Quote:Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
source better source
Quote:Foxfyre wrote (after a fairly lengthy post re a true scientist's opinion related to global warming and concerns re some of the data submitted to date by the scientific community)
Quote:
It just seems to me that before we expend enormous national treasure, jeopardize the economy, and compromise our chosen lifestyles, we should make sure we're not basing policy on junk science. Remember that the scientific journals all once agreed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.
Note that my comment was appropriate for the post, the topic, and the question raised by it. The comment was to illustrate that a consensus of scientific opinion does not always universally settle a matter.
To which Blatham responded
Quote:
Expending enormous national treasure on killing, however, is not problematic. What's the appropriate term here? Junk compassion? Junk morality? Junk christianity?
Note there is no reference to the substance of my post, but a complete swerve off the topic to insert an attack re a totally different and unrelated subject.
To which Foxfyre responded
Quote:
I wonder if there will be a day on A2K that the Left doesn't build strawmen in lieu of actually discussing an issue.
OK. So the question is, did I advance a counterfeit of your argument in order to attack it instead? Well, what is or was your argument? Generally, that public policy decisions re the environment which have serious economic consequences ought to be prudently made using science that is up to snuff. Well, sure, but who'd argue against that?
I could have set up a counterfeit (a straw-man). I could have said..."Foxfyre wants every scientist in the world to agree that the related science is 100% certain and she wants every economist to agree that the costs of retaining the status quo will be significantly greater than instituting some Kyoto style mandated policy regimens." Of course, you didn't say that.
More exactly then, what did you say? You first noted some comments from a scientist (we get them second hand from you...fine, we'll trust you to duplicate him accurately) who had informed opinions on the matter. You then used the authority of his opinions (and that's a valid use of authority in itself) to argue that if there is such a range of disparity in opinion among the scientific community, then we ought to step very carefully because of the financial consequences. Again, what's to be argued against here? It sounds entirely reasonable.
But what if your scientist you bumped into had said the opposite (as many scientists do)...that the evidences have become, in his view, now so compelling that human activity, if continued, present a high probability of serious and potentially severe consequences to the world's low altitude coastal areas due to sea level rise and the liklihood, or high possibility, of massive agricultural disruptions broadly across the world from temperature/rainfall changes over the next fifty years? What if your conversation was overheard by an economist and he sat down to join you in conversation and he began projecting the possible dollar costs of, say, large social disruptions (famines, disease, war for resources, destabilized governments, etc). What then if a minister joined you too, and what if he pointed out the moral discrepancy between millions of dead in the third world even while we, here, insisted on not "compromising our chosen lifestyles" (large SUVs with purple leather seats, massive waste and pollution, fostering child labor and oppressive if stable local governments,
Which is the better argument? There's no correct answer to that question because of the "if" component. But having argued numerous issues with you previously, I have certainty approaching 100% that you will simply not veer appreciably from whatever Bush and his administration say about the science, about the probabilities, and about economics. You set up your argument such that it sounds reasonable, and it is so far as the "if" portions remain uninvestigated or unchallenged, but you can't be counted on to do the second step with any integrity. Sorry, that's just true. If Bush says the costs will be too damaging, you'll say that too. If Bush says that he's changed his mind and some damages will be likely and we ought to tighten our belts to prepare, you'll say that too. If Bush says X is good science and Y is junk science, you'll say that too. Your position is entrenched, running in tandem with your chosen Authority, and argument with you becomes an exercise in time-wasting.
So what do I do, or what does someone else do, when you forward such an 'argument' in this community? There seems to be nothing for it but to point to the inconsistencies, fallacies, and ommissions in what you write and argue. And to point to the same failings in the words and policies or you chosen Authority. That's not an example of straw-man. It's not even an example of ad hominem.
One hopes to shake you out of your intellectual subservience but failing that, one strives to demonstrate that you get lots wrong as a consequence of that subservience and that much of it represents a serious danger to liberty and justice and democracy for the community.
So, when you throw out the threat of "expending enormous national treasure" from worrying about and belt-tightening to prevent the possibility of, say, the unimaginable suffering around the world's coastal regions which might soon arise, then I'll contrast that with the REALITY of "expending enormous national treasure" to mount an unecessary and deeply dangerous war which will/has blown thousands of innocent children and women to hell.
