Argument to moderation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:22, 4 October 2022

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 supposedly always a compromise between two opposing positions.^[2] An example would be to regard two opposed arguments, with one person (correctly) saying that the sky is blue and another saying that the sky is in fact yellow, and incorrectly conclude that the sky is the intermediate colour of green.^[3]

References

^ Fallacy: Middle Ground Archived 21 July 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Nizkor Project (accessed 29 November 2012)
^ Harker, David (2015). Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-06961-9. LCCN 2015011610.
^ 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.

External links

False Compromise at ChangingMinds.org

This logic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

[Nizkor-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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 [[Category:Relevance fallacies]]
-[[Category:Latin logical phrases]]
 {{logic-stub}}

Revision as of 14:22, 4 October 2022

See also

References

External links