Fallcacies: Straw Man and False Dilemma

[sonofag]

Hello everyone,

In Critical Reasoning: Understanding and Criticizing Arguments and Theories, pg.104, Paulsen and Cederblom state that the straw man fallacy should be understood as, "a combination of misrepresenting another person's views and the false dilemma of choosing either this (weakened) position or the speaker's position."

Is the claim being made that the straw man fallacy is a type of false dilemma? If so, is this an accurate statement?

Thank you for considering my question!

[Sculptor1]

Primarily a straw man is a mis-characterisation of another person's views to make it easier to defeat.

So if I were to say I voted Labour because of its policy against inequality, and you came back with saying communism is all about purges and economic stagnation, you would be building up my argument as a straw man.
Labour is not the same as communism.
In a sense that is most often a false dilemma, as you are saying either vote against Labour or you would be voting for communism - which is obviously false.

An example given in Wiki is as follows:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

B is a straw man since it exaggerates the proposal of a, who does not propose "unrestricted access" to beer, only lower tax on beer, which would not completely unrestrict.
Whilst this is a false dilemma, it also hints at a "slippery slope" - as if lowering tax would lead to dangerous amounts of drinking.

For the argument to stand its ground you might need to know what the current tax on beer is, in any event.

[Sculptor1]

But whilst many straw man arguments can be false dilemmas they do not have to be.
"We need to reduce CO2 in the next 12 years to avoid climate change"
Could be turned into a ridiculous exaggeration such as
Alarmists say the world is going to end unless we all stop using our cars.

[Sculptor1]

Just for fun

https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/up ... an-img.jpg

[sonofag]

But whilst many straw man arguments can be false dilemmas they do not have to be.
"We need to reduce CO2 in the next 12 years to avoid climate change"
Could be turned into a ridiculous exaggeration such as
Alarmists say the world is going to end unless we all stop using our cars.

Thank you. So you are suggesting that Paulsen and Cederblom are incorrect in stating that the straw man necessarily involves a false dilemma?

[Pattern-chaser]

In Critical Reasoning: Understanding and Criticizing Arguments and Theories, pg.104, Paulsen and Cederblom state that the straw man fallacy should be understood as, "a combination of misrepresenting another person's views and the false dilemma of choosing either this (weakened) position or the speaker's position."

Is the claim being made that the straw man fallacy is a type of false dilemma? If so, is this an accurate statement?

I think that's a slightly confused way of expressing it. Sculptor1's descriptions are much better.

To create a straw man, first one creates an easily-refuted lie. Then one asserts that the lie defines one's opponent's position. Then one refutes the lie, and (falsely) claims that the opponent's argument is refuted. I see no dilemmas, only falsehood and (very) poor argumentation.

[Terrapin Station]

It would only be a false dilemma if someone is presented with both the straw man and a specific statement of the original argument and it was somehow suggested that those were the only two options for stating the argument at hand.

This is almost never the case when someone forwards a straw man. So it's a curious thing to say that straw man arguments should be understood as if they were presenting false dilemmas, too.

[Jack D Ripper]

Straw man is not normally regarded as a false dilemma. You can search online for "Straw Man" and find many web sites that explain it, and I think you will not find very many that state that it is a false dilemma.

As others have said, a straw man is misrepresenting one's opponent's position and refuting that misrepresentation instead of dealing with the actual position. If the fallacy is cleverly committed, many people will not notice that the original position is being misrepresented, though most people who commit this fallacy do it clumsily. Keeping people from noticing tends to work only when the other arguer is not present, as, for example, if I misrepresented something Plato stated and then refuted it, someone may not notice. Plato will not complain that there is a misrepresentation, because he is dead. But if I were arguing with someone present, he or she is likely to notice any misrepresentation of his or her own position, and will not likely let it pass by unmentioned.

It is also worth mentioning that there is a difference between an accidental misrepresentation and a willful misrepresentation, though both are straw men when one is refuting the misrepresentation.

As for wanting someone to adopt the speaker's position, that is normally the case when one speaks. Regardless of whether any fallacies are committed or not. It would be a false dilemma if one pretended that one's own position is the only alternative in cases when it is not. Of course, sometimes there are only two options, like when one meaningful position is the negation of the other.

[sonofag]

A belated thank you for the replies!