The motte-and-bailey fallacy

Jamal

In a motte-and-bailey castle, the motte is an earth mound with a keep built on top, and the bailey is a courtyard out front closer to ground level, surrounded by a palisade. The motte is easier to defend, the bailey more exposed.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy occurs when someone advances a controversial claim—one that's difficult to defend—and when challenged retreats to an uncontroversial claim. The bold claim is the bailey, the safe claim the motte.

A: Trans women are not women. [bailey]

B: That's a transparently bigoted comment, functioning as it does to directly negate the gender identities of trans people and thereby deny their claims to equal treatment.

A: Look, all I'm saying is that biological sex cannot be changed and that women's rights need to be protected. And you call me a bigot! [motte]

[This example is inspired by YouTuber ContraPoints, who uses the idea to criticize J.K. Rowling and her supporters in this video, which is worth watching if you're interested in that particular issue.]

The idea was coined by Nicholas Shackel in The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology (PDF).

[...] the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed. — Nicholas Shackel

It has been challenged by Randy Harris in his Commentary on Shackel (PDF).

He accuses postmodernists of withdrawing to their Mottes rather than hoisting their battle axes to fight it out on the Bailey, but he is just as guilty of avoiding a true fight, systematically retreating to his siege engine, or whatever the offensive corollary of the defensive Motte is. — Randy Harris

In other words, B might just as often be guilty of a failure to observe the principle of charity in taking A to be in the bailey, i.e., distorting A's position such that they can easily defeat them. This looks like a description of strawmanning. Harris seems to be saying that the accusation of motte-and-bailey is merely a tendentious ploy.

What do you think? Is it helpful and does it do anything that other informal fallacy concepts don't already do?

invicta

Usually if my point can’t be fully defended but some aspects can then I bail out, or go Bailey and concede partially.

I would never concede for lack of the other party’s inability to understand.

If they strawman, I point it out but don’t engage, maybe they’re just baiting you lol

If upon making a claim that you know you won’t fully defend then give such concessions at the start of the argument.

Pantagruel

What do you think? Is it helpful and does it do anything that other informal fallacy concepts don't already do? — Jamal

I think it is in essence the strawman fallacy.

Christoffer

I think it is in essence the strawman fallacy. — Pantagruel

Nah, a strawman is overly simplifying an opponents argument, and/or making it ridiculous in order to counter-argue it more easily.

This is more of a defensive fallacy, first stating an arbitrary wild concept as an argument, and when the lack of scrutiny is pointed out, retreating back to something that is defined and backed up but has little to do with the first wild statement or in support of it.

Art48

What do you think? Is it helpful and does it do anything that other informal fallacy concepts don't already do? — Jamal

I haven't heard of this fallacy before and I think it is helpful.
I think it's vaguely like the moving the goalposts fallacy.

Jamal

I haven't heard of this fallacy before and I think it is helpful. — Art48

I agree, I like it. I do find it occasionally confusing though, when for some reason I’m associating the strong claim with the strong position in the castle.

I think it's vaguely like the moving the goalposts fallacy — Art48

Maybe they overlap. When you move the goalposts you move them to where it’s more difficult for your opponent to score, which is like retreating to the defendable position.

Pantagruel

Nah, a strawman is overly simplifying an opponents argument, and/or making it ridiculous in order to counter-argue it more easily. — Christoffer

It seems to be the same principle as a strawman to me, only used defensively, as you state.

NOS4A2

The second statement of A seems more of a response to the appeal to emotion of B and not necessarily a retreat of any sort. B is where the fallacy is.

I don’t think rephrasing an argument into terms that are less crippling for some brains is unwarranted.

Christoffer

It seems to be the same principle as a strawman to me, only used defensively, as you state. — Pantagruel

I think the difference is that in a strawman the act is to simplify and ridicule, but in this case the act is to retreat to something solid and simple. The difference being a strawman is an attack with simplicity in order to sound more advanced in response, while the other is a retreat to a grounded simplicity in order to sound like there's a good foundation.

I get your point, but I think the application of this fallacy has its own use rather than being the same as a strawman.

frank

What do you think? Is it helpful and does it do anything that other informal fallacy concepts don't already do? — Jamal

Isn't it what we call "moving the goal posts"? I don't think the trans issue mentioned is actually a case of it, though.

Oh, someone already pointed that out. :up:

Moliere

I think this an interesting fallacy in that it is at least a ~~dialogic~~ dialogue-centric? fallacy -- it's explicitly in terms of a conversation, unlike most fallacies which mention either counter-examples (in the case of informal fallacies, like this one) or rules of validity.

apokrisis

I think the difference is that in a strawman the act is to simplify and ridicule, but in this case the act is to retreat to something solid and simple. — Christoffer

I agree. Arguments ought to have this hierarchical logic where you "retreat" towards first principles to defend the secondary views you may derive from them. The global axioms grounds the particular local applications of them.

