Motte and bailey

A motte and bailey castle.

Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

Logical fallacy Syllogism Argument

General logic

Argument from incredulity Heuristic Tone argument Four-term fallacy Anecdotal evidence Fear, uncertainty, and doubt

Bad logic

Style over substance One single proof Certum est quia impossibile est Terrorism-baiting Regression fallacy False dilemma v - t - e

Motte and bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "culture shapes our experiences") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.

In short: instead of defending a controversial position (the "bailey"), the arguer retreats to defending a less controversial position (the "motte"), while acting as though the positions are equivalent. When the motte has been accepted (or found impenetrable) by an opponent, the arguer returns to the bailey and can claim the bailey has not been refuted.

Note that the MAB works only if the motte and the bailey are sufficiently similar (at least superficially) that one can switch between them while pretending that they are equivalent. There exist a number of common rhetorical ploys and 'sleights-of-tongue' which can mask the apparency of such a transition.

The MAB is a fallacious argument style.

Form

1. Person A asserts [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
2. Person B critiques [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
3. Person A asserts that they were actually defending [Common-Sense Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
4. Person B no longer has grounds to critique Person A; Person B leaves the discussion.
5. Person A claims victory and discreetly reverts to actually supporting [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].

Variation

This slight variation of the original may be particularly effective in short-form mediums such as Twitter threads and live debates.

1. Person A asserts something in a sufficiently ambiguous way that it can be interpreted either as [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X] or as [Common-Sense Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
2. Person B critiques [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
3. Person A asserts that they were actually defending [Common-Sense Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
4. Person B either leaves the discussion or complains that person A was ambiguous.
5. Person A claims victory and discreetly reverts to actually supporting [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].

Origins and explanation

The term "motte and bailey" was created by Nicholas Shackel, a British professor of philosophy. Shackel named it after the motte-and-bailey castle, in which a highly-protected stone-fortified keep (the motte) is accompanied by an enclosed courtyard protected by sharpened wooden palisades (the bailey). Shackel used the phrase to criticize postmodernists who switch between arguing for uncontroversial statements, such as stating that culture influences a person's interpretation of the world (an easy-to-defend motte), and promoting highly controversial positions, e.g., that interpretations of the world based on religious mythology are as valid as scientific interpretations (an indefensible bailey). When the bailey (every-viewpoint-is-valid) is confronted, they often retreat to the motte (culture-shapes-our-experiences) and mock the critic for — supposedly — thinking this isn't true.

This method is an example of the "two-step", in which one repeatedly appears to concede weaker parts of an argument, then re-asserts the original claim, unaltered. The name refers to a quick and repetitious dance step. It relies on short attention span, short memories, and/or rapidly changing audience.

Goals

By arguing the weak bailey, yet temporarily retreating to the strong motte when attacked, the arguer can claim (or pretend):

• That the arguer never admitted to being wrong about anything. Strictly, this is true — the arguer never explicitly admitted defeat.
• That the arguer has been defending the more defensible position the whole time.
• That the critic is a fool for not agreeing with an obviously correct statement.
• That the controversial belief is counter-intuitive yet true, since it appears unassailable.

What it is not

Clarifying one's views to exclude an incorrect, expansive interpretation is not a motte-and-bailey fallacy, provided that what you defend is a correct and intended interpretation of your earlier statements. The problem with the motte and bailey is that it represents a constantly shifting target: now easy, now hard.

Related terms

Troll's truisms

See the main article on this topic: Deepity

A Troll's Truism is a "a mildly ambiguous statement by which an exciting falsehood may trade on a trivial truth". Some MABs, such as "everything happens for a reason" are also this. Troll's Truisms are more commonly known as deepities.

Humpty Dumptying

A subtype of motte and bailey described by Shackel is arbitrarily redefining words, which he calls Humpty Dumptying after a scene in Lewis Caroll's book Through the Looking Glass.

Examples

Nuclear power

Arguments against nuclear power often involve the motte and bailey tactic. It's not a secret that anti-nuclear activism has historically been motivated by the fear of accidents and often associated with doomsday scenarios. However, since nuclear power is evidently among the safest and cleanest ways to produce energy, the argument that nuclear power is unsafe cannot be empirically defended. Hence, the most common anti-nuclear arguments have shifted away from safety issues and are now more focused on the economics, specifically the high costs and cost overruns associated with recent nuclear construction efforts. Such arguments have become popular especially when renewables (solar and wind) became cheaper than recent nuclear construction based on LCOE estimates. Although, LCOE is not an appropriate metric to compare different energy sources. Back when renewables were still very expensive, the economic argument was flipped when applied to renewables. If renewables are expensive, we should support them with subsidies, but if nuclear is expensive, we should kill it. Environmental activist George Monbiot has noted this double-standard during a discussion with Caroline Lucas (former leader of the UK green party).

