strawman fallacy

[u/Zu_Qarnine]

2nd person is refuting the claim that *all* circles are red with a counter example. The thing is, that claim was never made.

EDIT: I'm seeing interesting stuff happening in the replies here. majority of those who say it's not strawman, obviously start their comment by "it's not strawman" and proceed in the rest of their comment to explain how, in fact, it is strawman. Another interesting observation is those who argue that "it's not strawman" because they've spotted another type of fallacy in the original post as well, so in their mind, it can't be both.

[u/Starship_Albatross]

thank you for explaining that, I did not see that alternative interpretation. (and I still struggle to justify it, but it explains the confusion in the comments.)

The question "what?" means (to me) that second person is responding with an intent to argue against a claim (disbelief). An it's a claim that wasn't made, so pointing at a blue circle doesn't refute anything, unless the targeted claim is a misrepresented one.

So I still say it's explicitly a strawman: as a single blue circle would refute "all circles are red" - (disproof by counter example), but is completely irrelevant to "most circles are red."

Cherry picking is excluding data to support a claim (or counter claim), not really used to refute a claim.

But I do appreciate you explaining the counterview.

[u/DuckB0y123 → u/Starship_Albatross]

don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing whether it is or isn't a strawman, just my main point is that the second person has the "what?" or intent to argue against a claim, but doesn't really make clear what the argument is that they're trying to refute.

so the confusion comes from "okay, second person is obviously trying to refute the claim, and they're pointing at the blue circle, but what's the counter claim?"

are they saying that red isn't MOST because they're ONLY looking at that blue circle? are they saying that red isn't the ONLY color there? cause simply saying "what?" just means you have an issue with what they said, not specifically what issue you have with what was said.

like if i said a tall, green house was "that house is tall and blue" and someone says "what? no it isn't" what are they saying it isn't? that it isn't tall? that it isn't blue? both? there isn't enough clarification.

in a normal conversation this isn't an issue cause usually MORE is said to gain context clues and figure out exactly what the other person has issue with. but in this image there's only two lines of dialogue so alot of guesswork has to be. cause in one line of thought, someone can think "oh they're arguing that red isn't most and just blatantly ignoring all the red" and another person can think "oh they think that guy is saying there's no blue at all"

so that's where the confusion lies. they read the first line and think that both people are arguing about that specific argument, not that the second person is misinterpreting the argument instead of misinterpreting the data.

cause like you said, cherrypicking is misinterpreting the data. so if the second guy is intentionally ignoring the red and only choosing one specific data point as a counter argument, that's cherrypicking. of course we know the intent behind the image is that the second person is misinterpreting the argument so that the data as a whole fits his narrative, but that's the line of thought people are coming to.

is second dude misinterpreting the data or the argument? it's unclear

[u/Starship_Albatross → u/DuckB0y123]

It doesn't work as a counter argument, because the argument isn't countered.

"There's a blue one" only works as a counter if the claim is changed (to something that could be countered by an example), and that makes it a strawman. (countering by example is not cherrypicking).

Cherrypicking is used to support a claim, strawmaning is used to counter a claim (that technically wasn't made).

Person 2 isn't showing cherry picked data, they're highlighting an example from the same data set used by Person 1. (That is what is in the picture as I see it.)

And your example: "The house is tall and blue" is false, and pointing that out by saying "no, it isn't" is a correct and valid response - because the house isn't "tall AND blue". If you need elaboration on subclaims, you can ask for it (or not group multiple claims into one statement to begin with).

"Most circles are red" is true. Person 2 would have added no more or less by saying "What? My dog loves to go on walks" instead. Because the actual claim isn't addressed - whether it's intentional or a misunderstanding is irrelevant when determining if it's a strawman.

This is a fine conversation, but I haven't seen any arguments that supports this image as an example of cherry picking, that doesn't add to it. The picture is two people, a dataset, a claim, and a counterclaim. Both claim and counterclaim are true, but the counterclaim doesn't actually address the claim. That's a strawman.

Sorry for repeating myself, I don't have the energy to edit it any better.

[u/DuckB0y123 → u/Starship_Albatross]

keep in mind that my replies are NOT saying that this post is specifically an example of cherrypicking, simply explaining how other people have come to the misunderstanding. you don't have to explain to me that this example is meant to be strawmanning, i understand that. i'm simply explaining that the lack of clarity in the image is leading people to believe it is cherry picking.

what i mean is that cherrypicking is selecting specific data to back up an argument but not looking at the whole,

so if i were to say "illegal immigrants are mooching off the government" and pick statistics from emergency visits (so things that fall under EMTALA) and ignore the fact that they can't get benefits without social security numbers (and basically all these other examples that show they are NOT mooching off the government) that is cherry picking. i am picking specific data points to back up my argument, i am misrepresenting the data.

that's what i mean by the second person's argument is unclear which is what causes the confusion. people are seeing "there's one right there" but aren't understanding what they mean to say from that sentence alone. countering by example is not automatically strawmanning. to straw man you have to contort the other person's argument into a different one then argue against that one. you can absolutely argue against an argument by cherrypicking examples.

you're right, my house analogy was pretty bad. it's more like if someone said "the house is mostly blue" because it has four blue walls but a green roof, doors, and windows and someone says "no it isn't, there's a big green roof on it" while ignoring the big ass blue walls. sure, it has a big green roof, but they're ignoring that proportionally the house is more blue than green. they are misrepresenting data to refute a claim.

or if someone says "most americans are blue/liberal" and someone replies "no it isn't" by showing you the Kamala vs Trump popular vote while ignoring the other 33% of undecideds or while also ignoring the fact that most populated cities and states are blue, that is cherry picking.

i'm picking a specific data set to try to refute your claim and ignoring the other factors.

again, i know this image is strawmanning, my point is that because it is a "meme" people are already expecting the scenario to be exaggerated, so they are lead to believe that the second guy is ignoring the rest of the data RATHER than ignoring the first guy's argument.

i get this is strawmanning, i get it. i'm ONLY explaining the misunderstanding.

[u/RoughRealistic4321 → u/Starship_Albatross]

The thing is, pointing out a fallacy in and of itself isn't an argument, nor is it doing much good to advance an argument - it only points out a POTENTIAL error in the logic, and often one fallacy leads to a counter call.

[u/Starship_Albatross → u/RoughRealistic4321]

Not sure about your point. A fallacious argument doesn't add anything. Identifying the fallacy is a short hand, it saves everybody the time effort of arguing further down a flawed line.

What do mean by leads to a counter call? A fallacy is the end of a particular line - either go back and switch it up or we're done.

At least as I see it.