"Fallacy of gray" redirects here. The term may also refer to the continuum fallacy.
Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as false equivalence, false compromise, [argument from] middle ground, equidistance fallacy, and the golden mean fallacy[1]—is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth must be found as a compromise between two opposite positions.[2][3] An example of a fallacious use of the argument to moderation would be to regard two opposed arguments—one person saying that slavery is always wrong, while another believes it to be legitimate—and conclude that the truth must therefore lie somewhere in between.[4] One could imagine a society that accepts a midway position between slavery and non-slavery as truth using the argument to moderation, and it's only the cultural values of freedom and decency and the like, that would object. If these values did not exist then the culture might find the middle ground true.
Vladimir Bukovsky points out that the middle ground between the Big Lie of Soviet propaganda and the truth is itself a lie, and one should not be looking for a middle ground between disinformation and information.[5] According to him, people from the Western pluralistic civilization are more prone to this fallacy because they are used to resolving problems by making compromises and accepting alternative interpretations—unlike Russians, who are looking for the absolute truth.[5]
^Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society, by David Harker, "Argument to moderation
^Susan T. Gardner (2009). Thinking Your Way to Freedom: A Guide to Owning Your Own Practical Reasoning. Temple University Press.
^ abVladimir Bukovsky, The Wind Returns. Letters by Russian Traveler (Russian edition, Буковский В. К. И возвращается ветер. Письма русского путешественника.) Moscow, 1990, ISBN5-2350-1826-5, p. 345.