One of the most frequent arguments against nuclear power is that it costs too much. Many environmentalists claim that, when all the hidden costs, especially the massive decommissioning liabilities, are taken into account, electricity from atomic plants could cost as much as 5p per kilowatt hour or even more. The highest figure I have come across was the top end of the range of estimates produced by the New Economics Foundation – 8.3p. If this is correct – and I should emphasise that it’s an extreme outlier – it suggests that nuclear is an extravagant means of generating low-carbon electricity.

So why do the same people support a feed-in tariff scheme under which we pay 41p per kilowatt hour for rooftop solar electricity?

Last week I argued about these issues with Caroline Lucas. Caroline is one of my heroes, and the best thing to have happened to Parliament since time immemorial. But this doesn’t mean that she can’t be wildly illogical when she chooses. When I raised the issue of the feed-in tariff, she pointed out that the difference between subsidising nuclear power and subsidising solar power is that nuclear is a mature technology and solar is not. In that case, I asked, would she support research into thorium reactors, which could provide a much safer and cheaper means of producing nuclear power? No, she told me, because thorium reactors are not a proven technology. Words fail me.

While there are legitimate complains about the high costs of (some instances of) nuclear, historical data shows that high costs are not inevitable, and cost can in fact be reduced with proper management, standardization, and "learning-by-doing". Thus, the "nuclear is too expensive" argument (the 'motte') doesn't justify the anti-nuclear position (the 'bailey'), which remains motivated by the fear of the technology itself, not the associated costs. The 'Motte' can be broken down in (at least) several ways: Point out examples of nuclear power being constructed on time and on budget, and ask if they support nuclear power in such instances when it is cost effective; or point out that their complaint of nuclear being too expensive logically entails their support for the long-term operation of nuclear power. Since nuclear power has high construction but low operation costs, forcing existing nuclear power plants to retire prematurely would only make it more expensive. After pointing this out, expect them to abandon the economic 'motte' and reveal their 'bailey' position on safety, waste disposal, nuclear war, etc.

Science and pseudoscience

• Supporters of scientific racism often argue that human physiology is affected by genetics and evolution (motte) while failing to defend their bailey (usually genetic differences in race and IQ which equivocates between genetics and epigenetics).
• TERFs will frequently argue that biological sex has a significant effect on a person's life and how they are treated in society (motte) and then argue that biological sex is the only thing that's important and that it still completely defines a person even after gender transition (bailey). In some variations, the motte is instead the statement "sex is real".

Philosophy and religion

• People enamoured with "Objectivism" sometimes argue that the universe has always existed (to defend the atheistic view that there is no need to postulate a creation, and for other more specifically Objectivist purposes). They sometimes contend that it is a logically necessary truth that something must always have existed (bailey). But when pressed they satisfy themselves with establishing that existence is existence (A = A) (motte — and a tautology). However, this is not the necessary view apropos of atheism or, vice versa, necessary apropos of the rejection of causa prima. It is simply stated by Jean-Paul Sartre as "Existence precedes essence." Nevertheless, such a conclusion that the universe has always existed, because existence is existence, would be completely absurd.
• Arguments for the existence of God can also fall into this fallacy. Some arguments, such as the ones used by William Lane Craig (Kalam cosmological argument, teleological argument, and moral argument), are vague on whether the "g" in "god" is capitalized. If asked, Craig can claim he's arguing for a generic god and not the specific one of Christianity.
• Intelligent Design proponents, when asked who the designer is, say it "could be anything/anyone", but when left alone say the designer is the Christian God.

Other

• The moral panic over critical race theory uses this as the main argument. The argument goes that children shouldn't be made to feel guilty for atrocities committed before they were born (or equivalently, that not every white person in the world is racist) (motte), but then in practice extend this to argue that any discussion of slavery and racism, even purely historical, should be prohibited (bailey). When a progressive refutes the bailey, they are then falsely claimed to oppose the motte, which is why this tactic has been so successful.
• "Everything happens for a reason". At face value, the statement is consistent with the principle of cause and effect. However, "reason" often means a conscious reason (God's plan) or positive intent, not just happenstance.

See also

• Bait-and-switch
• DARVO
• Equivocation
• Fear, uncertainty, and doubt
• Deepity