Is the "middle ground fallacy" a logical fallacy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

With the defense of Moderate Heroism I frequently see here I wonder how many believe that it is.

[Gustaf]

Is the question whether it is logically invalid or whether it is logical?

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, since in many cases the middle ground actually is a reasonable course of action. So it isn't a logical fallacy the way a circular argument is.

[The Mikado]

Some people claim it's a fallacy, others think it's a reasonable and even a positive form of reasoning.  I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

[John Dibble]

Yes, it's an informal logical fallacy. There's nothing inherently better about a middle ground - in some cases it might be worse than the two extremes that it meets between.

[Gustaf]

Yes, it's an informal logical fallacy. There's nothing inherently better about a middle ground - in some cases it might be worse than the two extremes that it meets between.

Does that really make it a logical fallacy though? Especially since it seems context-bound. I imagine there could be contexts where the middle ground is better by virtue of being middle ground (such as when reaching a compromise, for instance).

It is true that being the middle ground is typically not a good argument for a position, I guess, but is it on the level of logical fallacy? If someone does think that it is a good argument is he more illogical than someone who has some other stupid argument for a position?

[John Dibble]

Yes, it's an informal logical fallacy. There's nothing inherently better about a middle ground - in some cases it might be worse than the two extremes that it meets between.

Does that really make it a logical fallacy though? Especially since it seems context-bound. I imagine there could be contexts where the middle ground is better by virtue of being middle ground (such as when reaching a compromise, for instance).

It is true that being the middle ground is typically not a good argument for a position, I guess, but is it on the level of logical fallacy? If someone does think that it is a good argument is he more illogical than someone who has some other stupid argument for a position?

Yes it is a logical fallacy, but as I said it's an informal one. The distinction is that it's fallacious for reasons other than the form or technical structure of the argument. The reasoning behind a formal fallacy is always wrong - the logical structure of the argument renders it invalid. An informal fallacy on the other hand can have a valid logical structure, but may be based on false premises or a bad justification structure.

In the case of the middle ground fallacy it has the premise that the middle ground between two or more positions is always better than the two positions. The logic is sound if the premise it is based on is correct. Since it can be shown that there are cases where the middle ground isn't better than one or more of the positions the premise is false, thus making it an informal logical fallacy.

[Gustaf]

Yes, it's an informal logical fallacy. There's nothing inherently better about a middle ground - in some cases it might be worse than the two extremes that it meets between.

Does that really make it a logical fallacy though? Especially since it seems context-bound. I imagine there could be contexts where the middle ground is better by virtue of being middle ground (such as when reaching a compromise, for instance).

It is true that being the middle ground is typically not a good argument for a position, I guess, but is it on the level of logical fallacy? If someone does think that it is a good argument is he more illogical than someone who has some other stupid argument for a position?

Yes it is a logical fallacy, but as I said it's an informal one. The distinction is that it's fallacious for reasons other than the form or technical structure of the argument. The reasoning behind a formal fallacy is always wrong - the logical structure of the argument renders it invalid. An informal fallacy on the other hand can have a valid logical structure, but may be based on false premises or a bad justification structure.

In the case of the middle ground fallacy it has the premise that the middle ground between two or more positions is always better than the two positions. The logic is sound if the premise it is based on is correct. Since it can be shown that there are cases where the middle ground isn't better than one or more of the positions the premise is false, thus making it an informal logical fallacy.

Is informal logical fallacy a common term? What you refer to as a formal logical fallacy is just a logical fallacy to me. I thought an informal one would be one where premises don't match exactly to another or something like that.

I always thought a false premise was just a false premise, so to speak. 

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BRTD could learn from this one sentence on that page

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Except Moderate Heroism is basically always assuming the middle position to be correct, or some position in between the two usually held by people on opposing sides.

For example: In Nazi Germany the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews. Most of the resistance opposed were against killing Jews. So let's take the Moderate Hero position and only kill some Jews, or perhaps only deport instead of killing Jews. That's a good example of a middle ground fallacy position at work, which I doubt Gustaf would defend as reasonable. Another example includes the debate over slavery in the 19th century, abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery entirely, most from the Confederacy wanted to keep it exactly as is, many politicians took very Moderate Hero-esque positions such as merely banning slavery in new territories or restricting the slave trade somehow but allowing slavery to remain legal, which I doubt Gustaf would argue is a pretty reasonable position or anything besides total abolition.

[Gustaf]

Except Moderate Heroism is basically always assuming the middle position to be correct, or some position in between the two usually held by people on opposing sides.

For example: In Nazi Germany the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews. Most of the resistance opposed were against killing Jews. So let's take the Moderate Hero position and only kill some Jews, or perhaps only deport instead of killing Jews. That's a good example of a middle ground fallacy position at work, which I doubt Gustaf would defend as reasonable. Another example includes the debate over slavery in the 19th century, abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery entirely, most from the Confederacy wanted to keep it exactly as is, many politicians took very Moderate Hero-esque positions such as merely banning slavery in new territories or restricting the slave trade somehow but allowing slavery to remain legal, which I doubt Gustaf would argue is a pretty reasonable position or anything besides total abolition.

Some Jews probably did deserve to be killed because they were murderers. And you can always move the extreme to be something else.

Let's define it as "All Jews are bad people" or "No Jews are bad people". Clearly the truth lies in the middle. "The state should have all power" "the state should have no power" again the truth, to most people, would be in the middle. All black people should be slaves versus all white people should be slaves. It depends on where you put the extremes.

What bothers me with this obsession is that it isn't as much of a problem as the opposite fallacy. The extremist position is almost always wrong and people take those positions for the strangest reasons, while the non-extremist position is almost always right and usually based on actually understanding the issue and all its nuances. Yet people on here spend endless amount of times ridiculing the latter while praising the former (as long as it isn't the opposite extreme, of course, which is also bad).

Every time someone on this site says something like "I don't think we should spend all of the federal revenue on pencils, although they government needs to have a few" everyone is OMG!1! moderate hero idiot!!1!

It's kind of stupid to me. Most issues are sufficiently complex that a completely black-and-white approach to them is just silly.

[afleitch]

Yes, it's an informal logical fallacy. There's nothing inherently better about a middle ground - in some cases it might be worse than the two extremes that it meets between.

I agree. A very simple 101 example would be Side A: Lets execute murderers. Side B: Don't execute murderers. The 'middle ground' could be, okay lets just horribly maim them. Which in my opinion is worse than the other two, partially because it lacks definition.

[John Dibble]

Is informal logical fallacy a common term? What you refer to as a formal logical fallacy is just a logical fallacy to me. I thought an informal one would be one where premises don't match exactly to another or something like that.

I always thought a false premise was just a false premise, so to speak.

I would not say it's a term people use often, so it's not common in that sense. However it is one of the two primary categories in which logical fallacies will fall.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

And a false premise is a false premise. It just happens that if you use one it a logical argument it makes the argument a logical fallacy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Except Moderate Heroism is basically always assuming the middle position to be correct, or some position in between the two usually held by people on opposing sides.

For example: In Nazi Germany the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews. Most of the resistance opposed were against killing Jews. So let's take the Moderate Hero position and only kill some Jews, or perhaps only deport instead of killing Jews. That's a good example of a middle ground fallacy position at work, which I doubt Gustaf would defend as reasonable. Another example includes the debate over slavery in the 19th century, abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery entirely, most from the Confederacy wanted to keep it exactly as is, many politicians took very Moderate Hero-esque positions such as merely banning slavery in new territories or restricting the slave trade somehow but allowing slavery to remain legal, which I doubt Gustaf would argue is a pretty reasonable position or anything besides total abolition.

Some Jews probably did deserve to be killed because they were murderers. And you can always move the extreme to be something else.

Not if you oppose the death penalty.

Let's define it as "All Jews are bad people" or "No Jews are bad people". Clearly the truth lies in the middle. "The state should have all power" "the state should have no power" again the truth, to most people, would be in the middle. All black people should be slaves versus all white people should be slaves. It depends on where you put the extremes.

What you are doing here is making the extremes rather ridiculous positions that no one really holds though.

What bothers me with this obsession is that it isn't as much of a problem as the opposite fallacy. The extremist position is almost always wrong and people take those positions for the strangest reasons, while the non-extremist position is almost always right and usually based on actually understanding the issue and all its nuances. Yet people on here spend endless amount of times ridiculing the latter while praising the former (as long as it isn't the opposite extreme, of course, which is also bad).

Every time someone on this site says something like "I don't think we should spend all of the federal revenue on pencils, although they government needs to have a few" everyone is OMG!1! moderate hero idiot!!1!

It's kind of stupid to me. Most issues are sufficiently complex that a completely black-and-white approach to them is just silly.

I don't recall anyone mocking anyone over a statement like the pencils one.

