I believe Socrates was the first to discuss the “straw-man” fallacy, where one proposes, and defeats a very weak argument in order to prove one’s own position. We see these types of arguments all of time, especially on the 24-hour news channels. They are so common that they seem to be a foundation of both politics and our discussion of politics.
In a very rich philosophical two-part episode “Human Nature” and “Family of Blood” the Doctor finds himself battling against real-life straw-men. It doesn’t take much for the viewer to see how this serves as an analogy of how the Doctor fights against untruth and injustice. These straw-men, even though they are easily destroyed, cause a lot of pain and suffering at the beckon of the Family of Blood: so much so that the Doctor condemns the Family of Blood to eternal punishment. What I find especially interesting is that even though the Doctor defeats the straw-men and punishes the Family of Blood, the Family still pervades our existence (e.g. the image of the little girl in reflections). So, is the Doctor telling us that “straw-men” can never be completely vanquished; or maybe something more existential, that part of ourselves is a straw-man, and therefore, part of who we are – always vulnerable to being blown away by a strong wind?
#1 by Matt Deaton - August 23rd, 2009 at 20:00
Sounds like a cool episode, Court. Straw men arguments are indeed pervasive–really hard to find proponents representing opponents fairly.
Just had a thought about the opposite–and I’ll copyright this phrase right here and now–”iron man arguments”–those that represent a person’s own case as ridiculously and disingenuously strong, admitting no weaknesses whatsoever. I think those are just as pervasive as straw men, and probably just as harmful.
#2 by Court - August 24th, 2009 at 14:27
Nice. I hadn’t thought of that, but Doctor Who has some “iron men” too! The Cybermen! They are always claiming to be an unstoppable force, but they die so easy. Proof again that Doctor Who has everything!
#3 by 1minion - August 30th, 2009 at 20:27
I think every side on every issue on every platform has fallen to straw man tactics at some point- misrepresent the argument with a poor example, prove how bad the poor example is, use that to claim you’ve proved how poor the original argument is, even though you actually haven’t proved anything, except the fact that the argument was misunderstood from the get-go. I might be misunderstanding your topic, but hopefully I’ll still add a valid viewpoint.
I’m reading through the original novel these episodes were based on (e-book available at bbc.co.uk - called Human Nature by Paul Cornell) but it’s been a while since I watched them. Is it ever said in there how the Family comes to be after the Doctor? We know what they’re after, but what was their primary motivation? Oh, to suck up all his Time Lord energy or something, so they could live (and likely terrorize the universe) forever.
But in his desire to avoid that messy fate, the Doctor is indirectly responsible for the deaths of several innocent townspeople and directly responsible for breaking Joan’s heart, since falling in love was the one possibility the Doctor never anticipated when he made up the list of don’ts for Martha to refer to while he wasn’t himself.
I saw the scarecrows as just what they appeared to be - scare tactics. We never see how the Family animates them, so it’s just freaky enough to see these stuffed unthinking things march mindlessly towards our heroes. They don’t have any power by themselves. They don’t have any weapons. There’s just a lot of them and they seem unstoppable in their slow staggering way.
But how are they dealt with? Kids shoot the crap out of them while crying their eyes out and not even the Doctor in his John Smith guise can bring himself to do the same. Is it because he’s aware of the pointlessness of trying to kill an inanimate thing or is he simply more aware of the overkill aspect of it? Deadly force applied to what’s essentially an empty threat? Is that really the best way to solve the problem? Of course not, and the Doctor eventually figures out another way. What other messages would that whole school yard war suggest?
The matron is right to be worried about these boys and their military lessons. We see young Tim’s realization that a real war is approaching and, worse, that a lot of those kids he might have called friends in better circumstances were approaching their last days. And yet, without those lessons, those boys will not be prepared to fight for their country and their lives when those days finally come.
I thought the end was alarmingly dark yet justified. The Doctor does have a dark place into which he doesn’t like to go (hello, Valeyard) but it’s still a part of him and does in some ways define him. It’s brutal what he does to that Family. Apt, given their crimes against humanity (and anyone else they’ve attacked in their lives), I suppose, but still. I think it’s horrible that he’d visit the young girl in the mirror once a year, but maybe that’s just as much a punishment for him as it is for her. They both have to remember what they’ve done on that day, if no other. I presume that’s what led to a Remembrance Day service in the last scenes. People need to remember what’s been done and the reasons why.
#4 by 1minion - September 1st, 2009 at 05:56
Thought of a more philosophical response - you wrote in the post, “this serves as an analogy of how the Doctor fights against untruth” but another analogy to illustrate this might be Plato’s story of the cave. Setting the story in a school makes it a sensible arena for exploring an analogy about exchanging false ideas for factual truths about life and the real world and there are several instances in this storyline where subjective perceived truths come up against a very shocking reality.
First, the boy who’s only gone out for beer. Ignorant of a very real danger, he pokes around that invisible ship and is then taken over. Same tragedy befalls the ones not suspicious enough of those straw men. We never see the little girl’s loss of innocence, but it’s bad enough realizing what she’s lost. Those four people had no reason to assume the universe was anything other than it was and the aliens took easy advantage of them.
