Reblogged:The “Straw Man” Fallacy

[Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.]

Occasionally, when somebody does not have a response to a point I make, they reply by saying, “You’re making a straw man argument.”

For example, “Socialists do not wish to coerce or force people to do anything. It’s a straw man argument.”

Or, “AA doesn’t wish to impose faith or the group on people; you’re making a straw man argument.”

This used to puzzle me. But then I came to understand that the person who responds this way (a) does not have a response to my points, and (b) does not wish to be held accountable for the implications of his points.

For example, someone who supports the socialist/redistribution of wealth policies of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will say it’s a “straw man” argument to claim they’re forcing people to do things against their will, even though they are; or it’s a “straw man” argument to claim that they’re punishing success and rewarding mediocrity, even though they are.

The person making the straw man argument is essentially saying, “I know that these ideas or polices you reject are not intended to end up as you’re saying they end up. Progressives do not intend to do these things.” Instead of explaining or defending why their ideas lead to the sorts of negative consequences they do, they simply say, “My ideas do not lead to bad consequences. It’s  straw man argument.”

I no longer try to understand what someone means when they make this claim. It’s just as empty, and just as designed to intimidate (in a less obvious way) as the claim that you’re racist, anti-woman, or anything else. They might as well be saying, “I have no response to what you say. All I know is I don’t like what you’re saying, and I’m going to call you a name without any content or meaning.”

The next time you make the case for freedom and capitalism over statism and socialism, or for any other rational idea, such as free will and personal responsibility, and a person accuses you of fighting a “straw man,” then make that person explain why his ideas, if practiced consistently, lead to the consequences they do. Hold him or her responsible for the logical outcome of his or her ideas, when practiced consistently.

 

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Dr. Hurd is now a Newsmax Insider! Check out his new column here.

The post The “Straw Man” Fallacy appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.

View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

[SpookyKitty]

A "straw-man" argument fallacy is what you do when you claim that you've refuted an argument by creating a completely different argument that is easy to refute.

Everyone across the political spectrum does this. People on our side typically argue against socialism by pointing out the iefficiencies or injustice of Big Government. But socialism is not nanny-state liberalism. So if the starting point of your argumet is that it is, then you will definitely be engaging in a straw-man.

As for your other points:

Quote

For example, “Socialists do not wish to coerce or force people to do anything. It’s a straw man argument.”

Socialists have a different concept of "coercion" or "force".

Quote

For example, someone who supports the socialist/redistribution of wealth policies of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will say it’s a “straw man” argument to claim they’re forcing people to do things against their will, even though they are; or it’s a “straw man” argument to claim that they’re punishing success and rewarding mediocrity, even though they are.

Yes, that is also a straw man. Liberals do not consider lawful actions of the government a form of force.

Quote

The next time you make the case for freedom and capitalism over statism and socialism, or for any other rational idea, such as free will and personal responsibility, and a person accuses you of fighting a “straw man,” then make that person explain why his ideas, if practiced consistently, lead to the consequences they do. Hold him or her responsible for the logical outcome of his or her ideas, when practiced consistently.

That's ridiculous. When somebody accuses you of making a straw-man argument, the correct approach is definitely not to double-down on your straw-man. Your role, as an honest debater, thinker, and defender of capitalism, is to

1) state clearly what you think the opponent's position actually is, and ask them if you have it right

2) If they tell you that your characterization is right, then proceed,

3) But if not, then ask them to explain their position as clearly as possible and go from there.

Edited May 2, 2016 by SpookyKitty

[dream_weaver]

1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

That's ridiculous. When somebody accuses you of making a straw-man argument, the correct approach is definitely not to double-down on your straw-man. Your role, as an honest debater, thinker, and defender of capitalism, is to

1) state clearly what you think the opponent's position actually is, and ask them if you have it right

I'm not clear on how you think an allegation of a strawman argument for "making a case for freedom and capitalism over statism and socialism" warrants identifying the allegator's position.

Dr. Hurd is not responding to a specific challenger's position here, he is making a stand alone case. He is pointing out that some people will respond to one of his articles with the claim that he is making a strawman argument.

Edited May 2, 2016 by dream_weaver

[SpookyKitty]

16 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

I'm not clear on how you think an allegation of a strawman argument for "making a case for freedom and capitalism over statism and socialism" warrants identifying the allegator's position.

Dr. Hurd is not responding to a specific challenger's position here, he is making a stand alone case. He is pointing out that some people will respond to one of his articles with the claim that he is making a strawman argument.

When one makes a case for freedom and capitalism by arguing against socialism and statism, then one should do so by criticizing the actual arguments that socialists and statists make, and not the conveneint versions of those arguments that are easy to refute.

Strawmanning is a form of dishonesty/intellectual laziness that one must be careful not to engage in because it is so easy to fall into that trap.

As an example, consider the following typical argument:

P1) Liberals believe that taxes are acceptable or necessary and sometimes beneficial.

P2) Taxes are a form of initiation of force (committed by the government) and, specifically, a form of theft.

C3) Therefore, liberals believe that theft is acceptable or necessary and sometimes beneficial.

Why is this argument wrong? Note that both P1 and C3 are statements about what liberals believe, whereas P2 is not. This means that the argument is actually invalid (that is, the conclusion does not actually follow from the premises even if they are true), and only appears to be valid because one is tempted to assume:

P2*) Liberals believe that P2.

Only when one replaces P2 with P2* in the above argument does it become valid, but then the problem is clear. Liberals simply do not believe that taxes are a form of theft.

When you actually ask them, you find that they tend to believe in social contract theory, and that any actions taken by the government that are permitted under the constitution are legitimate. Hence, taxes, they say, are not a kind of theft.

Objectivists will never appeal to more informed opponents if it continues to rely on strawman arguments like the one above.

 

[dream_weaver]

46 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

Objectivists will never appeal to more informed opponents if it continues to rely on strawman arguments like the one above.

Aside from your implication that an Objectivist seems to have the tougher position, the additional onus of educating the "informed" opponent about what his actual position entails, your strawman position just switched to taxation as theft here, a position he is not arguing in this post, but does allude to in Public Schools Leave Every Child Behind, not on behalf of the liberals, but rather on behalf of the unions, as posited by someone who wrote directly to Dr. Hurd, rather than Dr. Hurd positing it directly himself.

You can find several articles where "taxation" is used, or "theft" is used (including an article titled All Socialism Is Theft), if you want to identify what his actual positions on such subjects may be.

Edited May 2, 2016 by dream_weaver

[SpookyKitty]

Just now, dream_weaver said:

Aside from your implication that an Objectivist seems to the tougher position to educate the "informed" opponent about his actual position, your strawman position just switched to taxation as theft here, a position he is not arguing in this post, but does allude to in Public Schools Leave Every Child Behind, not on behalf of the liberals, but rather on behalf of the unions, as posited by someone who wrote directly to Dr. Hurd.

You can find several articles where "taxation" is used, or "theft" is used (including an article titled All Socialism Is Theft), if this is what you want to identify what his actual positions on such subjects may be.

Uhhh.... no..... The Objectivist should not assume the position of "educating" his opponents on what their beliefs are (assuming that that is what you indeed meant to say). He should do more of the exact opposite. Namely, educating himself about other's position by asking them questions.

What position Hurd is and isn't arguing is beside the point. That was just an example of how and why common straw-man arguments issued by Objectivists and libertarians (don't) work.

[dream_weaver]

 

On 5/1/2016 at 4:55 AM, Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. said:

This used to puzzle me. But then I came to understand that the person who responds this way (a) does not have a response to my points, and (b) does not wish to be held accountable for the implications of his points.

 

1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

What position Hurd is and isn't arguing is beside the point.

How instructive is it that you have brushed his point(s) aside thus far?

Edited May 2, 2016 by dream_weaver

[SpookyKitty]

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

How instructive is it that you have brushed his point(s) aside thus far?

What point is that? I think you are the one who has completely misread Hurd's OP.

[Nicky]

12 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

When one makes a case for freedom and capitalism by arguing against socialism and statism, then one should do so by criticizing the actual arguments that socialists and statists make

 

Socialism and statism aren't theoretical positions. They actually exist. There is absolutely no reason to listen to socialists or statists' arguments...because one can instead look at their actions.

You think pointing out that North Korea is a prison state is a straw man?

[SpookyKitty]

9 hours ago, Nicky said:

Socialism and statism aren't theoretical positions. They actually exist. There is absolutely no reason to listen to socialists or statists' arguments...because one can instead look at their actions.

You think pointing out that North Korea is a prison state is a straw man?

It's never a good idea to not listen to arguments, because at that point you've decended into dogmatism.

And yes, unless that socialist is actually a supporter or apologist of Juche, pointing out that North Korea is a prison state is a straw man.

It's the same when socialists point to examples of cronyism as if it was the same thing as capitalism.

[human_murda]

3 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

It's never a good idea to not listen to arguments, because at that point you've decended into dogmatism.

And yes, unless that socialist is actually a supporter or apologist of Juche, pointing out that North Korea is a prison state is a straw man.

It's the same when socialists point to examples of cronyism as if it was the same thing as capitalism.

These things you suggest aren't actually straw man arguments. Of course, if you are intent on pointing out the problems with somebody else's beliefs, you have to evaluate things the way they understand it. Otherwise, you just take what they said, convert them into your own language (i.e., use your own concepts, which only exist in your head) and then close the argument. Their failure to understand the results you have come up with does not make it a straw man argument. If they have to understand your argument, they have to form concepts which only exist in their head and they have to do this volitionally. You can't think for them. You could try to make them understand your concepts but that isn't primarily your job.

(By concepts only in your head, I mean the references, not the referents..)

[Eiuol]

26 minutes ago, human_murda said:

Of course, if you are intent on pointing out the problems with somebody else's beliefs, you have to evaluate things the way they understand it. Otherwise, you just take what they said, convert them into your own language (i.e., use your own concepts, which only exist in your head) and then close the argument.

You couldn't close the argument unless you knew what their argument was. It would be more responsible to ask why your argument is a strawman first, then proceeding. If you try to use your own words to rephrase an argument, you are right that it is not a strawman, but it would be a strawman if you didn't check first to see that you had their argument right. Hurd seemed to skip right past the checking if you understand part.

Hurd is a psychologist, so a psychotherapy comparison would probably fit well here. A psychologist would normally ask what a person is feeling or thinking. They would not immediately skip to saying what the solution is, nor would they ignore when their patient says they are misunderstood (e.g. the psychologist is treating a "strawpatient"). A psychologist would actually inquire further about their patient's emotional state and thinking. Only then could the psychologist point out the errors in the other person's thinking.

Clearly, philosophy is a different context, but if you want to argue against something and point out its errors, there is no substitute for checking that you understand. It's not like you would say feudalism is bad because just look at Communist Russia. That would be stupid to say, feudalism is not communism; you would have to know what the feudalists claims are before knowing what to point to in reality.

[human_murda]

11 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You couldn't close the argument unless you knew what their argument was. It would be more responsible to ask why your argument is a strawman first, then proceeding. If you try to use your own words to rephrase an argument, you are right that it is not a strawman, but it would be a strawman if you didn't check first to see that you had their argument right. Hurd seemed to skip right past the checking if you understand part.

I assumed you understand what the other person was saying. When I said "otherwise", I meant: you understand their perspective but you don't evaluate things the way they understand it. That is, once you understand their perspective, you don't use their logic. You use your own concepts and logic. You don't have to translate the subsequent arguments to them (unless you are a psychologist, apparently, but that's their primary job anyway so that's not problem), using their concepts.

[Eiuol]

4 hours ago, human_murda said:

I assumed you understand what the other person was saying. When I said "otherwise", I meant: you understand their perspective but you don't evaluate things the way they understand it.

Sure you do, the only way to understand a person is to also look at how they understand their claims, then proceed to say what about their premises are erroneous. I don't know why you think there is a "translation" except in the sense of defining concepts. But that isn't translation, that's just making sure -you- understand. Translation is a Kuhnian thing in this context I think.

[human_murda]

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't know why you think there is a "translation" except in the sense of defining concepts. But that isn't translation, that's just making sure -you- understand.

When I said translation, I merely wanted to highlight the differences in concepts used (i.e., there is some difference in the way you and he uses language).

However, you shouldn't make it difficult for other people to understand your position. I usually make my arguments using examples and state things in such a way that it would be easy for others to state where they disagree with me. You have to make your arguments clear enough so that it is possible for them to identify the concepts you used. But you don't need to identify the concepts for them.

[Nicky]

17 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

It's never a good idea to not listen to arguments, because at that point you've decended into dogmatism.

I disagree. In fact I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there are over seven billion people on the planet. So, if not listening to everyone's arguments is your standard for dogmatism, they you are a dogmatist by your own standards. Shame on you. You should open your mind a little. Buy 25 TVs, another 25 radios, turn them all on to different channels, and listen to all the arguments. You'll still be 6,999,999,950 short, but at least you'll be making an effort.

 

17 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

And yes, unless that socialist is actually a supporter or apologist of Juche, pointing out that North Korea is a prison state is a straw man.

North Korea is a prison state.

Is it your claim that the above six word statement is a logical fallacy?

[Nicky]

17 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

It's the same when socialists point to examples of cronyism as if it was the same thing as capitalism.

Elaborate on that, please. What is your claim here? Is it that cronyism is capitalism, or is it that North Korea isn't a socialist state?

[SpookyKitty]

What was that Nicky? I'm sorry, I don't have the time to listen to your argument as its probably wrong anyway.

[SpookyKitty]

But in all seriousness....

5 hours ago, Nicky said:

I disagree. In fact I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there are over seven billion people on the planet. So, if not listening to everyone's arguments is your standard for dogmatism....

My standard for dogmatism is the dismissal of arguments after they have been presented, and then proclaiming that the conclusions of those arguments must be false.

Quote

North Korea is a prison state.

Is it your claim that the above six word statement is a logical fallacy?

A straw-man is a type of informal fallacy. The statement above is only a straw-man when it is used in an argument which attempts to claim that all socialism is the same as the kind practiced in North Korea.

 

5 hours ago, Nicky said:

Elaborate on that, please. What is your claim here? Is it that cronyism is capitalism, or is it that North Korea isn't a socialist state?

Neither. It's that socialists often present straw-man arguments against capitalism by pointing to examples of cronyism.

[Plasmatic]

14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Translation is a Kuhnian thing in this context I think.

Since Kuhnian irrationalism claims that different paradigm holders cannot even translate languages because they live in different "worlds", I'm left wondering what you think the current exchange has in common with Kuhn's nonsense?

[Plasmatic]

Tried edit my post above 4 times with no success!

 Kuhn's criticism of Quine on translation is subject to his own objections because we only ever have access to what people say about their "intentions" and not the intentions themselves.

[Nicky]

6 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

But in all seriousness....

My standard for dogmatism is the dismissal of arguments after they have been presented, and then proclaiming that the conclusions of those arguments must be false.

Oh, OK. So not listening to an argument isn't dogmatism, only dismissing it after it has been presented is. I'm glad you corrected yourself.

Alrighty then, please point out an argument that has been presented, either to me or to Dr. Hurd, that either one of us dismissed.

6 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

The statement above is only a straw-man when it is used in an argument which attempts to claim that all socialism is the same as the kind practiced in North Korea.

You didn't answer my question. It was a simple, yes or no question, about a standalone statement. There was no context attached to the statement whatsoever, it was a simple, six word, factual statement. Is it a straw man, or is it not a straw man?

6 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

Neither. It's that socialists often present straw-man arguments against capitalism by pointing to examples of cronyism.

That's not a straw man argument, that's a factually incorrect statement. Cronyism isn't a type of capitalism, it's a type of socialism.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Nicky

[SpookyKitty]

35 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Oh, OK. So not listening to an argument isn't dogmatism, only dismissing it after it has been presented is. I'm glad you corrected yourself.

Alrighty then, please point out an argument that has been presented, either to me or to Dr. Hurd, that either one of us dismissed.

I have not corrected myself. That's what I meant when I said one should not listen to arguments, it's just that you insist on engaging in the childish tactic of reading your interlocutor's statements as uncharitably as possible.

You yourself have said that the arguments of socialists should be dismissed in general, so your requirement that I point to specific arguments you have dismissed is just moving the goalposts.

Quote

You didn't answer my question. It was a simple, yes or no question, about a standalone statement. There was no context attached to the statement whatsoever, it was a simple, six word, factual statement. Is it a straw man, or is it not a straw man?

A standalone statement is not an argument, and is incapable of being or not being a strawman.

Quote

That's not a straw man argument, that's a factually incorrect statement. Cronyism isn't a type of capitalism, it's a type of socialism.

It is definitely a strawman because it fits the definition of a strawman, and whether or not it is factual is irrelevant in that regard.

[Eiuol]

58 minutes ago, Nicky said:

That's not a straw man argument, that's a factually incorrect statement. Cronyism isn't a type of capitalism, it's a type of socialism.

A strawman could also be factually incorrect. If cronyism is a type of socialism, then one should make the argument with positions stated by socialists to show it. It would be strawmanning to -make up- arguments made by socialists without knowing what socialists -actually- say. Statements are only able to be strawmen in the context of arguments, by the way.

Plasmatic, it sounded like Murda was talking about a need to "translate" from one set of concepts to another so that we're able to understand others. I believe Kuhn at first said it's impossible to "translate" between ideas totally, and took a weaker position later. But I don't like the idea of translation except as a loose metaphor. I'd rather say that to comprehend say, a socialist and a socialist's arguments, it's not that you translate to capitalist ideas, or translate your ideas to socialist frameworks. Rather, you need to see what they are referring to then state why it is wrong or invalid.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Eiuol

[Nicky]

14 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

I have not corrected myself.

Oh, Ok. Then I stand by my original retort: there are seven billion people on the planet, and calling someone a dogmatist for failing to listen to everyone's arguments is let's just say mathematically challenged.

14 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

 it's just that you insist on engaging in the childish tactic of reading your interlocutor's statements as uncharitably as possible.

Yes, you're correct about that. If you're looking for charity, I'm not the guy to talk to. I expect exact language. I don't see any point in talking to someone who can't manage that much.

Especially when, like in your case, the language being used is inexact on purpose, because using exact language would immediately expose the contradictions in your position.

14 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

It is definitely a strawman because it fits the definition of a strawman, and whether or not it is factual is irrelevant in that regard.

Only thing definite here is that your understanding of the concept needs some brushing up.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Nicky