Talk:Argument to moderation

message: Can the author of the example maybe elaborate why neutrality in war is to be considered a logical fallacy? If this is merely an example of the rampant "If you are not with America, you're against it"-Bushism, then I request it be removed. --TheOtherStephan 07:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: As this article and False compromise discuss what is essentially the same concept, I'm thinking they ought to be merged. Which term is more frequently used for this particular fallacy? -UI (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there are other terms as well, such as the fallacy of moderation or the golden mean fallacy. In any case, if they are different in any way someone needs to make it clear exactly how that is so. If not, they should certainly be merged. Richard001 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles discuss precisely the same thing and only have different titles because their authors used names from competing websites.  The Latin name for the fallacy discussed on both pages is argumentum ad temperantiam, which would be properly translated as "argument to moderation" (though for the sake of English semantics, many would translate it as "argument from moderation").  As such, I would suggest they be merged under either "argumentum ad temperantiam" or "argument to moderation" and the list of fallacies be changed accordingly.  As the list of fallacies tends to favor English translations over the original Latin, I suppose "argument to moderation" might be the better choice.  The currently existing pages false compromise, middle ground, and argumentum ad temperantiam could all serve as redirects to argument to moderation. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: hmm, just because the wikipedia articles seem to refer to the same thing does not necessarily mean they are the same thing.  I don't think these actually refer to the same thing. --Buridan (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The false compromise article does suggest it is similar to middle ground, which would indicate they are not identical. Yet we are given no reason to believe this. They seem identical to me, and you haven't exactly outlined the difference yourself, if there is one. Richard001 (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: These are definitely the same thing.  The leads tell the whole story.  What's another, more technical, way to say "a compromise between two positions is correct"?  How about, "X and Y are opposite alternatives. So Z, a middle path, is the best choice"?  There are slight differences in the articles, but both are just variations on the argument to moderation.  And the fallacy is the fallacy, in all its many incarnations. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's merge them then. Pick a name for the merged article and we'll do it. Richard001 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the fallacy box favors English names over Latin names (with only a few, easily recognizable exceptions), I suggest argument to moderation as the article name and false compromise, middle ground, and argumentum ad temperantiam as redirects. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd be wary of adding too many redirects, though golden mean fallacy seems to be a good idea to me. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start. Still need to sort out which examples to keep in the merged version, and if there's anything else from false compromise worth keeping. You feel like finishing things off? Richard001 (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with False compromise? 

message: I fail to see why mentioning that schools should teach intelligent design alongside evolution is relevant to this topic.Darkrevenger (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No examples are going to be 'relevant' except as examples. What do you expect? Richard001 (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm against Intelligent Design, it seems POV to say that teaching about the debate is a logical fallacy. --68.161.166.157 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an appeal to moderation it is, by definition. Richard001 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics/Relevance

message: The following reference box is mildly amusing. I was going to delete it but it would be a shame for others like me, who found it funny.
To explain: referenced ≠ true. That is a fallacy happily put forward by Wikipedians. Similar to "Argument to moderation"
--Jono4174 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference box 

message: This would seem to work better as a Wikipedia essay rather than trying to be an actual serious article. Just a thought. Some of the examples given a just silly. I removed what I thought was the silliest. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not an essay?

message: The "Examples" section is too long and uncited already, but in case it's useful to anyone I'll mention my favorite rendition:
"Your little brother steals all your toys, and you get in a big fight, and your mom comes along and breaks it up and says, "Boys, we're going to learn how to compromise: you get half the toys, and you get half the toys." —Steve Summit (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  another example 

message: The first three examples to date are just nonsense. Some real cases would be a better replacement.
By the way, HCN is found in almonds, so the truth actually does somehow lie inbetween!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.204.14 (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Examples 

message: You know, those words "the middle ground fallacy allows any position to be invalidated, even those that have been reached by previous applications of the same method" can be applied to just about every debate in which biased and warring Wikipedia editors try to apply our neutrality principles. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  just like Wikipedia 

message: This article is not about logic it is about politics  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.42.61.110 (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: I have to agree with the unsigned comment above regarding the examples, but also to go further and say that I find the article as a whole a mess.  The fundamental issue of WHY and HOW the middle-ground can be used to create a fallacious argument is weakly addressed.   Instead the article is packed with examples and text that fail to be relevant.  The middle-ground (compromise, average, etc) is not in and of itself fallacious.  If you feel water at 70'C too hot and water at 10'C too cold then it is not fallacious to say that you will find water at 40'C not too hot and not too cold (whatever those terms may mean).  However if metal at 0'C is too cold and at 1000'C too hot a similar conclusion may be ridiculous but again not incorrect.  It seems to me to require the addition of the concept of "comfortable" to begin to convert the examples into something concerning logic.  The example of crossing the canyon is equally sloppy.  The two positions are incomparable.  One is a wish and a method and the other a wish but no method.  The middle-ground cited is betwen the method and the absence of method, using a linear measure of each, with the method of "not crossing the canyon" being asserted as comparable and measured as zero feet.  The bottom line is that the examples and much of the text, are simply examples of sloppy thinking and sloppiness, not of a particular logical fallacy.LookingGlass (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mess! 

