Can someone tell me if this is a straw man argument?

[Kire]

Someone on another board is telling me basically "there is a general perception among competent economists that Obama is weak on the economy", but he won't name any of those competent economists. I've been telling him he's making a straw man argument, but I just checked and that doesn't seem to be right.

In 2004, I remember the word "straw man" being used by Howard Dean to describe something about the general perception that the media is liberally biased or something.

If this is not a straw man fallacy, can someone tell me what fallacy it is?

I'm kind of pressed for time, here.

Thank you.

Kire

[sandnsea]

1. What economists?

And are they among those who advocated for Gramm-Leach-Billey Act?

[Kire]

9. all he is saying is

a "competent economist" is someone to subscribes to Milton Friedman's laissez faire something or other.

[yardwork]

2. I think it's just a flat-out lie. Ask them for a source.

The straw man fallacy is when someone responds to an argument by inserting something else (the straw man), then pointing out that their replacement is weak or wrong, and concluding that your argument is weak or wrong.

[yardwork]

10. More on straw man fallacies here, with examples.

They are a particularly infuriating form of "debate," not uncommon even here on DU. Look for them in every thread that involves emotional issues.

Typical DU examples:

Poster A: Abortion is wrong.
Poster B: So you want Roe v Wade overturned and women to die of back alley abortions!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Redstone]

3. Unsupported assertion. That may not be the formal debate description, but you might want

to do a search on "some people say" to find out what the specific term is.

Redstone

[Kire]

5. thank you, Redstone

have a good day

[benddem]

4. yes it is

a strawman argument if "some" is the adjective. Edited to change noun to adjective.

[Kire]

6. can you elaborate?

thanks

[Orrex]

7. Before bothering to name the fallacy, pin him down for specifics

What he's trying to do, at the moment, is hold all of the cards. He'll let you debunk all of his points, and then he'll say "no, I meant these other unnamed economists," and it all starts over again.

Fundies, be they Creationists or Libertarians or anywhere in between, almost never actually argue. They engage in rhetorical point-scoring and gotcha tactics, so that they can chuckle about their soundbytes after the fact and feel like they actually won the argument.

They're not even really interested in proving their points; they're happy simply to repeat them verbatim until you get sick of refuting self-evidently nonsensical arguments.

If your intent is to continue the discussion with him, go no further until he names these unnamed economists.

[Kire]

thanks

unfortunately, I named the fallacy earlier in a thread, and it's a huge long thread with lots of people in it. I'd rather not say where it is because it is a local message board and I have been able to take care of myself so far.

My last post was,

"I would ask why does subscribing to Milton Friedman's "laissez faire" theory make someone a competent economist, but that would be feeding a trollish off topic digression.

My actual question was who are these "competent economists" that are so influential and outspoken in today's society that their cumulative opinions amount to a "general perception" among all "competent economists" that Obama is not strong on the economy?"

kind of wordy that last bit, but this is an over 300 page thread and people are starting to leave me alone now.


thanks again
Kire

[Orrex]

26. Sounds like you've got a good handle on it--both the issue and your discussion of it

One of the problems is that the only thing more common on the internet than porn is a self-righteous, loudmouthed Libertarian, and at least with porn there's the chance that you'll see something new. Not so with Libertarians, who believe in recycling only as it pertains to tired, Randian arguments that were half-assed and speculative when first posited.

I feel for you and your involvement in that other discussion; I've been in those before, and that way madness lies.

In the end, I gave up trying to "convince" any of these Libertarian dogmatists, because they're inviolably fixed in their beliefs and assumptions. Instead, I participate in those discussions primarily for practice at articulating my own view, and also to let the lurking readership know that Libertarians aren't the only loudmouths out there.

Best of luck in your continued horn-locking!

[blonndee]

8. A straw man is when you address an argument or idea that your opponent does not really have

because it's easier to "knock down" than an actual argument or idea. An extreme example would be something along the lines of "McCain is for drilling because he cares about the American economy, unlike those damned liberals who just hate that oil companies are making a profit."

[Gold Metal Flake]

11. Handy list of fallacies.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Remove the strawman and the false choice from a RWers quiver of arguments, and they really don't have much to say.

[DemoTex]

15. The 42 Fallacies. Very handy, indeed.

I use that site often.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[Towlie]

12. Wrong perhaps, but not a straw man argument.

A straw man argument is one where your opponent mis-characterizes your position, such as when you're labeled a socialist, or someone claims that you "want to surrender to the terrorists".

[InternalDialogue]

13. If there are indeed competent economists who say that,

then he's making an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy if the authority in question does not actually have the expertise to make that statement.

From what this person has already said, he's not presenting a logical fallacy that I know of, but just failing to provide the necessary information to determine if it's logical or not.

[enlightenment]

14. It's a varient of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

From Nizkor (which is a fantastic source for a quick answer to these questions when you're in a rush):

"A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.

This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim.

This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

*edited because I can't spell!

[dorkulon]

30. bingo. /nt

[Jack Rabbit]

16. So far, you opponent has failed to document his assertion

No doubt there are "some economists" who say that. After all, Phil Gramm has a PhD in something related to economics.

Here is a definition of straw man that comes pretty close to your argument. Note that in the example, the writer recommends doing what you more or less did.

[Tesibria]

17. straw man defined ?

