Ranthropologist

Category: Critical Thinking

  • Conspiracism

    Conspiracism

    As we begin a new year and approach a presidential election, I find myself wondering if the polarizing ideological conflicts that convulse our nation are going to become more extreme. I have read articles talking about how people used to be able to differ politically without also, apparently, hating each other. Yet today’s ideological differences are expressing themselves much less as reasoned disagreements than they are as vitriolic and insult-laden shouting matches, whether between televised talking heads or anonymous keyboard warriors. Rather than engaging in civil and open-minded debate, people align themselves with one position and cling to it ferociously, even in the face of rational arguments and clear facts to the contrary. I believe much of this has to do with the double-edged ease with which information now flows to people from so many different sources. I say double-edged because for every factual piece of information, there is a converse piece of utter nonsense, and because people are so easily swayed by their own confirmation bias (and I am not immune!) they find what they seek and then guard their bit of “proof” as tenaciously as a mother bear guarding her cubs.

    One of the reasons I keep this blog is because I am practicing being a better critical thinker. No one is immune from logical fallacies, but by writing about them (and, I hope, making them familiar to others), I hope to keep them at the forefront of my mind when I am confronted by new information and, especially, differences of opinion. I am just as likely as anybody else to scoff at a headline or article that does not align with what I already (want to) believe; but with practice, I am learning to recognize these errors and try to overcome them. So, I try to remember to fact-check ideas even if they support my point of view. I explore further when I am confronted with information that refutes what I already believe. I am especially cautious about sources that I know to be ideologically aligned with what I already think – in other words, just because an article comes from Mother Jones or Think Progress or Vox, I am still responsible for approaching it critically. There are certain sources I have stopped consulting, even though they purport to be progressive or liberal, because I have found with investigation that they are exaggerating, distorting, or omitting the facts. No side is blameless when it comes to this practice, so you always have to be cautious. Of course, when a preponderance of the evidence supports a point of view, like any good scientist I am going to be supportive of that view. This is simple enough when dealing with factual information, but less so when it comes to opinions and interpretations. Still, if you have the facts to support the opinion, the ground becomes pretty solid. And, I am more than happy to debate with people who can logically and rationally employ (sometimes the same) facts and come up with a different conclusion. That is what good civil discourse is all about.

    But now for the crux of this post: people whose beliefs in support of their ideologies have become so irrational and paranoid that no amount of countering factual information will possibly sway them. This way of thinking is called conspiracism, in contrast with rationalism. Do I mean to imply that conspiracism is irrational? Absolutely – but don’t try telling a conspiracist that. Just like belief in the supernatural, conspiracism is not subject to logical testing because there is always an answer to your rational counter-argument. As I noted above, every person is prone to using logical fallacies, but conpiracism elevates it to an art form. No lapse of logic is off-limits in defense of the conspiracy. You have a news account or article that refutes the conspiracist’s argument? That’s from the lame-stream media – you can’t trust them! Ask the conspiracist for factual proof in support of their hypothesis? I can’t show you – THEY are powerful and THEY don’t want us to know! Question the validity and objectivity of the conspiracist’s source? Of course s/he isn’t affiliated with a university or research institution or respected media outlet – OTHER people got rid of them because they were threatened by the truth s/he discovered! Just like people defending their belief in God, conspiracists have an answer for everything. Here are a few other characteristics of your typical conspiracist, courtesy of Michael Shermer’s wonderful book Why People Believe Weird Things (1997, p. 206):

    1. Absolute certainty they have the truth.
    2. America is controlled to a greater or lesser extent by a conspiratorial group. In fact, they believe this evil group is very powerful and controls most nations. (My addition: or, the conspiratorial group may be the government itself).
    3. Open hatred of opponents. Because these opponents (actually “enemies” in the extremists’ eyes) are seen as a part of or sympathizers with “The Conspiracy,” they deserve hatred and contempt. (My addition: the contempt often takes the form of the epithet “sheeple,” to describe people who aren’t “smart enough” to recognize the conspiracy – they are sheep).
    4. Little faith in the democratic process. Mainly because most believe “The Conspiracy” has such influence in the U.S. government, and therefore extremists usually spurn compromise.
    5. Willingness to deny basic civil liberties to certain fellow citizens, because enemies deserve no liberties.
    6. Consistent indulgence in irresponsible accusations and character assassination.

