Fallacies of Relevance

6. STRAW MAN

DEFINITION: The arguer distorts or misrepresents an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, proceeds to demolish the distorted position, and then concludes that the opponent’s actual argument has been destroyed. By so doing, the arguer has set up a straw man (easily refuted position) and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real man (opponent’s genuine thesis) has been knocked down as well. Politicians utilize this fallacy frequently, primarily because many voters are insufficiently informed to notice that a given position has been unfairly characterized or depicted.

This fallacy is directly related to the Principle of Charitable Interpretation: If the goal is to search for truth by striving for the most reasonable position (or interpretation of something, like a text) possible, rather than winning the argument as if it were a contest, then it’s best to consider the strongest possible opposition to one’s position (rather than the weakest or easiest to defeat).

EXAMPLES

1. CEO of major logging corporation: The environmentalists contend that, if we adopt their principles of conservation, we will be better prepared to deal with future planetary problems than if we do not adopt them. They couldn’t be more wrong, for it is beyond doubt that the conservation they recommend will not produce a new Garden of Eden on earth.

2. Character in Voltaire’s Candide: Dr. Pangloss confidently contends that this world is the best of all possible worlds that God could have created. What a ridiculous assertion! As if everything in this world were as good as it could be!

3. ACLU lawyer: Various citizens and legislators have argued for the constitutionality of prayer in public schools. As the guardians of civil liberties, we strenuously reject their position. Do we really want to abolish the constitutional separation of church and state? Do we want to regress back to a theocratic state where our every move is governed by...