3 4 1Straw Men and False Dichotomies
STRAW mEN AND FAlSE DICHOTOmIES
Very often when trying to refute either by counterexample or by reductio,
people move too quickly. The general rule is this: Before trying to refute some-
one’s claim, it is important to make sure that you understand his or her posi-
tion. If you misunderstand what your opponent is claiming, but you go ahead
and attack a specific claim anyway, then the claim you attack will not be the
claim that your opponent made. You might even fail to refute any position
that anyone ever really held. This is called the fallacy of attacking a straw man.
Sometimes people attack a straw man intentionally as part of a rhetori-
cal strategy. They mischaracterize their opponents’ position on purpose in
order to make their opponents look silly by associating their opponents with
a claim that really is silly. For example, if someone proposes providing free
condoms in high schools as a way to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases, an opponent might respond, “I suppose you want
high school students to have more sex!” Of course, that is not what was pro-
posed. Similarly, if someone supports loosening restrictions on marijuana,
an opponent might reply, “Do you really want everyone to get high all the
time? Do you want our society to be filled with drug addicts?” This attack
on a straw man might fool some listeners, perhaps by fueling their fears, but
it does not refute any real arguments for legalizing marijuana.
The fallacy of attacking a straw man can also arise from an honest mis-
take. Some people get so wrapped up in their own arguments that they
forget the view against which they are arguing. The opponent can also be
partly to blame. If someone states her position obscurely, it might not be
clear whether the speaker would go so far as to make a certain claim. Then
someone might attack that further claim, honestly believing that the speaker
had adopted it. Alternatively, a critic might refute that further claim simply
to make the speaker clarify her position by explicitly saying that, that is not
what she meant to say. In such ways, it might be useful to refute a position
that the speaker does not really hold, even though, of course, doing so does
not refute any position that the speaker actually does hold.
In more insidious cases, straw men are often set up by means of a related
fallacy—false dichotomy. With regard to the Iraq war, President Bush often
said something like this: “I had a choice to make: Either take the word of
a madman [Saddam Hussein] or defend America. Given that choice, I will
defend America every time.” The crucial phrase, of course, is “given that
choice.” If those were the only options, then Bush’s critics would also de-
fend America every time. The problem lies in Bush’s suggestion that his op-
ponents do not want to defend America and would instead “take the word
of a madman.” That insinuation sets up a straw man.
Political rhetoric is filled with such false dichotomies that set up straw
men. A cable news host is reported to have said, “Sure, it’s not great having97364_ch17_ptg01_333-350.indd 341 15/11/13 11:12 AM
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.