On May 11, 8:47 am, Carl <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Straw man. Fallacy of establi****ng a position, claiming it is the
> opponent=92s position, and then attacking it, when it is not in fact the
> opponent=92s position at all. [Norman Geisler & Ronald Brooks: Come, Let
> Us Reason : An Introduction to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids, Mich. :
> Baker Book House, 1990, S. 194]
>
> Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme
> version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument
> they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into
> somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't
> actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled
> version of argumentum ad logicam. [Glen Whitman, Associate Professor;
> California State University, Northridge]
>
> Straw man. A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position
> in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this
> misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real
> position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the
> position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that
> which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is
> untouched by it. [Tim Holt;http://www.logicalfallacies.info/]
>
> Straw man. A Straw Man occurs when an opponent takes the original
> argument of his/her adversary and then offers a close imitation, or
> straw man, version of the original argument; "knocks down" the straw
> man version of the argument (because the straw man, as its name
> implies, is a much easier target to hit, undermine, etc.) -- and
> thereby gives the appearance of having successfully countered/overcome/
> answered the original argument. [Dr. Charles Ess; A Database of
> Informal Fallacies; 1987]
>
> Straw man. The author attacks an argument different from (and weaker
> than) the opposition's best argument. [Stephen=92s Guide To Logical
> Fallacies;http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/welcome.htm]
>
> Straw man. You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an
> easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent
> wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted
> position believing you have undermined the opponent's actual position.
> If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is
> caused by lying. [James Fieser, Ph.D. & Bradley Dowden, Ph.D.;
> California State University, Sacramento]
>
> Straw man. Directing the argument against a claim that nobody actually
> holds or that everyone agrees is very weak. [Rise Axelrod & Charles
> Cooper; The Concise Guide to Writing; Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005]
>
> Straw man. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on
> misrepresentation of an opponent's position. [Madsen Pirie; How to Win
> Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic; UK: Continuum
> International Publi****ng Group, 2007]
JERRY
If you think I have committed a logical fallacy, it's inherent on you
to show where and how I committed it. Don't simply say "Strawman" and
expect me to know which part of my post you claim is a straw man, or
how. Since I responded to multiple things that Van Lees wrote (and
you posted) then it's on you to show me where I erred and used the
straw man fallacy.
|
