Beware of the Strawman argument!

by Farkel 97 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Farkel

  Years ago before I took the time and effort to study logic and argumentation, I went to a market and bought some toothpaste. It was a little-known brand and it touted "baking soda" as its magic ingredient. It was also cheaper than the Name-Brand toothpastes and that helped me in my decision. I also read the label and it said it was recommended by "leading Dentists" as well. So from that, I thought it was basically, good toothpaste.

  I bought it and used it. Later, I went to a Dentist here in the USA, and told him about that toothpaste and how highly praised it was. The Dentist asked, "well, who were those "leading Dentists", anyway? Were they from Brazil or some other third-world Country?" I didn't know, but he had me convinced that I was conned by the label and the half-wit-third-world Countries the endorsers came from. Because, after all, if you are a Dentist from a third-world Country, you must be a half-wit and corrupt person, right? Well, I fell for that argument!

  Little did I know at the time, but that Dentist had conned ME with a classic "Strawman" fallacy. Note that he did NOT demolish the claim that baking soda was not a very good way to clean teeth, but he changed the whole argument to make it seem that Dentists who are from some other Country are frauds and ill-trained and who do not know what they are talking about. Why? Because they were not trained as Dentists in America. Simply put, he CHANGED the whole argument, and then attacked the new argument that HE created, and demolished THAT argument. This is the classic "Strawman" for those of you who do not yet understand it. The WTS does this all the freakin' time in their bullshit publications.

  This is not to say that the toothpaste I bought was good, or crappy. It could have been good or it could have been crappy. But the Dentist said it was crappy merely because he assumed the Dentist(s) who endorsed it were not from America, and therefore they were suspect with their endorsements.

  As I sit here this evening, I thank myself for taking the time and effort to now be able to see through specious arguments and, well, bullshit and now be able to make decisions not influenced by others who are illogically trying to influence me.

  Cheers to all who have taken the time to learn the formal rules of logic! It will change your life. Forever. Trust me on this. It certainly changed mine, and I would like (again) to thank that notorious "apostate" Jan Haugland from Bergen, Norway for putting me on the road to doing that a dozen years ago.

  Farkel
• 

  notverylikely

  Cheers to all who have taken the time to learn the formal rules of logic! It will change your life. Forever.

  Congrats! It will help you see through much bullshit in life. Critical thinking should be taught in the first freaking grade, if you ask me.
• 

  inbetween

  very good story, thanks,

  however, I try to figure out the difference between a "strawman" and a "red hering".

  Is your story not rather a "red hering" ? Since the dentists might well be from the 3rd world countires, however, the real issue was, if baking soda is a good thing for cleaning teeth. So he led you on the wrong track, which a red hering is supposed to do.

  quote Wikipedia:

  Red herring

  . A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.

  in opposite to a "strawman"

  The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

  1. Person A has position X.
  2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
  3. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. [ 1 ]
  4. Quoting an opponent's words out of context – i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining). [ 2 ]
  5. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments – thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated. [ 1 ]
  6. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
  7. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
  8. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

  In your case, if the dentist said, that some claim, baking soda is the best for "whitening" teeth (which you did not say, you said "cleaning" ), and then refutes this claim, this would be a strawman according to my understanding.

  Sorry, no offense, i just try to understand logical fallacies myself.

  However, i totally agree, the WTS uses both fallacies regularly, and sadly also most witnesses learned how to apply this dishonsest methods, even though they are not aware of it. which is even worse, because they deceive themselves (I did too before !)

  inbetween
• 

  Quillsky

  The WBTS, in print, often sets up the Catholic Church as a strawman.

  It's not as if Jehovah's Witnesses are comparable to Catholics in most ways, philosophically. But many people - even ex-JW's - use the Catholic religion as a debating bogeyman.
• 

  Farkel

  inbetween,

  :Is your story not rather a "red hering"

  A red-herring is simply changing the subject to a quite different subject. It comes from the practice of dragging an old smelly fish all over your boots to hide your trek from animals and people.

  A strawman is more subtle. It involves changing your argument to look like that same or a similar argument and then demolishing THAT argument. its sole purpose is to make it look like the arguer demolished YOUR argument, when in fact, the arguer, demolished a new argument he/she created to LOOK like your original argument. Politicians are very good at this, and as I said, it is much more subtle than a red herring.

  Here are two examples:

  Red Herring:

  A says: "Black is not green."

  B says: "Green Peace is a very good cause, so your argument falls."

  Strawman:

  A says: "Black is not green."

  B says: "My mother was very fond of black, and anyone who doesn't like black and likes green instead is an idiot."

  Logic purists can debate the finer points, but that is basically the difference between the two fallacies.

  Farkel
• 

  wobble

  Good to have you back and all guns a-blazin Farkel !

  You were so quiet for a while I had to go back and read some of your old posts to get a fix !

  I agree that learning "argumentation" is great, you see the methods used in so many fields, and of course the dubs do it without even realising what they are doing, other dissemblers often know what they are up to.

  The problem with talking to dubs is, if you make a point and they then deflect you with false argumentation, in their mind they have destroyed your argument, we must make them stick to the point until they admit defeat.
• 

  Farkel

  wobble,

  :The problem with talking to dubs is, if you make a point and they then deflect you with false argumentation, in their mind they have destroyed your argument, we must make them stick to the point until they admit defeat.

  A 2x4 upside-the-head is a good solution for that situation. It gets their attention, if nothing more.

  Farkel
• 

  Quillsky

  Strawman:

  A says: "Black is not green."

  B says: "My mother was part of the Blacholic Church, had good reason to be fond of black. She is similar to her Greenteeholics, fond of green. Therefore black is like green."

  Strawman:
  
  A says: "Black is not green."
  
  B says: "My mother was very fond of black, and anyone who doesn't like black and likes green instead is an idiot."

  I don't buy that as an argument in any school of logic.
• 

  Farkel

  :I don't buy that as an argument in any school of logic.

  Then you'd better defend your assertion. Your argument changed the original argument into a similiar argument and refuted the similar arguement. Just like mine did.

  Farkel
• 

  Quillsky

  Your argument changed the original argument into a similiar argument and refuted the similar arguement. Just like mine did.

  You have completely succeeded in scrambling my mind!