Listener Feedback: Dorothy and Her Straw Man
Today we're going to dip once again into Skeptoid's Listener Feedback mailbag. One of the common themes among my disapproving pieces of feedback is the straw man argument. If you're not familiar with this term, a straw man is easy to knock down. If your opponent's argument is strong, attack a straw man instead: construct a ridiculous caricature of what your opponent said — an obviously absurd point that's trivial to attack — and make yourself seem brilliant by attacking it. It is with some pride that I note how prevalent straw men are in the negative feedback that I get; it shows that what I actually did say usually stands up pretty well to scrutiny.
Let's get started with a couple of good straw man arguments from Jules in Point Place, Nebraska. Jules heard the episode on organic food myths and offered the following feedback:
I don't recall asserting that there are "hordes of organic voodoo witch doctors trying to destroy McDonald's", though I do appreciate the colorful imagery. If I'd said anything like this, of course I'd make myself sound ridiculous. So he begins by attributing the statement to me. I knew more was coming, and it did. He suggests that force feeding me organic food would terrorize me as if it were the end of the world. This comment pretty nearly exactly misstates what I said, which is that there's nothing at all wrong with organic food, and that it's a fine product. It's nearly impossible these days to go to the supermarket and buy a cart full of staples without some of it bearing the magical marketing label "organic", so I can confidently state that I eat organic food all the time. Jules' straw man is not only evident from comparing it to my actual text, but also by its glaring absurdity. This is a straw man that's not even artful.
What I did say is that organic food is no better than the regular food it pretends to transcend, and I produced plenty of evidence to back that up. By completely dodging the actual content of my episode, all Jules accomplished in the end was to illustrate that valid arguments against what I said are hard to come by.
Jarek from Kettering, Ohio also made a straw man argument against my episode about Stalin's alleged human-ape hybrid soldiers, supposedly developed by the famous Russian biologist Il'ya Ivanov, known for his dramatic improvements to the techniques for artificially inseminating farm animals, at a tough economic time when Russia really needed such help. However, the closest Ivanov ever came to creating human-ape hybrids was a proposal (never put into action) where he hoped to artificially inseminate African women with ape sperm at a clinic without their knowledge. Jarek said:
I went carefully back through the text of my episode and couldn't find anything that could possibly be considered an expression of support for Ivanov's atrocious ethics; nor would such a discussion have been relevant to the subject matter. Jarek didn't appear to disagree with my conclusion, that the creation of such hybrids probably never happened; it's almost as if he just was trying to make me sound bad. Not only was it a straw man argument, it was something of an ad-hominem attack: I'm wrong about my history of Ivanov because I have questionable ethics. Jarek, whatever I think of Ivanov's ethics is not germaine to the question of whether Stalin ever actually made human-ape hybrid soldiers.
Ally wrote in response to the Wacko of the Week in one of my email newsletters, Dr. Russell Blaylock. In addition to speaking out against the flu vaccine, Blaylock is a conspiracy theorist who has written about aspartame being part of a government plot to dumb down the population. Ally said:
I went back to the newsletter to see what Christian broadcasting had to do with anything. I said: "Although most of his media appearances have been confined to Christian broadcasting, he also has three books out warning of the dangers of science based medicine." Does that mean I think all Christians are morons? Clearly that's a non-sequitur, so her charge that I'm "against him" because he is "affiliated with Christian broadcasting" is a straw man. I said nothing of the kind. Nor would I, because that's got nothing to do with the bogus science he promotes. Ally, I'm not against Christians or Christian broadcasters. I oppose his dissemination of flagrantly untrue medical information that compels honest people like yourself to undergo costly, unnecessary (and potentially dangerous) medical procedures, like having your fillings removed; and to convince you that it's dangerous for children to be immunized against infectious disease. If you want to argue against those points, then you'll have to do a lot better than simply asserting your claims. Do as I did, and back it up with legitimate science.
Straw man arguments are sometimes made by accident, when you fail to adequately inform yourself on what your opponent has actually said or written. Greg from London made such a straw man attack on my episode about the Fatima miracle of the sun, where a large crowd of Catholics thought they saw the sun dance around extraordinarily, but nobody else in the vicinity outside of the crowd noticed anything. Greg wrote:
He's saying that I was deliberately dishonest in my analysis of the event in that I covered up the fact that newspapers reported it. Not true. My actual words were "Photographs and articles plastered the newspapers of the world" and "Newspaper accounts estimated between 30,000 and 100,000 worshipers gathered", and much of the episode was spent on analysis of some of the photographs published in the newspaper accounts. Greg either didn't listen very carefully, or more likely did like many do who are personally offended by my take on a given subject: They read just enough to discover that I'm not supporting their viewpoint, then they skip straight to the comment section and post their admonishment. If you don't want your position to be a straw man, you'd better be familiar with what you're arguing against.
Here's another straw man from Nelson, is response to a student questions episode:
No, Nelson, I don't argue that they, or anyone else, are snake oil salesmen because of their membership in an organization consisting of MDs. If that was my argument, then I would indeed be pretty silly and easy to refute. Being a member of an organization is not what makes someone wrong; being wrong is what makes them wrong. The rest of Nelson's message was familiar anti-Pharma rhetoric; a few anecdotes about shady business practices of pharmaceutical companies, and an anecdote or two about alternative medicine accomplishing miraculous cures. Nelson continued:
Another straw man. If Nelson had stayed in medical school, he'd have learned there is much unknown to pharmaceutical science. We don't consider every drug to be snake oil when there is something about its mechanism we don't understand; that's the case with many drugs on the market. We consider them snake oil when they're proven not to work, yet quacks sell and promote them anyway — often using anecdotes very much like those in his post.
Keep that feedback coming!
Cite this article:
Copyright ©2018 Skeptoid Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.