I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but, per wikipedia,

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position. While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Thus, I do not think that this person's argument is a straw man argument. He is not misrepresenting Obama's position.

I think it's just an opinion based on incorrect facts. For example, Joseph Stiglitz (2001 Nobel Prize Winner), Edmund Phelps (2006 Nobel Prize Winner), John C. Bogle, Paul Volcker, and others have praised Obama's Economic Plan. (Source: DailyKos)

About Bogle
About Stiglitz
About Phelps
About Volcker


See also Economists for Obama

[Kire]

19. I don't think so, either.

I just had it in mind from years ago when it was a popular discussion point. I think Howard Dean said something about it in 2003 or 2004.

Thanks for the references.

[Oregone]

18. Aside from being unsupported, this is an Appeal to Authority

Because XYZ (economists) said so, its true.

That is a fallacy. If he wants to discuss Obama on the economy, make HIM tell you WHY based on 1) quotes from his policy pages and 2) his reaction to these specific policies. If he wishes to refer to studies/theories/literature that directly contradicts Obama's policies, make sure you are willing to accept such sources as valid to the argument in the first place.

[Kire]

21. yes, thank you

and I am willing to accept such sources

[Oregone]

23. Well, you have to be careful what you accept

Being that some whacko economic theory has reached mainstream academia (the trickle-down crap for example). If someone want to provide theories, you must make sure they are sound enough to accept as a priori premises to the argument that Obama is poor on the economy.

I doubt it'll go that far. The douche bag probably just is regurgitating a talking point they heard from the radio, and has no clue what Obama's policies are, much less any impact they will have in the real world.

[Kire]

25. I have to look up a priori again

but I am packing now and will be on a plane for home tomorrow

I don't anticipate going back to that board another two days. Thanks.

[io-solip]

20. There are (un-named) "scientists" who dispute evolution and global warming.

They always turn out to be some sort of Industrial Management Specialist, Technical Technician or Building Engineer ...

[tpsbmam]

22. Bullshit. Links:

I'm sure there's LOTS more out there and information on Obama's website, but here's a start for you.

Economists for Obama: http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/

Economists for Obama names: http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-economic-advisors-and-economic.html

WSJ --

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/01/31/volcker-i-endorse-obama/

January 31, 2008, 12:36 pm
Volcker: I Endorse Obama
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is the latest big-name endorsement for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, lending his gravitas in the financial world to a presidential candidate whose biggest hurdle is to convince voters he is experienced enough to be president.


Obama
“After 30 years in government, serving under five Presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance,” Mr. Volcker said in a statement today. “However, it is not the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties that have impelled my decision. Rather, it is the breadth and depth of challenges that face our nation at home and abroad. Those challenges demand a new leadership and a fresh approach.”

He concluded: “It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership. That leadership must begin here in America but it can also restore needed confidence in our vision, our strength, and our purposes right around the world.”



Reagan Economist Endorses Barack Obama: http://vodpod.com/watch/911574-reagan-economist-endorses-barack-obama]



Nobel Laureate Economists Stiglitz and Phelps Endorse Obama:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/nobel-laureate-economists-stig.php


The Economist endorsed Obama during the primaries: http://americantaino.blogspot.com/2008/05/economist-endorses-obama.html


And if the asshole is referring to the list that McCain released, here's a little 411 for him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/mccains-economists-dont-b_n_111611.html

Economists 'Endorsed' McCain's Economics Plan? Actually, No

On Monday, John McCain's campaign released a statement signed by 300 economists who "enthusiastically support" his "Jobs for America" economic plan. There's just one problem.

Politico reports, "Upon closer inspection, it seems a good many of those economists don't actually support the whole of McCain's economic agenda. And at least one doesn't even support McCain for president."

In interviews with several signatories, Politico found that, "far from embracing McCain's economic plan, many were unfamiliar with -- or downright opposed to -- key details. While most of those contacted by Politico had warm feelings about McCain, many did not want to associate themselves too closely with his campaign and its policy prescriptions."

What's more, the statement signed by the economists didn't even mention two critical planks McCain's economic argument: "the gas tax holiday and his promise to balance the budget by the end of his first term -- there's literally nothing in the release that mentions the deficit or national debt."

Indeed, the Huffington Post surveyed economists from across the political spectrum and couldn't find a single one who supports two of McCain's signature economic/energy positions: increased off-shore drilling and a gas tax holiday.

Link to Politico's more thorough article about McCain's list of 300 economists: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11618.html

[TroglodyteScholar]

24. Sounds like 'Burden of Proof' to me

As in...they are making an assertion, and rather than providing facts to support it, they point to your inability to disprove it. The burden of proof is put on you rather than the party making the assertion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. His opponent is by his own admission completely ignorant on the topic. n/t

[Kire]

28. UPDATE: he said I was obsessed with fallacies

so I said:

If it's your opinion that competent economists (defined as laissez faire whatever you said) think Obama is not strong on the economy, I can't argue with you. But if you are trying to state it as a fact, and get me to agree with you, you are going to have to provide me with a list of names and quotes, preferably with citations, from a number of economists from within the community that are substantial enough to constitue a "general consensus". If you can't do that, I have nothing further to say on the subject. Good day, sir.

thanks, everyone

[Kire]

29. I don't want to tell you what he said after that.

It would appear like I was bragging.

and yet again, another thank you