Tim would be representative of the one who was chained in the cave but managed to get free. He was a latent precog anyway, who Cassandra’d himself by speaking of truths nobody else believed. Then the watch beckons, the doorway opens, and he gets an even bigger glimpse of what’s really out there, what fate awaits him. Obviously this scares the bejeebers out of him, but the wisdom he gains through his experience later saves his life and the life of a friend. Truth might hurt, but in the end, isn’t it better to know it than continue to live in blissful ignorance of the facts?
Which leads to the Doctor’s whole storyline. It’s probably something of a respite after 900 some years of death and destruction to get up in the morning, teach a class and fumble his way toward a sweet romance. But, given how important the truth really is, I find it interesting that the Doctor would lock away his knowledge of the Family and willingly forget everything that led up to the whole reason he’s hiding on Earth in the first place. The plan backfires and John Smith is completely powerless in the face of the death and destruction, so much of what he hoped to avoid happens anyway.
The false truths he plants in himself probably are more preferable to what he discovers through Martha and Tim to be a dangerous, fearful existence outside his relatively safe school experience. No wonder he cries when the choice to stay or go is upon him.
But he goes. Martha and Tim get through to him. They have to. Only the knowledge he holds as the Doctor will give him the advantage over the aliens. He’s able to turn the tables on their false assumptions at the end and it’s revealed why he hid in the first place - to be merciful and let them die a natural death.
I really feel sorry for Joan in this one. She’s as much a victim as those poor souls the Family destroyed and it’s all the Doctor’s fault. Unlike him, she can’t go back in time and live as if the universe is anything other than it is. She might have seen what could have been but is stuck with how things are and on this path to knowledge, she’s had to leave more innocence behind. But I hope, like Tim, she’s stronger for it.
#5 by admin - September 3rd, 2009 at 08:15
Hey, great post! Here are a few ideas in response.
Nice, I like how you equate the scare crows with “scare tactic.” In response to your comments and questions about the massacre of the scare crows, I think there is a line to be drawn between what happens in the school yard and the war of attrition that ensues in World War I. We see millions of young soldiers ordered to walk in front of firing lines, just like the scare crows, and it shatters not only the psyche of those shooting and being shot at, it shatters history (see Paul Fussell’s The Great War). Of course these soldiers were not an empty threat, at least not at first, but eventually the stale-mate of trench warfare made ameliorated the threat, except for major offenses.
Also, in regards to your last statement, in an essay coming out next year, I argue that the Doctor’s punishment of the Family is the only compassionate thing to do. The argument goes roughly like this: The Doctor has three choices: kill the Family, let them go free, or since he has the power to, let them continue living in a state where they can cause no harm; the Doctor can’t let them go free; the Doctor doesn’t want to kill them; and based on the Family’s desire to live forever, he chooses the third option. The Family gets to live forever, and they can’t harm them. And the Doctor’s visit to the girl is to provide her with company and to also remind himself of what he has done (i.e. he continues to suffer with the little girl). The argument, however, rests on your intuition of whether it is better to be dead or live forever in a state of suspended animation. If you have the former, then the argument leads to the conclusion that the Doctor should have killed them. But if you have the latter intuition, then the only just thing for the Doctor to do is what he did.
I guess the Doctor could one day grant them a reprieve!
Thanks for the post!
#6 by 1minion - September 5th, 2009 at 13:46
Interesting connection to WW1 battles which I wouldn’t have picked up on. Not much into war history, me.
Interesting forgiveness angle there too, then. I think I see your point. To kill them, or allow them to die naturally would have denied them the potential of taking responsibility for their actions, for learning from their mistakes and perhaps earning the right to another chance to be better beings. It worked in the case of Blon Fel-Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen. Judge and jury he may have to be, but executioner is optional.
#7 by jack - September 10th, 2009 at 18:13
I just have a few comments on the posts above.
1. The straw men just like straw men arrangements annoying, but usually not to dangerous by themselves. But when assembled into armies they can both be very dangerous. As we see in politics today any issue that you are not a expert on and you are open minded enough to listen to more than a few people you are inundated with straw men and you have no idea what to believe.
2. As i watched the episode, to me The Doctor (as john Smith) cries when the decision comes down to him, not so much because he is going to have to step out into a much scarier world, but that he will in fact have to die in order for The Doctor to be able to save everyone else.
3. As mentioned above The Doctor does bear part of the responsibility of what the family does. That episode always struck me as odd that The Doctor would take such tactic just to spare the villains, while putting so many others in danger.
4. I didn’t see The Doctor’s punishment of the Family as merciful, but as a being nearly the full extent of his wrath. but i am looking forward to having my mind changed by another one of your fine articles.
#8 by Court - September 24th, 2009 at 19:24
Aah, very cool points Jack. Wrath is an interesting notion. St. Paul talks of praying for one’s enemies, which is like heaping hot coals on one’s head. Is this wrathful or merciful?
#9 by ford girl - July 25th, 2010 at 12:52
Think of how stupid the average guy is, and realize halve of them are stupider than that.
Sent via Blackberry