The infinite straw person paradox
Note:
A straw person argument is a rhetorical technique where someone distorts or misrepresents their opponent's position or argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument, the person creates a weaker or exaggerated version of it (the "straw person") and then attacks that instead. This can be used to make the original argument seem unreasonable or easier to dismiss.
+++
The Paradox:
Person A: "I think we should invest more in public transportation to reduce traffic congestion and pollution."
Person B: "Person A wants to eliminate all cars and force everyone to use crowded buses and trains!"
Person C: "Person B thinks we should keep all roads congested with cars and ignore the benefits of improving public transportation!"
Person D: "Person C wants to shut down all roads and force people to walk everywhere, ignoring the need for cars in emergencies or for long-distance travel!"
Person E: "Person D believes we should pave over all natural areas to make room for endless highways, disregarding the importance of preserving the environment for future generations!"
Person F: "Person E thinks we should live in the wilderness without any roads or infrastructure, ignoring the benefits of modern civilization and transportation!"
Person G: "Person F believes we should live in a futuristic, dystopian society where technology controls every aspect of our lives, ignoring the value of a balanced, human-centered approach to technology and society!"
Person H: "Person G wants us to live in caves, communicate solely through grunts, and reject all forms of progress, including fire and the wheel, advocating for a return to a primal state of existence, completely disconnected from the modern world!"
+++
The paradox emerges from the fact that each subsequent argument is a response to the previous misrepresentation, yet in doing so, it exaggerates the misrepresentation further, creating an endless loop of increasingly extreme positions. This highlights the absurdity that can result from misrepresenting arguments and how it can lead to a situation where the original discussion is lost entirely.
If you think there is no straw person argument being used, this is a paradox, if you use a straw person argument without realizing you are, you would see this as a paradox. Only those who understand that straw person arguments are straw person arguments would not see this as a paradox.
A straw person argument is a rhetorical technique where someone distorts or misrepresents their opponent's position or argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument, the person creates a weaker or exaggerated version of it (the "straw person") and then attacks that instead. This can be used to make the original argument seem unreasonable or easier to dismiss.
+++
The Paradox:
Person A: "I think we should invest more in public transportation to reduce traffic congestion and pollution."
Person B: "Person A wants to eliminate all cars and force everyone to use crowded buses and trains!"
Person C: "Person B thinks we should keep all roads congested with cars and ignore the benefits of improving public transportation!"
Person D: "Person C wants to shut down all roads and force people to walk everywhere, ignoring the need for cars in emergencies or for long-distance travel!"
Person E: "Person D believes we should pave over all natural areas to make room for endless highways, disregarding the importance of preserving the environment for future generations!"
Person F: "Person E thinks we should live in the wilderness without any roads or infrastructure, ignoring the benefits of modern civilization and transportation!"
Person G: "Person F believes we should live in a futuristic, dystopian society where technology controls every aspect of our lives, ignoring the value of a balanced, human-centered approach to technology and society!"
Person H: "Person G wants us to live in caves, communicate solely through grunts, and reject all forms of progress, including fire and the wheel, advocating for a return to a primal state of existence, completely disconnected from the modern world!"
+++
The paradox emerges from the fact that each subsequent argument is a response to the previous misrepresentation, yet in doing so, it exaggerates the misrepresentation further, creating an endless loop of increasingly extreme positions. This highlights the absurdity that can result from misrepresenting arguments and how it can lead to a situation where the original discussion is lost entirely.
If you think there is no straw person argument being used, this is a paradox, if you use a straw person argument without realizing you are, you would see this as a paradox. Only those who understand that straw person arguments are straw person arguments would not see this as a paradox.
Comments (29)
Btw, it is strawman, not strawperson.
The word strawman is an outdated term because it expresses gender discrimination, but don't just take my word for it, places of education are already using strawperson instead: https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/straw-person.html
I'm saying that if you think every person (B-H) is actually being reasonable, that there is no fallacy being used, then it's a paradox. But if you understand the fallacy, then there is no paradox.
