Talk:Motte and bailey doctrine

No Fallacy!
I've written a paragraph called delineation to explain what it is and what it isn't. Here is it again:
 * === Delineation ===
 * The motte and bailey doctrine is neither a fallacy, for the propositions are not strictly false; nor is it necessarily an equivocation, as it does not always rely on different meanings of the same words or statements. It is also usually not circular reasoning as both meanings don't build on each other. Strategic equivocation, where the two meanings hinge on the interpretations of the same words can be thought as a special case (or subset) of the motte and bailey doctrine. The motte and bailey doctrine shares similarities with the deepity, but in a deepity, the different meanings are apparent at once, and which is used to bamboozle the recipient.

''The reason I wanted it under delineation and not explanation is that this paragraph shows what it isn't (but might be mistaken for) and related ideas. I can live with it under "explanation", but I maintain that it isn't a fallacy: "for the propositions are not strictly false". You can say two each non-fallacious things. The coiner Shackle explains (in the link provided).''

''I also object to it being a "self-refuting idea". There is nothing self-refuting per se to first advance a Ground of Being, and then switch to a personal God (both things are individually false, for other reasons).'' Aneris (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Explanation" does that; it helps people understand what it is in the context of other ideas.
 * I'll respond more fully later, I have to go. 16:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll respond more fully later, I have to go. 16:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * [ec] I have reinstated the version before Fuzzy's most recent edits. I'd like to see a defense articulated for calling the doctrine a fallacy, here on this talk page. SmartFeller (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would call it an informal fallacy, a failure of commensurability. It's in some ways the mirror image of a strawman argument; the strawman sets  up a radical or indefensible position so the arguer can knock it down.  In the motte and bailey, the arguer wants to argue for the strawman's position, and uses a strong point that's defensible but not really what she wants to claim.  - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lawyers call it arguing in the alternative, and we can even argue mutually exclusive stuff just to see what sticks to the judicial wall. But it's still not intellectually respectable.---Mona- (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Links to add
04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * http://realityisnotoptional.com/2015/10/21/fallacies-of-calvinists/
 * http://malcolmpollack.com/2014/08/05/motte-and-bailey/
 * https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/against-motte-and-bailey/
 * https://deusdiapente.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/the-motte-and-bailey-doctrine/
 * http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2015/02/is-my-gender-wage-gap-view-motte-and.html
 * http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/

Feminism
*A mainstream definition holds that “feminism is the radical notion that women are people”, but then feminists have a variety of very special tenets from feminist theory, gender studies etc. that must be accepted, or the person is claimed to not be a feminist.

Source on the "mainstream definition", "very special tenets from...", that they "must be accepted" and an example of anyone being called to not to be a feminist for them and how it all ties to the original claim that "feminism is the radical notion that women are people". Otherwise this reads like some stupid mishmash which you only added to accuse all feminists of being fallacious. I'm asking this because it's blatantly obvious that you have a very warped and cartoonish view on what is "feminist theory" and "gender studies", as is apparent from your constant rants about them. Typhoon (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't and you know it since you started an edit war over the "some", which was far more careful than any of the other groups. But that was of course disingenious, as I expected. Every attempt to make it consistent was subverted by you, because you don't want to have that example in there at all. So here you go. Then you know already that some people who accept this definition, and say they are feminists are still regarded not as feminists based on entirely different criteria. This happens all over the place between the different waves, between the sex positive and sex negative factions, in the sex wars etc. where you are only a real feminist when you are of the correct stripe. This is hardly news. It pisses me off that such ignorant nitwits like you cannot even do basic google and based on your ideological convictions (plus ignorance) destroy articles. Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Source your wacky claims. Typhoon (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How can I help? There is thing called "Wikipedia" where you can look up terms you don't understand. A very good source is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which also has a number of feminist articles. A few search engines can assist you in looking up the terms you encounter, for example Google.com, Bing.com or Yahoo.com, and more. Your browser might also support custom searches. Try right-click into the search box on the site, e.g. Wikipedia, and find the option for "add search" or something like that, and specifcy a phrase. Use something short, like "w" for Wikipedia. Then type e.g. "w dunning-kruger effect" and it brings you directly to the article in question. I hope I could help you. Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This is great. I don't need to do anything, and people expose their extreme bias. Removed everything again, reason Queex: "The rampant generalisation does not help.", I mean christians, homeopaths etc also don't all use the Motte-And-Bailey doctrine, and there are even fewer quacks that claim their cure heals cancer than feminists who tell each other they aren't feminist proper. Aneris ✻ (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a no true Scotsman issue, not motte & bailey doctrine. 21:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is obviously a joke. It is impossible to have a general statement being true (and uncontested), while at the same time different waves and factions that often are in quite intense conflict with each other over who's a true scotman or who is not. The motte & bailey doctrine is the method to determine selectively that someone is not a true scotsman at a given time (precisely to get people into the "correct camp"). That is how it works. It's the engine that justifies/rationalises the no true scotsman declaration when this doesn't work. If, for instance, they remembered their slogan on their t-shirt (or mug), they could not revoke the scotsman membership card. It's exactly the same for Christians (or Sophisticated Theologians™). If they remembered that one only needs to believe in the Ground of Being™ (motte version) then all religious conflicts would vanish, as suddenly the religious outroup (denominations etc) would disappear, as would the reason to advance a specialized version (the bailey). But nevermind. Keep the article. I'm used to have ignoramuses cripple my articles they barely understand. I take it that I need to improve my writing somehow. Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Limiting examples to non-contentious topics
There is no reason to import controversial issues that generate tension and edit warring on this wiki into this unrelated article. I propose we preclude examples of M&B that are not subject to a peaceful consensus in the larger wiki. That would leave plenty of room for woo, religion, and wingnut politics. Finally, any but the most generally accepted understandings should be documented with specific examples of the offered example.---Mona- (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And an example of Motte and Bailey in action, along with a whole heaping dose of hypocrisy and irony! Bwahaha. CorruptUser (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. From one of the more reactionary types here who is so often simply wrong in his fact claims. YOU introduced a wholly extraneous issue into this article, because you are a shit-stirrer.---Mona- (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't like the example either, but I seem to have a different mindset from virtually everyone I came across here. I don't care whether I like something or not. I only care whether it is true (and useful to resolve rhetorical games). For that I wrote the article, and see again how my stalkers first cripple it, then claim bullshit reasons for their undos, and when I play along for fun, they trump up new bullshit reasons, thereby revealing their dishonesty. Astonishing, people then get into my hair (coop, revoke rights etc). Meanwhile everyone pretents this funny project here was "SPOV" -- which I now understand was meant satirically. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Get down of the cross. We need the wood.---Mona- (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * nailed it. Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

