examples then that is a coincidence we can use.)

If you are determined to have every example error balanced by another error, that would mean for the existing examples we must find (invent?) credible fallacious arguments PRO liberalizing marijuana and PRO nude bathing.

The history of the page and the knee-jerk reactions of some editors to mention of some issues shows a tendency to vandalism which should be combatted by our properly bold obedience to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User 161.253 posted midway in my post above. I have moved and indented their post which follows. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If we intend the examples here to elucidate the concept of a straw man, it would be better to use hypothetical examples, preferably about trivial matters. There are two reasons for this. First, real-world examples are likely to be tainted by people's personal views and therefore not as useful instructively. Second, because sufficient hypothetical examples are not prohibitively difficult to invent, the inclusion of a real-world example could justifiably be interpreted as a violation of NPOV. I will conclude with what I think could be the model for examples on this page. A--"Chocolate tastes good." B--"I disagree, chocolate costs more than things that taste just as good." (B is assuming that A meant that chocolate is a good value for its cost, but A was only considering chocolate's flavor independent of other considerations.)161.253.70.195 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The above debate about chocolate is not a clearcut strawman example. B disagrees with A but supports their disagreement by introducing facts that in no way misrepresent A's position. A test is whether A would have to protest the premises B uses and in this example A has no such problem. Thus B's attempt to rebut A is weak because it is irrelevant, not faulty as a strawman fallacy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with people using faulty arguments! This article is about faulty arguments, and all arguments on this article are contrived. To insist that a faulty argument may only be contrived one way and not another seems like a clear violation of NPOV, to me. Including a counter-example would not be "vandalism", but would simply be upholding NPOV. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We might have a confusion of semantics here! The article is about a faulty form of argument that people sometimes use, otherwise there would be no article. It seems reasonable (not all agree) to show some credible examples of the argument. Yes indeed Knight, the examples are contrived in the sense that they need to be well selected to be both credible and demonstrative, while for obvious reasons keeping clear of personalities. I already said "If there really are opposing strawman arguments on the same issue that both make credible examples then that is a coincidence we can use" i.e. include the counter-example in that case. The test is the quality of the example(s), not upholding NPOV. Nobody should believe that either of the anonymous debatants "A" or "B" speaks as a representative of the Wikipedia project!

The goal in improving the quoted examples part of the article is the aptness of the examples, not any plan to make a comprehensive List of Strawman Arguments. That would be a very difficult and divisive ambition.

To clarify what I meant by "tendency to vandalism", that could mean outright deletion of any example that touches an issue that is a hot button for someone (among feminists, creationists, prohibitionists and religion-ists one finds an occasional zealot for whom the End justifies the Means) or insisting on adding a lame counter-example to everything. Provide only good examples please! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying! This makes more sense. I still think, though, that we should make it a goal to try to provide examples which also have effective counter-examples: this way we can obtain both NPOV and good examples. That does not justify simply deleting examples one does not like, of course… perhaps we should "brainstorm" a bit, and try to come up with as long a list of examples and counter-examples as we can, and then pick the best of the list? The Jade Knight (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Knight. You begin. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list of things to do. If you get impatient, feel free to start without me. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove the examples altogether?

I removed all of the examples, as they seem to serve more to start irrelevant talk page flame wars than to actually help the reader. I think the Reasoning section directly above illustrates the matter well enough. However, my removal was - unsurprisingly - reverted. I still think they should be removed. Thoughts? Plrk (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I do see some merit to this proposal, but I think it would be more effective to use well-conceived examples accompanied with well-conceived counter-examples, which I think would reduce the amount of flamewarring as well as provide illustrative examples. The Jade Knight (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see any of these flamewar-proof examples, though. Plrk (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections soon, I will be bold with this. Plrk (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have objected. Flying in the face of consensus that other editors have reached over time (and are even as we speak consensitizing about yet more, see above) ain't bold it's discombobulating. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be "consensus" as much as "low-intensive warfare" to me... Also, note that I did not actually go ahead with the change, as I noted your resistance and expected you to object. Plrk (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not overlooking my objection. We do best by the article when we open a significant change to discussion here before doing it. Getting some varying opinions and reasonings is one of the delights of working for Wikipedia. I am happy to surrender LOL to whatever consensus develops. I apologise for my flippancy yesterday. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate that you're willing to apologize, Cuddlyable3, even if I've nothing to do with it—so few users on Wikipedia are. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to join our brainstorming above, Plrk. I'll get to it "eventually" (it's on my list...) The Jade Knight (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia must give more insight into a subject than a dictionary or a basic book of rules. Nobody seems to doubt that a picture or two greatly enriches an article on a physical object. I suggest that rhetorical examples serve the same purpose in this article. But talking about flames and war doesn't actually produce any examples. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain was an honourable man but where were the voices against appeasement then? Bold editor Plrk acts honourably too but where is responsible Wikipedia editing when we need it? Plrk's bold deletion of all but one of the examples has rendered part of the following section Debating about a straw man incomprehensible. That is either an honest mistake or vandalism, and in either case must be fixed. Plrk, deleting everything that anyone might wage a flame war about is not Wikipedia policy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it so that in order to avoid Godwin's Law you compare me not to a nazi but to someone who effectively supported the nazis by not opposing them? The following section is indeed quite hard to understand, but it should be re-written to use "X vs Y"-examples rather than real-world disagreements. Plrk (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Plrk, the section Debating about a straw man was comprehensible before you came along and destroyed the examples that it depends upon. Now it seems you want someone else to clean up the mess you left, and to follow your directions. BTW your latest post proved Godwin's Law. Do you have anything to contribute to the article? That is what we are here for. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The examples have been restored, and the "mess" I left is now gone (and instead there is a much larger mess to be taken care of). As for the question of who actually broke Godwin's Law - I leave that to be judged by future readers of this discussion. Good day! Plrk (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Plrk for doing what you could to rectify things. Godwin's Law is an observed probability, not an interdiction. Thus nobody "breaks" Godwin's Law. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a Strawman-by-omission?

I propose deletion of the section on the above. The reason is that A and B are not in a genuine debate. Instead they for the purpose of advertising are acting a discussion where one part plays an incapable or incoherent proponent in order to help their partner to persuade more convincingly with their boldly stated message. As long as we define strawman to mean a fallacy of logic in debate it cannot mean a person who acts unintelligently. We cannot say "you are a strawman", only "you use a strawman argument". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "strawman by omission" is in fact, not a strawman, but rather an agent provocateur (where one person pretends to represent a POV, but in fact is attempting to undermine it). The Jade Knight (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

An agent provocateur has a secret agenda that is different from helping the target to advertise. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have strangely mixed up my terms—is there not an expression for falsely pretending to represent a POV in order to undermine it? The Jade Knight (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Parody (verb) - to make a poor and feeble imitation Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's not parody… The Jade Knight (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section Strawman by Omission Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that like straw man by acquiescence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycarlyle (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Examples and counter-examples: a ridiculous exchange

Oh come on guys, six examples? Including a "counter-example"? The article looks ridiculous; one example should be more than enough, especially coupled with the reasoning outlining directly above. This is an encyclopedia, not a rhetorics for dummies textbook. Nor is it a weighing scale - NPOV is not achieved by adding POV from multiple sides, it is achieved by adding objective and neutral material that in a fair manner describes the major POVs. However, there is no particular POV in an article on a logical fallacy - it's only in your examples! Again I say, remove them altogether. It is all too obvious this will not get any better. Plrk (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you and Cuddly are on opposite ends there. I consider myself distinctly in the middle. I just want balance. The Jade Knight (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If "balance" means trying to weigh two POVs against one another, it's just a slippery slope to a flame war hell. Six examples is anyhow ridiculous, I'm going to remove all but one now. (I'd still like to remove all of them though.) Plrk (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In any given argument, both sides may use straw men. I think, ideally, if we are to use any examples at all, examples from both sides of a single argument should be used. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It was to be either this or a drawing of the knight Don Quixote charging a windmill, and I found HumptyDumpty first. R.I.P..

Sitting on a fence can lead to a great fall. The counterexample "Banning homosexual marriage is like supporting slavery" was contrived and silly. Characterising a viewpoint by means of a metaphor is not a straw man fallacy anyway. Oh noble Knight, you meant well but puh-lease... Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolution and random chance

I thought I should point out that evolution has nothing to do with random chance. You may read the article on evolution and related articles. Plrk (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From the evolution article: "The second major mechanism is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population" (my emphasis). Natural selection cannot operate without continual random mutations. This is how evolutionists explain (teach) how biological diversity arises. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That is correct; I thought that you were saying that evolution is random chance. It does include elements of "randomness", which you correctly refer to above. My apologies. Plrk (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No apology needed Plrk because you have raised an important issue. I think the article may prematurely dismiss the objection to "A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class" as a simple straw man. Speaker B. alleges, by implication, that the venerable Teleological argument renders the theory of evolution unfit to be taught. That argument is part of a Belief system which in a modern guise might be Neo-creationism whose proponents fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution. Teaching evolution for them is therefore language expressing disapproved beliefs. Stalemate? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with examples... Plrk (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Different type of straw man?

Doesn't the straw man fallacy also describe the situation where you characterise your opponents as having a different, less defensible position to the one they hold, and attack the less defensible position? Or is this simply politicians and journalists using sloppy language? --Robert Merkel

What you describe is the type of strawman noted at Reasoning 2.1 (misrepresention) and/or 2.5 (oversimplifying). I moved this thread that you started to the recommended position at the bottom of the page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Not always a fallacy??

From the article:

"Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy."

This sentence is vague and confusing. What is meant by "is not always itself a fallacy"? It sometimes is, but sometimes isn't? The point of the article is that a straw man argument is an argument that falsely claims to refute a proposition. So, what is this sentence saying--is it saying that that definition is wrong? What is the relevance, in logic, of how "carefully" one presents a weakened form? I would like to understand what the writer of this sentence was attempting to say. Mark.camp (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the statement, and moved it to the lead because it helps define "straw man". An example however would help. NJGW (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Still a little confusing. Could you give an example of the form of argument you are referring to in the following? It should be an example of an argument that does not meet the definition of a straw man argument, but could easily be mistaken for one.

It should be noted that carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always straw man.

