10.4: The Straw Man Fallacy

We commit the Straw Man Fallacy when we distort or weaken someone’s position or argument to discredit it. When this happens, we are not really countering the person’s actual views, but are merely assailing a feeble version of them. We are said to be attacking a “straw man” (it might seem more accurate to say that we are attacking a straw argument, but the term ‘straw man’ is the traditional label for this fallacy).

This is another type of fallacy of irrelevant reason, since when we attack a weakened version of a view or argument, we shift attention from issues that are relevant to the conclusion, the real argument that is given for it, to other issues, the weakened caricature of the argument.

When we are confronted by a position that conflicts with our own, it is often tempting to characterize the position in the weakest or least defensible light. We make our own view look strong by making the alternative look weak (rather than showing that our view is strong by building a solid case for it). By distorting the opposing position, we make it easier to answer, or even to dismiss, the view and those who subscribe to it. This saves us the trouble of having to think seriously about it and spares us the possibility of having to acknowledge that we might be wrong. These are scarcely good things to do, but perhaps even worse, we show the other person a lack of respect by not taking them seriously; we don’t like it when someone else does this to us, and others won’t like it when we do it to them.

Examples

Many campaign ads, especially “attack ads,” go after straw men. For example, someone who opposes the death penalty is likely to be accused of being soft on crime, or of favoring the rights of criminals over the rights of victims. Someone who favors certain welfare programs may be accused of wanting to tax and spend to give people handouts and discourage their sense of responsibility, while someone who favors cutting back on the same programs may be accused of trying to help the rich at the expense of the poor. And a person who advocates decriminalization of drugs may be accused of favoring the use of drugs.

But politicians are not the only people who commit this fallacy; all of us do it at one time or another. It’s not difficult to find people who say things like, “I’m sick of all those self-righteous people arguing that Florida shouldn’t have dog racing. They just think that anything enjoyable is a sin.” While there may be some killjoys who oppose dog racing because they hate fun, most of its critics oppose it for more serious and substantial reasons, like the animal abuse.

Attacks on a person are like attacks on a straw man insofar as both ignore a person’s actual argument or position. But they differ in an important way:

1. Someone commits the straw man fallacy when they ignore a person’s actual argument and attack a weaker, distorted version of it.
2. Someone commits the ad hominem fallacy when they ignore a person’s actual argument and attack the person instead.

Like the other fallacies, we may commit the straw man fallacy intentionally. But human nature being what it is, it is all too easy to commit the fallacy without really thinking about it. We do it, for example, if we thoughtlessly restate our partner’s views about something in a way that makes them seem less plausible or compelling than they really are.

More Subtle Versions of the Straw Man Fallacy

There are several special cases of the straw man fallacy that can be especially difficult to detect.

Taking Words out of Context

Taking someone’s words out of context also allows us to quote them in a way that can make their position look weaker than it really is. We can leave out the qualifications and complexities of the view that would allow it to withstand the criticisms that we direct against the weaker version.

Example: A Senator who voted for a bill containing many provisions (including a small tax increase which, taken alone, they opposed) might be characterized as favoring higher taxes.

Treating an Extreme Case as Representative

It can be particularly effective to treat the views of an extreme member of a group as representative of those of the entire group, since this allows us to literally quote someone. We use their own exact words, in a way that appears to convict the entire group. The fact that we use their own words makes it seem more likely that we are being fair. Since we don’t like the view, perhaps we couldn’t be expected to give a fair summary of it, but here we seem to have the view right from the horse’s mouth.

For example, opponents of gun control laws can find people who would like to ban all guns, and they may quote their views as though they were representative of the views of all people who favor some restrictions on guns. At the same time, people on the other side of this issue sometimes quote members of the more extreme militia groups as though they were representative of all of those who think gun control laws can be overdone. The internet has also helped make this easier to do. People on Redditt, Facebook, and Twitter are very happy to shout their uninformed views into the void, and we should be careful to not take them as being representative (especially when we may not even be able to establish if they are a troll or a part of a disinformation campaign.)

Criticizing an Early or Incomplete Version of a View

Criticizing an early or sketchy version of a view, rather than considering it in its current, stronger form, also make it much more vulnerable to attack. For example, Burt might attack the theory of evolution by quoting Darwin and showing that his views on some detail of the theory are now known to be wrong. But Darwin wrote well over a century ago, and the theory has undergone many refinements and improvements since his day. You may not like the theory, but if you want to show that its wrong, you must consider the strongest version of it.

Criticizing a Deliberately Simplified Version of a View

Sometimes people state their position in a simplified way to get their basic ideas across in a short time. When someone is clearly doing this, their opponents should go after the more complex version of their views. This is most likely to happen when a person is explaining a relatively uncommon view to a person or group largely unfamiliar with it. Advocates for prison abolition, for instance, are arguing for a pretty sophisticated restructuring of society, so it’s going to be best to listen to the full argument in all its complexity, rather than just jumping in and accusing them of looking to set serial killers loose on your neighborhood tomorrow.

Safeguards

Several points can help us to spot, and to avoid committing, the straw man fallacy.

1. Be aware of the natural human tendency to characterize opposing views in a way that makes them easier to attack or dismiss.
2. Be fair. Try to find the strongest version of the view in question and consider it. Give the other person the benefit of the doubt. This will require you to think harder, but if you do, your own views and your reasons for holding them will be more secure.
3. Do not rely on the critics of a view to state the view fairly. They may do so, but you can’t count on it. This is especially true when the point at issue is highly controversial or arouses intense emotions.

Exercises

In each of the following passages:

A. Determine whether it contains a straw man fallacy. If there is:

B. Explain the way in which it commits the fallacy.

C. Note ways in which the passage could be revised to be fairer to the view under consideration.

1. The problem with people in the environmentalist movement is that they lack common sense. They think that protecting the environment for the spotted owl is more important than allowing people to make a living cutting timber in the owl’s habitat.
2. A bill that would allow school prayer would be very bad. Its supporters would like to have everyone involved in religion, and in fact in the Christian religion. This would violate the rights of those who aren’t Christians.
3. People who are against school prayer really want to get rid of all religion. At bottom they are atheists, or at least agnostics.
4. Champions of campaign finance reform have a hopeless view. They seem to think that if there were limits on contributions to political candidates there would be no more corruption in politics and the poor could afford to run for office. But we will always have corruption, and it will always be easier for the rich to get elected.

Answer

1. This passage attacks a straw man. A few environmentalists may think this, but most do not hold the extreme position that the owl is more important than human livelihood.
2. It may be that this characterization of the position of proponents of school prayer accurately captures the position of a few of them. But most people who favor school prayer do not have any extreme view of this sort, so the passage attacks a straw man.
3. The problem here is like the problem in 2, but now the fallacy is being committed by people on the other side of the school prayer issue.