Motte and bailey

[[Image:Schloesslesberg.jpg|right|thumb|165px|A motte and bailey castle.]]
{{lognav}}
The '''motte and bailey''' ('''MAB''') [[fallacious argument style]] is a combination of [[bait-and-switch]] and [[equivocation]] in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easier-to-defend and sometimes common-sense statement) and a "bailey" (a harder-to-defend and more controversial statement) in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.

In short: instead of defending a controversial position (the "bailey"), the arguer retreats to defending a less controversial position (the "motte"), while acting as though the positions are equivalent. When the ''motte'' has been accepted (or found impenetrable) by an opponent, the arguer returns to the bailey and can claim the bailey has not been refuted.

The MAB only works if the motte and the bailey are sufficiently similar (at least superficially) that one can switch between them while pretending that they are equivalent. There exist a number of common rhetorical ploys and 'sleights-of-tongue' which can mask the apparency of such a transition.

==Form==
#Person A asserts [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
#Person B critiques [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
#Person A asserts that they were actually defending [Common-Sense Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
#Person B no longer has grounds to critique Person A; Person B leaves the discussion.
#Person A claims victory and discreetly reverts to actually supporting [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].

===Variation===
This slight variation of the original may be particularly effective in short-form mediums such as [[Twitter]] threads and live debates.

#Person A asserts something in a sufficiently ambiguous way that it can be interpreted ''either'' as [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X] ''or'' as [Common-Sense Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
#Person B critiques [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
#Person A asserts that they were actually defending [Common-Sense Interpretation of Viewpoint X].
#Person B either leaves the discussion or complains that person A was ambiguous.
#Person A claims victory and discreetly reverts to actually supporting [Controversial Interpretation of Viewpoint X].

==Origins and explanation==
The term "motte and bailey" was created by Nicholas Shackel, a [[British]] professor of [[philosophy]]. Shackel named it after the {{wpl|motte-and-bailey castle||,}} in which a highly-protected stone-fortified keep (the ''motte'') is accompanied by an enclosed courtyard protected by sharpened wooden palisades (the ''bailey'').<ref name="vacuity">{{Cite journal |last=Shackel |first=Nicholas |date=2005|title=The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2005.00370.x |journal=Metaphilosophy |volume=36 |issue=3 |pages=295–320 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9973.2005.00370.x |issn=0026-1068}}</ref><ref name="MABD">[https://realityandrationality.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/motte-and-bailey-doctrines.html Motte and Bailey Doctrines] by Nicholas Shackel</ref> Shackel used the phrase to criticize [[postmodernist]]s who switch between arguing for uncontroversial statements, such as stating that culture influences a person's interpretation of the world (an easy-to-defend motte), and promoting highly controversial positions, ''e.g.,'' that interpretations of the world based on [[religious]] [[mythology]] are as valid as scientific interpretations (an indefensible bailey). When the bailey (every-viewpoint-is-valid) is confronted, they often retreat to the motte (culture-shapes-our-experiences) and mock the critic for — supposedly — thinking this isn't true.

This method is an example of the "two-step", in which one repeatedly appears to concede weaker parts of an argument, then re-asserts the original claim, unaltered. The name refers to a quick and repetitious dance step. It relies on short attention span, short memories, and/or rapidly changing audience.

==Goals==
By arguing the weak bailey, yet temporarily retreating to the strong motte when attacked, the arguer can claim (or pretend):
*That the arguer never admitted to being wrong about anything. Strictly, this is true — the arguer never explicitly admitted defeat.
*That the arguer has been defending the more defensible position the whole time.
*That the critic is a fool for not agreeing with an obviously correct statement.
*That the controversial belief is counter-intuitive yet true, since it appears unassailable.

==What it is ''not''==
Clarifying one's views to exclude an incorrect, expansive interpretation is ''not'' a motte-and-bailey fallacy, ''provided'' that what you defend is a correct and intended interpretation of your earlier statements. The problem with the motte and bailey is that it represents a constantly shifting target: now easy, now hard.
==Related terms==
===Troll's truisms===
{{main|Deepity}}
A Troll's Truism is a "a mildly ambiguous statement by which an exciting falsehood may trade on a trivial truth".<ref name="vacuity"/>{{rp|298}} Some MABs, such as "everything happens for a reason" are also this. Troll's Truisms are more commonly known as deepities.

===Humpty Dumptying===
A subtype of motte and bailey described by Shackel is arbitrarily redefining words, which he calls Humpty Dumptying after a scene in Lewis Caroll's book ''Through the Looking Glass''.<ref name="vacuity"/>{{rp|299}} 
==Examples==
===Nuclear power===
Arguments against [[nuclear power]] often involve the motte and bailey tactic. It's not a secret that anti-nuclear activism has historically been motivated by the [[Nuclear power#Nuclear accidents|fear of accidents]] and often associated with [[Nuclear war|doomsday scenarios]]. However, since nuclear power is evidently among the safest and cleanest ways to produce energy,<ref>[https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Our World In Data - Safest Sources of Energy]</ref> the argument that nuclear power is [[Risk|unsafe]] cannot be empirically defended. Hence, the most common anti-nuclear arguments have shifted away from safety issues and are now more focused on the economics, specifically the high costs and cost overruns associated with recent nuclear construction efforts. Such arguments have become popular especially when [[Renewable energy|renewables]] (solar and wind) became cheaper than recent nuclear construction based on LCOE estimates. Although, LCOE is not an appropriate metric to compare different energy sources.<ref>[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118303866 Science Direct]</ref> Back when renewables were still very expensive, the economic argument was flipped when applied to renewables. If renewables are expensive, we should support them with subsidies, but if nuclear is expensive, we should kill it. Environmental activist George Monbiot has noted this double-standard during a discussion with Caroline Lucas (former leader of the UK green party). <ref>Monbiot, Goerge [https://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/31/seven-double-standards/ Seven Double Standards] ''www.monbiot.com'' 31 March 2011</ref>
{{quotebox|1=One of the most frequent arguments against nuclear power is that it costs too much. Many environmentalists claim that, when all the hidden costs, especially the massive decommissioning liabilities, are taken into account, electricity from atomic plants could cost as much as 5p per kilowatt hour or even more. The highest figure I have come across was the top end of the range of estimates produced by the New Economics Foundation – 8.3p. If this is correct – and I should emphasise that it’s an extreme outlier – it suggests that nuclear is an extravagant means of generating low-carbon electricity.