Mark.camp (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my sentence, and as you can see from my comment I think it needs an example as well. Logically, it does make sense though, as just because a weakened version is used, the argument does not automatically become a fallacy. I can see how this would be the case if the original premise was itself a fallacy which needed to be simplified, or if simplifying the argument into individual pieces and then disproving each piece individually is the tactic being used (argument by exhaustion). NJGW (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. As the definition is currently worded, it would not be correct to call the form a fallacy. I've proposed a change to the wording below. Mark.camp (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Consistent with other tweaks (in first paragraph) to tighten up the definition so that it is clear that it refers to a fallacy, I re-wrote second paragraph as follows. As written it seemed to suggest that the example might fit the definition of straw man, and yet be valid:

"It should be noted that presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements--both being presumably easier to refute than the original position--must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, then the refutation is valid, and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.

In so doing I eliminated a cross-reference to "argument by exhaustion". If you think this reference was valuable, please re-insert it. I think that the example I give in the above text is, in fact, an example of "argument by exhaustion". If so, the cross-ref could be added back in by appending a sentence:

"This form of valid argument is an "argument by exhaustion".

Mark.camp (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

---

It is, actually a straw man. Presenting a single point from an opponent's argument and refuting that is not fallacious. Changing part of an opponent's argument is always fallacious unless the change is an agreed-upon alteration made in order to bring the opponent's argument in line with mainstream views. However refuting this point is not the same as refuting the original argument!

If your change is designed to present a weakened version of an opponent's position then that argument is always a straw man in that you are avoiding the strong argument in favour of a weak argument you yourself have constructed. In both cases the original argument remains unrefuted as you have chosen to attack a completely different one!

To use Wikipedia as an example: Say you post an argument I disprove of but am having trouble refuting. The easiest way to refute your argument is to edit it and then refute the weakened version. A straw doll is, essentially, the same, though the root text *usually* remains intact (unless misquoted, which it often is).

Ion Zone (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition: suggested re-wording.

Summary of proposed changes

1. Change

"set up a straw man

to

"attack a straw man

Both phrases are used in scholarly literature, and equally good as examples, but the second is more in tune with the categorization of the form as a fallacy.

2. Tighten up the definition to make it clear that it is used specifically to assert that the refutation so described did not disprove what it claimed to have disproved. Currently it can be interpreted as being inclusive enough to allow valid arguments, as well as fallacious ones.

3. Change style of the opening from instructional

"to do x , do this...

to definitional

"to do x is to...

4. Remove

"yet is easier to refute

which implies that a refutation is, or is not, an example of a straw man argument depending on a subjective judgment of the ease with which the two propositions can be refuted.

5. Add the following.

"and refuting it

to be consistent with the change from using "setting up" to "attacking" as the starting point.

Current

To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent.

Proposed

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

Mark.camp (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it. It seems to be an uncontroversial change, and a well thought out improvement. NJGW (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Be bold. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To "attack a straw man" is to create theattempt to give an illusion of having refutedrefuting a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, but I don't think it's necessary to hedge that much... it would just make it a little harder to read. NJGW (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and agree. I will go with my text for now, to keep it shorter. But edit away if you very much like the added precision of "attempt to give". (Or, "attempt to create") Mark.camp (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this sentence add anything?

Current text

"While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique and succeed in persuading people, it carries no evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted (or properly acknowledged).

It seems to me tautological to observe that this, or any other form of fallacious argument, "carries no evidential weight".

It also seems obvious that it is possible in practice to deceive people with this particular form of fallacy. But that that is equally true of any form of fallacy, and not relevant to this article.

I propose to delete the sentence unless someone has a reason to keep it. Comments? Mark.camp (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to have a sentence reading something like "As it is a logical fallacy, a straw man argument carries no evidential weight." NJGW (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, I do prefer your sentence to the current one. But I still have the same concern, that it should be self-evident that any fallacy by definition carries no evidential weight. The sentence doesn't seem to add anything. I removed the sentence, but if you feel that it is necessary to remind the reader that fallacies by definition have no value, then please feel free to substitute your alternative. Mark.camp (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I read through it a few more times (trying to fit in even a part of the removed text) and saw that you were right; the sentence was redundant. NJGW (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Selection of examples

In an article whose purpose is to educate the reader about a type of fallacy, which would be a more effective choice for an example: a strawman argument on a controversial topic, or a strawman argument on a topic which is itself of no great interest to any reader?

I would say, the latter. Although using a controversial example does make our article more colorful, it has disadvantages.

The first is that it goes against the very purpose of the article, which is to get the reader to understand the topic at hand: "What does "strawman fallacy" mean?", "How do I recognize what is, and is not, a strawman argument?"

A neutral example, as one finds in the literature ("Aristotle is a mortal", etc...who cares if Aristotle is a mortal or not?) focuses the readers mind on the subject, instead of on some issue about which he or she is passionate.

The second problem we create if we allow ourselves to use examples relating to controversial subjects is more serious.

We create the impression that our article, and Wikipedia itself, is being used by its authors in an inappropriate, even intellectually dishonest way: to promote the author's views on an unrelated topic.

I urge other editors to ensure that all examples be chosen for their accuracy and clarity, and that they be as uncontroversial as possible. To do otherwise, for example to attempt to turn this article into a fairly refereed boxing match between competing authors who are seeking to use it promote their views, is to be distracted from the purpose of the article. If you wish to demonstrate that an argument against your particular religious or political views is a strawman argument, you should present it in some place other than an article about the logical form itself. Mark.camp (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I also think "real world" examples, such as the ones in the article now, might get the concept across more effectively. People often don't realize their argument is a straw man fallacy, and I suspect that having real examples might convey this more effectively. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% w/ Editor:Mark and would caution against real world examples...Real world examples only tend to elicit emotionally-driven real world responses. And, as you say, the readers mind responds NOT to the subject (a false argument) but to the topic of the example used. The readers rhythm is thrown off. A dissident response is created. Which is not the purpose of the article. The examples should have absolutely no suggestive, symbolic or figurative meaning what-so-ever.

They should be completely ambiguous. I'm reminded of the tactic of replacing "Martian" for the word "Polish" in the telling of an off-color or race-baiting Joke. Let the Martians get upset. Here, at this article, there is absolutely no good reason to use examples that bring out differences in the Darwinist/Creationist or any other hot-bed debate.--Buster7 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Real world controversies are where strawman arguments are usually generated. If we allow any proponent in a controversy to cause the chilling effect of self censorship, where do we stop? The only way to appease every fanatic would be to shut down most of Wikipedia. Born2cycle is correct. Buster7 is wrong to say "Real world examples only tend to elicit emotionally-driven real world responses" because most users of an encyclopedia learn from what they read.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the purpose of the NPOV policy is to prevent authors from using an article to present their points of view about the subject of the article, rather than presenting neutral, citeable information about that subject.

But if, instead, one uses an article about subject 'X' to indirectly promote a controversial opinion about subject 'Y', one has introduced something irrelevant to the article. It isn't a violation of NPOV per se, but it is potentially more damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia. The author is using an article as a Trojan horse for promotion of a POV on some subject utterly unrelated to, in this case, "Straw man arguments".

When the article is about a fallacious form of argument, as this one is, there is a legitimate requirement to give examples. Without understandable examples, the article simply fails. This requirement creates a great temptation to promoters of viewpoints on subjects unrelated to the article to insert their views into an encyclopedia where they are almost certain not to be seen, let alone challenged, by reviewers of the subject of those views.

For example (which I hereby proclaim to be non-controversial ;-): if I present my opinion that Burbank is actually an alien universe inhabited solely by pickpockets in the Wikipedia article on Burbank, it will be quickly exposed as violating both the NPOV policy and the one requiring citations. But if I hide my view in an article on "Strawman arguments", what is the likelihood that it will attract the attention of experts on Burbank? Much less, of course.

Now, of course, those who argue for inclusion of controversial examples have a very good point. They make the article relevant and interesting. But at what cost?! In reading the sad history of this article and Talk page, one is tempted to ask: is the dramatic advantage of including examples guaranteed to insult, humiliate, or offend one religious or political group, and arouse bloodthirsty rabid support by another, really worth it? The opposing sides turn the article, and this Talk page, into an interminable mud-wrestling match which may have some lurid appeal, but does the article ABOUT STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS get any better at the end of the day? Mark.camp (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is it better to use real world examples where people use strawmen, or make up examples that don't exist? NJGW (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, it is a matter of degree. I would rate them as follows

Any incorrect example: F

Correct but with provocative thesis (offensive, politically polarizing, etc): D

Correct, easy-to-understand, real-world: A

Correct, easy-to-understand, made-up : A

We should seek over time to move up the quality scale till we have an excellent article. Replace "F's" with "D's", "D's" with "A's" or "B's" or "C's".

The last two (the two "A's") are about the same for me. The last is good because it is the clearest for someone who is already very interested, and who is adept at abstract thinking. The second-last creates slightly more distraction from the point at hand, but engages the interest and concentration of the reader who is not quite as curious at the start, or who is a little less inclined toward logical thinking (a more concrete, pragmatic mind).

Mark.camp (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mark.camp for taking time to give your ideas. It is indisputable that it would damage Wikipedia if an author used an article as a Trojan horse for promoting a POV whether relevant or not but how can you argue that such isn't a violation of NPOV?

I don't believe there is any way you could keep hidden an unsourced opinion about Burbank in this article from editors who watch it.

Your suggestion by rhetoric questioning that any editor inserts examples for "dramatic advantage..guaranteed to insult, humiliate, offend...[or]arouse bloodthirsty rabid support" violates WP:AGF egregiously. Perhaps there is lurid appeal in such intemperate language. It should be resisted.

