Question

...
Bo Bennett, PhD

Trying to understand Motte and Bailey, but the examples I've seen are rather lacking

I think this is more about the strong argument, weak argument style, though I may be wrong. Correct me if so.

Let A and B be two persons who disagree on X

Let Y be something A and B both agree upon

A asserts X and uses Y as evidence for X

B contradicts X

A asserts Y is true therefore X is true

 

So, in an example,

Let X be crystals meet the definition of life

Let Y be crystals grow and that they respond to external stimuli

A: Crystals meet the definition of life because they grow and respond to external stimuli

B: Crystals are not alive

A: But they grow and respond to external stimuli

 

The issue of course being that the definition of life was never established, it is merely asserted that Y is evidence of X.

 

Am I following down the right path? I do not find the articles I've pulled up on Motte and Bailey to be very concise in their explanation of the tactic.

asked on Tuesday, Dec 01, 2020 06:02:44 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

Check out this discussion we recently had on this: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/questions/tmIKpkV5/the_motteandbailey_fallacy.html I did research this and chose not to add it as a fallacy. Honestly, I cannot remember the exact reason why, but in general it wasn't a good match for one or more the criteria I list for fallacies.

posted on Tuesday, Dec 01, 2020 07:35:07 AM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Unfortunately, that leaves me right down the same question

"What we really mean is, all whites are racially biased as a result of being brought up with certain beliefs in the context of a racialised society" isn't honestly a stronger argument, just a more specific one. So now instead of attacking "All whites are racist" which leaves "racist" poorly defined between both people we're talking about institutional racism. Of course, understanding exactly what was being argued, "racist" now changed definitions.

So if one person equates racism to being a member of the KKK and another person equate it to subconscious actions that work against members of another race (such as criminals always being black in movies) then this new position only further defines "all whites are racist" to be in the latter, not the former.

 

So the fallacy is what exactly? That the other side doesn't understand what is being argued?

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Dec 07, 2020 08:57:07 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers