Reverse straw man
The reverse straw man fallacy is the opposite of the straw man fallacy. It is also called an iron man fallacy [1] or a Motte-and-bailey fallacy[2]. 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.
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.
Exemples
barking cat
borders
examples
See also
- No true Scotsman
- Proper government
- 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