The categories A - D - F that you propose (unacountably there are no B, C or E) would be easier to understand if you were to provide actual examples illustrating what you mean. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Your suggestion ... violates WP:AGF egregiously". I'm not so sure Mark's suggestion violated WP:AGF, and more certain it was not egregious. Remember WP:AAGF as well - and yes, I know by citing this that it applies to me too making this statement, and I don't want to imply that any party has bad faith here. About Mark's colorful comments, I don't think he was intending to state that he believes the authors of the disputed examples wrote them in bad faith intentionally to push a POV, but that by evidence of the talk page history and the general nature of the subject matter, that the examples do seem to elicit quite a controversial and potentially distracting reaction. I take it to be a comment about the text and subject of the examples and the documented disputes about them, and not a statement of their authors' intents. As for the lurid appeal, I think it was just harmless hyperbole. - Dmeranda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the inclusion of real-world examples is a good idea. The comparison to communism one is a great idea for the exact reason that some of the above posters said - it's one that many people are familiar with and one that is time and time again used in politics - I think this shows the pervaviseness of straw man arguments and might clue people in to just how often (very often) the straw man fallacy goes unnoticed in debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.34.13 (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In the USA maybe. In other parts of the world, that sentence seems very america-centric. 80.62.160.94 (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorize examples

Agonizing over the impossibility of exposing fallacious arguments without upsetting anyone with vested interest in using them can go on filling this Talk page without improving the article. At least one good idea has emerged which is that editors should categorise the examples presented. Since the article defines 5 ways of reasoning by Person B we do well to identify 1-2 examples of each reasoning and label them as such. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the examples as I see it is not so much their category, but rather that their selection and presentation entice the reader to fall into other fallacies, such as argument from ignorance and argument from fallacy. Most of the examples now involve straw man attacks on traditionally liberal/leftist positions. So even though these are legitimate straw man fallacies, the reader may be left with the impression that because the original argument in each example was not refuted that it must therefore be true. This is POV pushing, even if it is cleverly veiled and technically accurate. Some suggestions to help fix this are: 1) include examples which posit traditional conservative/right positions with liberal straw man attacks, 2) warn the reader that just because an attack is a staw man that the original position may still be possibly invalid, 3) include examples where the original argument is uncontroversial false yet the staw man still fails to disprove it, or 4) construct examples in pairs with each original argument taking opposite positions and provide staw man attacks against each position. -- Dmeranda (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I support suggestion 2) above. The point to be made is that good causes are sometimes promoted by faulty arguments. Such a statement may hopefully deflect reactions to the substance rather than the logic of the examples we give. Suggestions 1) 3) and 4) above demand more examples to implement them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it more, I too agree that my option 2 is perhaps the most fruitful and easiest to implement with consensus. I'm tending to lean against option 1 (two POVs don't a NPOV make). I still like 3 a lot, the uncontroversial constructed example. But if real-world potentially highly controversial topics are used for examples, I think we have to try to do them like I suggest in option 4. I'll try to work on those. - Dmeranda (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apropos suggestion 2) above I have added this to "Examples": Straw man arguments often arise in public debates even when less flawed arguments could be found to support the same position. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on examples

I'm adding a (temporary) NPOV tag to the examples section. This is primarily to document an ongoing dispute over the neutrality and bias that some people see in the selection of the topics used for the examples. There appears to be an ongoing and mostly civil debate already occurring on this talk page, and work is being made toward a resolution. However disruptive edits of the main article page, without discussion, continue to be a problem. So I hope this notice will invite people to discuss here first. - Dmeranda (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Use real examples? One by Bush, one by Obama

I know using quotations is highly subjective and should be relegated to the land of wikiquote, but I notice that Wikipedia in general is increasingly not strictly NPOV with its generous usage of random quotes by random figures. As long as it is sourced nowadays, it seems you can put a biased quotation by some significant figure in the intro paragraph of many historical event and noun articles. Anyways, here goes - everyone loves the straw man - these were found by a quick one minute google search.

One straw man argument by George W. Bush:

"[T]here is an attitude among some that certain people may never be free -- they just don't long to be free or are incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that. And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved that this administration's faith in freedom to change peoples' habits is worthy." [1]

And one straw man argument by Barack Obama:

"a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges." [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exander (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to specify exactly what the logical fallacy is. Long-winded or silly quotations from american politicians are not useful examples. It is not true that any quotation that is sourced is good to use, and this is not for an intro paragraph. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

Quotes are left-wing propaganda200.75.240.237 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

All quotations or just ones that you disagree with? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly we should just avoid specific arguments on touchy subjects. We can have examples that are not politically charged. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned of the fact that the examples portray conservatives as the only ones who use strawmen arguments.--WaltCip (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Which quotations do you have a problem with? Then we'll discuss them. (User:Figg 16/8/09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preposterone (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A reader's perspective

I'm a long-time wiki reader but have never posted till today so please excuse (or correct) any improper formatting.

First, it should be obvious from this talk page and the number of deletions and reverts made to the article that providing current real-world examples of a straw man argument is, at best, distracting to the reader. I am a reader, and it is the politically-charged examples that caused me to spend 30 minutes reading this talk page rather than spending that time learning about straw man arguments. Distraction is not a good thing, and not to be confused with what I call 'linking' or 'topic hopping'. One of the reasons I love wiki is 'topic hopping'. I actually started out looking at 'ASIC' and ended up on 'straw man', that's quite a leap and I was learning something new on every page. Until now. Now I'm distracted. Involved, but distracted.

Imagine that the original examples were all about the best color for a neck tie or which knot should be used and I think you'll agree that 90% of this talk page would not even exist. Instead, this discussion would be about the merits of the examples given, whether they are easy to understand, and logically correct.

Speaking of examples, with all the edits it's hard to know if the current examples are new or if they are the originals that started the debate. But I'd like to comment on the ones I'm seeing.

Prohibition debate - This seems to be a good example, as the transition from the original position of 'liberalizing beer laws' to the straw man position of 'unrestricted access to intoxicants' is easy for the reader to make. And at the same time it is easy for the reader to see the flaw in the straw man argument (that fewer restrictions on beer is really not the same as 'unrestricted access to intoxicants', a position that is easy to attack).

Universal Healthcare debate - This seems to be a bad example, not just because it's politically-charged, but because it's not a straw man argument. I don't see a substitute for the position of 'universal health care is good'. I'm not a logic expert but it looks like the argument given might be a combination of other fallacies (associating universal health care with communism, linking communism to poor economic performance, then implying that everything communistic yields a poor economy).

School uniform debate - Again, I see no straw man. Person B has not put forth a substitute position for 'school uniforms are good'. Instead, this looks like a completely different fallacy - reductio ad Hitlerum (which I learned about here on Wikipedia).

Another comment I'd like to make is that while current real world examples do get the reader's attention today, will they have the same effect 5 years from now? Why would we want to build an article that is dependent upon current affairs for it's effectiveness, thereby requiring constant updating as the examples go out of date? OK, Wikipedia is a living document and easily updated, but intentionally creating an article that is guaranteed to lose it's relevance in a few years doesn't make sense to me. If real, current examples are deemed necessary, can they be provided as links instead? That would allow the reader to stay focused on the article rather than be distracted by his emotional responses to a political topic. I think it would be better to first educate the reader to recognize a straw man fallacy, then challenge him to objectively review some current examples and apply what he just learned.

The good news: The current definition seems very good to me. It is clear and concise. The 'substituting a superficially similar proposition' phrase is (to me) key to recognizing a straw man argument.

A reader named Bob (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw man corporation

There is no mention of this in wikipedia. I am short on time so I cannot explain it now. Google search "straw man corporation" if you want to know more. I can assure you by firsthand knowledge that most of what you can readily find on google is correct. Skane (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I came to this article to look at this very point.

STRAMINEUS HOMO: Latin: A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. This definition comes from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th. Edition, page 1421. Following the definition of STRAMINEUS HOMO in Black's we find the next word, straw man (Strawman). STRAWMAN: A front, a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purposes of taking title to real property & executing whatever documents & instruments the principal may direct. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term "strawman" as: 1: a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted 2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction. The straw man (Strawman) can be summed up as an imaginary, passive stand-in for the real participant; a front; a blind; a person regarded as a nonentity. The straw man (Strawman) is a "shadow", a go-between. For quite some time a rather large number of people in this country have known that a man or woman's name, written in ALL CAPS, or last name first, does not identify real, living people. Taking this one step further, the rules of grammar for the English language have no provisions for the abbreviation of people's names, i.e. initials are not to be used. As an example, John Adam Smith is correct. ANYTHING else is not correct. Not Smith, John Adam or Smith, John A. or J. Smith or J. A. Smith or JOHN ADAM SMITH or SMITH, JOHN or any other variation. NOTHING, other than John Adam Smith identifies the real, living man. All other appellations identify either a deceased man or a fictitious man: such as a corporation or a STRAW MAN (STRAWMAN). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Regardless if the examples given are straw men, it would probably be wise not to use political examples. Particularly where all of these examples seem to have the person commiting the fallacy on a particular side of a political spectrum. Stick with "Dick and Jane" stuff or "widgets".

I too am now strongly favoring removing all examples which are in the slightest controversial/political or that can be perceived that way. They are clearly overwhelming and distracting from any other substance of this article and the edit warring has been going on for way too long with no end in sight. Besides, it is not even clear that the examples are in any way sourced correctly (are they original research), or if they should even be part of this article. And whether intended or not, it is clear that many are perceiving the examples as POV pushing, or at least systemic or implied bias. If the description isn't clear enough then we need to improve the description; not just list of bunch of arbitrary and examples. I don't see the examples as necessary to the article, they don't really provide any additional information that can not be expressed in other ways, and in particular the choice of examples used is apparently quite arbitrary and mostly unimportant. This is not the place to take political stances, or make the appearance of them. See WP:OR and WP:NOTGUIDE -- Dmeranda (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I reverted an edit earlier, which I saw as making the healthcare example convoluted, and artificial*. It has since been replaced. Nothing after the first example is cited, and I suspect it's all Original thought. I think we should remove them, and will boldly go and do so.

