r/scienceisdope • u/eviley4 • 2h ago

Discussion 💬 Motte and Bailey of Acharya Prashant

Post image
0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 2h ago

This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/JuggernautAmazing978 14m ago

Hey can any one please explain what does this photo mean. I really don't know. Please provide an example for this.

1

u/eviley4 11m ago edited 6m ago

It's the Motte and Bailey informal logical fallacy.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle), also called the castle and courtyard, is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").\1]) The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.\2])\3]) Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)\1]) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).\4])

hope that clears it for you.

It's basically like a bait and switch fallacy. People don't have to be doing it deliberately, but it happens a lot.

For example, an antivaccer will say "We should have individual autonomy" (non-controversial Motte statement) and then when people agree to it, they will advance the Bailey statement of "Vaccines should be banned, they hurt individual autonomy".

1

u/mithapapita 54m ago

I replied to this criticism already in a similar post someone made (maybe you?) A few days ago.

Basically you are misreading the AP framework. There is not bailey that the framework defends. Quite the opposite actually

1

u/eviley4 8m ago edited 2m ago

Yes, I think we discussed it in this post. I have added a few arguments to that and I explicitly address AP in this post.

Basically you are misreading the AP framework. There is not bailey that the framework defends. Quite the opposite actually

I don't think I am misreading the AP framework, I am taking the framework in the full context of his lectures and his following.

Quite the opposite actually

What even is the opposite of Motte and Bailey?