Logical Fallacies III - The Straw Man Wears Camouflage

When an official makes an Ad Hominem attack, everyone realizes there is an attack. And when an official makes an Ad Populum defense, everyone realizes that there is a defense. But when an official sets up a Straw Man, the situation isn't so clear. It's not an attack or a defense, but a response to an argument. Straw Men dress in the camouflage of discussion, but they are deeply disrespectful of the other person and, especially, of the audience.

The Straw Man is an attempt to dismiss (usually not just oppose) an argument by making it appear weaker than it really is. It does this by turning it into a straw man, a scarecrow of an argument, and then shooting the straw man, rather than the full-blooded argument, down. And that's the origin of the term: the use in combat practice of men made of straw.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

The Straw Man is set up in response to an argument when the speaker or writer cannot come up with an adequate response. The use of a Straw Man is nearly an admission that an opposing argument is correct. It happened to me just yesterday evening at a budget hearing in my town. I compared our town budget to three towns about our size in our state, and showed how our spending in several areas was out-of-line with these other towns. I said specifically, however, that what we were spending on our basic services ' police, fire, public works ' were in line with these towns. The chair of the board of finance responded by saying that our budget is higher because we have more police officers and paid fire fighters than these other towns.

Everyone heard me say that our costs in these areas were not out of line, but (1) we quickly forget what we hear, especially when numbers are thrown around, and (2) we don't trust our memory. I heard him say something about police and fire, people think. Maybe he did say our costs in those areas were out of line. I can't be sure. Straw men play on our lack of attention, our poor memories, and our distrust of our memories. Those who employ straw men depend on this. They also depend on the fact that they can disown their straw men if someone points out what they've done ('I misheard him.') and the fact that if someone is allowed to speak again, it will be so long after the exchange that no one will remember what happened, and the original speaker will sound whiny and ridiculous.

The board of finance chair was absolutely right ... if I had actually said what he implied I said. That's why Straw Man arguments can be so effective. Yeah, audience members nod, that guy doesn't know what he's talking about. We have better police and fire service, and so we have to pay for it. But I really talked about other budget items. (Note here that the choice of police and fire was one that would inspire the most emotion, and emotions such as those that accompany patriotism and security are obstacles to logical analysis.)

Here's another example, from a recent Teaneck, New Jersey political blog entry. There has been a big controversy over a new Master Plan for the town. The blogger feels that the anti-development people in town are seriously exaggerating the extent of the development the planning board wants to allow, making comparisons to the war in Iraq and the destruction of the town's lifestyle. The Master Plan they describe is not the Master Plan before the planning board.

The blogger put his finger on a serious effect of setting up a straw man such as this: '[T]he crazy thing is that this, the major point of vulnerability for the Planning Board, was not the major point of contention! Instead, the opponents of the Master Plan revision focused on a silly straw man argument about endangering the character of Teaneck when the Master Plan was quite clear about the fact that residential neighborhoods were to be protected. The actual content of the Master Plan and the details of the vision it puts forward then escaped much of the scrutiny.'

Straw men arguments are end runs around reality, attempts to get people not to think about the real problems involved in municipal government issues. They're ruses. You might say that here, for example, people might just be caught up in emotions. But usually the leaders are trying to manipulate these emotions, as the board of finance chair was doing. It is easier to manipulate people with a straw man than with the cold, hard facts of a master plan or budget.

To read my earlier blogs on logical fallacies, click below.

Ad Hominem Attacks
Ad Populum Defenses

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics