Difference between revisions of "Fallacy of moderation"

Latest revision as of 13:21, 19 August 2023

A good moderate compromise position between Obama and the GOP would seem to be halfway between the two of them -- which (in the last panel) just happens to be approximately where the GOP was originally standing (in the first panel).

1. One side offers an absurdly unethical and pointless position.
2. The other side objects.
3 & 4. A "sensible centrist" offers a compromise which, while precisely halfway between the two positions on a quantitative level, is hardly any more ethical or reasonable.
This is another way of expressing The Parable of the Killer of Hundreds and the Killer of None, and see also Both Sides)

About

The fallacy of moderation is a logical fallacy which occurs when one assumes that the truth, or a reasonable position, must lie approximately midway between two opposing opinions. It is also known as False Compromise and The Golden Mean Fallacy.

The fallacy of moderation is related to the technique of moving the fulcrum and the Overton window [W] concept in political theory [W].

Common phrases that imply this argument include:

"There are two sides to every argument." (implication: both sides are equally valid)
"Where there's smoke, there's fire." (implication: someone wouldn't make an argument if there wasn't some merit to it)
"Everyone's entitled to their opinion." (implication: this disagreement is a matter of opinion, and not one that can be settled objectively)

Links

Reference

Wikipedia: false balance, false compromise
RationalWiki (Balance fallacy)
The Nizkor Project:
- Fallacy: Middle Ground
- False Compromise (single paragraph)

News

Humor

2004-08-25 Both Sides

Quotes

Dr. Kevin Barrett said:

In court, for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath.

...but only some of it, so that's okay.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<hide>
+[[page type::article]]
+[[thing type::logical fallacy]]
+[[Category:logical fallacies]]
+</hide>
 [[File:Negotiation-cartoon.jpg|thumb|A good moderate compromise position between Obama and the GOP would seem to be halfway between the two of them -- which (in the last panel) just happens to be approximately where the GOP was originally standing (in the first panel).]]
+[[File:Idt20070815.png|thumb|
+'''1.''' One side offers an absurdly unethical and pointless position.<br>
+'''2.''' The other side objects.<br>
+'''3 & 4.''' A "sensible centrist" offers a compromise which, while precisely halfway between the two positions on a quantitative level, is hardly any more ethical or reasonable.<br>
+This is another way of expressing [https://writer.oliphant.social/oliphant/the-parable-of-the-killer-of-hundreds-and-the-killer-of-none The Parable of the Killer of Hundreds and the Killer of None], and see also [[:File:Idt20040825bothsides.gif|Both Sides]])]]
 ==About==
-[[Category:logical fallacies]]The [[fallacy of moderation]] is a [[logical fallacy]] which occurs when one assumes that the truth must lie approximately midway between two opposing opinions. It is also known as '''False Compromise''' and '''The Golden Mean Fallacy'''.
+The [[fallacy of moderation]] is a [[logical fallacy]] which occurs when one assumes that the truth, or a reasonable position, must lie approximately midway between two opposing opinions. It is also known as '''False Compromise''' and '''The Golden Mean Fallacy'''.
 The fallacy of moderation is related to the technique of [[moving the fulcrum]] and the {{wpbackup|Overton window}} concept in {{wpbackup|political theory}}.
+Common phrases that imply this argument include:
+* "There are two sides to every argument." (implication: both sides are equally valid)
+* "Where there's smoke, there's fire." (implication: someone wouldn't make an argument if there wasn't some merit to it)
+* "Everyone's entitled to their opinion." (implication: this disagreement is a [[that's your opinion|matter of opinion]], and not one that can be settled objectively)
 ==Links==
 ===Reference===
-* {{Wikipedia|False compromise}} (False compromise)
+* Wikipedia: {{l/wp|false balance}}, {{l/wp|false compromise}}
-* {{!in|rationalwiki}}: no information as of 2010-09-10
+* {{rationalwiki|Balance fallacy}} (Balance fallacy)
 * The Nizkor Project:
 ** [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html Fallacy: Middle Ground]
 ** [http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#compromise False Compromise] (single paragraph)
 ===News===
 {{links/news}}
 ===Humor===
-* '''2007-08-15''' [https://web.archive.org/web/20111225124309/http://www.idrewthis.org/2007/08/i-drew-this-august-15-2007.html I Drew This]: being a "sensible centrist" -- sometimes a "compromise" position is barely distinguishable from an extreme one in its effects
 * '''2004-08-25''' [https://web.archive.org/web/20120205075312/http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040825.html Both Sides]
@@ Line 21: / Line 37: @@
 In court, for example, [[psychopath]]s can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the [[truth]]. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath.
 {{-excerpt}}
+[[File:A51541c0b5430137bc06005056a9545d.gif|frame|...but only some of it, so that's okay.]]