17. Straw Man Fallacy
Wireless Philosophy, Fallacies, 5:59. Original title: CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy [HD]
Summary
Joseph Wu (University of Cambridge) explains the straw man fallacy, which occurs when an opponent's position is misrepresented to make it easier to attack.
Maureen's argument about beer ads
Wu's friend Maureen argues:
Premise 1: Advertisements for beer encourage underage drinking.
Premise 2: Underage drinking often has negative consequences.
Conclusion: Therefore, advertisements for beer should be banned from TV.
Wu objects that people will never give up drinking beer, since they have been doing it for ages. This is not a good response, since Maureen never argued that people should give up drinking beer at all; Wu has attacked a claim she never advanced. Just as a man made of straw resembles a real man without being one, the straw man fallacy substitutes an opponent's actual claim with one that merely resembles it, creating the illusion that their position has been refuted.
The general structure
Wu sets out the pattern behind every straw man:
- Person one advances position X.
- Person two presents a distorted version of X, position Y.
- Person two attacks Y.
- Person two concludes that X is false.
Oversimplifying to the absurd
A position need not be exaggerated to be strawmanned; it can also be oversimplified until it looks absurd. Wu's friend Gio argues:
Premise 1: The theory of evolution says that humans are no different from apes.
Premise 2: Humans are different from apes because humans are obviously smarter.
Conclusion: Therefore, the theory of evolution is false.
Evolutionary theory does not claim humans are no different from apes, so Gio has misrepresented it. Wu notes the argument's structure is actually valid, which is precisely what makes straw men like this hard to spot for anyone unfamiliar with the real theory.
Straw men in politics
Straw men are not only used to attack a misrepresented position; politicians also use them to dodge difficult questions by answering a different one. Asked directly whether he used campaign funds for personal spending, a politician instead praises a favourite donation, a handwritten thank-you card, answering "what has been your favourite campaign donation?" rather than the question actually asked. This lets him avoid the original question while appearing sympathetic.
Key takeaway
Straw men, whether an exaggeration, an oversimplification or a dodge, work by swapping an opponent's real position for an easier target; keeping discussions productive requires grasping the exact position being advanced before attacking it.