To identify a Straw Man Argument, you must be familiar enough with the topic in question
to recognize when someone is setting up a caricature. Understanding when someone is using this deceptive tactic is the best way to call attention to
the weakness of the straw man position.
A Straw Man Argument is a statement a person makes
if they want to more easily attack an opposing position.
Let's take the following position:
"Evolution has been the main engine of speciation throughout natural history."
A person using a Straw Man against that position will intentionally
make a ridiculous caricature of evolution, one that only the most ignorant
might believe. These are the steps they might use to try to "disprove
evolution".
Step 2: Knock down the Straw Man by any means necessary: "How could a mouse evolve into an elephant? There would have to be billions of changes for that to occur, and nobody has ever seen speciation anyway!"
Step 3: Connect the original position to the Straw Man:"So it's silly...who has ever seen a mouse evolve into an elephant? Nobody!!"
Step 4: Claim to negate the opposing position by the connection in 3. "Therefore, evolution must be false!"
It's easy for the perpetrator to knock down their own Straw Man because they can make the Straw Man themselves. It's a tailor-made
position for the person using it. Usually, the person using
the argument will
knock down the unrealistic caricature in Step 2 as quickly as possible,
and then proclaim that the
opposing position has been demolished because they
were so cleverly able to knock down their own manufactured Straw Man.
They pretend that
the Straw Man is the real argument, not the ridiculous caricature they created with deliberate ignorance and made-up facts. A real counter-position could cite facts to support their position. You can point out to them that they just knocked down their own caricature of evolution. Not the facts that support evolution. Straw men are ineffectual in that they leave the facts untouched.
Unfortunately, this tactic
fools a lot of people because it can be subtle. In the case of
evolution, an anti-evolutionist can
take a slightly ridiculous point of view that seems born out of
ignorance of science or fact. They then refuse to listen to rational
facts, and escalate the ignorance until it's a full-blown Straw Man.
This is a related tactic called deliberate ignorance.
It will also include attempts to generate numbers out of the air to
defend a Straw Man position.
Steps used in creating and using a straw man argument:
Step 1: Build the Straw Man: "Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant!?"
This is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics, since the person using the Straw Man has so little confidence in their own position that they cannot even address the real position of their opponent! At the heart of the Straw Man Argument is deception.
When people use Straw Man arguments, ask for facts.
Straw Man arguments are rarely based on undistorted fact.
Another type of Straw Man that anti-evolutionists use
is a hypocrite's caricature in which they
use criteria for judging evolutionary theory which they
will not equally apply to any other discipline.
For instance....
"Old hoaxes prove that all of evolutionary theory must be false."
This is also a Straw Man argument. One can remind such people that
hoaxes abound all through human history, not just in evolutionary theory.
Some examples are:
A sane person would not invalidate medicine because of the hoaxes perpetrated by some unscrupulous people in the past. Medicine has come a long
way, and is certainly much more advanced than it was.
It would be illogical to expect someone to turn away from medical treatment because medicine once had occasional hoaxes and frauds.
You won't hear someone say, "Modern medicine is full of crap because
quacks and hoaxes exist! (see for example QuackWatch).
Would you expect people to stop going to doctors and deny themselves treatment because past and present frauds "must" prove all of medicine wrong?
Likewise, trying to discredit evolution with stories of previous hoaxes is again a Straw Man. Someone studying evolution won't discredit evolution because of hoaxes earlier in this century, because there are many, many fine studies over the years that are scientific, repeatable, and rigorous, that all point to evolution, and many more of those good studies than the handful of hoaxes the anti-evolutionists like to fixate on.
Ask the people using that kind of Straw Man if they've given up medicine and religion as well as evolutionary theory, on that same criteria? Sometimes they'll pretend they have, just to hold on to their straw man...and
sometimes, that can be rather fun to watch.
Some real evidence for evolution
can be found in many solid, repeatable scientific experiments. For a link
to only 100 of them (you can find many more within this database by searching!), take a look at this PubMed webpage.
Of course, there are many more examples.
The Straw Man position is a "lazy argument" which doesn't bother to use
facts or knowledge to try to create and defend a real position. The simple
fact that you can show that a statement is really a Straw Man will expose
their attempts at deception. Using real facts with reference is the only way
to avoid using a Straw Man argument.
Understanding the deceptive basis of this tactic will empower you in debate, or help you avoid wasteful debate.
Of course there are far too many examples to list.
With thanks to Dave Matson for the inspiration! -- Doctoress
The Hypocrite's Straw Men
Having fun with Straw Men
Straw Man statements include:
(Note: In fact, evolution does not state that things evolved
by chance. That Straw Man urban myth has been, and continues to be, spread
by anti-evolutionists to cause doubt and confusion. Actually, half
of evolution is non-random: natural selection. If natural selection were
random, evolution wouldn't work!