RESUMPTION OF SPEECH – STRAW MAN FALLACY
The term straw man fallacy refers to a specfic instance of a broader phenomenon: the resumption and representation of discourse and meaning.
The argumentative space is an interactive and textual arena organized around an argumentative question. Within this space, co-oriented, anti-oriented, and third-party discourses articulate and overlap. Argumentative interventions constantly refer to and influence each other in various ways, ranging from explicit quotation, to more or less distorted repetition and reformulation, to the most allusive expression.
1. Resumption of speech
1.1 Direct, explicit quotation
An explicit quotation is expressed in a passage between quotation marks, it includes its space-time coordinates, so as to construct an unambiguous object: who said what, when and where.
Explicit quotations can be rejected by showing that they are incomplete, unduly decontextualized, or misunderstood by the author of the quotation, see authority; circumstances. Accordingly, an interpretive stasis may arise over what the text really means and what the author has really said. It may be argued that a direct quotation is already an interpretation, and an indirect quotation certainly is, see interpretation.
In the case of a direct quotation, the source text exists.
The term « straw man fallacy » refers to a specific instance of a broader phenomenon: the resumption and representation of discourse and meaning.
The argumentative space is an interactive and textual arena organized around an argumentative question. Within this space, co-oriented, anti-oriented, and third-party discourses articulate and overlap. Argumentative interventions in this space constantly refer to and influence each other in various ways, ranging from explicit quotation to more or less distorted repetition and reformulation to the most allusive expression.
1. Resumption of speech
1. Direct, explicit quotation
An explicit quotation is expressed in a passage between quotation marks and includes its space-time coordinates to construct an unambiguous object: who said what, when, and where.
However, explicit quotations can be rejected if they are incomplete, decontextualized, or if the author of the quotation has misunderstood them. Consequently, there may be an interpretive stasis over what the text really means and what the author has really said.
One could argue that a direct quotation is already an interpretation; certainly, an indirect quotation is see « interpretation. »
In the case of a direct quotation, the source text exists. In the case of an indirect quotation, however, the following cases, the very existence of such a text is problematic.
1.2 Indirect quotation
An indirect quotation of a position is presented by the speaker as a reformulation that paraphrases or rephrases the original statement, it in order to clarify its meaning and intent. An indirect quotation may be dismissed as tendentious or ludicrous if it proposes an unfair reinterpretation of the original position by implying something that was never said, see Orientation;Epitrope; Prolepsis
1.3 Allusion
An allusion to another discourse is merely a trace that allows one to roughly locate the source discourse, without the possibility of identifying the author or the work. Its vague character is its best guarantee against contradiction, and a veil of mystery suits some kinds of authority well.
2. Anticipating contradictions
The discourse can also be attributed to a voice staged in a polyphonic space. This is seen in the case of anticipated objections, see interaction; prolepsis.
3. Straw Man
The discrepancy between what the quoted party says and what the quotation makes them say form the basis for the fallacy known as the straw man or scarecrow fallacy.
An irrefutable rebuttal must relate to what the other person actually said, see relevance. This requirement has a clear meaning in the case of written and referenced statements. In ordinary discourse, no statement is completely out of context, and its meaning is always open to interpretation. Therefore, it is often unclear whether someone has said something in full. In an argumentative situation, what the other person has actually said is not a prerequisite but an issue in the argument, not a prerequisite.
The straw man fallacy is a charge of malicious misrepresentation of the divergent discourse. The phrase is a metaphor for straw man, which literally refers to:
a mass of straw formed to resemble a man. (Thes., Straw man).
As a metaphor, a straw man is:
1. a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily refuted.
2. a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction (Merriam-Webster, Straw man).
Given meaning (1), the straw man or scarecrow strategy is a tendentious, repulsive, and self-refuting, reformulation, of a previously statement.
Given meaning (2), the straw man strategy corresponds to a position that obscures the speaker’s true position. Such a position is advanced in order to mislead the public or the speaker’s opponents on a false track, see red herring.