Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Have you met Mr. Straw Man?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Have you met Mr. Straw Man?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Have you met Mr. Straw Man?

Quickie from Wiki: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The straw man fallacy is an often used fallacy in the United States because American citizens have a low level of intellectual sophistication.

One recent use of this fallacy is that Guantanamo detainees are terrorists and thus too dangerous for detention on American soil.

Obviously American prisons contain many bad guys from whom the public must be protected. Also most of these bad guys are released while still alive. Also records indicate that that many of these released become recidivists.

The FBI scares us by saying that these terrorists represent a different kind of detention problem.

The "Fallacy Files" web site {http://www.fallacyfiles.org/} provides an important introduction to both formal and informal fallacies. I think their work on informal fallacies being the most important for our needs today. It is the informal fallacies that we must learn to recognize.

The early settlers had to learn the sign and behavior of the wolf and bear but it is the informal fallacy that today's citizen must learn. When not recognized the manipulative sophistication of those who wish to control our society will cause us similar damage.

Those members of our early American settlers were required to understand many things about their natural habitation in order to survive. These early frontier settlers had primarily natural conditions that threatened their existence. They worried about and learned to understand the signs of the wolf and the bear also the clouds and the weather in general. Their survival depended upon it.

Today our well being, if not our very survival, depends upon our ability to understand the society we live in and the fellow citizens that occupy our space with us. Our needs for understanding our environment especially that part of it that contains fellow citizens has become acute because our fellows have become expert at manipulating our environment. If we do not understand how these things are being manipulated we are the losers.

Many of us who were first introduced to the concept 'fallacy' when we took a college course on 'Logic' found the matter to be boring. It appears, from what I hear, that many students took away from those classes distaste for everything related to the concepts of 'logic' and the associated 'fallacies'. That is unfortunate and is perhaps an indication of why it is so important for all individuals to become self-actualizing self-learners after their school daze is over.

This wonderful phrase "the ubiquity of ambiguity" I found on a web site that I think all individuals who understand the importance of CT (Critical Thinking) might wish to visit.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ambiguit.html

What I am trying to say is that the folks living in the early days had to know the habits of the wolf and the bear to survive. Today we have to know the habits of those who wish to manipulate us by using logical fallacies.

@coberst phil,

Very entertainging post. The straw man is my favorite rhetorical tool. I do differ on this point.

Quote:

The straw man fallacy is an often used fallacy in the United States because American citizens have a low level of intellectual sophistication.

1) The political straw man is rampant world wide, you can see it in all nationalistic propagamdas.
2) Intellectual unsophistication is worldwide, the laws of debate are not widely taught. Debate skills and formallized logic skills are not part of the necessary intellectual tool kit of modernized countries.
3) I would quibble about using the term intellectual unsophistication becasue it assumes there is a standardized set of "sophisticated qualifications", and it also assumes that logical fallacies and knowledge about them are prerequesite for this level of sophistication. Ignorance of a topic is not a sign of the inability to use intelect, it is simply not having learned a 'rule'

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Very entertainging post. The straw man is my favorite rhetorical tool. I do differ on this point.

1) The political straw man is rampant world wide, you can see it in all nationalistic propagamdas.
2) Intellectual unsophistication is worldwide, the laws of debate are not widely taught. Debate skills and formallized logic skills are not part of the necessary intellectual tool kit of modernized countries.
3) I would quibble about using the term intellectual unsophistication becasue it assumes there is a standardized set of "sophisticated qualifications", and it also assumes that logical fallacies and knowledge about them are prerequesite for this level of sophistication. Ignorance of a topic is not a sign of the inability to use intelect, it is simply not having learned a 'rule'

I assumed that what I see in America is common throughout the world but hesitated to say that because it is just an assumption on my part.

I use the phrase 'intellectual sophistication' or just the word 'sophistication' because I want to be specific about separating sophistication from intelligence. I want to emphasize that sophistication is within everyone's reach and is not a matter of intelligence.

When asked I say:

We were born smart enough but we weren't born intellectually sophisticated enough to handle this high tech world we have invented.

