Straw man

From RationalWiki

A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.

Contents 1 Constructing the men of straw 2 Examples of the straw man argument 2.1 Straw evolution 2.2 Straw religion 3 See also

[edit] Constructing the men of straw

Straw men are notoriously easy to construct, and require little more than extending the opponent's arguments beyond their original point until their stance appears ridiculous. Once the opponent has accepted (or failed to refute) such a set-up, one can simply attack the strawman position instead of the opponent's actual points, and claim any attempt subsequent attempt to correct the situation as a conceding the argument.

Sometimes it's so easy, you can do it without thinking.

[edit] Examples of the straw man argument

[edit] Straw evolution

Straw men of evolution are particularly common, with creationists setting up a stereotype of evolutionary theory (one that, generally, no scientist would agree with) and demolishing them in debates, with the evolution proponent's real arguments largely being ignored.

In the Leader's Guide document prepared by the producers of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, proponents of Intelligent Design claim:

At its core, Darwinism explicitly excludes purpose or intelligent guidance from the history of the development of life.^[1]

Of course, "Darwinism", or as scientists call it, the theory of evolution, never claims this in the first place. As a scientific theory built first upon evidence - like all science - the idea that it assumes a position and then attempts to prove that position completely misrepresents not only what the theory says, but also the scientific method. Evolution by natural selection does not exclude intelligent guidance in the closed-minded way suggested by this phrase - it merely offers a naturalistic explanation based on the evidence available. If sufficient evidence suggested intelligent meddling, the theory would adapt to include it.

[edit] Straw religion

Straw man arguments against religion are also easy to generate. Defining anyone who is even moderately religious as an unthinking, sheep-like entity who blindly accepts whatever their pastor tells them is one (even if it is true in some circumstances). Positions like these are often held by anti-theists such as YouTube vlogger Theamazingatheist. Prominent biologist Richard Dawkins is often accused of generating straw man religions to fight in his pro-atheism writings such as The God Delusion. Whether this is the actual case, or just special pleading on behalf of his detractors is open to debate.

[edit] See also

• Stereotype
• Bullshit
• Gish Gallop
• Logical fallacy
• Term of art
• Jack Chick, who's often accused by poeple of being a straw Evangelical Christian. These people are often surprised to find out that he's a real person.

Articles about logical fallacies
Formal fallacies
Ad hominem	Argument by assertion	Negative proof	Non sequitur
Informal fallacies
Ad hoc	Argumentum ad nauseam	Argumentum ex culo	Argument from ignorance	Argument from incredulity	Balance fallacy
Begging the question	Correlation does not equal causation	Equivocation	False analogy	False dilemma	Moving the goalposts
No True Scotsman	One single proof
Red herrings
Argumentum ad baculum	Argumentum ad populum	Argument from adverse consequences	Association fallacy	Bullshit	Poisoning the well
My enemy's enemy	Spotlight fallacy	Straw man	Style over substance fallacy	Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Conditional fallacies
Argument from authority	Galileo gambit	Slippery slope
Fallacious argument styles
Chewbacca Defense	Gish Gallop	Ham Hightail	JAQing off