CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy [HD]
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 เม.ย. 2016
- In this Wireless Philosophy video, Joseph Wu (University of Cambridge) introduces you to the straw man fallacy. This fallacy is committed whenever someone misrepresents an opponent's claim in arguing against it.
Subscribe!
bit.ly/1vz5fK9
More on Joseph Wu:
bit.ly/1RHIOuV
----
Wi-Phi @ TH-cam:
bit.ly/1PX0hLu
Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:
bit.ly/1nQJcF7
Twitter:
/ wirelessphi
Facebook:
on. 1XC2tx3
Instagram:
@wiphiofficial
----
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/ILA9/
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Problem of Skepticism [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PqjdRAERWLc/mqdefault.jpg)
The Straw Man Fallacy is the general discussion pattern for TH-cam debates.
Word.
People would never stop using computers!
So, we can't debate anymore ;)
***** Haha, no I was creating a straw man to the OP comment...
Can definitions be used as a Straw Man Fallacy?
These critical thinking videos should be mandatory for every human being on Earth.
I believe that school systems could benefit from watching them.
The most sensible comment on here, gets one of the lowest votes. Humans ...
Well we need a premise from you so that your conclusion can be denied by a strawman.
Im going to be a teacher, and I'm going to weapon my pupils with all of them 🔥🔥
Nooo, the smart few can’t fool, the dumb many. /s
It’s hard to debate someone that is smart, it’s impossible to debate someone that is stupid
This!
Thats why i would find it impossible to debate this with you .Whoever says your a fool is no idiot my friend.
‘Who’
🤓🤓🤓
dere, i wun, mai argooment is valeed
Just here to improve myself in Among Us
AAA at
P
Underrated comment 😭😭😂😂🤣🤣
ඩඩඩඩඩ
Fungus among us
Also known as "changing the subject".
Could be... while creating the illusion staying on topic
WINSTON SMITH Changing the subject is more of the whataboutsim fallacy.
For example. Don’t steal candy from a store.
Person: But Joe does it all the time
@@peterparker1683 Not really
More like changing the subject but pretending the subject is what your opponent was talking about all along.
I'd say, " manipulation of the subject "
Your critique of the straw man fallacy is invalid :
Dolls made of dry stalks of cereal plants are widely used as scarecrows, combat training targets, swordsmiths' test targets, effigies to be burned, and as rodeo dummies to distract bulls. In consequence, criminalizing the production, trade and use of straw men would make no sense. Also, the creation of an international task force to hunt down and destroy straw men all over the world would not only be difficult to organize but also cost a lot of money. Even worse, drone strikes on scarcrows in states who didn't sign your internantional anti-straw-men-treaty could lead to diplomatic tensions, if not war. Is this really what you want?
+Zogg from Betelgeuse
Nice counter-strawman/slippery slope
The production and use of straw men has massively declined over the last couple of centuries. There are more advances dolls for that purpose now, like crash-test dummies. Therefore I think your proposal to deregulate the production and exportation of straw men is a very old-school thinking and would hurt the economy in the long run.
Zogg, why did you stop making videos? You have nice material. Do you have a different channel?
Of course I'm trolling.
Lol I get it.
I wish they also showed an example that is more difficult to spot
politics is an easy one. NYT has recently said that Bernie should stop saying that hillary stole the nomination because he only got 12 million or so votes, while Hillary got 15 million or so. This is a strawman argument because many votes were uncounted in California, there was a lot of negligence in Arizona, New York, and other state caucuses that tipped the election in Hillary's favor, and lack of or negative media representation of Bernie lead to a lack of widespread information about him, while the information that was spread by major news sources was often negative. So, the NYT used the strawman because they misrepresented Bernie's issues with the elections to be about counted vote numbers alone, when there are so many other factors that weren't taken into account.
+roodles there is no more Bernie train because he is on the Clinton train. Choooo chooooo
Can definitions be used as a Straw Man Fallacy?
Look up a "category error".Much more difficult to spot and also more complex to understand. Sounds like what you are after.
Christians (being tied in with Catholicism and labeled as science deniers) and Creation Scientists are straw manned all the time.
Debating is easy, all you have to do is be completely objective. Have a response literally word for word. The problem is people are a) unintelligent or b) blinded by ideological bias
No, debating is very hard, even if you are 100% right, and someone else 100% wrong. Scientists have proved human beings almost never admit they are wrong. Dumb people fool themselves into believing that if they think they are never wrong then they must be smart, but it's actually the geniuses who frequently admit to their mistakes.
It's easy to win a debate but convincing another person that you won is the difficult part.
from experience, yes this is quite true. Though some debateable topics are quite hard to debate
@Cobra Tate I appreciate your thoughtful response to his statement, "Debating is easy" It is a skilled like any other skill and requires training, practice, patience to listen with understanding and that can only be possible if the person listening has understanding of the topic under discussion. He has has an ideology or worldview as we all do, it is what makes it possible for us to navigate ourselves through this complex world on a daily basis.
Ah yes, I remember one time I saw someone talking about how everyone who cheats is just looking to "sleep around and get laid". So I replied saying that there are actually several motives that can lead a person to infidelity, and that it isn't necessarily about wanting to sleep around. Literally everyone who replied to me lashed-out about how there is no justification that makes cheating acceptable. After trying to explain several times that I wasn't justifying infidelity, simply pointing-out that it's more complicated than the original poster was asserting, I eventually just had to shake my head and bow-out of the discussion because of the mob rule in that thread. Sometimes people in a discussion just don't want to have a discussion.
My whole life has been an experience of the Strawman fallacy. Getting a t-shirt saying - "But that's not what I said!" was the only logical way out.
My absolute *favorite* thing that I just *love* is when a roommate uses a strawman to manipulate you so that you stop telling her what she doesn't want to hear, after she literally asked you for an honest answer :))))) Basically, I told her I'm worried she stretches the truth and speaks from her emotions rather than looking at things objectively, and then I provided specific examples of when this has happened. She then accused me of calling her a liar as she walked away from the conversation.
just throw red herrings all the time and you'll be fine🤣
Hahahahaha 'I love cards, I get tremendous cards..'
Brilliant.
+Caius Filimon He wouldn't say _tremendous_, too much of a big word for him.
***** No need. Half a brain and you see he stumps himself.
***** Noice troll dude. 10/10 would fall.
***** Actually, I meant 9/11. Yeah, 9/11 would fall.
Bwahaha
this reminds me of the jordan peterson debate with cathy newman where cathy kept misrepresenting peterson's positions
And Peterson misunderstanding Heidegger to fit his beliefs
She actually took his points to the logical conclusions, however he didn't want to admit that as he wants some plausible deniability
I really like the black background this time.
+Jules Prince Thanks! All the critical thinking videos have a black background and our standard philosophy videos have white.
+Wireless Philosophy Is Maureen really just a friend, or is she more than that?
Wireless Philosophy
Oh I see, thanks!
Nice to see something like this here on TH-cam - you wouldn't expect that ;-)
You reverse racist xD
Are you strawmaning the content by changing the topic from practical philosophy towards the colour of the background, or are you simply being friendly?
Another interesting fallacy is the Motte-Bailey fallacy, which is basically a reverse strawman. It’s where a person takes their difficult to defend view and puts an easier statement in its place.
For example, “We should outlaw cigarettes” is a lot harder to defend than “Smoking is bad for you”.
“It has nothing to due with race; I just want them to make sure they’re here legally.” 😏😏😏😏😏
If more people drank lots of beer, we wouldn't argue so much. Checkmate atheists!
Damn! Can't argue with that, seems like I have to let Jesus into my heart. Or my liver in this case, I guess.
I don't know what planet you're living on where more alcohol correlates with LESS arguing
I bet you made this point while you were sober. It's probably why you're so argumentative.
Math is still math whether humans get it or do not, such are the laws of nature
I don't get it, what does that have to do with atheists?
now i can win arguments with fallacy since no sane human being cares or has been taught it at school. good day.
Exactly
Jonathan Vo period✍️
@@jonathanvo132 but they don't know that
It's one thing to not be aware, but if you are and still behave ignorantly you're just an idiot
Actually I learned this in a media and production class this year surprisingly
Thank you, Joseph Wu. I thought I understood the Strawman Fallacy before I watched this video but recognise I only partially did. Your explanation is very straight forward and easy to understand, for me.
"I love cards. I get tremendous cards." Now that's golden!
Sounds like trump lol
The rules of politics: always answer the question you wish you were asked. Similarly, always refute the claim you wish was presented. :) Love the logic fallacy videos!
You said it so well! Thank you for sharing!
He has such nice hand writing ✍️
It's not his handwriting, it's an overlay clip showing he's writing, but the text is a specific font. Drawings idk, but maybe similar. You can look at the letters - they're exactly the same.
Thank you, I just completed my undergraduate Ethics course, and needed this clarification.
"I love cards. I get tremendous cards. Best cards in the world, let me tell you." Hahaha
I have accused people of using the "T-Man Fallacy", which is a sort of reverse-straw-man. It's when you attack an opponent's argument, but then they change the original claim in order to accuse you of a straw-man. My favorite example (because I see it so often) is when I demonstrate that Christianity is like other world religions, only to be told that Christianity is a "relationship" or a "philosophy"rather than a religion. Since neither of these other positions is mutually-exclusive with it being a religion, they're simply trying to change the way it's perceived so they can make it look like my attacks hit a straw target despite my attempts to hit the real one. While not universally perceived as a logical fallacy, you can probably get why it is one, by the same logic of the straw-man.
+Supernova Kasprzak I believe I've seen this sort of thing described as a motte-and-bailey. I think it fits the analogy perfectly: slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
François-Guy Gallant
Thanks for the link.
I got the term "T-Man" from another TH-camr, but I like this term better... it makes a lot more sense. And the examples are so good. I've heard most of them myself.
While Supernova did make a video claiming that 0.999... ≠ 1 (and made several other videos about mathematics), he is different from most mathematical cranks in that Supernova genuinely is trying to seek the truth but disagrees with or is unaware of some of the foundational aspects of modern mathematics - he is willing to change his mind if presented a good argument.
He also has several very good videos on rational thinking, so I wouldn't agree with you calling him an "idiot."
***** Calling me an idiot doesn't further rational, reasonable argument -- it's an Argument from Ridicule. Also, trying to dismiss my argument by attacking me is Ad Hominem. Seriously, this is a video about logical argument, which is not the place for such attacks (assuming that _any_ place is the right place for logical fallacies).
That's called Moving the Goal Posts, and it is a pretty widely accepted fallacy.
The politics part is actually Red Herring, not Strawman. Similar, but different.
or a blatant attempt to mislead? He aint stupid! An unfortunate young sellout shill, Judas Goat 🤬
I think your example regarding the politician is more of Red Herring fallacy vs a Strawman.
+Ebon Shadow Informal fallacies are useful labels for common bad arguments. They often have a lot of conceptual overlap. E.g. Appeals to popularity and appeals to antiquity are both types of appeal to authority. Its not particularly useful to get bogged down in splitting and classifying them. But multiplying labels does help, because the more conceptual handles you have to recognize bad arguments, the easier it will be to spot them when they come up.
+Ebon Shadow I scrolled down to see if anyone else caught it. I agree!
That was the real point of the video, to mislead! He knows exactly what hes doing, he isnt smart at all, hes regurgitating something for someone else! I was looking for a particular Strawman video and all I can find are these youtube "Verified" ones 🙄
That was clear and well presented. Because of its ease of obfuscation, like you said, I hear it often. Thanks
A clear and straightforward video with excellent graphics. I haven't encountered this channel before, which is a real shame!
This was a great video! Thank you so much for posting! I really liked the clear examples you used. :)
I wish I knew what to do when someone uses the straw man in an argument. It’s honestly one of the most frustrating things when arguing with your significant other.
If you can identify that they have transitioned to a different argument, (instead of staying focused on the original one), then you can say, "Wait, this isn't what we were arguing about. Let's go back to the argument about, 'xyz' rather than changing the topic."
i appreciate your knowledge. i also really appreciate the phi in the logo and your use of phi in real time.
Good video, this is probably the most common fallacy I see (next to ad hominem attacks). If I say something like "misandry is a real social issue that needs to be addressed", I get a lot of responses like "it's disgusting that you're just going to ignore how often women and girls get abused by men." The argument that we should ignore male-on-female abuse is a strawman that has nothing to do with misandry being a social problem
I think the final example of a straw man is actually a red herring.
You are providing a great service here if people would just use it. We have to turn our friends and family on to this site as critical thinking skills are not taught in schools anymore in favor of ideology. It seems to be a generational thing.
No it’s not. If it were we wouldn’t STILL be explaining to boomers that Sex and Gender are not the same, but I suppose that should be expected from the generation that calls every single game console “The Nintendo”
Thank you for your clear and precise explanation.
Your videos are visually pleasing and very well thought out. Thank You
Really liked these examples. Especially the one about humans and apes I recognize being used often by people.
Totally going to reference this video all the time now. Nice. Also liked and subbed. Good content. Cheers
This is so well explained, thanks Wu!
Thanks man. Great piece. Scaffolded and rounded off. Feel better prepared to approach debates.
And then there's the straw man fallacy of being accused of committing a straw man fallacy when you haven't and they simply want to dismiss what you are saying but don't actually have a valid argument against it. This then draws the argument away from the actual argument, which the accusatory party is finding themselves losing, and into whether or not you are straw manning. Effectively dodging the subject of the debate entirely. Other effective methods of dodging a losing debate is personal attacks. Which the false accusation of straw manning also is. Get the opponent emotional with name calling and labels and drag them away from fact based debate into a school yard scream fest. Then, if you can't win even there and the opponent refuses to back down, accuse the opponent of being the one who first launched the personal attack, and declare victory claiming they were the ones who dodged the subject. If all this dodging and dragging fails accuse the opponent of being arrogant for staying cool through all the ploys and declare victory anyway.
The examples with the politician sound more like red herrings than strawmen.
+Chris Dethlefsen I'm inclined to agree. It fits Red Herring much better since it has distracted everyone from the original topic (or at least tries to). Straw manning would be distorting the original question into something like an attack on campaign funding.
+DarkdustDragon Also I should add that the first example with the argument on underage drinking seemed to have an is ought problem since the presmises were both is statements, but the conclusion was an ought, so it wouldn't wor because there is no ought to derive from in the premises. A better version of this argument I think would go like this.
P1: Advertisment for Beer encourages underage drinking
P2: Underage drinking often has negative consequences
P3: We ought to reduce these negative consequences.
C: Therefor advertisments for beer ought to be banned from TV.
Though I don't think that's a perfect fix, I think it works better because there is now an ought in the premises that the conclusion can derive.
Chris Dethlefsen Very true, though by adding a 3rd premise it is no longer a proper syllogism, since they must have exactly 2 premises.
Great video easy to understand and right to the point.
That’s the best explanation for straw man I’ve ever seen. Thank you
‘So what you’re saying is...’
I dealt with this stuff and call it out as manipulation. The denial from them is funny. Now i found the term to describe the action.
Very cool video!! I learned a little more what straw-man fallacies are. Also, it was very cool how the video is made. I really like the black background with the drawing animation.
Jose, thank u for endeavoring to simplify da concept with creative illustration.....I need to rewind your video at four times to internalize it.
The straw man fallacy is a clever form of lying and I’ve had some play that trick on me before. In instance, if I had a case at work with an established premise and a coworker or supervisor deliberately conjured a different premise as cause for dismissing my case, then for one I would be angry, but the correct response is to seek counsel with HR or a higher level supervisor to mediate the matter if it is one that needs to be resolved for me to continue doing my job effectively.
This is like the guide to be an MRA
Or to being a 3rd wave Feminist.
Or to being a feminist.
I like, how he switched the gender of the one committing the fallacy beginning with himself, so no feminist can attack his video :D
Can't argue with Name calling that always works and if that fails I just stomp my feet and cross my arms very sternly.
Thanks. This is a good video. Too few people are aware of and/or understand the Straw man fallacy.
critical thinking...i love it.. theorem and analysis...issss good.. good for my braineses.
straw person? Really? Are we that pc now?
What? Do you say only men can be straw men? Straw women should have the same chance to be a straw man, as straw man do. Or something like that
If it's a female straw man (straw women?) wouldn't that be endorsing violence against women?
Logan Attallah
Nah, it would be like everywhere else: If people have to be put in danger, you send in the men.
The women are just around so they can feel included and stop bitching....
#mansplaining #mysogynie #fuckhashtags #poeslaw
How is "man" racist?
@@loganatallah6558 that doesn't make any sense. How does that endorse violence against women? You know violence against women is taken seriously but violence against men is not taken seriously?
Great work with the video and explanation. Keep it up!
Very good video. You see this straw man fallacy often in politics or in advertizing. It´s like an argumentum ad hominen we see so often.
So you're saying ......
Can you do another vid called advanced strawman techniques for modern day cynics
Wonderfully done video-it makes clearer something i did not completely understand.Would you please create a video on what "Begging the Question" means? I have tried to understand this fallacy but can't ;you clearly could do an excellent job so,,,why not try to . THANX
Can you do a video for the principle of clarity? I think these two methods of argument should really be taught hand in hand.
I wish you had given some more tools as to counter the straw-man. Simply spotting it won't help in a boardroom situation for example
To counter you say that's a strawman followed by a short explanation as to why. If all else fails, knock their teeth out, kidding ;-)
I think it boils down to your charisma and the power dynamic in a given boardroom, although obvious to yourself and others, addressing a straw man could worsen your image in the company more so than allowing the straw man to slide.
Very good lesson, but I suspect that the anti beer advertising lady has motives far beyond her argument.
Most do
Straw Man Fallacy is kind of like Gaslighting. Great video.
As much as I try to understand this I will never understand it
I remember a guy claiming that evolution meant my grandad came from a rock
Kent Hovind 💪🏼
"thats an excellent question" classic Trudeau
Thank you for helping me understand Strawmanning.
Thank you for that, it was very helpful!
This is really good informative video. I agree that straw man arguments are weak arguments and do miss the point you are trying to make. However it is important to actively refute and prove why it misses the point. You have to try and get the other person to understand your viewpoint even if they don't agree with them. Effective communication does require both parties willing to seek to understand the other. If someone has a straw man argument that has some valid information it you are half way there to persuading them. You just have to acknowledge the valid information and add more to it and most likely some will come around to understanding your view.
I personally would never call someone's argument a strawman argument. Instead I would try to understand were they are coming from and then make my own points to attempt to get them understand myself. Effective Communication requires actively listening to someone and then seeking to be understood. Unfortunately way to many people seek to be understood and not understand.
So trolls use this as a tool/weapon?
Rivers Bliss indubitably
I like how people think so much of themselvs forgeting the fact that they can make mistakes as well. Yes, trolls use this fallacy but it doesn't matter that much considering the fact that you as well surelly use the strawman fallacy sometimes. Everyone does it. You could point it out to others, of course, but just when you're innocent and I bet you are not.
I like how you simplified this concept.
And?
how do you make a video with these graphics? I'm thinking of doing philosophy videos like this but don't know where to begin
You lost me at straw"person". I never look below my own comment.
Everyone in the comments claiming they’re going to go out and use this on other people. While I’m just looking forward to calling someone else out on using this tactic, whether it be purposely or unintentionally
A perfect example of a straw man fallacy!!!! As not everyone in the comments is claiming they are going to use this on other people! Good one Peter, be careful how you use this great power you have gained, with it comes great responsibility!
Thanks for the explanation , calmed my curiosity
Awesome explanation
Strawmen evolving into actual men? Where is all the half evolved strawmen...?
going to watch Gods not Dead 2?
Nothing but straw men there
I go to a private Christian school wherein the faculty is pretty excited for this movie. And here I'm wondering how there can be a second one.
I like it when you say "He has committed the strawman fallacy". It sends signals to characterise tingling sensations in my loins from my brain/NS
I also like how you don't explicitly say that some people commit the strawman fallacy because they are just plain dumb, which is true a lot of the time(due to not wanting to read and educate themselves and megalomania, as well as an overinflated ego they need to protect. Deadlius maximus) So polite
Beautiful explanation.. Thank you
Strawperson 😂
It's "straw man" and always will be. Forget that straw "person" nonsense.
great explanations and video, mate!
Great video: I like your unique use of video scribe.
Sounds exactly what mainstream media does all the time..
Straw person? But for this presence of the PC virus, not a bad presentation.
He did that for wo'person'
beautifully explained. thanks.
Watching politicians avoid answering the question over and over is the most frustrating thing ever
Sounds familiar... Trump?
Anyways, succinct explanation and well made video. Liked and subscribed.
But he is using his own personal funds
Also that example was Bernie sanders
As sad as I am to say it, I'm pretty sure Trump has to use his own money. I don't think the campaign funds would even cover his personal expenses =p
"...or Straw-Person fallacy". No. It's just straw-man. No need to politicize the term.
great video. thank you so much for this.
I can’t wait to watch this
Basically every argument from a liberal.
I am on the right side of politics. And you are correct the left use straw man arguments more than the right. But I do occatonally see right wing people do it. It's a human issue. But being left wing politics by its nature is contradictory and hypocritical it's just normal they would use straw man arguments to try support their politics and to try oppose anyone who points out their hypocracy.
@@barrystevens2699 Everyone uses fallacies, who uses it more is irrelevant, you just don't want to admit that your tribe is bad.
Brilliant explanation.
Thank you for sharing!
Good video, well explained.
Excellent video
Thank you for explaining that.
That moment that you realize that you are strawmanning even yourself.
great video! Keep up the good work