Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 June 28
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 27 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 29 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
June 28
editI have always been confused about the meaning of this term. Wikipedia says it refers to an "informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent", but here are two dictionary definitions that say something completely different:
- a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated [1]
- An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. [2]
Which is correct? 109.153.244.85 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- They are all correct, as they are all saying the same thing. A "Straw man" means that you invent an argument that you propose your opponent is making (or which an imagined opponent makes) and then refute that argument instead of refuting the substance of the opposition. --Jayron32 02:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Further info:[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Often, a formal political argument begins with a brief summary of the opponent's argument. The straw man fallacy often begins with a radical oversimplification of the opponent's argument, reducing it to a caricature or a bumper sticker slogan, strippping away all subtlety and nuance. It is easy to mock and deride an oversimplification.
- Further info:[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am reminded of the burden on us as Wikipedia editors to do our best to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic. Any neutral editor, upon reading an article which over-emphasizes their own personal point of view, should be prepared to add balancing material, even if contrary to their own off-Wikipedia opinions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I think I see what the problem is now. Suppose one person makes argument X, and other person makes argument Y against distorted argument X*, then the opening definition of the Wikipedia article makes it sounds as if "straw man" refers to Y, whereas actually (and according to the dictionary definitions) it refers to X*. 109.153.244.85 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am reminded of the burden on us as Wikipedia editors to do our best to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic. Any neutral editor, upon reading an article which over-emphasizes their own personal point of view, should be prepared to add balancing material, even if contrary to their own off-Wikipedia opinions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- This might be useful.[4] Myrvin (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC) That's already cited in the article. Myrvin (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Or you might even consider this example where "straw man" is used to apply to a person, in this case Charles Lyell's characterisation of Humphry Davy as a geologist. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. And there seems to be a legal term too: [5]. That's in strawperson. I also thought that there was a saying that it is not worth suing a straw man - meaning someone with no money. Ah! here he is [6]. Myrvin (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think that one refutes a straw man argument by pointing out how that argument differs from one's own argument. Straw man arguments can also be inadvertent, in which case they might more properly be called misunderstandings, but once again, one must point out how that argument differs from one's own argument. But correct me if I am wrong about any of this. Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I guess gender equality now requires us to always use "strawperson". Or is that just a dead heron? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC) sorry, but I really don't have "a dog in this fight."
- My straw dog is deeply offensive since he or she learned to articulate expletives. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- You need to get the bloody thing genderized. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- My straw dog is deeply offensive since he or she learned to articulate expletives. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I guess gender equality now requires us to always use "strawperson". Or is that just a dead heron? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC) sorry, but I really don't have "a dog in this fight."
- I think that one refutes a straw man argument by pointing out how that argument differs from one's own argument. Straw man arguments can also be inadvertent, in which case they might more properly be called misunderstandings, but once again, one must point out how that argument differs from one's own argument. But correct me if I am wrong about any of this. Bus stop (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Subjunctive - ancient greek
editHey,
I don't understand what is the purpose of the subs in
σωφρονέστατοι δὲ οἳ ἂν τάχιστα μεταγιγνώσκωσι
— Andoc. 2 6
- it is not use for a purpose clauses, fear or conditions. Someone has any idea? --109.67.106.154 (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a website that offers a translation of the same text into French. My French is much better than my Greek, I may be able to get to this soon if someone hasn't answered before me, but it may take until Wednesday, as I am busy. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)