Page 61 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 61
fallacies: do we ‘use’ them or ‘commit’ them? ...
and what stereotypical really means (how it is defined)). But what MEP 3
might have said could in no way be described as generalization: she was
simply comparing her own behaviour with what she sees (herself, not ‘pub-
lic opinion’ or ‘vox populi’) to be typical of male politicians. She is therefore
expressing her own opinion, not in any way a general one.
But Wodak goes even further in her analysis (or ‘analysis’): MEP 3 isn’t
just guilty of ‘stereotypical generalization’, she is also ‘setting up a straw-
man fallacy’, in other words, MEP 3 has deliberately, intentionally con-
structed a fallacy.
I have already touched the difference between intentionally and unin-
tentionally ‘producing’ fallacies in the previous section. A few words now
about the Straw-man fallacy for which—in my opinion—we could use al-
most the same caveat Hamblin used for Secundum Quid: Straw-man fallacy
is an ever-present and unavoidable possibility in practical situations. Why?
Let us have a look at few ‘popular’ definitions that are available online:
(Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-
man.html) The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person
simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distort-
ed, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
And here is a more detailed definition:
(Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) The straw
man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
(1) Person A has position X.
(2) Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents
the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted
version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
(2.1) Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s posi-
tion and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the
opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
(2.2) Quoting an opponent’s words out of context—that is,
choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual
intentions.
(2.3) Presenting someone who defends a position poorly
as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments—thus
61
and what stereotypical really means (how it is defined)). But what MEP 3
might have said could in no way be described as generalization: she was
simply comparing her own behaviour with what she sees (herself, not ‘pub-
lic opinion’ or ‘vox populi’) to be typical of male politicians. She is therefore
expressing her own opinion, not in any way a general one.
But Wodak goes even further in her analysis (or ‘analysis’): MEP 3 isn’t
just guilty of ‘stereotypical generalization’, she is also ‘setting up a straw-
man fallacy’, in other words, MEP 3 has deliberately, intentionally con-
structed a fallacy.
I have already touched the difference between intentionally and unin-
tentionally ‘producing’ fallacies in the previous section. A few words now
about the Straw-man fallacy for which—in my opinion—we could use al-
most the same caveat Hamblin used for Secundum Quid: Straw-man fallacy
is an ever-present and unavoidable possibility in practical situations. Why?
Let us have a look at few ‘popular’ definitions that are available online:
(Nizkor Project: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-
man.html) The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person
simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distort-
ed, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
And here is a more detailed definition:
(Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) The straw
man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
(1) Person A has position X.
(2) Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents
the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted
version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
(2.1) Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s posi-
tion and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the
opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
(2.2) Quoting an opponent’s words out of context—that is,
choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual
intentions.
(2.3) Presenting someone who defends a position poorly
as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments—thus
61