What is the difference between "being smart" and "being sophisticated"? I would say that we can use the handyman and his tool box as a good analogy for comprehending this difference. The number and quality of the instruments in a handyman's tool box is a measure of his smartness and his experience using those tools is a measure of his sophistication.

If a handyman has only a hammer then every job is a job that will get hammered on. If that handyman has a great tool box but has experience only with a hammer then that handyman will look for things that can be hammered into place.

What's in your tool box that you can use efficiently?

Do you know how to become more intellectually sophisticated? Become a self-actualizing self-learner.

In other words we must rely on our self to initiate the changes that our society requires if we hope to survive the next 200 years. The older generation is too set in its habits and only the impulsive action of the newer generation suitably guided by sophistication provides us with the possibility of evolving a better society.

@coberst phil,

coberst wrote:

Have you met Mr. Straw Man?

Quickie from Wiki: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The straw man fallacy is an often used fallacy in the United States because American citizens have a low level of intellectual sophistication.

I find it rather amusing and somewhat ironic that the comment, "The straw man fallacy is an often used fallacy in the United States because American citizens have a low level of intellectual sophistication." (Coberst,#1) is in itself a straw man. Is it as much the case that a "straw man" argument is utilized that Americans are generically attributed "a level of low intelligence?" Is this not a straw man?

coberst wrote:

One recent use of this fallacy is that Guantanamo detainees are terrorists and thus too dangerous for detention on American soil.

Obviously American prisons contain many bad guys from whom the public must be protected. Also most of these bad guys are released while still alive. Also records indicate that that many of these released become recidivists.

The FBI scares us by saying that these terrorists represent a different kind of detention problem.

If what you say constitutes a straw man, then a logically valid conditional is a straw man. This is not the case. You say yourself in this particular example that (in logical syntax) if Guantanamo detainees are terrorists, then they are too dangerous for detention on American soil. Your first antecedent statement presupposes the logical conclusion. How is this a straw man?

coberst wrote:

The early settlers had to learn the sign and behavior of the wolf and bear but it is the informal fallacy that today's citizen must learn. When not recognized the manipulative sophistication of those who wish to control our society will cause us similar damage.

Is this not another straw man? Guantanamo --> colonial reference |- straw man.

coberst wrote:

Those members of our early American settlers were required to understand many things about their natural habitation in order to survive. These early frontier settlers had primarily natural conditions that threatened their existence. They worried about and learned to understand the signs of the wolf and the bear also the clouds and the weather in general. Their survival depended upon it.

So in what way is this statement a substantial claim for the issue at hand? This seems more like an inductive/deductive inference.

coberst wrote:

Today our well being, if not our very survival, depends upon our ability to understand the society we live in and the fellow citizens that occupy our space with us. Our needs for understanding our environment especially that part of it that contains fellow citizens has become acute because our fellows have become expert at manipulating our environment. If we do not understand how these things are being manipulated we are the losers.

coberst wrote:

Many of us who were first introduced to the concept 'fallacy' when we took a college course on 'Logic' found the matter to be boring. It appears, from what I hear, that many students took away from those classes distaste for everything related to the concepts of 'logic' and the associated 'fallacies'. That is unfortunate and is perhaps an indication of why it is so important for all individuals to become self-actualizing self-learners after their school daze is over.

coberst wrote:

This wonderful phrase "the ubiquity of ambiguity" I found on a web site that I think all individuals who understand the importance of CT (Critical Thinking) might wish to visit.

coberst wrote:

What I am trying to say is that the folks living in the early days had to know the habits of the wolf and the bear to survive. Today we have to know the habits of those who wish to manipulate us by using logical fallacies.

So what I gather as the thesis of the post from what you say here is that we have to utilize bad logic in order to survive? Where were these points supported? I don't mean to be harsh, but given that we are working within the rubric of logic, it seems only right to work under logical inferences.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

I find it rather amusing and somewhat ironic that the comment, "The straw man fallacy is an often used fallacy in the United States because American citizens have a low level of intellectual sophistication." (Coberst,#1) is in itself a straw man. Is it as much the case that a "straw man" argument is utilized that Americans are generically attributed "a level of low intelligence?" Is this not a straw man?

.

I would say that your statement about "a level of low intelligence" is a good example of the straw man fallacy.