This serves as a powerful reminder of the critical role that clear and precise communication plays in our understanding of complex issues. It highlights the fact that without clarity, messages can be easily distorted, leading to a cascade of muddled misunderstandings. It reminds us that words have power and that how we choose to express ourselves can have far-reaching implications for our relationships and society at large.
This is particularly relevant in the fast-paced world of today and tomorrow, where information is rapidly exchanged and the potential for misinterpretation is high. The paradox also encourages people to be mindful of the language they use and to strive for transparency in our interactions. By doing so, we can foster more productive and meaningful conversations that are grounded in reality rather than in exaggerated or misconstrued versions of our statements. It prompts us to consider the perspectives of others before jumping to conclusions, promoting a more empathetic and nuanced approach to dialogue.
I love to see it, Echogem222!
Edit This above comment was constructed with aid of Bing Copilot. But the heart, interest, and validity I have for the context and message of the OP is shown in my efforts to remain transparent and credible. I will refrain from the obvious aid moving forward. It is not authentic but the inputs and interests I took to learn more are genuine. My intent was not to pretend to know something I do not...just to be a bit more well written. I will take this as a lesson learned. Thanks!
It isn't, that's how everybody says it.
Quoting Echogem222
It doesn't. And even if it did, it doesn't matter, it isn't 2017 anymore.
Quoting Echogem222
Yeah, that is literally the only link the shows up on Google when you look that "word" up, while everything under that says "strawman".
Quoting Echogem222
That doesn't follow. Whether I think someone is being reasonable or not does not result in a paradox.
This post was written by an AI. Likely ChatGPT.
I didn't strawman you. You have this tendency to accuse others of making a strawman when they point out how your posts make zero sense.
In this thread you do it several times: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15054/why-we-dont-have-free-will-using-logic
Non-understanding does not equal understanding. Therefore, if someone says something which should leave you clueless as to how you should respond because of how little sense it makes, then saying they're wrong makes zero sense.
But you have made a good impression on me, and I am willing to not implement so obviously or take advantage the aids A.I. offers. I care too much about my character, originality, and credibility to risk ruining it over something I can learn on my own. Thanks for the reminder and calling me out!
No argument with that. :roll:
Quoting tim wood
I know how those work, they taught me in first grade. Reread my post as me politely saying that OP is using the word wrong.
That's an extreme example, but my point is that everyone has a certain degree of influence in the world, and by always ignoring the problem, it could come back to bite you later.
:smirk: :up:
Or perhaps I am committing another strawfolx
Indeed. As interesting to consider this thought experiment is, this simply isn't a paradox.
Quoting Lionino
Perhaps we all are, who don't see a paradox. :smile:
And what's with the folx, folks? :chin:
Welcome to global politics.
Did you just assume that straw persons gender??
Rather than have the AI write for you, write your own post and maybe analyze the grammar and structure by the AI as support. While AI functions well att writing, the problem is that you lose or never challenge your own process of thought as writing isn't just outward communication, it's part of your internal processing of ideas.
It's been proven in studies that the physicality of writing increases the brain activity. It is stronger in writing on paper with a pen as it's the most physical action you can do, but it's also there while writing on a keyboard.
So letting an AI do that work for you will only lead to you losing something in the purpose of gaining knowledge through discourse. So, write your own stuff and maybe use AI as a research and editing tool, but never as the source of train of thought for an argument. It will make you cognitively numb.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/folx
Trust the science
But yeah, I am still learning how to use A.I. properly too so that didnt help me as much as I thought it would.
Appreciate your insight.
Is it really science, or just the 21st Century?
Quoting Echogem222
Some person thinks:
"Every opponent I argue against argues only stupid, oversimplified positions."
To prove this the person always rewrites their opponents arguments in stupid, oversimplified ways.
Which amounts to: To prove my claim, I must falsify my claim. A Paradox.