This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
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)[reply]
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. Steelmanning is attacking the strongest version of an argument, while Motte and Bailey is not strictly a matter of retreating to the strongest version of an argument. 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)[reply]