So why do the same people support a feed-in tariff scheme under which we pay 41p per kilowatt hour for rooftop solar electricity?

Last week I argued about these issues with Caroline Lucas. Caroline is one of my heroes, and the best thing to have happened to Parliament since time immemorial. But this doesn’t mean that she can’t be wildly illogical when she chooses. When I raised the issue of the feed-in tariff, she pointed out that the difference between subsidising nuclear power and subsidising solar power is that nuclear is a mature technology and solar is not. In that case, I asked, would she support research into thorium reactors, which could provide a much safer and cheaper means of producing nuclear power? No, she told me, because thorium reactors are not a proven technology. Words fail me.}} 

While there are legitimate complains about the high costs of (some instances of) nuclear, historical data shows that high costs are not inevitable, and cost can in fact be reduced with proper management, standardization, and "learning-by-doing".<ref>Plumer, Dave [https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea Why America abandoned nuclear power (and what we can learn from South Korea)] ''Vox'' 29 February 2016</ref> Thus, the "nuclear is too expensive" argument (the 'motte') doesn't justify the anti-nuclear position (the 'bailey'), which remains motivated by [[Radiophobia|the fear of the technology itself]], not the associated costs. The 'Motte' can be broken down in (at least) several ways: Point out examples of nuclear power being constructed on time and on budget, and ask if they support nuclear power in such instances when it is cost effective; or point out that their complaint of nuclear being too expensive logically entails their support for the long-term operation of nuclear power. Since nuclear power has high construction but low operation costs, forcing existing nuclear power plants to retire prematurely would only make it more expensive. After pointing this out, expect them to abandon the economic 'motte' and reveal their 'bailey' position on safety, waste disposal, nuclear war, etc. 
===Science and pseudoscience===
*Supporters of [[scientific racism]] often argue that human physiology is affected by genetics and evolution (motte) while failing to defend their bailey (usually genetic differences in race and IQ which equivocates between genetics and epigenetics).
* [[TERF]]s will frequently argue that biological sex has a significant effect on a person's life and how they are treated in society (motte) and then argue that [[Gender essentialism|biological sex is the only thing that's important]] and that it still completely defines a person even after [[gender transition]] (bailey). In some variations, the motte is instead the statement "sex is real".<ref>[https://leftycartoons.com/2023/05/25/the-transphobe-bait-and-switch-aka-the-transphobe-motte-and-bailey/ The Transphobe Bait and Switch (aka The Transphobe Motte and Bailey)]</ref>

===Philosophy and religion===
*People enamoured with "[[Objectivism]]" sometimes argue that the [[universe]] has always existed (to defend the [[atheistic]] view that there is no need to postulate a creation, and for other more specifically Objectivist purposes). They sometimes contend that it is a logically necessary [[truth]] that something must always have existed (bailey). But when pressed they satisfy themselves with establishing that existence is existence (A = A) (motte — and a [[tautology]]). However, this is not the necessary view apropos of atheism or, vice versa, necessary apropos of the rejection of ''causa prima''. It is simply stated by {{wpl|Jean-Paul Sartre}} as "Existence precedes essence." Nevertheless, such a conclusion that the universe has always existed, because existence is existence, would be completely absurd. 
*Some arguments for the existence of God, such as the ones used by [[William Lane Craig]] (Kalam cosmological argument, teleological argument, and moral argument), are vague on whether the "g" in "god" is capitalized. If asked, Craig can claim he's arguing for a generic god (motte) and not the specific one of Christianity (bailey). 
*[[Intelligent Design]] proponents, when asked who the designer is, say it "could be anything/anyone" (motte),<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |date=2001 |title=The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/pc20013111 |journal=Philosophia Christi |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=165 |doi=10.5840/pc20013111 |issn=1529-1634 |quote=Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel—fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being.}}</ref> but when left alone say the designer is the Christian God (Bailey).

===Other===
*The [[moral panic]] over [[critical race theory]] uses this as the main argument. The argument goes that children shouldn't be [[White guilt|made to feel guilty for atrocities committed before they were born]] (or equivalently, that not every white person in the world is racist) (motte), but then in practice extend this to argue that any discussion of slavery and racism, even purely historical, should be prohibited (bailey). When a progressive refutes the bailey, they are then falsely claimed to oppose the motte, which is why this tactic has been so successful. 
*"Everything happens for a reason". At face value, the statement is consistent with the principle of cause and effect. However, "reason" often means a conscious reason (God's plan) or positive intent, not just happenstance. 

==See also==
*[[Bait-and-switch]]
*[[DARVO]]
*[[Equivocation]]
*[[Fear, uncertainty, and doubt]]
*[[Deepity]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Fallacious arguments]]

Categories: Fallacious arguments