I go to a Poker Parlor for the first time and sit down at the table to play a bit of poker. Two hours later I leave the game fleeced. After a couple of experiences similar to this I recognize I must better learn the rules of this game.

I diligently study the rules of the game and return to the game to find that while I am not fleeced as quickly as before, I am fleeced more slowly but continuously.

I was puzzled until I conclude that perhaps the fleecing results because of the nature of the game and of those rigging the game. I discover that I am being fleeced consistently because the people running the game also have the ability to reason; like the bull fight, if the bull does not learn to "see" the Matador he shall always end up as hamburger.

When I learned this I decide that I too shall become a rigger of games and thus fleece others who are ignorant of the facts. Later I decide that I do not wish to be either a rigger or a riggee.

The rigger of the 'game of living' is the predator and we are its prey. We must adapt. We must now be able to match our reasoning ability against those with reasoning ability that wish to take advantage of us. The rigger of the game understands that s/he who is more skilled at reasoning can fleece those less skilled at reasoning.

Reasoning is a human ability that can be studied and improved. One can become better at reasoning just as one can become better at dealing with quantity. When I learned arithmetic I became better at dealing with quantity. When I study critical thinking I become better at reasoning. When I study the rules of the poker game I become a better poker player. When I study the science of reasoning-CT (Critical Thinking)-I become a better thinker; I become better at understanding the complexity of the human intellect. It would also help if I become knowledgeable about how the human psyche works, i.e. if I learn a bit of psychology.

Our educational system is attempting, slowly and without much success, to teach our youngsters the science of reasoning-CT. We adults were not taught CT and thus do not recognize its importance. If we taught ourselves CT we would recognize its importance and its importance to our children. Those who rig the game of life understand the importance of learning the science of reason and use this knowledge to fleece us and will continue to do so to our children.

Learn something about critical thinking and you will better understand this message. The books are there at your local community college library or at your local bookstore. You don't know what you don't know. What you don't know can hurt you.

Read a book on CT. You might open up a new worldview. The uncritical viewer cannot see beyond the surface appearance.

@coberst phil,

My impression of fallacies is that they are something too fundamental to be learned: If you have the brains to learn it, you will learn it by yourself or at the merest exposition. I think the same about CT.

That is a nice explanation about your views, but doesnt seens to be an apropiate answer to Vide's points coberst.

@manored,

manored wrote:

My impression of fallacies is that they are something too fundamental to be learned: If you have the brains to learn it, you will learn it by yourself or at the merest exposition. I think the same about CT.

I think that most citizens have a view similar to yours. It is, I think, a view that is intentionally established by public policy. The public policy is to restrict the view of citizens to those matters that will best enhance GDP. GDP is not enhanced by independent critical thinking citizens.

William Graham Sumner, a distinguished anthropologist states the ideal:

"The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade its entire mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life."

Just as a critical habit of thought pervades the entire mores of a society so does a naive habit of thought pervade the mores of a society.

Quickie from wiki: "Blinders, also known as blinkers or winkers, are a piece of horse tack that restricts the horse's vision to the rear and, in some cases, to the side. They usually are made of leather or plastic cups that are placed on either side of the eyes, either attached to a bridle or to an independent hood. Many racehorse trainers believe this keeps the horse focused on what is in front of him, encouraging him to pay attention to the race rather than other distractions, such as crowds. Additionally, blinkers (then usually known as winkers) are commonly seen on driving horses, to keep them from being distracted or spooked, especially on crowded city streets. A "set of winkers" can refer to the whole bridle, particularly the heavy bridle used on draft horses."

Our culture and its associated educational system prepare young people for the work place so that as they reach adulthood they can easily assimilate into a work force that will help to maximize production and consumption, i.e. they will help maximize GDP. Our educational system graduates young people with a "set of winkers" sturdily attached to the cultural tack that will restrict the individual's intellectual vision to those personal and community activities that will best enhance national GDP.

As a result our citizens are not prepared to deal with the complexities that result from our ingeniously developed high tech culture.

@coberst phil,

coberst wrote:

I think that most citizens have a view similar to yours. It is, I think, a view that is intentionally established by public policy. The public policy is to restrict the view of citizens to those matters that will best enhance GDP. GDP is not enhanced by independent critical thinking citizens.

