One day at a motor racing track, two photographers were waiting for the latest model F1 car to be unloaded from the truck, to take its place next to last year's model, so that pictures could be taken. The older model had already been unloaded from the truck and driven to the designated position. After the latest model was rolled off the truck, the driver started the engine and slowly drove onto the track, toward a position next to the older model. One hundred metres short of the position, it stalled and refused to restart. The mechanics hurried over to investigate what was causing the problem. After half an hour of heated discussion involving much bonnet lifting, hand waving, talking and pushing, it was decided that the solution to the problem would have to wait. As they pushed the car into position for the photographs to be taken, Alain, one of the photographers, nonchalantly said, "The fastest car on this track is last year’s model."
Brian, the other photographer quickly retorted, "No it's not, just last week on this track, the new model was 1.3 seconds faster per lap."
Alain then replied," You've misinterpreted what I said."
Brian snapped back, "No I haven't, you said that last year’s model is faster than the new model."
Unfortunately this is when many people will point to their opponent and say "Straw man fallacy!"
- Did Brian's evidence show that Alain's statement was false?
- Did Brian commit a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting what Alain had said?
- Are both Alain's and Brian's statements true? (We assume that Brian's information on the timing difference is correct.)
Alain: The fastest car on this track is last year’s model.
Brian: I'd say you're wrong, just last week on this track; the new model was 1.3 seconds faster per lap.
Alain: I think you've misinterpreted what I said.
Brian: But, didn't you say that last year’s model is faster than the new model?
In this example, Brian has asked for clarification of what Alain had said, thus acknowledging that he may have misinterpreted Alain's statement. Even Brian's second statement was not a misrepresentation of what Alain had said, it was Brian's considered opinion that the new model was faster than the old model. Brian knew something which seemed to contradict Alain's statement. There was no straw man argument in this exchange. Brian did not misrepresent what Alain had said, he merely misunderstood.
____________________________________________________________________
Alain: Presently, there are two cars on the track. One was driven to its position; the other had to be pushed. Which car is faster?
____________________________________________________________________
Would it have averted any argument if Alain had included three words to his original statement? E.g., "The fastest car on this track at this moment is last year’s model."
These are the sort of errors we make each day. We often misinterpret or misunderstand other people's statements. Furthermore, we can't predict how someone might misinterpret what we are saying, so we can't include the necessary words to avoid any misinterpretation.
In the first series of comments, the sentences may have been stated in a forceful, direct and possibly accusatory manner and refuted in a defensive manner as illustrated by phrases such as; "No it's not...", "You've misinterpreted..." and "No I haven't...". Although it is implied, it is often forgotten that when each of us makes a statement it is no more than an opinion, our opinion. We may believe something is a fact, but it is only a fact in our opinion.
When we give our opinion and state it as a fact, we are in fact merely stating our opinion.
The second series makes it clearer that we are taking responsibility for the statements we are making. It may seem tautological, but at times it is important to remind ourselves that anything we say or write is just an opinion. One should always acknowledge that one may be in error.
So what is a straw man fallacy?
Here are 4 simple steps to produce a straw man fallacy.
1) Make up a statement and claim that this statement represents your opponent’s position. (In fact, this statement must misrepresent your opponent’s position)
2) Word that statement in such a manner that you can easily refute it.
3) Provide the evidence which refutes the statement that you just made up.
4) Then claim that your opponent’s position is clearly unsupportable.
(However, the 4th part is just the conclusion where you try to gloat over your brilliant rebuttal.)
One current hot topic is Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). With the two sides often called "Warmists" and "Sceptics". Although other terms (often derogatory) are used, for this topic I will use these terms.
A warmist wrote, “Climate sceptics deny that the climate changes”, and then gave solid evidence showing that the climate does in fact change.
A sceptic would accuse the warmist of committing a straw man fallacy.
Why? Because sceptics have always said that the climate is changing. They expect it to change in the future, as it has always done in the past; naturally. The disagreement between the two sides is whether it is humans that are causing the climate to change. The warmist has misrepresented what the sceptics claim.
In order to build an unbiased and informed opinion on any subject we must recognize these logical fallacies. But to do so we must listen to and try to understand both sides of the argument and then note any logical fallacies put forward by either side.
An easy way to avoid falling into the straw man argument yourself is to start your statement with something like: “I think my opponent believes that," (insert your interpretation here).
Then say, “If this is a true interpretation of my opponent’s position then," (insert your refutation here).
If your opponent accepts your interpretation of his position then you are not guilty of producing a straw man fallacy.
If your opponent claims that you have misrepresented his position, then you may still be guilty of producing a straw man or, as you have acknowledged, you may have honestly misunderstood or misinterpreted your opponent’s position.
This technique also engenders a sense of politeness, which is usually best.
It is important to identify whether your opponent has misrepresented, misunderstood or misinterpreted what you said, before you accuse your opponent of committing a straw man fallacy.
Because of the complexities involved in a straw man argument, it is probably one of the most commonly alleged and yet misunderstood of all logical fallacies. Other fallacies such as misrepresentation, questionable premise, quoting out of context, slanting, equivocation and smear tactic may be elements of a straw man fallacy. Misunderstanding or misinterpreting are not fallacies, however misrepresenting (lying) is a logical fallacy.
For a good explanation of some common logical fallacies try the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
For example:
"Straw Man
You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying."
No comments:
Post a Comment