Talk:Motte-and-bailey fallacy: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
What about adding a contrast between this and [[Straw_man#steelmanning|steelmanning]], where the ''opponent'' instead of the proponent only attacks the more defensible position? [[User:Themumblingprophet|Themumblingprophet]] ([[User talk:Themumblingprophet|talk]]) 11:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
What about adding a contrast between this and [[Straw_man#steelmanning|steelmanning]], where the ''opponent'' instead of the proponent only attacks the more defensible position? [[User:Themumblingprophet|Themumblingprophet]] ([[User talk:Themumblingprophet|talk]]) 11:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
: Not sure that's a useful contrast. For Motte and Bailey, the more defensible position is often a universally accepted platitude like "Women are people too", so even when steelmanning, you wouldn't attack that. Contrasting the two would probably do more to confuse the idea of Motte and Bailey than to clarify it.[[User:JB Gnome|JB Gnome]] ([[User talk:JB Gnome|talk]]) 16:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
: Not sure that's a useful contrast. For Motte and Bailey, the more defensible position is often a universally accepted platitude like "Women are people too", so even when steelmanning, you wouldn't attack that. Contrasting the two would probably do more to confuse the idea of Motte and Bailey than to clarify it. [[User:JB Gnome|JB Gnome]] ([[User talk:JB Gnome|talk]]) 16:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:25, 20 May 2020
Philosophy Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Skepticism Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Not a fallacy per the person who invented the term
"Some people have spoken of a Motte and Bailey Doctrine as being a fallacy and others of it being a matter of strategic equivocation. Strictly speaking, neither is correct." http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/ 98.114.130.5 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks—Shackel's opinion was already in a footnote, but now it is mentioned in the article body as well. As Shackel noted in the same piece, many people speak of it as a fallacy. Biogeographist (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Contrast with steelmanning
What about adding a contrast between this and steelmanning, where the opponent instead of the proponent only attacks the more defensible position? Themumblingprophet (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure that's a useful contrast. For Motte and Bailey, the more defensible position is often a universally accepted platitude like "Women are people too", so even when steelmanning, you wouldn't attack that. Contrasting the two would probably do more to confuse the idea of Motte and Bailey than to clarify it. JB Gnome (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)