Mistakes we Make in Thinking – The Straw Man
February 11th, 2007 by Stephen
A straw man argument is an argument where someone characterises the position of another as being something slightly different (and weaker) than the actual position of the other person. Such arguments are often deceptive, making it look as if someone has proven their case – when in fact all they have done is demolish the straw man – the weaker argument that is not actually held by anyone!
An example. Richard Dawkins says:
“Faith means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.”
He then takes issue with this faith for not being based on evidence. To many his argument seems convincing, but Christians do not believe his definition. A A Hodge wrote:
“Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition.”
And that is the faith of Christians everywhere. There is no blind trust. Christian faith is based on evidence, experience and the knowledge of God. Thus Dawkins demolishes a straw man.
Table of contents for Mistakes in Thinking
- Mistakes we Make in Thinking – Confirmation Behaviour
- Mistakes we Make in Thinking – In Groups and Out Groups
- Mistakes we Make in Thinking – Ad Hominem Arguments
- Mistakes we Make in Thinking – Anecdotal Evidence and WiFi Radiation
- Mistakes we Make in Thinking – Misremembered Evidence
- Mistakes we Make in Thinking – The Straw Man
- Mistakes we Make in Thinking – Appeal to Pity
I find this is a very effective way of doing things, and yet is also something that is easily spotted and many have been called out for using this argument style.
All the same, it’s something that the Christian has to be careful of when talking about people that disagree with us, for if we do not have an appropriate understanding of what the person is really saying we may only be talking about straw men and aiding in a person’s rejection of Christ.
Absolutely right. We need to understand someone else’s point of view before we can hope to persuade them. We should spend more time listening than talking I think.
Making a straw man argument is really self-defeating; the opponent doesn’t identify with the position being defeated, and therefore assumes that the one constructing the argument can’t defeat his real position. What it does accomplish is garnering the support of those who already agree.
However, it has become a too-effective rhetorical device to call any argument by an opponent a “straw man.” This gives someone the appearance of having met someone else’s argument, when in actuality he has merely evaded it. Some apparent “straw man” arguments involve people operating from different presuppositions or worldview. It is virtually impossible, for example, for Calvinists and Arminians to discuss divine election without each side thinking that the other is misstating its position.
Keith, good points, but “it is virtually impossible…” still leaves us the hope that we can properly understand one another’s positions, if only we work hard enough at it.