Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election close on Sunday.

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

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!(Mod) 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!(Mod) 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)