    It’s no coincidence that at least five of these characteristics seem to apply to that idol of the far right, Donald Trump! (The only one I’m not sure of is number 2.) But at the same time, I want to be clear that conspiracism is not limited to those on the political right. Whether you are anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, or anti-fur, or a Birther, a Truther, or a Holocaust denier, there is enough conspiracism to cover the entire spectrum of ideologies. We can even include non-political conspiracists like flat-Earthers! Not every conspiracist has all the characteristics listed above, but it only takes adherence to a few. And these aren’t the only typical characteristics. Conspiracists believe that they are special. They, in amongst all the sheeple, have been able to resist the lies. Only they have the mental toughness and intelligence to recognize the truth. They are immune to the conspiracy, and they may even be in danger because of their special knowledge – which is why they really can’t tell you how they know what they know. They are members of an exclusive club of the super-smart, the super-aware, and the super-prepared. They can’t be fooled. Just imagine what a powerful feeling this must be, and maybe it starts to make sense why some people become adherents of conspiracism.

    I don’t really have a point to end on here. Mostly, I’m dismayed at how widespread at least some degree of conspiracism has become. And let me stress that I’m not saying that I think every person who disagrees with me is a conspiracist! In fact, most of the people with whom I discuss opposing ideas do not fall into this category; or at least, they only exhibit one or two of the characteristics from the list. And I do have reason for hope. I frequently change my stance in light of new information, and I know other people do, too. Just this morning, I read this wonderful quote from one of my science heroes, Alfred Russel Wallace:

    Truth is born into this world only with pangs and tribulations, and every fresh truth is received unwillingly. To expect the world to receive a new truth, or even an old truth, without challenging it, is to look for one of those miracles that do not occur.

    A few days ago, a friend of mine and I civilly debated someone on her Facebook feed about an issue we feel passionately about (appropriation of Native American culture). He wasn’t buying our arguments, but the next day he posted on the original thread to say he’d done some reading and research of his own, and he had changed his mind. Moments like this give me hope – and I think when people are approached with civility and friendliness, when they aren’t insulted or bullied or accused but are instead invited to spell out their differences – well, when that happens, miracles CAN occur.

  • Facts and Fauxpinions

    Facts and Fauxpinions

    A few days ago a friend linked to an article on my Facebook page and asked “is this you?” I read the article, titled “No, It’s Not Your Opinion. You’re Just Wrong,” and laughed. I laughed at first because it sounded like something I would say, and I laughed as I read the article because it made a serious point in a humorous way. This is not just a Daily Read post because I want to expand on some of the things mentioned in the article. I suggest reading it first, because the author, Jef Rouner, makes beautiful work out of distinguishing between facts and opinions. The point of this post, inspired by Rouner, is to provide a discussion of some of the critically important concepts he addresses.

    I continue to feel concerned about the availability of so much information through the internet. Our ability to do a Google search and open ourselves to a world of knowledge is a wonderful thing, but it has a dark side. I’m not going to harp on the point here since I’ve addressed it many times before, but a lot of the problem comes from an inability to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and lies, data and anecdote, science and snake-oil. Human beings are pattern-seeking animals. We deploy motivated reasoning to justify our beliefs and choices. We are easily bamboozled by sophisticated nonsense. We are prone to a whole host of logical fallacies, a subject I’ve only barely managed to skim so far. We tend to stop cold on our quest for knowledge when we come across a source that backs up what we already want to believe, and scoff at or dismiss information that refutes our beliefs; that is, we fall prey, sometimes willingly, to confirmation bias. And we will reject the arguments of others by throwing out a few non-arguments in response: “I’m entitled to my opinion.” “I’m allowed to have my beliefs.” “I have the right to free speech.” Aside from the fact that these statements are not actually arguments but are instead information-free, knee-jerk, defensive cliches bereft of any logical content or reasoned rebuttal, they are also frequently wrong.

    To begin: an opinion is not a fact. Neither is a belief. This reiterates what Rouner says in his article, but it bears repeating: an opinion is a judgement of a fact. A fact is a verifiable truth. The earth’s existence is a fact. That the earth is round is a fact. That the earth orbits the sun is a fact. These facts have all been verified. None of them is an opinion. If someone says to you, “In my opinion, the earth is flat,” they are not actually stating an opinion; they are making a claim that the flatness of the earth is a fact. They are wrong. Opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with it. This example is obviously ridiculous, but it applies to other areas of fact. Evolution is a fact that has been verified. Yet there are plenty of people who will say that in their opinion, evolution – especially of humans – has not occurred. Again, this is not an opinion because an opinion is a judgement of something. So, you could say that in your opinion, scientists who study evolution are arrogant; but if you say that evolution, in your opinion, is wrong, you are using opinion the wrong way. You cannot substitute an opinion for a fact. If you do not think evolution occurs, then by all means marshall whatever evidence you can in support of your hypothesis, but leave your opinions out of it.

    This confusion of opinion with fact happens all the time. It tends to occur when people are unable to marshall the evidence to support their ideas, so all they can say is “Well, I’m entitled to believe that evolution didn’t happen.” But are you? Are people really entitled to dismissing known facts because it happens to not match with their ideological predilections? I sometimes wish we could do this, but it just doesn’t work: facts don’t give a shit about your opinions or your beliefs. I think that when someone rejects a fact because it is not true, in their opinion, we should call those fauxpinions.

    Related to the unsupported, non-entitled opinion is the lament that a person’s right to free speech is being suppressed by those who deign to argue with, dismiss, or ignore a person’s non-factual fauxpinions. Again, this happens when a person is unable to pull together a body of actual facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. I wish I didn’t have to point this out because it’s so achingly obvious, but somebody disagreeing with you does not constitute a violation of your freedom of speech. A debate does not constitute a free speech violation. A ban or an unfriending is not a free speech violation. A deleted comment is not a free speech violation. Someone pointing out where you may be wrong is not a free speech violation. Someone having a different opinion from you – and yes, even though I have harped on facts, it is obviously possible to have different actual opinions about a fact (e.g. different opinions on the death penalty) – is not a free speech violation. Even the loss of commenting privileges on a website, or the deleting of your account, is not a free speech violation.

    So what is a violation of freedom of speech, then? It is when the government suppresses speech. That’s it. It’s really that simple. If any government official, agency, bureau, department, et al deletes your Twitter account, then, my friend, you have experienced a violation of your freedom of speech. If Twitter deletes your account, they are not violating your free speech. They may not be justified, but Twitter, Facebook, the comment section in your local paper, your Tea Party cousin, your socialist aunt – none of these entities is obligated to listen to you or allow you to say whatever you want to say. So please, for the love of speech, do not whine about how your rights have been violated because somebody blocks or deletes or, god forbid, disagrees with your speech. You may have the right to say it, but I have the right to disagree with it, ignore it, or dismiss it.

    We all have a lot to learn online and from each other. We will all have different opinions about the facts we encounter. We will all sometimes feel dismissed or ignored by people who disagree with us. And we should all learn to back up what we say with logic and reason, avoid fauxpinions, and know the difference between facts and opinions. Our speech will be better for it.

