Argument to moderation
Argument to moderation (
Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as the false compromise, argument from middle ground, fallacy of gray, middle ground fallacy, or golden mean fallacy[1]—is the fallacy that the truth is always in the middle of two opposites.[2]
It does not necessarily suggest that an argument for the middle solution or for a compromise is always fallacious, but rather applies primarily in cases where such a position is ill-informed, unfeasible, or impossible, or where an argument is incorrectly made that a position is correct simply because it is in the middle.[3][4]
An example of an argument to moderation would be considering two statements about the colour of the sky on Earth during the day – one claiming, correctly, that the sky is blue, and another claiming that it is yellow – and incorrectly concluding that the sky is the intermediate colour, green.[5]
See also
- Centrism – Political orientation
- Dialectic – Method of reasoning via argumentation and contradiction
- Excluded middle– Opposite logical fallacy to argument to moderation
- False balance – Media bias on opposing viewpoints
- Horseshoe theory – Posited similarity of the far-left and far-right
- Overton window – Range of ideas tolerated in public discourse
- Ratchet effect – Restrained ability of human process reversal
- Straw man – Form of incorrect argument and informal fallacy
- View from nowhere– Principle in journalism
- Wisdom of the crowd – Collective perception of a group of people
- Paradox of tolerance – Logical paradox in decision-making theory
- Slippery slope – Rhetorical argument
References
- ^ "Fallacy: Middle Ground". Nizkor Project. Archived from the original on 21 July 2019.
- LCCN 2015011610.
- ^ Bennett, Bo. "Argument to Moderation". Logically Fallacious. Retrieved 14 February 2024.
- ^ Rose, Hannah (17 May 2022). "False compromise fallacy: why the middle ground is not always the best". Ness Labs. Retrieved 14 February 2024.
- LCCN 2008023988.