7 ms·

A "strawman" is where you set up a flimsy counter point to your own argument and then defeat it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/

by adam-a 13y ago

A "strawman" is where you set up a flimsy counter point to your own argument and then defeat it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You might call it "ad hominem" as it is an attempt to discredit Diffie, although that usually describes a logical fallacy - the personal attack doesn't affect the validity of the argument. In this context the main reason for having Diffie there is because of his status and achievements, so it's a reasonable counter to try to discredit him. I would say that kind of attack is not very fair, and a little bit dishonest, but not a flaw of reasoning.

ryanjshaw 13y ago
It insinuates that the witness is unqualified to make the statements he's making, using logic of the form "if you don't have a master's degree you likely can't be an expert in this field." I would have loved to response to ""You never completed a master's degree, correct?" he asked Diffie." with "Just like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, no I don't have a masters degree" (well apparently Bill eventually got one...). I assume the judge would be unhappy with this, which strikes me as unfair - surely I can defend my reputation?
- DanBC 13y ago
  They ask a yes or no question, you answer with the truth. Later on your side gets to ask questions. I wouldn't use Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs as examples of experts.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    Use both, you are talking to a jury, not other computer folks.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      That's a fair point. I'd be tempted to use the person within the organisation who's done lots of published research even without the diploma. But you make a good point - trials are about persuading the jury.
- sigzero 13y ago
  It is that lawyers job to paint him as "unqualified" to the jury.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Note the very important difference between presenting a logical argument and serving as a witness for trial. When you present a logical argument, it stands on its own. But a witness isn't presenting reasoning for the jury to follow. His testimony doesn't stand on its own. A witness expresses an opinion or recollection of events for the jury to believe. The jury's job is to determine which witness they find more credible. Facts that are ad hominem in the world of logical argument are vital determinants of credibility in the world of witness testimony. They help juries figure out who to believe. Thus the logic isn't "if you don't have a master's degree you likely can't be an expert in this field" but rather "the guy with the PhD is more likely to be a credible expert in this field." Which is a reasonable presumption. It's the job of the side presenting an expert with unique experience who doesn't have marks of academic qualification to convince the jury of the person's expertise regardless of the traditional indicators.
- nathan_long 13y ago
  >> ...using logic of the form "if you don't have a master's degree you likely can't be an expert in this field." Which in this case, is a bit like discrediting Einstein for not having studied relativity in school.

by adam-a 13y ago

ryanjshaw 13y ago

It insinuates that the witness is unqualified to make the statements he's making, using logic of the form "if you don't have a master's degree you likely can't be an expert in this field." I would have loved to response to ""You never completed a master's degree, correct?" he asked Diffie." with "Just like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, no I don't have a masters degree" (well apparently Bill eventually got one...). I assume the judge would be unhappy with this, which strikes me as unfair - surely I can defend my reputation?

DanBC 13y ago
They ask a yes or no question, you answer with the truth. Later on your side gets to ask questions. I wouldn't use Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs as examples of experts.
- protomyth 13y ago
  Use both, you are talking to a jury, not other computer folks.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    That's a fair point. I'd be tempted to use the person within the organisation who's done lots of published research even without the diploma. But you make a good point - trials are about persuading the jury.
sigzero 13y ago
It is that lawyers job to paint him as "unqualified" to the jury.
rayiner 13y ago
Note the very important difference between presenting a logical argument and serving as a witness for trial. When you present a logical argument, it stands on its own. But a witness isn't presenting reasoning for the jury to follow. His testimony doesn't stand on its own. A witness expresses an opinion or recollection of events for the jury to believe. The jury's job is to determine which witness they find more credible. Facts that are ad hominem in the world of logical argument are vital determinants of credibility in the world of witness testimony. They help juries figure out who to believe. Thus the logic isn't "if you don't have a master's degree you likely can't be an expert in this field" but rather "the guy with the PhD is more likely to be a credible expert in this field." Which is a reasonable presumption. It's the job of the side presenting an expert with unique experience who doesn't have marks of academic qualification to convince the jury of the person's expertise regardless of the traditional indicators.
nathan_long 13y ago
>> ...using logic of the form "if you don't have a master's degree you likely can't be an expert in this field." Which in this case, is a bit like discrediting Einstein for not having studied relativity in school.