Misusing the names of fallacies.

cantata · Apr 18, 2009

Maren said:
I'm going to disagree with you slightly. While I agree that straw man claims are overused here and often wrongly applied, I don't think this is always the case in the example you mention.

There are at least two people here that claim that marriage is solely about procreation, therefore same-sex couples cannot marry since they cannot procreate -- thus creating the strawman, knocking it down, and claiming victory. And they do it over and over and over no matter how many times people show that, even using their own arguments, that marriage is not solely about procreation.

I'm sorry, I still disagree with you. Above, you have not described a straw man argument. What those people are doing is simply basing their argument on a premise with which you disagree. That is not, in itself, fallacious. If they assume that the two of you accept this premise, then they are guilty of assuming a controversial premise and may even be engaging in a bit of circular reasoning. But they are not committing the straw man fallacy.

Suppose they accused you of arguing both that marriage is, by definition, for the purpose of spouses procreating together, and also that same-sex couples can be marriedand then pointed out that this is self-contradictorythen that would be an example of a straw man fallacy. But unless they attribute a weak argument to you, there is no straw man.

Braunwyn · Apr 18, 2009

I used 'straw man' the other day and I wasn't sure if it was correct. Two posters accused me of making myself a god, which I didn't think had anything to do with the conversation or was relevant. Obviously, I'm not a god nor could I argue it, so I called straw man.

tcampen · Apr 20, 2009

Can I add "begging the question" to the list? This falacy refers to circular reasoning, such as:

The bible says god exists.
We can trust the bible, because God wrote it.
Therefore, God exists.

Begging the question uses the conclusion as a premise. It does not simply refer to a statement or conclusion that just demands more questions be answered, which is how it is often used.

Chesterton · Apr 20, 2009

tcampen said:
Can I add "begging the question" to the list? This falacy refers to circular reasoning, such as:

The bible says god exists.
We can trust the bible, because God wrote it.
Therefore, God exists.

Someone said the same thing in another thread a few days ago and I asked them where they've actually heard this argument, but they haven't responded yet. Is this something you've seen on CF or what? I've never seen it.

cantata · Apr 21, 2009

Chesterton said:
Someone said the same thing in another thread a few days ago and I asked them where they've actually heard this argument, but they haven't responded yet. Is this something you've seen on CF or what? I've never seen it.

I have definitely seen people cite scriptural evidence for the infallibility of scripture.

Verv · Apr 21, 2009

cantata said:
Guys, Ive seen a lot of people yelling STRAWMAN and then running away lately, but a lot of the time, the term is being applied incorrectly.

Someone commits the straw man fallacy when (and only when) they set up an obviously weak argument and falsely ascribe it to their opponent. The person committing the fallacy then usually debunks the weak argument they have set up and claims victory, despite not having addressed the actual argument being presented by their opponent.

Any old weak argument does not constitute an example of the straw man fallacy. I recently saw someone say that someone who claimed that the purpose of marriage is procreation alone was committing the straw man fallacy. They were not. They were arguably making a factual error, but they were not committing the straw man fallacy because they were not falsely ascribing a weak argument to their opponent.

As a matter of common courtesy, by the way, I think it is generally rather rude to consider yelling STRAWMAN to be an adequate, reasoned response to someone elses post. If you are going to accuse someone of a logical fallacy, it is best to explain in what sense you think they have committed it, and, in the case of straw man fallacies, to reassert your case in clear terms so that the distinction between the false, weak argument and your true position can be discerned.

/pedantry

But there are people who do claim that the only purpose we see in marriage is procreation... Or something like that.

But you are right. We should explainit.

I am really glad you made this thread. It will really help the boards ouot.

Chesterton · Apr 21, 2009

cantata said:
I have definitely seen people cite scriptural evidence for the infallibility of scripture.

Okay, I believe you, especially since I asked an atheist the other day why he believed in abiogenesis and he said "We know life exists, so we know it must have happened at least once..."

Gold!

Misusing the names of fallacies.

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

More options

Braunwyn

Guest

More options

tcampen

Veteran

More options

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

More options

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

More options

Verv

Senior Veteran

More options

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

More options

Similar threads

Misusing the names of fallacies.

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Braunwyn

Guest

tcampen

Veteran

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Verv

Senior Veteran

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency