h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I came across an interesting argument today:

"We can't do X because if we did Y then Y wouldn't work, so we'll have to do Z instead."

Is that a Straw Man argument? Do you have any particular techniques for dealing with such things?

It might be a Red Herring, but I can't be sure without knowing whether X and Y are in any way connected. My advice is to use Common Sense.

I think a straw man argument involves an element of deception that Y is essentially identical to X, where that isn't the case.

You need a single counterexample to prove X is not equal to Y.

Sounds like the sort of argument a 4-year-old would make.

Or an orange tinged Presidential candidate.

Male or female?

TC's comment made me laugh, as the argument was used by people who should know better than that, but then I wonder if the argument can be used as a deliberate ploy to seem innocent while doing something that might be disapproved of...

X and Y are indeed similar but not the same in this, so the key is the counterexample to the assertion that X = Y

Should politicians who deliberately misuse Straw Man arguments be burnt to death in a Wicker Man?

<BB<

It's hard to know exactly, but it sounds to me like the non sequitur fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/136/Non-Sequitur

Premise 1: We can do/have X or Y but not both
Premise 2: We want/need Y more than X
Conclusion 1: Therefore we should not do X
Conclusion 2: Therefore we should do Z

P1 and P2 seem to justify C1, but don't justify C2. It's an invalid inference, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's false.

There seems to be a missing premise or one that's being taken for granted - that Z is the only other way to get Y, or that it's obviously superior to other ways, that it doesn't have any other drawbacks.

I can see why it looks like a red herring, because it's unrelated to anything that's gone before, but a red herring would usually be on the justification/premise side, rather than the conclusion. A "straw man" (or more usually now, a 'straw target') is a crude misrepresentation of a rival argument or position - sometimes deliberate, sometimes not. There might be straw target going on if it's not really true that X stops Y from working, and that there's no workaround or more sophisticated versions of X or Y that avoid this.

I've always understood a straw man argument to be one where your opponent argues against a statement you haven't actually made.

For example, if I say I'm for bringing in more Syrian refugees, someone else might say, "Oh, you're for weakening the security of this country by bringing in terrorists."

That example illustrates how these can rapidly become complex. You can't refute it with a single counterexample.

Yeah, it seems the main reason for the straw man argument is to derail the opponent.

Excellent points - thanks everyone.

Yes, here Premise 1 is that someone wants to do X, but Premise 2 is that they can't do X because Y doesn't work - Y is a crude representation of X. Conclusion 1 is that X won't work, but there is a counterexample to show that Y is not X so that is a straw target. Conclusion 2 is that they should do Z instead, but that does not follow from P1 and P2 so there is logical fallacy too.

Straw men and red herrings are both logical fallacies. Non sequiturs are either funny [see Zippy the Pinhead] or annoying.

Millennium hand and shrimp!

This to me sounds like a roundabout and hidden way of saying

'I'm the boss and we'll do it how I want'

Of course someone with real authority would just tell you to get on with it it without claptrap justifications.

Or... actually think about it and change their mind if they're wrong - i.e. through this thing called 'listening'


Though I could be entirely missing the point as it is all a bit vague.

Well interpreted, Orcus

The justifications seem to aim to "prove" that X is wrong, not just that Z is a valid thing to do, but even then it's unnecessary, as you say...

But it was the best butter!