My problem with Aneris' example wasn't that it was "controversial", but that, as Weaseloid also pointed out, it read like a silly straw man and even taken at face value it hardly seemed to be an actual example of a motte and bailey doctrine. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. However, CorruptUser also showed up to toss in something about Israel and Palestine. So then I just thought we should discuss whether this article should get itself mired in those "other" issues. Aneris has in some edit summary stated that s/he founded this article for the purpose of getting into this "SJW" thesis of his/hers about feminism. My motive was to avoid having this article become a battleground for both I/P- and Gamergate-related issues if we didn't have to. And I don't see that we have to.---Mona- (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Avoiding mentioning something because we don't want to deal with the fights it'll cause is not something we as a skeptics and bullshit bashing wiki should be involved in. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess I agree. I've been refraining from editing-in the topic I'm most associated with at the Whataboutery page so as not to raise a ruckus. But, the fallacy honestly does abound all over that issue from the, uh, other side. My urge has been to limit these controversies to the articles inherently about those issue. But I do see that you are probably right.---Mona- (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What mona wrote about me is complete bollocks. Again. I am not involved in gamergate, go check it. I argued on specific points on Saint Sarkeesian's talk page, where I earned a bunch of enemies it seems. The article here once cited four of five different practical examples from homeopathy to politics which struck me as true, and which were taken from the source articles. I reacted allergic because said people were following me around and remove stuff, highly selectively, not because I need them for my religious war, as mona believes, but because the opposite. They kick out things they believe would somehow help my case. They also removed expansions elsewhere where I have no clue how it would make my case. Aneris ✻ (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And again, same people remove the "deepity" from "see also", and add in "Dog whistle politics" instead for no apparent reason. When I correct that, it's undone, aka usual fare. /waiting for Mona or other imbecile to berate me for mentioning their disingenious BS Aneris ✻ (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed deepity from 'see also' because it's already mentioned & linked in the article a few lines up from there. I removed conjectural examples ("X might say Y") which weren't actually cited to any "source articles", and removed the feminism example because it's a ridiculous strawman rather than a genuine example.  I don't know where you get that I'm "following you around" or targeting you personally. Where have we crossed paths previously?  12:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This is terrible
It's a terrible article about a bad neologism for "equivocation" that has any currency almost nowhere except Scott Alexander's blog. Aneris, you are not a coherent thinker. Hacking away the spurious shite now. You can't claim "Sokal backs me up" when even you admit he doesn't - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense at all. But I have learned that there is no point in arguing anything around here. I merely register that what you say is complete nonsense. And all your questons/claims are addressed, even by Shackel himself on his blog. The Sokal quote, which you killed, describes the same principle. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sokal was not talking about "motte and bailey", so is not part of the history of "motte and bailey". If you want history of the concept, you can be sure it goes way further back than Sokal. Because it's called "equivocation" and has been a named part of rhetoric since the Sophists. If you want an article on "motte and bailey", you need substance that's about "motte and bailey". You don't have any, because there isn't any - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you redefine it to mean "equivocation", delete explanation that shows where it's different, delete Sokal's description that shows it's not a simple equivocation, then of course it eventually is no longer the concept it was meant to describe. Shakel: "Some people have spoken of a Motte and Bailey Doctrine as being a fallacy and others of it being a matter of strategic equivocation. Strictly speaking, neither is correct". Sokal: "these texts are often ambiguous and can be read in at least two distinct ways". An equivocation is a fairly limited trick, "different meanings a word". Anyway, it's redefined now, made identical, so this doublicate should be deleted from your wiki. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)