Motte-and-bailey fallacy
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).
Wikipage disambiguates
primaryTopic
Motte-and-bailey fallacy
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).
has abstract
The motte-and-bailey fallacy ( ...... with an attack on the motte).
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
54,312,631
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,018,619,844
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
wikiPageUsesTemplate
comment
The motte-and-bailey fallacy ( ...... with an attack on the motte).
@en
label
Motte-and-bailey fallacy
@en