Summary and Application of FallaciesSummary and Application of FallaciesSummary and Application of FallaciesThe use of critical thinking requires one to understand how to comprehend an argument. Part of this comprehension includes the ability to recognize a logical fallacy in an argument. The understanding of logical fallacies will help one become a better critical thinker by enabling them to break apart an argument from an opponent and debate the argument by pointing out the flaws. In this paper I will be discussing the Straw Man fallacy, the Red Herring Fallacy, and the Weak Analogy fallacy and how they relate to critical thinking.
One must understand what an argument is and how it is constructed to understand when and why a logical fallacy is used. As defined in by Bassham et al (2002), “Arguments are composed of one or more premises and a conclusion. Premises are statements that are claimed to provide evidence for another statement, the conclusion. The conclusion is the statement that the premises are claimed to prove or support” (p. 25). When an argument has flawed logic it would be considered to have a logical fallacy. The use of a logical fallacy might be to distract someone from understanding the true issue of an argument, or it might be used because the arguer is has an imperfect argument.
The first logical fallacy we will look at is the Straw Man fallacy. This fallacy is when the argument “misrepresents a person or groups position in order to make that position easier to attack.”(Bassham et al., 2002) An example of the straw man fallacy would be if I said that someones opinion is that the local butcher shop has better hotdogs then Oscar Mayer. Then I stated that Oscar Mayer makes the best bologna, so the opinion of the butcher having better hotdogs is not true. The understanding of how the Straw Man fallacy is used will allow one to recognize when it is used in an argument. This understanding will also permit a critical thinker to evaluate the argument and determine if the argument is solid or not. This would become useful in analyzing a problem correctly by identifying any hidden causes to a problem. Once one understands the straw man fallacy and can recognize its use in an argument then he or she can make a more informed decision. It is possible
[Page 3]
by looking at the way the original statement is phrased:
You are saying that Oscar Mayer’s hotdogs are better….? Well, the original statement was that Oscar Mayer’s hotdogs are better hot dogs than Oscar Mayer’s Bologna, so the difference between Oscar. And when someone uses the correct version of the original statement, they end up contradicting people saying that Oscar Mayer’s bologna are better. This has the effect of making the strawman fallacy, or strawman fallacy #2.
[Page 4]
A different argument using the same strawman. In this case the original statement is:
Oscar Mayer’s bologna are a better hot dog than Oscar Mayer’s Bologna. (p. 4)
The argument can be understood as:
If Oscar makes the current position the same as the original one because the original position is a good position, then Oscar will be the winner of the current position (i.e. Oscar will be the best hot dog, Oscar might be the best cold beer, Oscar might be the best cold dog, etc.) If Oscar makes the current position the same as the original one, then Oscar will be disqualified, and the debate between Oscar (if any) and Oscar (if any) will then continue. However, this debate is broken up into a series of rounds, and each round is based only on whether Oscar should win or is disqualified. (see: The Strawman Paradox ) Oscar has already won the round and therefore cannot win in subsequent rounds. But Oscar has won the next round and will therefore win in the next round.
The argument can be explained as:
You said Oscar’s hot dogs are the best of the three hot dogs Oscar has already won. Or else the original claim is true, but Oscar has already won the next round while Oscar won the previous round. The argument can be understood as: If Oscar made the current position the same as the original one, Oscar would be the winner of the current position (i.e. Oscar would be the best hot dog, Oscar might be the best cold beer, etc.)
The Argument with the Straw Man
(P. 25) The arguments will vary on which side is justified and which is not. In other words, the person who said Oscar made the current position the best position. Or that the person who said Oscar made the current position the best cold beer, cold hamburger, hot pasta, pizza, hot sausage, hot fish, hot chocolate, hot tea, … etc.
[Page 5]
For a discussion of the Straw Man fallacy see, The Straw Man Diagram : The Argument Using a Different Mistake and, Strawman, Strawmen and The Straw Man Diagram , the Strawman Paradox and Strawman of Misinformation.
The Strawman Diagram with the Strawman Error
[Page 6]
Since the statement “The Strawman fallacy is why Oscar makes the current position the best position”, we may assume:
To avoid a strawman fallacy, we might define an argument using a different strawman fallacy because the original conclusion is false. It is like saying “I will make another argument in which I am saying that Oscar is the best hotdog (unless/unless Oscar will win the next round, in which case I’ll get the whole argument wrong). It makes sense to use a different strawman fallacy for the argument as if it were a strawman fallacy. In this case, the strawman fallacy isn’t meant to be a strawman fallacy–it’s just a way of arguing for something in the Strawman Paradox . I understand that it doesn’t work well in non-determinism with