Straw man or scarecrow fallacy

What is the straw man fallacy?

The straw man fallacy, or scarecrow fallacy, is an argumentative fallacy in which the argument to be refuted is distorted, and it gives the impression of refuting it by affirming an idea that the opponent never formulated.

That is, the original idea is changed and attacked by making it seem less credible or strong. An example could be: "Evolution does not exist, until now we have not seen monkeys that become humans".

The straw man fallacy is a form of manipulation widely used in all areas, especially in those where very controversial issues are handled or that involve intense emotions, such as the defense of political ideologies, religious or social beliefs.

In this way, whoever uses this type of fallacy is distorting the opposite premise and giving the impression that it has been correctly refuted, attacking the covert version proposed by himself..

He is called "straw man" or "scarecrow" alluding to the falseness of the new argument, which at first glance seems true but analyzing it well it is not, in the same way that a scarecrow seems real from afar but when we get closer we see that it is it's about a doll.

Characteristics of the straw man fallacy

It's an argumentative fallacy

The argumentative fallacies are distinguished from the logical ones because they affirm something that seems to be valid but is not, hiding - sometimes intentionally - the error. Modify the valid argument for another similar one that has no validity.

Denotes misunderstanding

Many times the fallacies of the scarecrow occur due to misunderstanding of the premise. By not understanding what the opponent says or exposes, the fallacious argument is built around a faulty statement, which does not correspond to what was originally said.

Therefore, by changing the premise and refuting it, the argument to be refuted has not actually been understood..

We can speak of misunderstanding when in the scarecrow fallacy no bad intention is perceived.

Ridicule or deception

Ridiculing an argument is a way of misrepresenting it. When this occurs, it is easier to attack and refute the misrepresented and ridiculous way than to refute the original version..

This is a way to identify when the opponent wants to win an argument at any cost, regardless of whether or not what he argues is true, because what matters is not the truth but to weaken the argument of others..

With this, many times it is sought to discredit the other person so as not to have to refute the argument with valid reasons (due to inability to argue or ignorance).

Argumentative scheme

The straw man fallacy presents a typical scheme:

• A affirms X.
• B criticizes A for stating Y (which is not X).
• A refutes Y, and since both arguments are falsely equated, the impression is that X was also refuted.
• Consequently, what A affirms is false.

How to combat the straw man fallacy?

Although we are daily exposed to all kinds of fallacies (that is, erroneous reasoning without validity) and even we ourselves have said some from time to time without realizing it, it is convenient to learn to reason and argue to recognize when we are facing a fallacy.

In the case of the fallacy that concerns us, that of the straw man, it is convenient to be very attentive to what the interlocutor may say to refute our idea, and in this way to be able to anticipate it.

Let's take an example:

• "I don't like teenagers under 16 going on vacation alone".
• False rebuttal (straw man): "if you force the boys to stay locked up, they will be emotionally affected".
• Premise to avoid the straw man fallacy: "I love the idea that my children, who are under 16 years old, travel on vacation, but I do not like that they do it alone, without an adult accompanying them".

In other words, speak as clearly as possible so as not to give rise to misinterpretations, which many times are the source of objections, even if they are not related to what is said..

Anticipation is the best way to combat the straw man fallacy, showing the opponent that his arguments are not valid enough..

Examples of straw man fallacies

Let's look at several examples of this type of fallacy:

Example 1

• States should invest more in education and technological and scientific research than in weapons and the military.
• False rebuttal: If the army is not invested in, a country can be left unprotected and vulnerable to attacks from its enemies..
• Explanation: The original premise does not say that there is not going to be invested in the military, but that more should be invested in the areas of education and research.

Example 2

• We must take care of the planet because it is the only home that humans have to live.
• False rebuttal: conservationists and ecologists care more about the well-being of a tree than a person.
• Explanation: being the only home that humans have, it makes sense to preserve the planet and ecological balance. That is not caring more for a tree than for a person.

Example 3

• Abortion should be legal.
• False rebuttal: if legal abortion is approved, all women will abort and the human species would be in danger of extinction.
• Explanation: women, in general, opt for an abortion under special conditions. In countries where it is legal, the birth rate has not decreased. What has decreased are the deaths of women caused by medical malpractices related to abortion.

Example 4

• Sex education should be given in all schools.
• False rebuttal: what you want is a promiscuous society, because sex education promotes debauchery among young people.
• Explanation: Sex education is necessary to explain to young people the risks of having an active sexual life without protection, not only against unwanted and early pregnancies, but also against diseases such as AIDS.

Example 5

• Countries should have a more favorable policy regarding immigration.
• False refutation: immigrants are criminals and come to our country to rob us. And those who are not criminals occupy our workplaces and take our livelihood.
• Explanation: a more favorable policy means that people can more easily access the legality of the new country (have ID, passport, etc.) and contribute to the economy. In general, immigrants need to work and are looking for a chance to live better.

Example 6

• I don't like wild capitalism.
• False rebuttal: ah, so you're a communist.
• Explanation: disagreeing with an ideological position does not mean that you agree with the opposite.

References

1. Martín-Leyes, J.S., Parga, S. (s / f). Guide to fallacies. Taken from leo.uniandes.edu.co.
2. Walton, D. (1996). The Straw man fallacy. Taken from academia.edu.
3. Straw Man Fallacy (2015). Taken from rhetoric.com.
4. De Lora, P. (2018). Gestar for others: an ultrasound of the fallacies. Taken from dilemata.net.
5. Farías, I. (2020). The straw man fallacy. Taken from psychoactiva.com.