Difference between revisions of "Fallacy of moderation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Fallacy of Moderation moved to Fallacy of moderation: capitalization standards) |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | <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> | ||
| + | (see also: [[:File:Idt20040825bothsides.gif|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 [[ | + | The fallacy of moderation is related to the technique of [[moving the fulcrum]] and the {{wpbackup|Overton window}} concept in {{wpbackup|political theory}}. |
| − | ==Reference== | + | |
| − | * | + | 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) | ||
| + | * {{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=== | ||
| + | {{links/news}} | ||
| + | ===Humor=== | ||
| + | * '''2004-08-25''' [https://web.archive.org/web/20120205075312/http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040825.html Both Sides] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Quotes== | ||
| + | {{excerpt|Dr. [[Kevin Barrett]] [http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/02/02073.html said]:}} | ||
| + | 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}} | ||
Revision as of 22:19, 22 July 2019
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.
(see also: Both Sides)
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.
(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 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. |