 |
| TTGonline: Lausanne, Switzerland: January 2018... |
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Tin Man October 17 2016
Pire reasons this has also been called the 'Tin Man' fallacy as in the Tin Man, from the Wizard of Oz (1939) has no heart. (93). This is opposed to the 'Straw Man' fallacy. (93). The Straw Man fallacy will be discussed in a future entry, but it misrepresents an opponent's position, and then knocks that misrepresented position down. (193).
---
The straw man fallacy occurs when one misrepresents an opponent's position; this is created to knock down the opponent's position. (193).
Example from my Columbia Bible College experience (Paraphrased).
Student: You do not hold to Mennonite non-resistance and pacifism.
Student: You support the maintaining of law and order through state force (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2).
Student: You support 'just war.'
Student: Therefore, you support 'preventive war', under the guise of 'just war', theory.
Undergrad Russ: No, I clearly stated that I do not support, 'preventive war' theory. Nor do I think every war defined by governments as 'just war' is always a just war.
Student; Yes, you do.
Undergrad Russ: No, I clearly do not based on what I have stated. You are twisting the terminology I have used. Further, you should not be attempting to tell me what I believe.
---
The student misrepresented my law and order and just war position as equating with preventive war theory. This student built a straw man.
---
Traditionally, the straw man deliberately overstates an opponent's position. (193). This was done by my opponent at Columbia Bible College. The adversary is portrayed as the extremist. (193).
As was I in my example, as I did not hold to the classic Anabaptist/Mennonite position.
The real position of the opponent is not adequately reasoned with when this fallacy is used. (193).
This will be frequently used in religion and philosophy debates.
At church a few months ago, a teacher and proponent of incompatiblism stated to me that 'You do not want to be a compatibilist', as he implied that equated to a hard determinist. In other words, anyone that holds to any form of determinism is a hard determinist.
This is academically and philosophically, false and a misrepresentation of my position. I explained:
Incompatibilism
There can be no antecedent (prior) conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Feinberg (1994: 64). With this view, freedom is incompatible with contingently sufficient nonsubsequent conditions of an action. The contingently sufficient nonsubsequent actions would be God making people in such a way that they only freely did one thing or another. Feinberg (1994: 60).
Hard determinism v Soft determinism/Compatibilism
Within hard determinism God (theistic model) would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism God would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause.
Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. Pojman (1996: 596). Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).
Technically, hard determinism and soft determinism/compatibilism are not defined identically and in fact have significant differences.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.