  • Logical Fallacies: No True Scotsman

    Logical Fallacies: No True Scotsman

    I had planned to post a Daily Read tonight, but then I heard the news that three young Muslims had been shot to death in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, by a man who has apparently referred to himself on Facebook as an “anti-theist.” This is a radical form of atheism in which the person goes beyond just not believing in god/gods/religion; instead, anti-theism is explicitly opposed to religions of any kind. According to the several articles I have read about this, the shooting is being linked to a parking dispute between the shooter and the victims, two of whom lived in the same apartment complex as the shooter. Yet, because of the shooter’s outspoken anti-theism and various remarks on his Facebook page in which he expresses extreme antipathy towards religion, and towards fundamentalist Christians and Muslims in particular, the Chapel Hill police department is investigating these murders as a possible hate crime.

    I am an atheist. My first reaction when I read that the shooter is an anti-theist was one of dismay. Atheists love to point out that no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism, while millions of people have died in the name of various religions. Already, prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins are publicly expressing their shock over the shootings and repudiating the notion that it is acceptable to kill someone because of their religious beliefs; at the same time, Dawkins is also tweeting about the parking dispute motive and blaming that instead. And parking may well be the proximate motive for these murders, but I really don’t think it’s smart to remove the shooter’s anti-theism from the equation. Instead, we should acknowledge it. If we don’t, then I fear we fall into the no true Scotsman fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a proposition such as “No atheist would ever kill a Muslim simply because they are Muslim.” The rejoinder would be “The shooter in Chapel Hill is an atheist who killed Muslims.” The fallacy comes with the response that “No true atheist would kill a Muslim for being Muslim.” In other words, the person attempts to preserve their original argument by saying that this person cannot be defined as an actual atheist. In the case of these murders, atheists can also make the argument that while the shooter may be an anti-theist he is also clearly mentally ill, and that is the real reason for this tragedy. It’s not quite the no true Scotsman fallacy, but it’s the same idea; that is, it proposes that anti-theism can’t truly be the shooter’s motive.

    No true Scotsman is often used in a religious context. “No true Christian would murder an abortion doctor”; “No true Muslim would blow people up in the name of Islam”; etc. But whether we want to believe it or not, some people who identify themselves as Christian do commit violence that they attempt to justify with their version of Christianity, and some people who identify themselves as Muslim do commit acts of terror in the name of their version of Islam. They are Christian. They are Muslim. Just as atheists shouldn’t fall for the no true Scotsman fallacy in the case of this anti-theist murderer, so should Christians and Muslims not fall for it when confronted with the bad things that people will do in the name of these religions. And let’s also not get bogged down in bean-counting which religion is worse – horrible things have been done in the name of many religions throughout history and in the present, whether by individuals or entire groups.

    I think the problem is that other Christians and Muslims end up getting tarred with the same broad brush when tragedies like this happen – and now the same thing is going to happen to atheists. But just as there are Christians, Muslims, and now, apparently, atheists who commit violence in the name of their beliefs, it is equally true that not every Christian, Muslim, or atheist will commit violence in the name of their beliefs – or even that they support violence by others in the name of their beliefs. We call these people extremists for a reason – because their ideologies are extreme and, by definition, they exist on the far fringes of the overall belief systems they claim to be a part of. People tend to tack from the no true Scotsman fallacy on the one hand when the violence is done in the name of their particular religion, to the equally fallacious conclusion that if one Muslim/Christian/atheist is violent they must all be violent on the other hand.

    Personally, I think this shooter very likely is mentally ill. I also think he probably was motivated by a parking dispute – but it’s arguable that the dispute itself may not have existed had his neighbors not been clearly identifiable as Muslim based on the attire of the female victims. I also think it’s likely that mental illness is the culprit for lots of other allegedly religious-motivated crimes, particularly when they are perpetrated by individuals acting alone (and for the record, I don’t think mental illness is involved in the case of organized religious violence a la ISIS or the Lord’s Resistance Army). But let’s not dismiss the man’s anti-theism as irrelevant. If the shooter was motivated by his beliefs then it’s better to acknowledge it than to look silly by trying to deny it. Just as Muslim community leaders speak out to condemn violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, it’s smart for atheists to condemn this shooting, even if mental illness and/or a parking dispute is truly the culprit. No true atheist should do otherwise.

