Straw Man Argument

Straw Man Argument

False equivalences are a source of straw man arguments, where an argument is replaced by one that is much easier to knock down (a straw man) and is then duly knocked down. However, if the new argument is not equivalent to the original one, all you have done is knocked down an argument that nobody was making.

The emphasis on “STEM” subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) is sometimes criticised on the grounds that creativity is important too. This is making a false dichotomy between science and creativity, possibly stemming from a more fundamental one between:

• A: Being creative.
• B: Being logical.

Sometimes this causes creative people to justify being illogical, or to refuse to be logical. There’s also a false equivalence between creativity and art, and another between logic and science. There is logic and creativity in both art and science. A criticism that treats STEM subjects as inherently uncreative attacks a distorted picture of them. A criticism of how particular subjects are taught would need to be assessed on its own terms. There are plenty of valid ways to advocate for arts education without denigrating science.

The most pernicious straw man argument I see regularly is “All lives matter” as a response to “Black lives matter”. The straw man as I see it is this. What the slogan “Black lives matter” really means is “Black lives matter just as much as other lives, but are currently being treated as if they do not matter as much, and we need to do something to correct this injustice.” Of course, that is not as catchy a slogan.

The straw man argument wilfully misinterprets “Black lives matter” to mean “Black lives matter and other lives don’t” which is easily refuted by saying “All lives matter”. The frustrating thing is that challenging this response can be made to sound like arguing “Some lives don’t matter”, which is not the position being defended. The dispute concerns the response’s distortion of the original claim, not a need to deny that everyone’s life matters. Strictly logically, there is no disagreement between the statements “black lives matter” and “all lives matter”. However, replacing “black lives matter” with the inequivalent claim “some lives don’t matter” creates an opposition absent from the original statements.

In order to have a logical argument, we need to persuade the person who opposes “black lives matter” to refute the true argument “Black lives matter just as much as other lives, but are currently being treated as if they do not matter as much, and we need to do something to correct this injustice.”

This has three parts, connected by “and”:

• A: Black lives matter just as much as other lives.
• B: Black lives are currently being treated as if they do not matter as much.
• C: We need to do something to correct this injustice.

The argument being made is: A and B and C. To refute this, you just need to refute one of those. If the refuter is persuaded to admit which one (or more) they disagree with, we can get closer to understanding what the argument is.

If the refuter does not agree with A then we can conclude that they are an out-and-out explicit racist. If the refuter does not agree with B then I would conclude that they are ignorant about the state of the world, or deluding themselves. If they do not agree with C then they might not think they are actively racist because they might not be engaging in active oppression, but if you do not try to take steps to defeat oppression then you are arguably complicit with the oppressors. At least if we gain this clarity we can have a more productive investigation into why the person disagrees with B and C. Is it because they think that black people are bringing it on themselves? Is it because they do not think it is anyone’s responsibility to help other people, in general? In the first case I would try to persuade them to understand how systems work, that people do not operate independently of a system that has put them there, and in this case it is a whole historical system of abuse, mistreatment and oppression.

In the second case we are more likely to reach an impasse. If someone doesn’t believe in helping other people, that is a basic difference in axioms from mine.

There is also a non-logical but emotionally valid possibility for what the opposer is really trying to say, which is they oppose the “Black Lives Matter” movement on the grounds that they associate it with anger and aggression which they think is counterproductive. Chapter 15 of The Art of Logic discusses uncovering the emotional reasons for arguments that don’t seem to make logical sense. In this particular case we should then have a discussion about:

1. whether or not the Black Lives Matter movement is really synonymous with anger and aggression, and
2. when anger and aggression are reasonable.

We could perform an abstraction pivot to build a grey area bridge and agree that there are some situations in which aggression is not reasonable (e.g., if you go to buy something in a shop but they’ve sold out) and some situations in which aggression is reasonable (e.g., if someone is trying to kill you then you could be forgiven for fighting them aggressively). The question is then one of grey areas and the possibility that the treatment of black people in the US is similar enough to someone trying to kill them that they can be forgiven for fighting back aggressively.

Of course, this analysis is far too complex for interactions on social media, but unfortunately this is where so many of these arguments take place. It is also too complex for people who are riled up by anger or fear. Complex arguments require a certain level of calm. This is true in mathematics as well – if I get overexcited about a result I’m about to prove, I won’t be able to prove it. Or if I panic that my time is running out, perhaps because of a looming deadline or a talk I’m supposed to give, I also won’t be able to prove it.

If you want to avoid someone making a straw man argument at you, it helps to state your position precisely. We have seen from Chapter 5 that we should look at all factors that cause a situation, and really if we express ourselves imprecisely and leave ourselves open to an easy straw man argument we are a little bit complicit in it, even if the straw man has involved some wilful misinterpretation by someone determined to disagree with us. It takes longer to make an argument precise than to use a catchy slogan, which is problematic in a world of memes and 280-character messages. In Chapter 16 we will come back to our need for slower arguments despite our fast-paced world.