The Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

Thanks, I will research this and add it!

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people"

This seems to be more specifically a false premise. Tim does not actually believe this fully defines feminism, neither does the person he may be arguing against. If the person was ignorant of feminism then once Tim reveals his true beliefs that person is free to leave. 

This setup seems to be an argument in the form of

Tim: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people

Jim: I am not a feminist

Tim: So you don't think women are people?

Jim: Not all people who think women are people are feminists. Stop using overgeneralization

Jaime writes:

Both of Monique's statements are baileys.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

In the case of the first one you'd need to define what you mean by racism; I tend to think in terms of discrimination, where you treat someone different based on phenotypical differences, in which case there is no switch but rather a clarification, while other people may describe it using words like hatred or belief in inferiority. 

This is true, however if the attempt to redefine the word isn't made very clear, you still enter fallacy because of connotation abuse. The connotation of "racist", and common usage of said word, is very different from the relatively benign notion of mere 'racial bias', in the sense that one refers to conscious hatred and another refers to subconscious errors in reasoning. Hence, it is a switch from a more controversial take to a less contestable one.

I'm not intrinsically opposed to it as a clarification, as some people are simply not good as expressing themselves, as long as it's clear enough that the goalposts have moved. It would probably depend on how things proceeded from there, it the person is happy to continue defending the clarified position whilst also trying to leave the original one somehow still in play. 

The Motte-and-Bailey doctrine isn't the same as clarification, this would refer more to elaborating on a previously-stated view by adding examples, or removing vague/ambiguous phrasing. Changing to a related, but different position without acknowledging the difference is deceptive in that one defends position A while giving the impression they defended B. Another example:

Irene:  Cultural knowledge and local wisdom are just as valid as scientific knowledge.

Sasha:  Why do you think that, when 'cultural knowledge' lacks the rigorous testing mechanisms of the scientific method?

Irene:  Well, culture shapes our experiences in some way or form, right? Surely you're not saying that nature is totally unaffected by nature.

Sasha:  I can accept that, but it's not the same as saying they're equally valid. Why specifically do you think that the two forms of knowing should be on par with each other?

Here, Irene posits her desired view - the bailey - but it is controversial and may be difficult to defend. When challenged by Sasha, she retreats to the motte - the less controversial, but less desired belief.

I have more of a problem with the second example which seems somewhat loaded with the premise that women aren't actually people being an established view, and that going against this is radical (unless this is simply a sarcastic rhetoric). Also the thing here is that it's all part of the same premise, which isn't changed just because there are two sentences. 

It comes from a pro-feminist meme, and used to be a fairly popular tagline in their circles. Effectively a way to make feminism seem like a realistic idea - it was nothing more than the belief that women mattered. However, it is bait-and-switch because the ideology of feminism is much more complicated that such a simple phrase.

As to the naming of such a fallacy, it's more suggestive of a double fortifications rather than a switch. I'm sure that medieval armies would have much preferred turning up to an assault expecting a motte a finding a bailey, rather than finding that they have to contend with both defences. 

I'm aware of the etymology. I'm comparing it to the bait-and-switch because that is how the motte-and-bailey doctrine works in real argumentation.
 

Bryan writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

This is true, however if the attempt to redefine the word isn't made very clear, you still enter fallacy because of connotation abuse. The connotation of "racist", and common usage of said word, is very different from the relatively benign notion of mere 'racial bias', in the sense that one refers to conscious hatred and another refers to subconscious errors in reasoning. Hence, it is a switch from a more controversial take to a less contestable one.

I didn't say anything about redefining, I'm talking about actual real world use of the word. There are degrees of racism and not just benign or outright malign. To treat someone differently because they are different, even if it's done with realising it, or with good intentions, is discrimination. Racism is a form of discrimination. 

Racism
Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.

Source: US Civil Rights Commission

This is my very point about defining what one is talking about when there is no single meaning to a word.

Once you start getting into discounting degrees of something because you don't consider it as bad you're straying into fallacies.

So no, I see no switch at all.

 

The Motte-and-Bailey doctrine isn't the same as clarification

I know it isn't, I'm saying that I don't accept someone just clarifying their position as a switch. I think we need to be careful with throwing around accusations of logical fallacies and I thought I was quite clear that as long as the person didn't try to defend the initial statement which may have been phrased poorly I see no problem.

Changing to a related, but different position without acknowledging the difference is deceptive in that one defends position A while giving the impression they defended B. 