  • Chipping Away

    Chipping Away

    Last Sunday, I was fortunate to attend a lecture featuring Bill Nye the Science Guy, hosted by the Skeptic Society. Bill Nye was terrific in both his brief opening remarks and in conversation with Skeptic Society president Michael Shermer. Nye was there to promote his new book, Undeniable, in which he succinctly lays out the case for evolution. I was thrilled to be there in the company of my dad, sister, uncle, and friends – fellow skeptics and critical thinkers all. Yet, I was disquieted by the notion that the lecture hall was filled with similarly-minded people – not the people Bill Nye is trying to convince with his book. So when the opportunity came, I stood up to ask a question, which was this: when the people reading books by authors like Nye and Shermer are the ones who already agree, how are we supposed to reach the people who don’t agree?

    This is a more complicated question than it seems. Research has shown that when people are deeply committed to their beliefs, being exposed to factual information that refutes their views actually makes people embrace them even more tenaciously than before. This is known as the “backfire effect.” In the face of that response, a book aimed at changing people’s minds is unlikely to have any effect. This troubles me. If providing a climate change denier, anti-vaccine campaigner, or creationist with facts is only going to make them dig in their heels, then what chance do we have of convincing people? Bill Nye did have an answer, of sorts; he asked how many people in the audience were atheist or agnostic, and nearly every hand in the hall went up. He then asked how many of those people were raised in what they considered to be a religious household, and again, nearly every hand went up. His answer, then, was essentially to keep chipping away; and understandably, given that his career as the Science Guy was focused on science education for children, to educate the next generation.

    I wish Nye had been able to offer something more concrete, but I don’t blame him for that. How are we supposed to overcome such deeply ingrained psychological patterns? Of course, it doesn’t help that there is a false equivalence given to the non-factual side in many of these debates. This logical fallacy holds that when there is disagreement on an issue, equal weight must be given to both sides of the debate. This seems like a fair thing to do, but when one position has the lion’s share of facts and evidence on its side, it actually harms the debate to pretend that the other side’s argument is of equivalent merit. This was illustrated beautifully – and hilariously – by John Oliver, with the help of none other than Bill Nye. Citing the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree that the world is warming and that human activity is to blame, Oliver argued that in debates, the climate deniers should get three representatives – and the climate scientists get 97. He showed this visually by seating three deniers on one side of the table, and Bill Nye on the other… along with 96 other scientists! It is worth watching the video clip to see how this plays out.

    This false equivalence extends to many other debates – and interestingly Bill Nye was accused by some of doing a disservice to the science of evolution by engaging in a debate with creationist Ken Ham, thereby creating the illusion of equivalence. That may or may not be true; for my part, I thought the debate was so lopsided in Nye’s favor that it was nearly comical; but then again, I hold very strongly to my “belief” in evolution, so perhaps nothing Ham said could change my mind! Of course, I have the advantage of facts and the scientific method on my side, so my “belief” is truly irrelevant; the same claim cannot be made by Ham or other creationists. But that false equivalence may still be convincing to some people, and when it comes to issues like climate change and vaccination, the media are doing the public a tremendous disservice by treating both sides as if they are the same.

    As a critical thinker, skeptic, anthropologist, and educator, I can only keep doing as the Science Guy suggests and continue to chip away at irrational beliefs, logical fallacies, and uncritical acceptance of unsupported ideas, and hope that by chipping away we can eventually sculpt a better informed populace.

  • Straightjacketing

    Straightjacketing

    The purpose of a straightjacket is to hold its wearer immobile so that she is unable to harm herself or others. It restricts movement so that arms cannot flail and balance cannot be easily kept. It can eventually induce a sense of calm in its irrational and/or panicked wearer, subduing her into a more manageable state. For some, I would imagine that the straightjacket becomes a source of comfort. It allows the wearer to feel that she is being cared for and watched to make sure she stays out of trouble. She believes that those who put her into the straightjacket have her best interests at heart, and eventually the wearer may choose to spend more and more of her time in the jacket.

    The straightjacket analogy is an apt one for those who voluntarily lock themselves in to a particular ideology. The straightjacket of beliefs keeps the wearer calm and gives him a sense of control over his world. Those who constructed and applied the jacket are clearly looking out for the best interests of not just the wearer, but everybody. Alas, this is only comforting when we are surrounded by other people who are wearing the same jacket – that is, those who believe what we believe. When we are confronted with those who think differently, the world can again become a remarkably frightening place, and we retreat to our belief jackets and take comfort there, wrapped immobile in our own ideas.

    This is a false comfort. The straightjacket may be soothing and familiar, but it restricts our ability to engage with other points of view. Remember, the straightjacket is meant to calm and immobilize a person who is a danger to himself or others. The analogy starts to break down if you take it too far, but I think it is safe to apply it to the idea that we may be so accustomed to our jackets that we don’t even realize we are wearing them. Instead, those with whom we disagree or by whom we feel threatened are the ones we think are, or should be, wearing the jacket. This is to protect ourselves, not them. It is much easier to believe our ideological opposites are crazy and dangerous than it is to acknowledge our own jackets. I believe we need to step away from the straightjackets and take our chances with the sometimes frightening, irrational, and crazy world as it is. If we engage with others perhaps we will see that they are not as dangerous as we thought – and vice versa.

    Sadly, even when people are faced with evidence that what they thought to be true actually isn’t what they thought, they remain straightjacketed in their beliefs and will turn to increasingly strident rationalizations for maintaining their original belief. I recently felt the restraining pressure of my own straightjacket when I made the mistake of immediately accepting a conclusion in a news story that aligned neatly with my already formed beliefs. The case of actress Daniele Watts being detained by the LAPD for alleged inappropriate sexual behavior in public was presented as a matter of clear racial discrimination in this article from Jezebel. I read the article and was instantly outraged. I posted the article to Facebook and defended my position that the LAPD had acted inappropriately by essentially accusing Watts of “kissing while black,” in particular because the man she was kissing was white. It turns out, based on new information, that I had knee-jerked to the wrong conclusion. The investigating officers were answering a call from a member of the public who believed Watts and her husband were having sex in public. The responding officers requested both of their IDs. The husband, Brian James Lucas, complied. Watts did not, claiming that since she had done nothing wrong she was not required to present ID. This is technically true in some circumstances in California, but not when officers have reason to believe a crime may have been committed, which is the case when a citizen makes a call to the police. Audio recorded by the responding officers shows that Watts immediately escalated their request into an accusation of racial discrimination. She ended up in handcuffs as the officers verified her ID, and then let both Watts and Lucas go on their way.

    When I heard the audio I immediately realized I had made a mistake. I do not believe that there was any racial motivation in what happened. I am open to new information on the incident potentially changing this conclusion, but based on other things I have read I do not believe the LAPD officers were acting on bias. I also believe, not incidentally, that just because there was no apparent discrimination or bias in this case does not mean that discrimination and bias by cops never happens. I ABSOLUTELY believe that it does. But I do not want to let that belief straightjacket me into thinking that every single interaction between a cop and a person of color is discriminatory, or even potentially discriminatory. As I am so fond of saying to others, you have to gather the facts. You have to get context. As your opinion forms it must be provisional and await further evidence before solidifying. I did not do that in this case, and I am ashamed of myself for it.

    My mistake has been a lesson to me about recognizing my own straightjacket. It is hard to escape our own places of comfort but it is vital that we do. Remember that the straightjacket is NOT for comfort – it is meant to restrict us. Don’t let your straightjacket lull you into a false sense of security. Instead, we should shrink from ideological straightjacketing and learn to be comfortable in a world that is sometimes infuriating, frightening, or irrational. We need to keep our minds free.