I got to this conclusion through reasoning though, I didnt heard it from anyone and agreed. Thinking is something natural, we do it all the time, we discuss with ourselves. well, I do Smile

I think the ideas an society teaches are the ideas it holds. If in your country people are teach to be working machines, I do not think its because they are being governamental puppets, but because being working machines is part of the culture. I heard from friends who have friends (not sociable enough yet for a direct contact Smile

) who lived months/years on USA and reported back that on USA people work like hell and sacrifice everthing else to work, such as health going everwhere with cars.

@manored,

I know for a fact that one can learn why something is a fallacy and recognize it. I don't know if everyone could, in fact I know some cannot, but the key is that most can.

Fallacies are simple and very patterned for the most part, if you can see it once, you can always notice it. I have seen the look of realization on the face of someone who is normally not a critical thinker realize a fallacy and then apply the new knowledge. It can be done.

The problem lies in those who are naturally able to catch on without explanation. I have always been able to pick out the flaws in an argument or bunk fact and it seemed fairly natural to me. This sort of natural facility allows me to be fairly crafty when I need to and I can be quite persuasive if I need to be. I rarely try to cheat people, however, as I often feel too much guilt if I pull it off.

If one has to think on a fallacy for a while to understand it, they can be manipulated. Thus the important thing is not to be able to recognize a stock fallacy, but to be able to think quickly on one's feet. Few people do this well, and those who can will always be manipulated by those who can so long as the natural human urge to manipulate and gain power is there.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

If one has to think on a fallacy for a while to understand it, they can be manipulated. Thus the important thing is not to be able to recognize a stock fallacy, but to be able to think quickly on one's feet. Few people do this well, and those who can will always be manipulated by those who can so long as the natural human urge to manipulate and gain power is there.

Well said!

The important thing is to be able to think on one's feet. Our (American) educational system teaches us what to think and not how to think and thus does not prepare us to think on our feet. That is why we must study and learn Critical Thinking on our own.

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers-trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no "true" or "false" answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:

Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
Few of today's adults were ever taught CT.
I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
Can our democracy survive that long?
I think that every effort must be made to convince today's adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today's democratic society.

@coberst phil,

Critical thinking is tied up heavily in the concept of general intelligence, thus there is the question of natural ability vs. developed/nurtured ability. Can an adult without a natural(or one that was developed when they were young) facility with logic and reasoning really get to the point where rhetoric does not work on them, or will the bar for the quality and diversity of rhetoric simply be raised accordingly?

There are a high percentage of people who, if you talked to them, you would think that they couldn't figure out a slightly more complicated than average order at McDonalds. I'm talking about those who linger around the bottom 20%, the low end of the bell curve so to speak. 20% is enough to determine an election, if you can get enough of them to vote(of course a few percentage points probably need to be shaved off as those who are heavily mentally challenged probably don't vote frequently).

There are, however, people further up the spectrum that I doubt could be trained at this point due to a combination of attitude and ability.

Then you have your own personal political bias as illustrated in the first post. The conservative position on GITMO is actually this:If the detainees brought here for trial and are not convicted, they must be released in the U.S. We have already released those who's home countries will take them, the remainder are for the most part stuck with us. Much of the evidence is tied up in classified documents which cannot be shown in a court room and have too much red tape ect. around them to open up(or millitary intelligence simply will decline to open them).

It is not a question of putting them in the Florida supermax prison or anything like that, it is a question of whether we should let any of them free on US soil, as will be a possibility.

I do however believe that GITMO was a bungle in the first place. There was not solution recognized by the Bush administration better than that.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;65185 wrote:

If one has to think on a fallacy for a while to understand it, they can be manipulated. Thus the important thing is not to be able to recognize a stock fallacy, but to be able to think quickly on one's feet. Few people do this well, and those who can will always be manipulated by those who can so long as the natural human urge to manipulate and gain power is there.

True. I do much better on forum discussions than in real-life discussions, because in real life I have only a few seconds to think before giving an answer Smile

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Have you met Mr. Straw Man?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Have you met Mr. Straw Man?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know