Are we talking about what the speaker actually said?
Welcome to Critical Thinking Scan, where we
look at how you can think about any faith-challenging
message and arrive at a biblical, logical
conclusion yourself.
I’m Patricia Engler, and today we’re going
to look at a type of flawed argument called
straw man fallacies.
These fallacies happen when someone misrepresents
an opponent’s perspective to make it sound
weak or ridiculous—and as easy to knock
down as a scarecrow.
So, to respond to a strawman fallacy, all
you have to do is bring the discussion back
to what the attacked perspective originally said.
For example, let’s say one person is singing
rather loudly.
Person #2 might ask, “Hey, could you please
sing a little quieter?”
That’s not an unreasonable request, but
person #1 could make it sound unreasonable by
misrepresenting it with a strawman statement, like, 
“Oh, you think I should never say another word again!”
Or, “Wow, you music-hater, you clearly don’t
appreciate the arts!” or, “Oh, so, you
think the whole world should keep silent at
your request?”
And all person #2 would need to do to identify
that strawman argument and diffuse the situation
would be to gently point out, 
“No, that’s not what I said.”
As a real-life example of this, one day my
dad, who’s now a hospital chaplain, was
asked to literally bow down to idols as part
of his chaplaincy training.
When he, being a Christian, didn’t want
to participate, the others in his class were like,
“Oh, you think you’re better than us? You’re not a team player?”
And he responded, “That’s not what I said;
I can respect other religious traditions without
having to participate in them.”
So, strawmen arguments are really common,
and being able to recognize and graciously
respond to them is super important, since
we see them SO OFTEN in popular culture, all
over the internet, in petty disputes, and
even in textbooks.
For instance, I’ve read biology textbooks which argue,
“Creationists believe that organisms never change. 
But organisms do change.
Therefore, creationists are wrong.”
But wait a minute…do most biblical creationists
say that organisms never change?
No!
Obviously, we do see variation within kinds
of living things God created, like dogs changing
into other varieties of dogs, or finches changing
into other varieties of finches, as mechanisms
like natural selection favour specific genetic
traits more than others.
That’s observational science, and Biblical
creationists don’t have a problem with it;
in fact, like you can learn more about in
the other resources linked to this video,
observable mechanisms like natural selection
can’t produce the kinds of genetic changes
required to actually evolve one kind of creature
into another anyway.
However, by saying that creationists believe
nothing ever changes and no new species ever
form, even within created kinds, the textbook
is weakening the biblical perspective
to make it sound ridiculous.
And that is a strawman argument.
But you know, there’s also a type of fallacy
which is the opposite of a strawman argument,
and it’s been called the motte-and-bailey
fallacy (or motte-and-bailey “doctrine”).
It’s named after a type of medieval castle
built on a flattened earthen mound called
a motte, overlooking a courtyard known as the bailey.
In this fallacy, someone starts by presenting
a controversial point which may be hard to
defend—that’s the “bailey.”
And when another person challenges that position,
the arguer swaps out the weaker, controversial
point with one that’s easier to defend,
representing the fortified motte.
For instance, let’s say that hypothetically,
someone argues that people under 18 shouldn’t
be legally allowed to attend church.
You could point out that that would be a serious
breach of religious freedom, but they might
replace their statement with a position that
sounds a lot more defensible, like
“I just believe in the intellectual rights of children!”
Their original argument has not changed; but
instead of admitting what they’re really
advocating for, they’re conflating their
position with one that sounds a lot better
— standing up for children’s rights.
In summary then, while a straw man reframes
a strong position as a weak one, a motte-and-bailey
reframes a weak position as a strong one.
In both cases, all you have to do to respond
to these fallacies is to bring the discussion
back to what the original argument was truly saying.
For more on how to think critically about
any faith-challenging message, you can access
my other CT Scan videos packed with tactics,
tips and tools that helped me as a Christian
student at secular university.
Thank you for watching!
Hey – It’s Patricia here.
Just wanted to let you know that if you like
these videos, a free, easy way to help Answers
in Genesis Canada create more content and
equip more people to defend their faith, is
to hit that “like” button, subscribe to
our channel, click the bell, and, of course,
share these resources.
That lets the social media algorithms help
these videos reach more people who can benefit
from them, saving us advertising expenses
while promoting biblical authority.
Thank you so much!