  • Logical Fallacies: The Straw Man

    Logical Fallacies: The Straw Man

    Over the past year, I have been increasing my consumption of online news from a wide range of sources. I am the first to admit that many of my sources come from a particular point of view. I make no secret about being politically liberal, and I feel that I hold my own very well when arguing for my positions. That said, I have started to become uneasy about how many people – myself included – can be easily led to accept an idea or an argument when it is tailored to support a specific ideology. This is why I advocate so fiercely for critical thinking and for exploring all sides of an issue. The thing is, it takes work to understand the other side, and it’s easier to accept the building, and then the tearing down, of the straw man.

    I want to say from the outset that obviously not every argument for or against a position is based on the straw man fallacy, but it is frequently deployed, especially in the online debates that take place in the comment sections of the many sites I read. The danger of the straw man is that, for people who don’t do the work to explore the opposite side, they can accept the straw man as the actual position of the opposition. So what is the straw man? This is the fallacy of misstating or misrepresenting the other person’s position, and then making arguments that refute the misrepresented position. Essentially, it means that you are not actually refuting the other side; you are refuting your misrepresentation of the other side. This can be quite deliberate, or it can be inadvertent, but either way it does not serve the debate.

    You see straw men all over the internet landscape, from mainstream news to social media to political sites, advocacy groups, and even charities. It is so much easier to win somebody to your position if you create an easily understood and fearsome straw man and then talk about how desperately it needs to be destroyed. The problem is that most arguments are much more nuanced than the opposition will present them to be. Now, I firmly believe that there are some arguments that do not deserve anything beyond an initial hearing. For example, the idea that to be balanced, news outlets must present both (or multiple) sides of an issue can have the unfortunate consequence of giving air time and the veneer of credibility to ideas that have absolutely no merit (for example, the views of young earth creationists – or to be honest, any creationists!). However, this is not what I am talking about with the straw man. The straw man is not an idea with no merit like young earth creationism; it is an idea that does not actually represent the opposition’s point of view but it is presented as if it does. A terrific example of this is the abortion debate. The straw man for pro-lifers is the idea that the pro-choice crowd is advocating for the heartless murder of cuddly babies. On the flip side, the pro-choice side creates a straw man when it says that pro-lifers are anti-woman and want to see women dying in back alleys with bloody coat hangers between their legs. Obviously I’m exaggerating to make a point, but I think you can see why straw men like this could rally people to a cause.

    So what am I arguing for? Critical thinking, as always, but specifically I am asking people not to use the straw man. Take the time to try to really understand what the other side believes. Be open to listening (even though it may only take a few minutes to realize that you have good reasons to disagree). Don’t disrespect your opponent by inaccurately simplifying and/or twisting their position so that it’s easier for you to knock it down. I think this sort of thing is what divides us. It leads to screaming headlines and outraged reactions as straw armies rise and fall.

    I hope it’s obvious that I realize there are people who believe in and will support some truly terrible, offensive, misguided, and/or frightening ideas, and those are the real positions worth fighting against. But what good do we do when we get people riled up over something that doesn’t actually represent the other side? How can we process, debate, and try to create actual change in the world if we aren’t discussing what other people actually believe? Is it really satisfying, in the end, to burn up all that straw and leave the real man alive and kicking? Or is it that we are afraid to contemplate that the other side may actually not be as awful as we make it out to be, and we will have to engage with an argument that may be well developed and defensible?

    This is a tangled collection of ideas, to be sure. I want to reiterate, if it’s not clear already, that falling prey to – or deliberately deploying – the straw man fallacy against another’s position does not mean that the actual position is worth defending! But you still need to aim your attack at the other side’s actual argument. There is too much sound and fury over all our cultural conflicts already to waste time building and destroying straw armies.