Talk:Motte and bailey

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Always Intentional?[edit]

Even though Motte and Bailey's are often intentional, they don't necessarily need to be. Some cases where they might not be intentional:

  • The ambiguity might be subtle enough that speaker himself doesn't see the difference.
  • The speaker might believe it is ok to hold both beliefs. This sometimes happens with modern churches, which will teach the literal version of God/Jesus and will also teach a more conceptual version. They'll do this to "cater to different people" or be more "open-minded".
  • Perhaps the speaker believes the Motte is an adequate argument for the Bailey, essentially being an appeal to common sense.

Turkeypotpie (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the article says it's intentional. It can very well be a subconscious bias or reflex that people have. If you want to clarify along those lines, you are welcome to; we could always use new users to help improve the site. CorruptUser (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

List of MaB Arguments?[edit]

So... Do we have a shortlist of MaB examples? CorruptUser (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

ContraPoints just did a video o Jordan Peterson doing this and there's this video from Alt Right playbook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui-ArJRqEvU that discusses people using redefinition to make unreasonable things look reasonable and vice versa. Keter (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"He or she" versus singular they[edit]

The formal grammarians probably prefer the former, is there a reason we prefer the latter? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That it takes Non-binary gender into account, I guess? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Concise and fair. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps but we really need to find new pronouns, the "they" slips me up a lot. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, and people keep trying to, but none of them really stick. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
That's also true, language is stubborn. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I prefer "they", as it has precedent with the plural "you" having already displaced the singular "thou" in English. Remembering who has what set of pronouns is too complicated for simple-minded me, and if you get offended, I probably don't want to around you longer than I have to anyway. CoryUsar (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Objectivist Example[edit]

Am I correct in believing that the "existence exists" talk of Randians fits into this category of fallacy? On the one hand they can always retreat into the motte of A = A, the tautology that "existence is existence." On the other hand, what they are trying to say or suggest is that SOMETHING exists, and that the existence of something-or-other is a logical necessity, so that the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is easily answered -- "there is something because A = A." That ontological claim looks like a bailey to me, whereas the tautology is a motte. Fair enough? --Christofurio (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, man. It's pretty easy to use this term to describe a lot of things, but I have a hard time seeing that example as anything other than just the most inane and useless tautology. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
For all meaningful values of A, A implies Not-A. That is, for A to be something worth pondering, it must be present somewhere and absent somewhere else. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hard times create strong men[edit]

The reasoning why this phrase is a motte and bailey doesn't make sense. Especially the second part. Where did this "militaristic" intrepertation come from? "the argument is that hard times lead to a strong military" Whose argument is that? Nowhere in the phrase is military or war mentioned in anyway, yet the article invents it out of thin air and attacks it. Sounds like a fallacy to me. You can have hard times without military conflict. --2001:999:53:D003:51E:B111:411A:9B03 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Points of view[edit]

Can one person's motte be another bailey, or two different viewpoints share a motte? Thus OECs and 'scientific interpretations of the origins of the universe' can agree that 'summat weird happened and life emerged (on Earth/in the universe in general) - the motte, with the bailey being Goddidit or 'insufficient present information (until sufficient planets going from (primeval soup of amino acids and other chemicals etc) to life (whether or not as we know it) have been observed'? Anna Livia (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)