Where the motte-and-bailey image fails is that in a serious argument, both sides would be going back to basics this way.

In the trans women example, the axiomatic basis on one side would seem to be that biological truth trumps cultural fiction. On the other, it would be some version of the reverse.

The stepping back by one side ought to be an invitation to the other to take up the challenge of defending the reverse in good old dialectic fashion.

Janus

I think it is in essence the strawman fallacy. — Pantagruel

Interesting point, the Motte and Bailey fallacy could be seen as a kind of reversal insofar as it seems to consist in defending rather than attacking a strawman.

I've seen the accusation that a Motte and Bailey fallacy is being committed used on these forums to strawman the opponent's argument, which kind of complicates things; it's never cut and dried, so we might say claiming a Motte and Bailey fallacy is sometimes itself a Cut and Dried Fallacy or a Strawman Fallacy or a Shifting the Goalposts Fallacy

Then you have the ultimate: the Fallacy Fallacy. Claiming the opponent is committing a fallacy often seems to consist in avoiding the heavy lifting involved in actually mounting a cogent argument or counterargument.

Moliere

↪Janus

Yup.

I think fallacies are most useful in self-reflection. It's good to point them out in that spirit -- rather than in an attempt to prove something.

schopenhauer1

What do you think? Is it helpful and does it do anything that other informal fallacy concepts don't already do? — Jamal

Another fallacy similar to the motte-and-bailey I've seen is "unreasonable request for proof".

There are well-established facts let's say (the Earth evolves around the Sun, etc.). Let's say the claim is that "most people" cannot be used as a defense because it is an appeal to popularity fallacy. For example, "most people" throughout history have had different notions as to whether slavery is an acceptable practice (almost all empires, tribes, early modern states, thought this acceptable etc). Thus, appealing to notions of what's popular would be wrong as a basis for morality.

However, the other person claims that this is not the case, and that a majority of people indeed did think this practice was wrong. Now, the levels of proof are raised to a much harder level. The interlocutor has to defend the premise that people viewed slavery differently throughout history by searching many examples of historical texts for primary and secondary sources just to show the established fact that people had different notions of the practice of slavery over time. The interlocutor has stalled the debate with unreasonable proof.

Mikie

To the posters that are saying it's similar, I'm not seeing where the strawman fallacy comes into play here. What would be considered the strawman in this scenario? Person A's initial (bailey) argument?

Anyway, I see the motte-bailey used a lot. One look at the Wall Street Journal editorial page is a goldmine of it. Take climate change, which usually goes something like this:

Bailey: We can't do a, b, c because of x, y, z. No carbon tax because that's the government picking winners and losers. No banning of oil drilling because people are gonna need oil for years to come. EVs are "losers." It's gonna be way too expensive. Climate is always changing. Etc.

Interlocutor: It'll require drastic changes to keep CO2 levels (and warming) under dangerous levels. You're arguing we can't do anything, essentially. Do you even believe this is an emergency?

Motte: The climate is changing. Something should be done. We're not climate change deniers!

A good example is Bjorn Lomborg - a monument to this fallacy.

Mikie

A: Trans women are not women. [bailey]

B: That's a transparently bigoted comment, functioning as it does to directly negate the gender identities of trans people and thereby deny their claims to equal treatment. — Jamal

I know it's just an example, and I don't want to go off about transgenderism, but just so I'm clear: The more correct statement would be that "trans women are not female," yes? Since "woman" (and "girl") can often relate to gender identity.

It's true that people making statements like (A) are probably bigoted. But in the cases where a person is meaning to express the corrected statement, it may just be an honest mistake. I would put myself in this camp, although I see no reason to make either statement.

Janus

I think fallacies are most useful in self-reflection. It's good to point them out in that spirit -- rather than in an attempt to prove something. — Moliere

:up: I agree.

schopenhauer1

Motte: The climate is changing. Something should be done. We're not climate change deniers! — Mikie

A lot of times the target is moved. I am not sure if that is Motte-and-Bailey but I think this is...

"There are too many guns to try to get rid of any or put restrictions now. it's too late."

"But each time there are specific cases where purchasing X firearms was due to the circumstance that could have restricted that person's access."

"Well, it's a right, so it doesn't matter anyway. What can you do?"

The target went from a consequentialist argument "It's useless to try because it will not be effective" to a deontological one about rights, "It's simply built into the Constitution so what can you do?".

It could be simply a red herring fallacy. Intentionally diverting the argument to a different one.

Forgottenticket

The more correct statement would be that "trans women are not female," yes? Since "woman" (and "girl") can often relate to gender identity. — Mikie

mtf literally stands for male to female. So no, its just arguing in a circle. You'd have to have specific empirical claims which begins to discriminate against others. eg: intersex, those without gametes ect.