If you call, the term was created in regards to benconstine's ridiculous triangulation. Also based on the way that some here had a ridiculous worship of certain politicians for being "moderates" regardless of what their actual positions were. See the people who loved Joe Lieberman despite supposedly opposing the Iraq War because he wasn't an "extremist" like Lamont, when in fact their actual views were probably far closer to Lamont. Also see the people here with such a hard-on for Mark Kirk, when he's really just a typical Republican who breaks the party line on abortion and some other rather meaningless wedge issue items. Or the people here who have basically admitted that they don't really have a problem with gay marriage but they oppose it and support civil unions just because that is the "moderate" position (there is at least one person who openly admitted to voting for Prop 8 for that reason alone.) If that isn't the middle ground fallacy I don't what is.

For a great real life application of this, note what Tweed said when he stated ben likely wouldn't have support the Civil Rights Movement and would've supported some Moderate Hero-esque gradual integration "compromise" or something. I don't think anyone today would argue that is a reasonable position. Just like the "reasonable" positions during the era of slavery and how complete abolitionism was considered extremist, yet today almost everyone would argue nothing other than complete abolitionism is a moral position.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think here we should not confuse a logical fallacy with out and out stupidity - they are two different if similiar things.

[Gustaf]

But slavery did get abolished by the moderate heroes. The radical absolutionists would never have been elected in the first place.

I would say that the thought process of taking extremist positions in order to be provocative or ideologically pure, like all the Republicans hating RINOs for bucking the party line on one issue, or taking a position diametrically opposed to that of one's perceived enemies without considering it is a lot more common and a lot more dangerous than the supposed moderate heroism.

[Badlands17]

The middle ground fallacy is a logical fallacy. However, there is nothing inherently logical about taking any position either. Logic always serves a master; on most contentious issues, there are many people on both sides thinking logically, but they are simply making different values judgments. People who are Moderate Heroes tend to strongly believe in the role of diplomacy and compromise in governance and don't hold many strong ideological views. Moderate Heroism is very logical if you believe that the positions themselves are not as important as the process and making sure as many people are happy as possible with the result of legislation. If you are inclined to hold many strong ideological views, this can probably be frustrating. In the end this is probably pragmatism v. idealism in action.

[anvi]

Middle ground positions don't have much to do with logic.
Of course no position is logically valid or invalid by virtue
of where it might happen to sit on a given political spectrum.
Compromises are just politically necessitated by circumstances.
Whether one is dealing with a board meeting or a country,
there are people with votes in a community who disagree
with me.  If the number of people who disagree with me
is roughly the same as the number of people who agree with
me, then middle ground resolutions--compromises--are going
to be necessary in order for anybody to get anything (never
everything) they want.  Hell, that's even true between
two people. 

The point is, democracy is a pain in the ass.  It's like the first
post-war Japanese prime minister's joke about democracy.
He said that, in Japanese, the English word "democracy" should
be translated into Japanese as "demo kurushi," which literally
means "but, it hurts."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This was pure genius.



Another moderate hero position: The 2010s decade began not on Jan. 1 2010 or Jan. 1 2011, but July 1 2010.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I pointed that out before: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115681.0

The best summary of the stupidity of Moderate Heroism ever next to the classic Simpsons quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I pointed that out before: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115681.0

The best summary of the stupidity of Moderate Heroism ever next to the classic Simpsons quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Kang was Bob Dole, right? I'd expect him to get a more favorable response to "no abortions for anyone".

[Vepres]

I pointed that out before: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115681.0

The best summary of the stupidity of Moderate Heroism ever next to the classic Simpsons quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet being in the middle doesn't mean it is any less logical either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I pointed that out before: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115681.0

The best summary of the stupidity of Moderate Heroism ever next to the classic Simpsons quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet being in the middle doesn't mean it is any less logical either.

"abortions for some, miniature American flags for others" is a logical position?

[fezzyfestoon]

No, I wouldn't say it's a formal logical fallacy.  It's more of an overemphasis on compromise.  Compromise and cooperation definitely have their merits, but not for the sake of appeasement.  The value lays in understanding opposing perspectives.  So yes, it is logically inaccurate to assert that the middle ground is more correct, but it's not wrong for the sake of not being original.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I pointed that out before: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115681.0

The best summary of the stupidity of Moderate Heroism ever next to the classic Simpsons quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet being in the middle doesn't mean it is any less logical either.

"abortions for some, miniature American flags for others" is a logical position?

     I think he's saying that being in the middle ground does not make a position any less valid just as it does not make it any more valid. I don't think he is commenting on the quote in your post.

[Hatman 🍁]

this thread is a middle ground fallacy. How is a moderate hero supposed to debate this? You could stay in form and be a moderate hero in this debate, but that wouldn't really be arguing your side properly. Or you could argue in favour of being a moderate hero, but you'd be a hypocrite for not actually doing whilst arguing, because you'd be picking a side.