Advertisement

Don’t Feed the Trolls: Straw Men and Iron Men

  • Scott Aikin
  • John Casey
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 28)

Abstract

Typically, philosophers consider the straw man a fallacy of relevance, inasmuch as one attacks a distorted, and hence irrelevant, version of an opponent’s argument. As some of recent work has shown, however, there is more to the problem of straw manning than the distortion of an opponent’s argument and hence more to the issue than relevance.

Keywords

Ontological Argument Weak Argument Terrible Thing Music Teacher Closing Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aikin, S., & Casey, J. (2011). Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation, 25, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bizer, G. Y., Kozak, S. M., & Holterman, L. A. (2009). The Persuasiveness of the Straw Man Rhetorical Technique. Social Influence, 4, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Elliot, D. (2011). GOP splits up for weekend conferences. NPR Weekend Edition. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/18/137265773/gop-splits-up-for-weekend-conferences.
  4. Govier, T. (1997). A practical study of argument, 4e. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  5. Lewinksi, M. (2011). Towards a critique-friendly approach to straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation, 25, 469–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ribeiro, B. (2008). How often do we (Philosophy Professors) commit the straw man fallacy? Teaching Philosophy, 31, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Talisse, R., & Aikin, S. (2008). Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation, 20, 345–52.Google Scholar
  8. Talisse, R., Raley, Y. (2008). Getting duped: how the media messes with your mind. Scientific American Mind. January/February.Google Scholar
  9. Tindale, C. (2007). Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkenmans, F. S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (2004.) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R.u (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. van Eemeren, F. & Houtlosser, P. (2007). The contextuality of fallacies. Informal Logic, 27, 59–67.Google Scholar
  14. Laar, V., Albert, J. (2008). Room for Maneuver when raising critical doubt. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41, 195–211.Google Scholar
  15. Walton, D. (1989). Informal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Walton, Douglas (1996). The Straw Man Fallacy. Logic and Argumentation. Ed. Johan van.Google Scholar
  17. van Bentham, J., van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Veltman, F. (1996). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, North Holland. 115–128.Google Scholar
  18. Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  19. Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2010). Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Argumentation, 24, 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  21. Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations