The Iron Man Fallacy

[reason]

There is a fallacy which I would like to commit more often, we can call it the iron man fallacy, the opposite of the straw man fallacy. It begins with a weak argument, perhaps offerred by an opponent in debate, which is then improved upon until it resembles something quite sensible, almost reasonable. Then the discussion proceeds by analysing and criticising the newly forged iron man. There have been many issues on which the iron man fallacy has been very productive and educational to me, and I encourage everyone to give it a try.

 

[ygolo]

I like using this productive fallacy also. It is basically giving the benefit of the doubt over and over and over again.

 

[murkrow]

wait...

what's a fallacy?

 

[reason]

what's a fallacy?

Something shaped like a penis, I think. Yes, this thread is about an iron man's penis.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I though Iron Man was a great movie.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

Tony Stark built this out of scrap metal in a cave.

 

[observer84]

Oh yes who can resist Leo!
*Swoon*
Such a good actor, too.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

Haha Oh wow, even my derail got derailed.

 

[Sniffles]

Something shaped like a penis, I think. Yes, this thread is about an iron man's penis.

Bwahahahahahaha!

 

[Udog]

*Disappointed this wasn't the title to the Iron Man sequel.*

 

[Clownmaster]

Remember that time that the Iron Man Fallacy thread got waaaay off topic?

 

[animenagai]

i like the thought of it (not penises you fallacy-heads!). however, isn't this just improving your theory. i think you can argue with the original theory and poke holes in it and whatnot, but if there is a new iron man and you can't poke holes in it, what's the point of poking at the original argument? if the iron man is that strong, they win regardless.

 

[redacted]

why would you call that a fallacy?

 

[Not_Me]

Isn't Iran Man Mahmoud Armouredinnerjacket?

 

[ygolo]

why would you call that a fallacy?

It is a fallacy because the newly constructed Iron Man could not be representative of what the original expositor actually believes. There are often several possible stronger arguments that can be created from a weaker one.

 

[redacted]

I don't get it.

Is a fallacy just anything that isn't pure deductive logic?

There was talk of "jumps" on another thread on this forum. Are those not allowed?

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't get it.
Is a fallacy just anything that isn't pure deductive logic?

Well, it's basically saying that something's so, when it's not clear it is.

So yes, it's a gap in logic.

And yes:
You can use intuition.
But you have to label it as intuition rather than as evidence or conclusive.

A fallacy is an assumption that is claimed to be truth when it can't be shown to be and can be shown to possibly NOT be.

 

[redacted]

Well, it's basically saying that something's so, when it's not clear it is.

So yes, it's a gap in logic.

And yes:
You can use intuition.
But you have to label it as intuition rather than as evidence or conclusive.

A fallacy is an assumption that is claimed to be truth when it can't be shown to be and can be shown to possibly NOT be.

Ah. Well, NOT using fallacies is pretty impossible then. Carry on.

 

[Venom]

could someone build an example of said iron man fallacy???

im aware of what a strawman is....but im unsure of how to come up with an example of this iron man...

 

[SolitaryWalker]

could someone build an example of said iron man fallacy???

im aware of what a strawman is....but im unsure of how to come up with an example of this iron man...

Opposite of straw man.

Straw man is misrepresenting the author's view and in effect representing it as weaker than it really is. Iron Man is distorting the author's viewpoint and representing it as something stronger than it really is.

For example. A Christian fundamentalist may argue Jesus literally rose from the dead. Certain Christian philosophers have argued that the Christian position is not nearly as absurd as it appears. The argument does not actually state the Jesus physically rose from the dead. Its actually meant to be interpreted allegorically and there is a complex metaphysical system to support this view, or so they would maintain the writers of the Bible framed their argument.

why would you call that a fallacy?

Same reason as why you'd call a Strawman a fallacy, because it misrepresents the author's viewpoint.