What does straw man mean?

[Hector Medina]

I noticed people say it here but what I don't know what it means????



In Christ,

Hector

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

There is a full list of logical fallacies here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

From the site:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

 

[Nathan Poe]

A "Strawman" is when, instead of debating your opponent's actual position, you create a mistaken, oversimplified, and often absurd caricature, and debate against that. It's called a "Strawman" in reference to burning someone in effigy rather than face the actual person.

A Strawman fallacy does not necessarily have to be a deliberate act; a person can create a Strawman accidentally out of ignorance of the real facts. That's why it is critical in any debate to carefully study both sides of the issue in question.

In the interest of fairness, I offer examples of Strawman fallacies from both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate:

"Evolutionists expect us to believe that a few monkeys somehow 'became' human just like that all of a sudden through random chance."

"Christians are anti-science because God doesn't want us to think; He wants us to follow the Bible word-for-word and not ask questions, otherwise He'll send us all to hell."

Wouldn't it be easy to argue against these positions? A lot easier than arguing against the real issues....

 

[lithium.]

"Christians are anti-science because God doesn't want us to think; He wants us to follow the Bible word-for-word and not ask questions, otherwise He'll send us all to hell."

LOL that is funny.

 

[notto]

Another example.

Evolutionists think:
The Australian Aborigines,Negores,Pygmies and other dark skinned races and primitive natives are either missing links,advanced species and/or closer to apes! " - Hector Medina

 

[jon1101]

It would be a like a creationist saying "evolutionists believe rocks evolved into dogs."

-jon

 

[seebs]

Or an evolutionist saying "Creationists believe in an invisible sky-fairy".

 

[ocean]

Hector,

Your signature is a strawman.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I think Hector might be a strawman.

 

[clue]

Evolutionist - How could Noah have possibly fit the millions and millions of species that we know of today onto his ark?

Creationist - If we evolved from apes, how come apes are still existing today?

 

[ocean]

Actually, the first one isn't a strawman.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by clue
Evolutionist - How could Noah have possibly fit the millions and millions of species that we know of today onto his ark? 

Actually, for those who interpret the Bible literally, this is a legitamate question. . .

 

[clue]

Ha ha.  People are starting to show their (Creationism) ignorance.

The fact that this straw man is being contended is funny.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by clue
Ha ha.  People are starting to show their (Creationism) ignorance.

The fact that this straw man is being contended is funny.

Then by all means, enlighten us. We were under the impression that Noah and his family gathered every land animal on Earth in an ark and managed to take care of them until the flood waters receded.

If this isn't what the Bible says, please clarify so that we may continue our discussion.

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by clue
Evolutionist - How could Noah have possibly fit the millions and millions of species that we know of today onto his ark?

Creationist - If we evolved from apes, how come apes are still existing today?

It doesn't matter what the answer is-- neither of these are strawmen, as they are both questions, not statements.

 

[seebs]

But each of them is a rhetorical question, aimed at "debunking" the opposition when they can't answer it - classic strawman argument.

e.g., "if you're smarter than all of us put together, why can't you rebut my posts?!?!"

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by ashibaka
It doesn't matter what the answer is-- neither of these are strawmen, as they are both questions, not statements.

Ah....but implicit in each question is the misrepresented argument of the other side.

Evolutionist - How could Noah have possibly fit the millions and millions of species that we know of today onto his ark?

Implicit strawman argument- Creationists believe that Noah fit millions and millions of species on the ark.


Creationist - If we evolved from apes, how come apes are still existing today?

Implicit strawman argument- Evolutionists believe that humans evolved from a "lower" form to a "higher" form, thus the lower form would have been out competed and died off.



Since each implied argument has the other side believing something that plainly didn't happen the question itself creates the strawman and refutes it all in one easy package.

 

[Morat]

The question about the Noah's ark thing (whether it's a strawman) is whether or not Creationists believe that. Some do, some don't. Creationism is far more varied than evolution, simply because it's a religious belief. Science is far more constrained. It's simpler just to ask "How did the Noah's ark thing work? How many pairs of animals were placed on it? Roughly?" and go from there.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Well, as regards the Noah's Ark question, come creationists -- certainly not all -- will argue that all known species were represented on the boat. As such, the question is legitimate. Some others will argue that representatives of various "kinds" (that shifty taxonomical non-category Biblical literalists cling to) were on the ark and that modern species either descended from them (which puts them in the odd position of positing a rate of evolution many magnitudes of order faster than any proposed by biologists) or asserting (in the absence of any evidence) that the majority of modern species were specially created after the alleged flood. Generally speaking, whenever I see a creationist mention the ark as a true historical event, I know the proposed evo/creation debate isn't going to get off the ground.

 

[clue]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas
Well, as regards the Noah's Ark question, come creationists -- certainly not all -- will argue that all known species were represented on the boat. As such, the question is legitimate.

Do these Creationists that you write about (the ones that think that ALL known species were represented on the boat) think that sea animals were included too?  If they do not, then it's still a straw man and NOT a legitimate question.  By the way, I would be interested in reading some sources of your assertion.

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas
Some others will argue that representatives of various "kinds" (that shifty taxonomical non-category Biblical literalists cling to) were on the ark and that modern species either descended from them (which puts them in the odd position of positing a rate of evolution many magnitudes of order faster than any proposed by biologists) or asserting (in the absence of any evidence) that the majority of modern species were specially created after the alleged flood.

Thanks for answering the question for me.