I understand most logical fallacies as I have taken classes on them and by the fact that I am usually a natural when it comes to catching errors in argumentation, but there are two (so far) logical fallacies that I am having a hard time grasping.

What is a straw man?

AND

What does "begging the question" mean?

AND

Provide good examples and unpretentious explanations.

__________________
You don't have to pretend to like someone just because you are voting for him.

I didn't know what they were either until moments ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

The "straw man" argument is much clearer now, and I understand "begging the question" better, too.

__________________
You don't have to pretend to like someone just because you are voting for him.

The strawman tactic basically amounts to taking a persons real position, formulating a distorted false position based on thier original position, then attacking the false position. Hence the name of the fallacy - the false position, or strawman, is much easier to attack than the person's real position. Here are a number of examples:

1. A: Darwin's theory of evolution asserts that human beings developed after a long process of change, from pre-hominid ancestors who are also the source for our primate relatives - chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.. If Darwin's theory is correct, then we can no longer assert with such arrogance that we are above the animals: rather, human beings and human intelligence are simply different, but related results of the same evolutionary process that has produced the rest of the animal kingdom.

B: A is espousing the ridiculous claim that human beings are descended from baboons, and are first cousins of orangutans and chimpanzees. But this - and Darwin - is clearly nonsense. So clearly, God's word reveals the truth of human origins: we are created in the image of God.

2. A: "Those of our people who are forced by circumstances beyond their control to rely on Social Security and government support such as Aid to Dependent Children, Food Stamps, etc. - these victims of an anarchistic economy are now faced with a second threat to their very existence: their already minimal benefits are now being reduced by inflation.

If we are morally committed to supporting these people in the first place, then we must support them consistently: either we approve the proposed increase in Social Security and government support - or we simply turn our backs on those who are unable to help themselves."

B: "A represents naive liberals who only steal the taxpayer's hard-earned money - and throw it away on the idle. This is robbery - and I oppose it.

3. A: The Soviets have shown their intention to abide by arms-control agreements. Of the fourteen arms-control treaties we have negotiated with the Soviets, - all fourteen have been upheld. The next stage in arms-control - the SALT II treaty - is the necessary next step towards actual reduction of nuclear weapons. The treaty provides for a balance of weapons acceptable both to this administration and the Soviet Union. Your ratification of this treaty will be remembered as a significant step towards freeing our children and grandchildren from the spectre of nuclear holocaust.

B: A is simply a naive fool who refuses to see what the Soviets are doing this very day in Afghanistan, in Poland, and in Central America. Treaties with such a nation are meaningless and we are fools to sign them.

4. A: It's not fair that when doing the same work and with the same qualifications, women are paid only $ .70 for every $1.00 that men are paid.

Isn't it reasonable to expect that in equivalent jobs, with equivalent work experience and education, that your sex should have no impact on your salary?

B: Of course not! Everyone knows that bosses go easier on women and what they do. Besides girls are physically smaller and weaker than men, so they need to be protected from the real world.

5. A: The NFL should follow the NCAA in banning the use of anabolic steriods among its players. Prolonged steroid use has proven to be harmful with such side-effects as liver disfunction, cancer, heart ailments, and hormone imbalance. I hope that in the end the NFL will realize that the health of its athletes is the most important issue.

B: A is nothing more than a purist who would have us go back to the days of leather helmets. Doesn't he realize that this is the '80's? Sports technology has given athletes a chance to develop themselves to their maximum potential. He would deny them this opportunity? An athlete owes it to himself to be the best he can be. If he wants to compete, he'll have to use steroids because every other athlete does.

6. A: America needs to be active in the fight against AIDS. It is reaching out to affect more and more Americans every day. AIDS, after all, can be contracted simply from a splash of contaminated blood onto broken skin. By 1990, researchers estimate that more than 5% of AIDS victims will be heterosexuals in long-term,monogamous relationships. We must enact legislation that will make funds available as soon as possible to find a cure for this disease.

B: A is just a "do-gooder" liberal/atheist who rejects God and the Bible. The people who have AIDS are suffering God's punishment for the sin of homosexuality. Helping these people would be to defy God.

7. A: Abortion is wrong because it is the murder of human life. A child in the womb has as much right to live as any child outside the womb. A fetus has most all of his human features intact before birth, and even kicks his mother.

B: The fact that a fetus kicks gives no sign that it is human. A cow kicks - does that mean it is human, and we shouldn't eat beef? Abortion is OK because a fetus is not yet human.

8. A: Abortion is wrong because it is the murder of human life. A child in the womb has as much right to live as any child outside the womb. A fetus has most all of his human features intact before birth and even kicks his mother.

B: A opposes abortion because s/he claims it is murder. But this is absurd. We often let newborn children die because of gross deformity or medical problems such as spinal bifida. And we kill thousands more in the womb each year by allowing mothers to smoke, drink, or use drugs. Abortion may be murder - but it is no worse than the thousand other murders we commit each day without thinking. If A is really opposed to murder, let him/her stop the wars in Central America and Afghanistan - and put an end to the nuclear arms race while s/he is at it!



Begging the question is just another term for circular reasoning. A premise to the argument is the same thing as what is to be proved in the argument. In a logical argument, the premises are logical (true or false) statements used to support a given claim. The premises themselves must be already proven true for the argument to work. So if a premise (support) to an argument is the same thing as the conclusion (claim) of an argument, nothing has been proved. Some examples:

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "I can vouch for her."

This restaurant serves the best food in the town, because it has the best chef. It has attracted the best chef because it has the best reputation. It has the best reputation because the chef cooks the best food.

Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being and as such is murder. Murder is illegal. So abortion should be illegal.

This painting is trash because it is obviously worthless.

When President Bush repeatedly suggested during the run-up to the invasion that Saddam Hussein, because of his hatred of the U.S., would be likely to give weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to al-Quaida, he was assuming a cooperative relationship between Hussein and al-Quaida, as well as assuming that Hussein actually did have WMDs. But what he needed to prove in order to justify the invasion was that Hussein had WMDs and/or that Hussein had a cooperative relationship with al-Quaida. Those were precisely the issues under contention, but his arguments for invasion always treated them as the premises, as if they were already proven.

Hope this helps.

There's a great example of a straw man in the thread about urine testing welfare recipients for illegal substances.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Straw man is basically--attacking the opposing view by distorting or exaggurating it.---It's also called "Fallacy of Extension" which makes more sense.
For example: Evolution is the idea that at one time fish gave birth to men...that's a ridiculous thing to think, isn't it?


Begging the question is using the asumption that a conclusion is true as the premise for the argument in favour of that conclusion.

Example: God is real because the Bible says God is real, and the Bible is God's word and therefore must always be true.

Hope those weren't too pretentious for you :P

__________________
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."~Mark Twain

^ I think this explanation of evolution does a pretty good job...


I argue very fallaciously sometimes...

__________________
"Duty is the most sublime word in our language. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less." - Robert E. Lee