*The opposite way round (universal healthcare = socialism = bad) is a real example, but for us to say so without source would also be Original Research and possibly Synthesis. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current second example (evasion) has anything to do with strawman... 67.169.181.142 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think so either, but I've removed it on grounds of original research. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I am depressed that editors keep reacting to the Example(s) section. I am resigned to endless changes and deletions occurring here as long as anyone with any minority viewpoint thinks the article must respect their "cause". That is their selfish interest blinding them to what the article is actually about viz. the (il)logic of a defined rhetorical fallacy, and not whatever issue an example is taken from. Beyond my displeasure however is the disgraceful negligence on the part of editors who delete examples while leaving references to those examples in the section Debating around a straw man. Disjointing an article in this way is not responsible editing. It is vandalism. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaving orphaned and no-longer needed references, is as you say, editor negligence, but it is far from being vandalism. I fail to see any minority (sic) viewpoint, causes, or selfish interests being pushed in what I view as good-faith attempts to improve the article and remove unnecessary POV, whether implied or real. Examples are not or should not be central to the article. And certainly if examples are to be included, which is itself arguable, there are hundreds of perfectly lucid, demonstrative, and non-controversial examples to choose from that could serve this article perfectly well. Don't confuse opposition to a specific example on the grounds that it may cast POV concerns with opposition claiming the examples to be false. Just because an example may be "logical" or even sourced still does not mean that it is necessarily appropriate for inclusion, especially if more appropriate non-controversial examples could be used instead. Now if someone wants to start a different article, say List of straw man arguments, then maybe that would be a better place to fight for inclusion of some specific examples that authors want to express. - Dmeranda (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmeranda magnanimously excuses editors who plough into the article bent on amputating some parts while leaving connected parts to bleed. Other editors who have actually worked on building the article through consensus could differ. What one sees or conversely fails to see depends on where one looks. I have no idea why you insert a sic when you echo my phrase "minority viewpoint" because that would only make sense if you had observed some kind of typo or spelling error there. It would be nice to believe Dmeranda's claim to know of hundreds of perfectly lucid, demonstrative, and non-controversial examples to choose from that could serve this article and even nicer if Dmeranda shared any here. That would be preferable their mocking proposal that anyone start a List of straw man arguments. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the Talk page of AlmostReadytoFly about the disjointed deleting. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy now?

Please don't conflate oversight or inability to see a best solution with vandalism. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the statements at the end of this example regarding Nassim Taleb are far too specific, and are perhaps far too much an expression of opinion about an individual than useful commentary. Perhaps the statements are true I don't see the need to use an individual in this case as the example given above it seems complete. Further similar examples would be of use to people who struggle with the concept, but using an individual is frankly just going to be bad for the reputation of that individual and may serve to inflame users who like his work. 67.126.84.202 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Strawman" (Etymology)

If I have understood the concept correctly, a 'strawman' refers to the idea that a soldier could dress up a strawman as a fellow soldier. If the strawman was mistaken for real, it would draw enemy arrows/bullets (away from the real targets)? If that is correct I think it should be explained in the beginning of the article somewhere.
—Apis (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article says, the origins are unclear. The usual story told is that strawmen were used in training, because they're easy to defeat (e.g. they don't dodge). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow managed to ignore the entire Origin section when reading the article. :( Very interesting.
—Apis (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always known this as a "scarecrow argument" and indeed that redirects here. This would rather suggest that the correct etymology is the most obvious one, ie just as a farmer uses a fake person made of straw to masquerade as a real person (to scare birds), someone deploying a scarecrow argument / strawman uses a fake depiction of their opponent's position which only superficially resembles their actual position, and is easily destroyed. I may add something to this effect to the Etymology section if no-one objects. Quaestor23 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

While your premise is perfectly reasonable, it falls under original research unless you can find documentation for it, and should not be added Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Man Of Straw

Why does "Man Of Straw" redirect here? Wouldn't it be more likely that someone would be looking for the book over the argument? Ora Stendar 23:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Upgrading this article.

I think this topic is being seriously underated.

Even judging by the debate here alone there is reasonable cause to upgrade it from mid-importance.

I think there is enough web traffic and activity to consider it being very important.

Do we think that it should only be catogorised as philosophical science?

Surely, it is also legal too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycarlyle (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

oh wow

i cant believe there is an expression to sum up the whole of bill oreilly. thanks wikipedia, ive always wanted to know the word to describe the actions of this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.213.210 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Grasping at straws" as a redirect?

Why is this so? Grasping at straws, as I'm familiar with it, is a figurative verb that has nothing to do with straw manning... 68.75.224.214 (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a problem with the examples...

Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor. Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.

In this case, Person B has transformed Person A's position from "more funding" to "more handouts", which is easier for Person B to defeat.

Ok, so I'm confused about the explanation of the example. First, it quotes "more funding". From where though? I did not see person A say that directly... could it be the example is straw manning!? haha.. that's just what I'm confused about with that example.

Now, when I came here to say this, i noticed there has been a LOT of fighting over examples being POV all the time. So, why don't we just start brainstorming some examples right here? Or would that be original research... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar123abc (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"spend more money" implies funding. But it does not imply handouts. However you do have a point, because it is often argued that in certain circles, "spend more money helping the poor," automatically implies handouts or negative connotations. I agree, examples of logic should be designed as both airtight and clear. While "what some people might assume," may be inside the boundaries and scope of informal conversational logic, these considerations don't belong in Straw Man.
--68.127.87.182 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

"more funding" is ambiguous because it might mean either "the need for more money to accomplish this" or "increased financial support of poor people". The issue of where money might come from is not addressed. The example argument can be about allocation from scratch of a given tax income. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

added "Usage, Embellishments and Detection"

I added a new section: "Usage, Embellishments and Detection" See: Wikipedia:BRD. Any major problems??
--68.127.87.182 (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I think it should be deleted/rewritten. The references linked are all about death panels, and not about straw men. Yes death panels are a straw man argument, but those articles do not name them such. The statements in the section specifically about straw men are all original research, or at least need references. In particular "Straw man fallacies are popular with propagandists because they can evoke powerful emotions, and can involve entertaining, easily repeated tales which can take on a life of their own.", and the entire last paragraph of the section are at fault. Additionally, the specific example is very politically charged. Since this section is about their use in politics (in which case the section is mis-titled), the politics could be justified, but perhaps a historical propaganda might be less controversial.

I will be deleting the section in a few days unless it is cleaned up, or there is objection here.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on further review of the text, I am going to delete it immediately, as the entire section is a problem. If someone wants to rewrite it with citations and NPOV feel free. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Biased Examples

Why do both examples have a liberal debater winning over a conservative one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.149.179 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's easier to find straw-man arguments promulgated by conservatives? Liberals have a touching faith in the power of actual facts to persuade. Monado (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the "straw man" technique is only used in the most emotional, "hot button" issues, the likelihood is that any recent example will polarize readers. I don't mind the current examples (I think the Republican death panels argument against Obamacare would be a perfect example) but as most of the entries on this talk page show, partisan examples have distracted readers from the topic of this article. It would be nice to go back far enough in history to find uncontroversial examples. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed wording of oversimplification scenario

Changed "Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version." to "Presenting an oversimplification of the opponent's position." because "then attacking this oversimplified version" is redundant because of step 3, and the wording more closely adheres to the wording of the other scenarios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.86.47 (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin OR :-)

Walton in 1996 did not have google books to search in. "United States Supreme Court history : miscellaneous articles" from 1940 (or so) contains the snippet '... what the British call an "Aunt Sally" and we a "straw man."' [3]. Possibly OCLC 743493594 and OCLC 83392684 are the same volume. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Main meaning

By the way, I'm not convinced that "straw man argument" is the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of "straw man", although there is one dictionary which lists it this way [4]. It's true that the competing business jargon is not mentioned in this dict: "(1) a person compared to an effigy stuffed with straw; a sham (2) a sham argument set up to be defeated, usually as a means of avoiding to tacked an opponent's real arguments." Or in this dict "a person of no substance (esp. financially); one nominally, but not really, responsible; a sham opponent or argument set up for the sake of disputation." Tijfo098 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Distinction between Straw Man and Aunt Sally.

In my personal experience, a Straw Man and an Aunt Sally are two different things: The main description of a Straw Man argument is about correct as far as I can see. This is where you put forward a false or weakened version of your opponent's standpoint, and argue against that instead of his real argument.

An Aunt Sally is more similar to the activity of "running something up the flag pole". A group of people may choose to debate an Aunt Sally position, just to see how it helps them further understand some related arguments. In other words, all parties are aware of the weakness of the argument, but willing to discuss it anyway (perhaps hoping to be surprised).

I think the author has made a mistake in assuming that Aunt Sally is just the equivalent UK usage and means the same thing as Straw Man does in the US. I'd think most educated UK people would be capable of using either term, with distinct meanings. The first of the two references, gives an example of scientists collaborating using an Aunt Sally, which would support the view that it isn't the same thing as a Straw Man.

Of course, it's possible that Straw Man has a second usage (a minor one?) which /is/ equivalent to what Aunt Sally means. I think we'd need more references to establish that though. For now, I'd just like to raise this question over the accuracy of the article.

Dominic Cronin (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Straw Man

This fallacy is more properly known as "sophistry" or "Sophism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.86.118 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Afraid not, those are completely different meanings. Although one might accuse Plato in engaging in straw man tactics in his stereotyping of the stances of the Sophists which led to the term taking on negative slang meanings. Ranze (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Structure: is that really the way it goes?

I find that the structure argument veers off from the Straw Man Fallacy into the Argument from Consequences. If A has unfortunate consequences, that does not make it false! What makes it false is that it's a broken-backed, straw-man version of the actual A. To wit: "A is false because Straw-A is untrue!" Please correct me if I am wrong. Monado (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If I understand what you are saying, I think the structure section has it right. Using the symbols from the section, Person 1 substitutes Position Y for Position X in his arguments, because it is easier to attack. That tacit substitution is the source of the logical fallacy. The fallacy is not that his arguments about Y are untrue, it is that they don't say anything about the truth or untruth of X. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead section is too short, abstract and dry.

The Lead section is outside of wiki guidelines, being too short, abstract and dry. The Lead is not interesting, despite the fascinating and often raucous reality of this extremely common rhetorical trick and its typical loud, cartoon-voiced, bombastic presentation. (If not the most common, it is certainly the most flamboyant of the rhetorical tricks used in American right-wing political talk radio!)

Also, "deny" is (dusty-sounding) jargon of Logic, and jargon especially does not belong in the Lead. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) Serious writing does not mean dry writing. Effective communication engages an audience. Inappropriate jargon (inappropriately assuming experts) is ALWAYS BAD, sloppy or lazy writing. I'll try to spiff it up some.
--71.138.23.59 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford