Advertisement

Topoi

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 431–440 | Cite as

Straw Men, Iron Men, and Argumentative Virtue

  • Scott F. Aikin
  • John P. CaseyEmail author
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The straw man fallacy consists in inappropriately constructing or selecting weak (or comparatively weaker) versions of the opposition’s arguments. We will survey the three forms of straw men recognized in the literature, the straw, weak, and hollow man. We will then make the case that there are examples of inappropriately reconstructing stronger versions of the opposition’s arguments. Such cases we will call iron man fallacies. The difference between appropriate and inappropriate iron manning clarifies the limits of the virtue of open-mindedness.

Keywords

Iron man fallacy Open-mindedness Straw man fallacy Weak man fallacy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aikin S (2008) Holding one’s own. Argumentation 22:571–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikin S, Casey J (2011) Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation 25:87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikin S, Clanton C (2010) Developing deliberative virtues. J Appl Philos 27(4):409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson A, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Ladwig P (2013) The “nasty effect:” online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19(3):373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baronett S (2008) Logic. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Bizer GY, Kozak SM, Holterman LA (2009) The persuasiveness of the straw man rhetorical technique. Soc Influ 4:216–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Bruin B (2013) Epistemic virtues in business. J Bus Ethics 113(4):583–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferkany M, Whyte KP (2011) The importance of participatory virtues in the future of environmental education. J Agric Environ Ethics 25(3):419–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Govier T (1997) A practical study of argument, 4e. Wadsworth, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Hare W (2003) Is it good to be open-minded? Int J Appl Philos 17(1):3–87Google Scholar
  13. Kitcher P (1982) Abusing science. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewinksi M (2011) Towards a critique-friendly approach to straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation 25:469–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewiński M, Oswald S (2013) When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account. J Pragmat 59:164–177Google Scholar
  16. Ribeiro B (2008) How often do we (philosophy professors) commit the straw man fallacy? Teach Philos 31:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scott K (2014) The political value of humility. Acta Polit 49:217–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Siegel H (1995) What price inclusion? Teach Coll Rec 97:6–31Google Scholar
  19. Talisse R, Aikin S (2008) Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation 20:345–352Google Scholar
  20. Talisse R, Raley Y (2008) Getting duped: how the media messes with your mind. Sci Am Mind 2008(Feb/March):16–17Google Scholar
  21. Tindale C (2007) Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Laar JA (2008) Room for maneuver when raising critical doubt. Philos Rhetor 41:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walton D (1998) Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  24. Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Walton D, Macagno F (2010) Wrenching from context: the manipulation of commitments. Argumentation 24:283–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyNortheastern Illinois UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options