Argument to moderation

Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as false compromise, argument from middle ground, and the golden mean fallacy[1]—is the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposing positions.[2]

"Middle ground" redirects here. For other uses, see Middle Ground (disambiguation).
"Fallacy of gray" redirects here. Fallacy of gray may also refer to the continuum fallacy.

An example of a fallacious use of the argument to moderation would be to regard two opposed arguments—one person saying that the sky is blue, while another claims that the sky is in fact yellow—and conclude that the truth is that the sky is green.[3] While green is the colour created by combining blue and yellow, therefore being a compromise between the two positions, the sky is obviously not green, demonstrating that taking the middle ground of two positions does not always lead to the truth.

Vladimir Bukovsky maintained that the middle ground between the big lie of Soviet propaganda and the truth was itself a lie, and one should not be looking for a middle ground between information and disinformation.[4]

See also

References
  1. Fallacy: Middle Ground Archived 21 July 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Nizkor Project (accessed 29 November 2012)
  2. Harker, David (2015). Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-06961-9. LCCN 2015011610.
  3. Gardner, Susan T. (2009). Thinking Your Way to Freedom: A Guide to Owning Your Own Practical Reasoning. Temple University Press. ISBN 978-1-59213-867-8. JSTOR j.ctt14btd4j. LCCN 2008023988.
  4. Vladimir Bukovsky, The Wind Returns. Letters by Russian Traveler (Russian edition, Буковский В. К. И возвращается ветер. Письма русского путешественника.) Moscow, 1990, ISBN 5-2350-1826-5, p. 345.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.