I would accept the concept of a fallacy where someone continues to defend the initial statement with a different argument. Perhaps my wording was poor, but that's what I meant. Does that mean I'm guilty of switching? ;)

 

Another example:

Irene Vs Sasha not quoted for simplicity. 

You know I really don't like calling this a fallacy. I think Irene just fails to make a reasonable case.  I get that thinking up examples can be tricky and I already said I understand the concept, so further examples that I don't see a fallacy in don't support the proposition. 

I'm aware of the etymology. I'm comparing it to the bait-and-switch because that is how the motte-and-bailey doctrine works in real argumentation.

Yeah, I know that's what your calling it, I just think it's not appropriate. Saying that it's the motte and bailey because that's what it has already been named doesn't detract from it being name which doesn't describe the fallacy (in my opinion obviously). 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Bryan]

I didn't say anything about redefining, I'm talking about actual real world use of the word. There are degrees of racism and not just benign or outright malign. To treat someone differently because they are different, even if it's done with realising it, or with good intentions, is discrimination. Racism is a form of discrimination. 

'Racial bias' can lead to racism. However, racist (of a person) refers to racialist/racist views, or notions of superiority/inferiority based on race. These people are calling members of a race, "racist", then switching to 'racial bias' when called out. Hence, far from clarifying, it becomes a position switch. The exception could be if the definition is made clear from the beginning, rather than relying on the strongly-negative connotation of a phrase as a first resort.

Once you start getting into discounting degrees of something because you don't consider it as bad you're straying into fallacies.

Something can be as bad without being referred to as X, if it loses enough commonality with other members of the supposed class. Thus, it will no longer be in that class.

I know it isn't, I'm saying that I don't accept someone just clarifying their position as a switch. I think we need to be careful with throwing around accusations of logical fallacies and I thought I was quite clear that as long as the person didn't try to defend the initial statement which may have been phrased poorly I see no problem.

Then we do not disagree; motte-and-bailey specifically refers to situations where there is a switch. Simply saying "this is what I mean, see examples here" is fine.

You know I really don't like calling this a fallacy. I think Irene just fails to make a reasonable case.  I get that thinking up examples can be tricky and I already said I understand the concept, so further examples that I don't see a fallacy in don't support the proposition. 

She asserted a position, and abandoned it upon being challenged by Sasha. Instead, she insists she only meant something weaker than that previous position. More than failing to make a reasonable case, she's made no case for the original point of view at all.

Yeah, I know that's what your calling it, I just think it's not appropriate. Saying that it's the motte and bailey because that's what it has already been named doesn't detract from it being name which doesn't describe the fallacy (in my opinion obviously). 

Motte-and-bailey is a good name imo. The bailey is the weak, easy-to-counter argument - in the literal sense of the word, it's the fertile lowland of the estate. The motte is the strong, hard-to-counter argument - the raised fortification - but it is undesired. So from the opponent's POV it is better to argue against a bailey (hence why people straw man all the time) as it is easier to deal with. 
 

Bryan writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

I'm not going to start pulling out definitions, as definitions are not confined by what a dictionary says, however you seem to be happy to force your definition over what a civil rights organisation uses. 

I didn't see Irene change position at all, she made an attempt to substantiate her position which was a failure. 

I'll bow out at that. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Bryan]

I remain confused as to why you insist that we disagree. Unconscious bias can still lead to racism, because discrimination on racial groups is racist. No?

What I am disputing is that all members of class white are "racist" by definition.

Irene started by claiming all cultures were equal, then made a claim of much weaker nature that doesn't support her previous point. 

Bryan writes:

[To Rationalissimo]

Just having a racial bias is covered by the term racism. I cannot state that I don't have a racial bias as I may give special treatment to people who look different to me. I try not to but honestly I'm not sure if it's even possible in today's world. 

Aside from anything else, humans evolved to work collectively in small groups. By their nature they favour those closest to them and social conditions cannot erase this entirely. The exception may be psychopaths, but I don't know enough about them to say. 

I don't think all white people (and here I take exception to this distinction which is in itself racist) are what we think of as racist, but studies have shown that, like it or not, that's just how we are. It may we worth distinguishing the colloquial term from the technical term to avoid equivocation which doesn't really help in the current climate. 

 

As for Irene, if you're referring to "Surely you're not saying that nature is totally unaffected by nature." I didn't understand what that was supposed to mean at all. Can maths effect maths? Physics effect physics? Nature is just a description of what exists, and things effect each other. I'm truly lost, so all I had left was classifying it as an abject failure by Irene to justify her position on account of it being a phrase which doesn't mean anything. People do that. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Bryan]

Just having a racial bias is covered by the term racism. I cannot state that I don't have a racial bias as I may give special treatment to people who look different to me. I try not to but honestly I'm not sure if it's even possible in today's world. 

And I clearly said:

"'Racial bias' can lead to racism. However, racist (of a person) refers to racialist/racist views, or notions of superiority/inferiority based on race. These people are calling members of a race, "racist", then switching to 'racial bias' when called out. Hence, far from clarifying, it becomes a position switch. The exception could be if the definition is made clear from the beginning, rather than relying on the strongly-negative connotation of a phrase as a first resort."

So we don't even disagree here. The unconscious racial biases of people can lead to racial discrimination and thus a system of disadvantage based on race ensues, in order words racism is taking place. However, you're confusing the outcome for the attitude, which is what "racist" means. "Racist" has two major meanings; of an event, expression, or system, and "racist" as in views that are racially bigoted. The second has  nothing  to do with the unconscious biases that whites supposedly have (according to Monique), it specifically refers to people like Ku Klux Klanners. However, the connotation is abused to suggest all whites fit the second meaning, and then we see equivocation to the first meaning when pressed. That is the problem. You want to maintain that being "racist" is exemplified by people like Trump, yet say all members of a certain group are also like this. 

I don't think all white people (and here I take exception to this distinction which is in itself racist) are what we think of as racist, but studies have shown that, like it or not, that's just how we are. It may we worth distinguishing the colloquial term from the technical term to avoid equivocation which doesn't really help in the current climate. 

Firstly I'm confused by the "and here I take exception to this distinction which is in itself racist". Secondly, yes, I am aware unconscious bias tests exist. I am aware of their reproducibility problems. It doesn't change anything about the abuse of contentious connotations to further a point.

 As for Irene, if you're referring to "Surely you're not saying that nature is totally unaffected by nature." I didn't understand what that was supposed to mean at all. Can maths effect maths? Physics effect physics? Nature is just a description of what exists, and things effect each other. I'm truly lost, so all I had left was classifying it as an abject failure by Irene to justify her position on account of it being a phrase which doesn't mean anything. People do that. 

That was a typo. I meant to say "surely you're not saying nature is totally unaffected by culture."

The motte-and-bailey fallacy works by advancing one central point - the desired one - then switching to one easier to defend under the pretense of defending the original one. Here Irene asserts that cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge; to defend this point she has to prove some sort of equality between the two, depending on what she means by 'valid' (I guess she meant epistemological validity). When challenged by Sasha she changes track and says that culture shapes our experiences to some degree; here she doesn't have to prove equality, she just has to prove existence - less work, ergo easier, ergo motte. It's a less controversial, more secure position. And to an unsuspecting audience, she will appear to have proved her point about the two being equal.

She has switched from "A = B" to "A can be useful".

Bryan writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Yes, you clearly said racial bias can  lead to racism, while I'm saying that racial bias is a form of racism. Racism isn't just one thing, it's manifests in various ways. Instead of arguing definitions just use more precise language such as overt racism. 

I took exception to the statement from the example, that all white people are racist, because saying that is racist. It seems pretty clear to me.

Okay, culture instead of nature, I still don't think making an attempt to support the original statement is a switch, it was just a poor attempt to justify it.

Not everything is a fallacy. There should be a fallacy for seeking them everywhere. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Bryan]

Not everything is a fallacy. There should be a fallacy for seeking them everywhere. 

Just because I identified one particular rhetorical flourish as fallacious doesn't mean I believe everything is a fallacy, so your statement doesn't follow at all. Irene made a point, then switched to a weaker version of it, hence the motte-and-bailey. It may take a longer conversation to identify such a switch in real life, but the basic idea is the same.

This might be the reason why the person who coined the idea uses the term 'motte-and-bailey doctrine' rather than fallacy.

Bryan writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

That's a rhetorical device called exaggeration. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Bryan]

It isn't exaggeration, because the belief is desired and the person is being literal. 

Bryan writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

I'm referring to when I said everything. I know that not literally everything is scrutinised as a logical fallacy, it's just so many questions appear asking "which fallacy" something is when it's often not even related to an argument. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Bryan]

Well that's fair enough; I guess though that is what the 'factually inaccurate' option is for.

Bryan writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Actually I will allow that, as the author of the hypothetical Monique, you can tell me that Monique uses your definition.