Talk:Motte and bailey doctrine

No Fallacy![edit]

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).

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. A fallacy is an argument that is invalid and equivocation is giving different meanings to the same terms when you should be keeping their meaning invariant. A doctrine, however, is a body of propositions, not an argument. So a Motte and Bailey Doctrine cannot be a fallacy and shifting from asserting the Bailey propositions to the Motte propositions is not in general effected by giving different meanings to the same words or statements.

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)

this paragraph shows what it isn't (but might be mistaken for) and related ideas

"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. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 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[edit]

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Feminism[edit]

*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. Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 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[edit]

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? Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This is terrible[edit]

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)

Motte and bailey doctrine | Result: Deleted[edit]

Motte and bailey doctrine – (View AfD)

Delete[edit]

"terrible article about a bad neologism for "equivocation" that has any currency almost nowhere Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
All these obscure, new fallacies could be collected in one article, but do not merit their own stubs.---Mona- (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Scott Alexander/Slate Star Codex, where they would be in the list of local neologisms that no sensible person wants to write. Google ""motte and bailey" -site:slatestarcodex.com" and you'll find nothing except articles on actual castles - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Aneris realising how shit his own terrible articles are? Excellent! - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1. Reason given: Nicolas Shakel explained: "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 by contrast is a fairly limited trick, "different meanings of a word". Anyway, it's redefined now, made falsely identical, so this doublicate should be deleted from your wiki. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Ŵêâŝêîôîď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I was on the fence about this one for a while. Then something occurred to me: The biggest problem is not the rebranding of garden variety equivocation, it's the introduction of the word 'doctrine' in the coinage. Adding 'doctrine' creates the false impression that this is formal aspect of the point being argued, dictated from above. Pointing out a bad argument would be laudable, but introducing this coinage also includes an attempt at straw manning, pretending that there's some formal endorsement of that poor argumentation inherent in that person's standpoint. So, in essence, 'Motte and Bailey Doctrine' is a dishonest rhetorical technique masquerading as unmaking a dishonest rhetorical technique. At best, it should be a footnote on equivocation. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 12:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

So it's a junior synonym to equivocation. I get that. It's also a frequently encountered form of equivocation. The Sokal quote was a worthwhile example as well. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but this is still a neologism of no currency. Its presence here is only as propaganda for the LessWrongsphere. "Bait and switch" is closer to a term with any currency - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Given that we have an article on that Alexander guy, why not stick all of the LW neologisms there?
I don't see a problem with this page; sure, it's a neologism that's not often used, but I like it! I don't oppose merge & redirect, either. Certainly the lead paragraphs and perhaps the examples are worth keeping somewhere. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone directed my attention to this. Not sure you'll be interested in what I have to say but as the originator of the idea I'd like to mention a couple of things. Contrary to the definition with which you start your entry, a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is not a kind of equivocation *at all*. A doctrine is a body of propositions, not an argument. The whole point of my describing a Motte and Bailey Doctrine was to describe a distinctive kind of corruption that a *doctrine* (or theory, or belief system etc.) may fall into--not to describe a kind of fallacy. (For some reason, you cut off your quotation of me at exactly the point I give the description of the doctrine, leaving only the description of the castle. Perhaps that is part of the reason that the discussion on this page is not about Motte and Bailey Doctrines but confined to a way they can be exploited, namely, equivocation.) What is both clever and bad about a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is that once such once a doctrine is in place, it offers extensive opportunities for deceitful trickery in argument, of which equivocation is only one. But again, part of the point of the description is to identify the root of that trickery in the structure of the doctrine. This is why it is no defence to the diagnosis to say that one particular interlocutor has not promulgated both Motte and Bailey. That would be a defence if they were accused of a fallacy, but no defence if they are accused of making use of this corrupt structure. Of course, people have picked up the term and applied it both to the doctrines and to the argumentative trickery. Nevertheless, the central idea is all about the structure of doctrines, belief systems, theories etc and how, if set up in this way, they are the ground and opportunity for argumentative trickery, not the trickery itself. I tried to give a memorable name to the particular kind of intellectual cheating that a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is, but the cheating itself is messy, which is why it required 7 or 8 paragraphs to lay out the idea on the practical ethics blog and in the original paper in Metaphilosophy. And that takes me to my second point, which is that, quite independently of whatever you want to do with my idea, you should certainly take on board for your policy David Stove's point (in ‘What is Wrong with Our Thoughts?’) that there are indefinitely many ways of cheating intellectually and for most there is no simple way to put one’s finger on how the cheat is effected. There is just the hard work of describing the species in detail. It seems to me that the tenor of your conversation on this page is wanting to wrap things up in tidy bundles. His point is precisely that a great deal of what goes wrong with our thoughts can't be wrapped up like that. n. shackel

Merge/redirect[edit]

Add a single paragraph subsection to the Equivocation page, plus redirect. CorruptUser (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As my goat entry says: Create an article on bait-and-switch and merge not only motte and bailey, but also milk before meat into it. Just an idea. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Those aren't the same thing. Wėąṣėḷőįď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I like SW's idea. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It belongs somewhere, if not on a page that includes that Scott Alexander guy then some page where these obscure fallacies are aggregated. What page doesn't especially concern me since we can use redirect for various appropriate pages.---Mona- (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
To the extent that this needs to stay at all, merge it into the equivocation article with a redirect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

i like the concept behind this - "spout bullshit, retreat to vague statements when challenged, Return to spouting bullshit when they leave", but it feels like this has a different name to cover it. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
In rhetoric, this has been called "equivocation" for a long time. It is possible the particular subspecies needs a name, but this is unlikely to be it - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As indicated by my edits, I think that motte and bailey (m&b) bears more than a passing resemblance to bait-and-switch (b&s), a far more common term (though it doesn't have an RW article yet). While some of the examples are of equivocation as well, the point is that m&b/b&s doesn't necessarily involve equivocation, but simply a switch from one argument to another. Of the existing RW articles, I'd say it falls somewhere in between equivocation, moving the goalposts and milk before meat (mbm). Personally, I'd prefer a bait-and-switch article (since it also encompasses all kinds of sleazy business practices) and merging m&b and mbm into it as specific variants. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We definitely could do with a good article on bait and switch - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a bait-and-switch, either, Wikipedia, Urban Dict. What you are doing is called rationalisation. David Gerard has redefined the term to mean "equivocation" (falsely, see above), made it identical and this is of course a good reason to delete it. I think you should pull it through and kill it off, and document once more the postmodernist bent here (also see: DG: "cut out cite to Sokal's non-use" confusing explanation with naming). — Aneris ✻ (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Note the above comment is a good example of "spout bullshit, retreat to vague statements when challenged, Return to spouting bullshit when they leave" but without being "motte and bailey" in the SSC usage - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever man. Cutting out an earlier description and redefining the terms, on a wiki, with everything documented en detail, is far from "vague". I pointed you to the direct quotations from Sokal and Shakel, which were already in the original article, to begin with. You are free to reject what these people say, but then say so. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, why am I suddenly reminded of argumentum ad dictionarium...?

Anyway, consulting Merriam-Webster yields a wider use of b&s, i.e. "2: the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable" and Wiktionary has a similar extended meaning: "2. (by extension) Any similar deceptive behavior, especially in politics and romantic relationships". Oh, and we also need to keep in mind that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive and are thus tricky to use as a clinching argument (especially since the obscure m&b term doesn't even figure in any of these dictionaries in the first place...).

I'm pretty sure I've encountered the wider notion of bait-and-switch elsewhere where it was used to indicate not simply its original meaning of fraudulent advertising, but other instances where an audience or a person is cynically tempted with one thing only to see it replaced by a less desirable alternative when convenient by the one making the initial offer. That seems to me to be the same mechanism at work in the more obscure motte and bailey doctrine too (cynically retreating to the motte when the bailey can't be defended or, conversely, moving into the more pleasant bailey when not pressed too hard). As b&s seems to be a far more well-known concept than m&b, I'd prefer to make the latter a section in an article on the former. Of course, if you think that the meanings of b&s and m&b are completely at odds, feel free to argue why (so far you've provided links, but little in terms of explanations). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Like it is with fallacies and similar figures, everything seems broadly mapped out. There are now fallacies for special subsets of strawmans (hollow man, weak man/nutpicking) and there are special terms for rhetorical tricks where the meaning or some other hidden property changes (hidden behind the words or labels, e.g. mental representations). The bait-and-switch would be a form where something desirable to the addressee is promoted, which then gets replaced once the addressee has swallowed it. This might be a case with Scientology and their religious compatiblity claim, which gradually is revealed to be false. I.e. the "attractive", easy version is front and visible first. The motte and bailey, already by metaphor, is about promoting the eccentric version (not necessary attractive one) because this is what proponents actually believe and want to spread. What is similar is that something is switched out, as in the equivocation, but the tactics and circumstances seem inverse. I have to stress that I have no objection to delete it, though. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I wouldn't object to merging nutpicking into association fallacy as a subsection either, so... ScepticWombat (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There could be a meta article that describes the switching out of some property, with child-sections for (1) bait-and-switch, (2) motte-and-bailey doctrine and (3) equivocation. Another meta article would describe a family of fallacies such as nut-picking (weak-man), hollow man and straw man. They are also paired that way in Aikin's paper. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)