Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy

The problem with all those Motte-and-Bailey instructional videos is that they are either abstract in an attempt to be neutral, which is boring, or they use examples of people in actual arguments which is infuriating. Because we have already switched topics in M and B (which we used to call a bait-and switch, approximately the same), opponents seem to feel free to switch topics themselves.  Critics refute trans defenders on the topic of biological sex versus gender identity and the topic turns to declaring a chicken female once we see her laying eggs.  But no, that's not a gender identity because we don't know if the chicken cries, or is more likely to commit suicide. Another YouTuber critiquing that refutation point out that Jordan Peterson uses the motte and bailey fallacy all the time.  Where did that come from? Jordan Peterson accuses others of using the M&B on free speech issues. The accused reply that words are violence, and of course we don't want violence!  We want everyone to be safe.

Let me add in a bit about why we miss it when it happens to us in real life and feel stupid and confused. It is not usually a sharp retreat, so that we are aware of a sudden shift in the footing. It comes in stages. Skilled practitioners zig and zag, staying near the topic but sometimes expand it, sometimes turn it back on you to see if you will bite for that, then take a prechosen example to push the envelope further. I swear some people seem able to do it naturally.

The Socratic method works quite well, but we seldom have the time to spin that out. My goal is usually to find a solid point in the disputed land that will work over time if the other person thinks about it.  If I ever hear of someone who thought about one of those solid points, I'll let you know if it works. 

 

Here's a nice fair abstract one with no examples. It's a little boring, but now that you know the alternative is being infuriated, you might like it.