Reverse straw man: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
= 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 | ||
Revision as of 18:52, 12 February 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
borders
examples
imperialism, anti-war
proper government
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
