Introduction
The problems of mutual understanding and the abundance of cognitive distortions make it challenging for people to have effective dialogues. They can prepare excellent arguments based on proven and reliable facts, but they will only be heard or supported if one has to know how to present those facts correctly. People face the Straw Man error whenever a person is deliberately misrepresented to have less credibility, and then that argument is attacked (Pojman & Vaughn, 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to indicate what a Straw Man’s fallacy is and how it varies from just disagreeing with someone’s viewpoint.
Straw Man Fallacy
Explanation
A Straw Man is a logical error that arises when one deliberately misrepresents one’s adversary’s argument in a debate. In such a situation, the opponent’s real argument is overlapped or is altered (Pojman & Vaughn, 2019). The goal of such actions is to avoid the discussion in honest terms and to evade the opponent’s real argument. Furthermore, the manipulator refutes this version rather than the opponent’s real argument and undermines the rational ethical discussion; in this case, it is the fault of the individual who falsely claims due to deliberate deception or a willful attempt to mislead (Pojman & Vaughn, 2019). The distortions, however, are not necessarily deliberate; they may also be unintentional; in this instance, the individual who makes a false statement due to ignorance is at fault.
Example
Meanwhile, an example of a logical fallacy can be demonstrated in real life. For instance, one person argues that those who are not interested in philosophy are more likely to be practice-oriented. In response, people attempt to refute this statement by indicating that it means that individuals who are not interested in philosophy do not have enough knowledge (Schumann et al., 2019). Thus, individuals who are interested in practice are equated with the uneducated, which is not what was meant in the first argument.
Nevertheless, simply disagreeing with someone else’s point of view does not translate into a substitution of concepts but rather an intention to provide several fair counterarguments. For instance, when supporters and opponents of abortion claim, they demonstrate why a female has the right to manage their own body and express the opinion that a fetus has the right to be born (Pojman & Vaughn, 2019). Hence, arguments are not substituted in this case, and opponents try to use biological, legal, and social evidence to prove their opinions honestly.
Accordingly, a fallacious argument is an appeal that attempts to convince someone of something based on false premises. In contrast, merely opposing another person’s perspective is based on the desire of both parties to provide sufficient and valid arguments to demonstrate that their points of view are correct. In this case, individuals do not attempt to change the ideas of their opponents but rather target them correctly (Pojman & Vaughn, 2019). Therefore, Straw Man varies from simply conflicting with someone else’s perspective in the targeting and representation of ideas.
Conclusion
Consequently, in a Straw Man fallacy, the argument advanced by the opponent is distorted or exaggerated. The purpose of such an argument is to make the opponent vulnerable to refute or attack the opponent. Hence, the Straw Man claim is not only wrong but also dishonest because it undermines rational ethical debate. On the other hand, disagreeing with someone else’s viewpoint does not require using such manipulative tactics. It occurs in the form of presenting arguments and counterarguments to justify one’s opinion honestly.
References
Pojman, L. P., & Vaughn, L. (2019). Philosophy: The quest for truth (11th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schumann, J., Zufferey, S., & Oswald, S. (2019). What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments assessing linguistic factors. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 1-15. Web.