Violating the principle of rational discussion is described in the Epstein text as “sometimes it seems the other person doesn’t understand what’s involved in rational discussion or is intending to mislead. And sometimes there’s not even an argument.” Under this, there are several different types of fallacies that are examples. One of which is the strawman fallacy. If you took comm. 20, I’m pretty sure this is the same fallacy as the straw figure. This fallacy is basically when you take someone else’s argument and basically reject it right away in order to make your argument appear more valid. One way to set up a strawman is to start your statement with “some say.”
For example:
“Some say that the illuminati doesn’t exist. However I disagree because I read that they secretly control everything and have all the power.”
Here, I completely rejected the argument that they don’t exist and led right into mine by saying "however, I disagree....". This fallacy is called straw man. I remember this because you just blow their argument down like you could a straw man.
Sadly there are not very many people to comment posts, so I guess I will have to do another post on the strawman haha! Personally I like the strawman fallacy. Although, reading your definition does not seem to match the defnition of strawman in the text, the text says the strawman is a way to knock down someone's argument and misinterpret it, or putting words in someone's mouth. Basically, the way I understand your post is knock down the person's argument by disagreeing, but I don't see the part about misinterpreting. A good example of this would be,
ReplyDeletePerson 1: You know, girls like when they are so muscular and handsome.
Person 2: Yeah, you are basically saying they're just going to have sex with a muscular and handsome man.
Person 1: Um... no? I was just saying girls are attracted to men like that.
Basically, person 2 put words in person 1's mouth and misinterpreted the argument. That's the way I see the strawman.