Argument to moderation

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 .

[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]

Argument to moderation

See also[]

References[]

External links[]