message: I added "unreliable source?" to this source. It is hardly reliable, as the anonymous source author uses an invalid example of the fallacy: One of the "extremes" mentioned in the very first and basic example, the market value of $800, is *not* an extreme. Therefore the anonymous author is hardly a credible source as they do not even get the examples right; it shows that they didn't really understand the fallacy themself. --Jhertel (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "unreliable source?" 

message: Except the first one, all the other examples are bad. They are almost appeal to ridicule. I propose to remove them all but the first, until we can find better ones.--David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 16:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, we do not need ten similar illustrations of "X suggested one thing, but Y suggested the opposite, so they compromised on an impossible or ridiculous midway point". The sourced example about slavery seems sufficient by itself. --McGeddon (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find better examples 

message: Is this really even a fallacy? No one actually believes that the truth is ALWAYS somewhere(or EXACTLY) in the middle, yet the article acts as if people are going around doing precisely that. Argument to moderation is just a reminder that even though you have two parties arguing opposing opinions, especially if those opinions are extreme, neither are necessarily correct and often a compromise is the correct solution. Is the fallacy when some people use it as an absolute rule rather than a rule of thumb? Even if that were the case though the examples given are ridiculous.
A reminder too, that the argument is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes, not exactly in the middle. In truth ingesting small enough doses of cyanide is harmless, for the same reason ingesting too much water or oxygen is dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.97.213 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes but it's really badly explained, as if every non-polar choice can be this fallacy. It only works in specific cases. Example: Person A says vaccines cause autism. Person B says vaccines do not cause autism. Person C says vaccines cause some autism (or sometimes cause autism). Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: A request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion request 

message: I don't think the sky example works very well to highlight the essential problems with the fallacy.  I'd recommend that example be found which doesn't rely so heavily on physics, and that is more illustrative of the fallacy.  The sky example might work, but there is a severe problem because the example fails when the particular example is examined in more detail.
From a physics perspective, the sky, while appearing to be "blue", still has a mixture of wavelengths, with the usual mixture leading to the perception of "blue".  Despite this perception, there remain components which separately would lead to a perception of "yellow".  Also, mixing blue and yellow might lead to a slightly changed shade of blue instead of shifting the perceptible color entirely to green.  That is to say, calling the sky "blue" is correct, but only within everyday language usage.  A more precise use of language (as by a physicist) shows that both "the sky is blue" and "the sky is yellow" can be correct, just not within everyday language use.  The existence of this more detailed viewpoint makes the sky example problematic.
Tbitonti (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the current sky color example 

message: The line
has been removed and added a large number of times. ~Each time the quote is added back, it is added by a Russian account for various reasons. A notable one is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:My_very_best_wishes (a self proclaimed Russian-American), who appears to have added many pro-Russia leaning arguments and text to various articles over the last 15 years.
The first line of the quote is relevant to the article, but the second line is not. It is an arbitrary division in mindsets between two different countries and cultures that is backed by an opinion rather than fact. If the line were unambiguously true, or backed by sufficient study, it might be relevant. In as short of an article as this is, it is a distraction. I plan to delete the second line (According to him, ...) in a couple days. -- OutrageousSofa (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Editing of Tangentially Relevant Quotes 

message: I'm still not sure how mentioning Vladimir Bukovsky is relevant at all. I'm a newer editor, so I admittedly don't know that much, but mentioning a random russian writer seems odd, especially since no other reference is made to other people who have made that argument. Is Bukovsky one of the first persons who've talked about such an argument in moderation? If he is, shouldn't that be referenced? If he's not, why should he in particular be mentioned in this article? Kczaj (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying, that this part needs to be deleted because Vladimir Bukovsky is "random" or because he is "russian" (more like Russian-born British, but anyway)? When you say "random", you mean that there is a specific list of people who can be mentioned in this article, and the rest cannot?"especially since no other reference is made to other people who have made that argument"If you have another notable example - add it if you want."Is Bukovsky one of the first persons who've talked about such an argument in moderation?"I don't know. If you know - you can expand the article."If he's not, why should he in particular be mentioned in this article?"Because he was talking about the middle ground and this article is about the middle ground.--Renat 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vladimir Bukovsky Reference 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Middle ground. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 31#Middle ground until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Middle ground" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]