Reverse straw man: Difference between revisions
From Liberpedia
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The [[reverse straw man]] fallacy is the opposite of the [[straw man fallacy]]. It is also called an '''iron man fallacy''' [https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/#Iron-man_arguments] or a '''Motte-and-bailey fallacy'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy]. | The [[reverse straw man]] fallacy is the opposite of the [[straw man fallacy]]. It is also called an '''iron man fallacy''' [https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/#Iron-man_arguments] (not to be confused with '''steel man''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning]) or a '''Motte-and-bailey fallacy'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy]. | ||
Consider two propositions: | Consider two propositions: | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
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]. | ||
In its extreme form ([[antonym fallacy]]), proposition B is the exact opposite of A, thus akin to the [[Schrödinger’s razor]] fallacy. | In its extreme form ([[antonym fallacy]]), proposition B is the exact opposite of A, thus akin to the [[Schrödinger’s razor]] fallacy (defending A and non-A at the same time). | ||
The reverse straw man then consists in getting a proposition accepted by arguing in favor of its opposite, by playing on definitions, using intermediate [[anti-concept]]ual definitions ([[definition by non-essentials]]) or even [[intellectual package dealing]]s. | The reverse straw man then consists in getting a proposition accepted by arguing in favor of its opposite, by playing on definitions, using intermediate [[anti-concept]]ual definitions ([[definition by non-essentials]]) or even [[intellectual package dealing]]s. | ||
= | = Examples = | ||
== [[ | == [[Barking Cat Fallacy]] == | ||
== [[border]]s == | == [[border]]s == | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
* [https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/borders-limit-freedom-but-promote-liberty/ Borders Limit Freedom but Promote Liberty] | * [https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/borders-limit-freedom-but-promote-liberty/ Borders Limit Freedom but Promote Liberty] | ||
* [https://mises.org/blog/we-need-more-borders-and-more-states We Need More Borders and More States] | * [https://mises.org/blog/we-need-more-borders-and-more-states We Need More Borders and More States] | ||
== imperialism, anti-war == | |||
* [[Kremlintarianism]] | |||
== proper government == | |||
* [[Proper government]] | |||
== motte & bailey examples == | |||
* [https://twitter.com/carolm62/status/1626777124291084288 @LPNational, after cheerleading for Russia’s murderous war of aggression and hating on Ukraine all week returns to its regular, brief retreat to the Motte to say, “What we really mean is: Jesus says love everyone. Treat them kindly too.” Then back to simping for tyrants.] | |||
= See also = | = See also = | ||
* [[Shawn Huckabay]], “[https://shawnhuckabay.substack.com/p/comedy-as-motte-and-bailey Comedy As Motte-and-Bailey]” | |||
* [[No true Scotsman]] | * [[No true Scotsman]] | ||
* http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/170907/opposite-logical-fallacy-to-straw-man | * http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/170907/opposite-logical-fallacy-to-straw-man | ||
* https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey | * https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey | ||
| Line 35: | Line 48: | ||
* https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/#Iron-man_arguments | * https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/#Iron-man_arguments | ||
[[Category: | [[Category: Logical fallacies]] | ||
[[fr: | [[fr: Épouvantail inversé]] | ||
Latest revision as of 08:23, 9 May 2023
The reverse straw man fallacy is the opposite of the straw man fallacy. It is also called an iron man fallacy [1] (not to be confused with steel man [2]) or a Motte-and-bailey fallacy[3]. 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 (defending A and non-A at the same time).
The reverse straw man then consists in getting a proposition accepted by arguing in favor of its opposite, by playing on definitions, using intermediate anti-conceptual definitions (definition by non-essentials) or even intellectual package dealings.
Examples
Barking Cat Fallacy
borders
examples
imperialism, anti-war
proper government
motte & bailey examples
See also
- Shawn Huckabay, “Comedy As Motte-and-Bailey”
- No true Scotsman
- http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/170907/opposite-logical-fallacy-to-straw-man
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man#Iron_manning
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
- https://thenonsequitur.com/?p=3527
- https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/#Iron-man_arguments