Mikie

↪schopenhauer1

A good example. :up:

The gun debate is egregiously bad.

L'éléphant

The second statement of A seems more of a response to the appeal to emotion of B and not necessarily a retreat of any sort. — NOS4A2

A's statement is more than an appeal to emotion to B. Notice A's shift from a cultural/societal statement to a factual (biology) claim. You can't argue against facts. See below:

In the trans women example, the axiomatic basis on one side would seem to be that biological truth trumps cultural fiction. — apokrisis

B is where the fallacy is. — NOS4A2

I agree.

Jamal

I know it's just an example, and I don't want to go off about transgenderism, but just so I'm clear: The more correct statement would be that "trans women are not female," yes? Since "woman" (and "girl") can often relate to gender identity. — Mikie

I don’t entirely go along with this. Examples of more correct statements in this kind of context would be “trans women were not born female” and perhaps “trans women are not biologically female”. (I imagine that a small minority of trans people would dispute the latter two, but I won't get into that).

It's true that people making statements like (A) are probably bigoted. But in the cases where a person is meaning to express the corrected statement, it may just be an honest mistake. I would put myself in this camp, although I see no reason to make either statement. — Mikie

The point of the example is that A retreated from a claim when challenged, probably knowing full well that it was controversial. In these debates it is usually effectively bigoted, even if you can interpret it charitably to be referring only to biological sex. Having said that, you’re no doubt right that people still confuse and conflate sex and gender. But if one wants to distinguish between trans women and non-trans-women, we already have a term that’s better than “men”, which is … “trans women”.

We can see B’s response as a bad one. If A meant it more innocently, just to mean biological sex, without having thought about the issue carefully, then B’s response was unfair and counterproductive. And even if A was aware of the all the issues, B could have given a more direct and measured response, like “I think you ought to more carefully distinguish between gender and biological sex…” etc. But in the example, B’s response just functions as a challenge that causes a retreat.

You could argue then that the example isn’t a good one, because it’s complex, and it’s meant to show the fallacy of A while B is not totally blameless either. But its complexity is why I like it.

Mikie

"trans women are not female," — Mikie

“trans women are not biologically female” — Jamal

Fair enough. I almost always consider “female” to refer to sex, and hence biology— but I suppose that’s not always the case for others.

But if one wants to distinguish between trans women and non-trans-women, we already have a term that’s better than “men”, which is … “trans women”. — Jamal

Also fair, but this implies to me that “trans women” is distinguishing from something else…What would that something else be, though? If “trans women are women,” as is often said, then aren’t we simply in a confused state?

Trans women are women, but not biological females. So then “woman” doesn’t necessarily mean an adult (biological) female, as is often meant— and that leaves many, including myself, rather annoyed at the semantics.

I think “woman” when referring to a trans woman is fine. No need to be technical. But if people are trying to convince others that there’s no difference whatever between a trans woman and a biologically female adult, I think that’s at least a blunder politically for the trans movement (which I otherwise wholeheartedly support).

Anyway— any more discussion on this I’ll move to the transgender thread. My posts, I mean.

Jamal

To the posters that are saying it's similar, I'm not seeing where the strawman fallacy comes into play here. What would be considered the strawman in this scenario? Person A's initial (bailey) argument? — Mikie

It's made clearer in the OP:

In other words, B might just as often be guilty of a failure to observe the principle of charity in taking A to be in the bailey, i.e., distorting A's position such that they can easily defeat them. This looks like a description of strawmanning. — Jamal

So the motte-and-bailey fallacy and the straw man fallacy seem to be two sides of the same coin. One is the reverse of the other. I think @Janus said this too.

M&B: A, putting forward claims, moves from a bold to a safe claim
SM: B, in interpreting A's claim, moves it from a safe claim to a bold claim

That is, in a straw man fallacy B interprets A to be saying something much easier to defeat.

I like sushi

↪Jamal

Poor example.

Jamal

Poor example. — I like sushi

It's a good example.

What now?

I like sushi

As to the OP in general … it just takes a small amount communication to see the divide and then explore where the differences lie within the divide.

I like sushi

↪Jamal

See above.

Jamal

See above. — I like sushi

You haven't posted anything arguing that it's a poor example.

Jamal

Where the motte-and-bailey image fails is that in a serious argument, both sides would be going back to basics this way.

In the trans women example, the axiomatic basis on one side would seem to be that biological truth trumps cultural fiction. On the other, it would be some version of the reverse.

The stepping back by one side ought to be an invitation to the other to take up the challenge of defending the reverse in good old dialectic fashion. — apokrisis

Yes. However, it's not the motte-and-bailey image but rather the participants themselves who sometimes fail. Motte-and-baily identifies one way in which people fail in debate, and isn't that exactly what the identification of informal fallacies is meant to do?

The motte-and-bailey fallacy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions