Difference between revisions of "Fallacy of moderation"
(that's, like, you're opinion, dude) |
(→Reference: RW has a page now) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
===Reference=== | ===Reference=== | ||
* {{Wikipedia|False compromise}} (False compromise) | * {{Wikipedia|False compromise}} (False compromise) | ||
| − | * {{ | + | * {{rationalwiki|Balance fallacy}} (Balance fallacy) |
* The Nizkor Project: | * The Nizkor Project: | ||
** [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html Fallacy: Middle Ground] | ** [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) | ** [http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#compromise False Compromise] (single paragraph) | ||
| + | |||
===News=== | ===News=== | ||
{{links/news}} | {{links/news}} | ||
Revision as of 00:30, 4 August 2018
About
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 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 compromise)
- RationalWiki (Balance fallacy)
- The Nizkor Project:
- Fallacy: Middle Ground
- False Compromise (single paragraph)
News
Humor
- 2007-08-15 I Drew This: being a "sensible centrist" -- sometimes a "compromise" position is barely distinguishable from an extreme one in its effects
- 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. |