Reverse straw man: Difference between revisions

From Liberpedia
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
Consider two propositions:
Consider two propositions:


* A, which is hard to attack ;
* A, which is hard to attack ;
* B, which is easy to attack.
* B, which is easy to attack.


Whereas the straw man fallacy consists in ''attacking'' proposition A by attacking instead proposition B, the reverse straw man consists in ''defending'' proposition B by defending proposition A.
Whereas the straw man fallacy consists in ''attacking'' proposition A by attacking instead proposition B, the reverse straw man consists in ''defending'' proposition B by defending proposition A.


It's a form of [[non sequitur]]: accepting A would imply to accept B, or a form of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation equivocation].
It’s a form of [[non sequitur]]: accepting A would imply to accept B, or a form of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation equivocation].


Dans sa forme extrême ([[sophisme de l’antonyme]]), la proposition B est le contraire exact de A, se rapprochant ainsi du sophisme du [[rasoir de Schrödinger]]. L’homme de paille inversé consiste alors à faire accepter une proposition en argumentant en faveur de son contraire, en jouant sur les définitions, utilisant des définitions [[anti-concept]]uelles intermédiaires ([[définition par traits secondaires]]), voire des [[intellectual package dealing]]s.
In its extreme form ([[antonym fallacy]]), proposition B is the exact opposite of A, thus akin to the [[Schrödinger’s razor fallacy.
 
L’homme de paille inversé consiste alors à faire accepter une proposition en argumentant en faveur de son contraire, en jouant sur les définitions, utilisant des définitions [[anti-concept]]uelles intermédiaires ([[définition par traits secondaires]]), voire des [[intellectual package dealing]]s.


= Exemples =
= Exemples =

Revision as of 01:49, 20 April 2018

The reverse straw man fallacy is the opposite of the straw man fallacy. Consider two propositions:

  • A, which is hard to attack ;
  • B, which is easy to attack.

Whereas the straw man fallacy consists in attacking proposition A by attacking instead proposition B, the reverse straw man consists in defending proposition B by defending proposition A.

It’s a form of non sequitur: accepting A would imply to accept B, or a form of equivocation.

In its extreme form (antonym fallacy), proposition B is the exact opposite of A, thus akin to the [[Schrödinger’s razor fallacy.

L’homme de paille inversé consiste alors à faire accepter une proposition en argumentant en faveur de son contraire, en jouant sur les définitions, utilisant des définitions anti-conceptuelles intermédiaires (définition par traits secondaires), voire des intellectual package dealings.

Exemples

barking cat

borders

examples

Voir aussi