Posted: May 13, 2019 2:42 am
I wanted to share this short article because I think it's got a great explanation of a particular form of argumentation which seems to be becoming very popular these days.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... doctrines/
The article is more concerned with explaining when this amounts to a doctrine or an overarching network of argumentation, whereas I am mostly interested how it is used fallaciously for rhetorical points, and for misleading discourse.
The name is based on the type of fortifications introduced into England by the Normans post invasion.
The motte is an unassailable structure of stone set on top of an earthwork, while the bailey is the surrounding area usually inhabited by the townsfolk with some very basic defenses. When ne'er-do-wells threaten the town, the people pick up their stuff and retreat into the stone motte where they hope to wait out the depredations of the invaders. The bailey is the desirable ground, but it's very open to being attacked.
The point, here, is that the bailey is not easy to defend, although some show of defenses is necessary to stop bandits and small bands of raiders.
Analogously, when it comes to discourse, the term signifies a similar retreat from indefensible positions into much more difficult to overcome territory.
An argument is made from the bailey which is egregious, spurious, and indefensible... if it remains unchallenged, then the work being done in the bailey can continue. This is the ground the proponent wants to keep, but knows it's not going to stand up well to assault.
So, when the argument is actually assailed, the proponent then hoofs it back into the stronger motte with much more defensible arguments, even though that wasn't the point being contested.
In this way, the proponent seeks to keep both grounds as their interlocutor is now apparently obliged to attack a very stout position which is hard to overcome when all they'd really set out to do originally was attack the bailey.
So how does one overcome this? I would say it's fairly simple: remember you only ever intended to sack the bailey and never had any intentions over the motte in the first place, and even if they stand at the top of their castle calling out that your father was a hamster, you've still taken the ground they desperately wished they could defend, so now you're free to ransack what they treasure most and all they can do is hope you leave.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... doctrines/
The article is more concerned with explaining when this amounts to a doctrine or an overarching network of argumentation, whereas I am mostly interested how it is used fallaciously for rhetorical points, and for misleading discourse.
The name is based on the type of fortifications introduced into England by the Normans post invasion.
The motte is an unassailable structure of stone set on top of an earthwork, while the bailey is the surrounding area usually inhabited by the townsfolk with some very basic defenses. When ne'er-do-wells threaten the town, the people pick up their stuff and retreat into the stone motte where they hope to wait out the depredations of the invaders. The bailey is the desirable ground, but it's very open to being attacked.
The point, here, is that the bailey is not easy to defend, although some show of defenses is necessary to stop bandits and small bands of raiders.
Analogously, when it comes to discourse, the term signifies a similar retreat from indefensible positions into much more difficult to overcome territory.
An argument is made from the bailey which is egregious, spurious, and indefensible... if it remains unchallenged, then the work being done in the bailey can continue. This is the ground the proponent wants to keep, but knows it's not going to stand up well to assault.
So, when the argument is actually assailed, the proponent then hoofs it back into the stronger motte with much more defensible arguments, even though that wasn't the point being contested.
In this way, the proponent seeks to keep both grounds as their interlocutor is now apparently obliged to attack a very stout position which is hard to overcome when all they'd really set out to do originally was attack the bailey.
... once a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is in place, it offers extensive opportunities for deceitful trickery in argument. The basic fallacy that is available is offering the arguments for doctrines in the Motte as if they were arguments for the doctrines in the Bailey. The crudest such fallacy would have the form ‘Motte, therefore Bailey’, and certainly, despite its crudity, there is no shortage of such argumentation. Something similar is going on in the strategy of advancing the Bailey and then retreating to the Motte when criticised. On such foundations, a myriad of persuasive fallacies may be built, and indeed, that myriad is the very point of the Motte in a Motte and Bailey Doctrine: without it the Bailey is lost.
So how does one overcome this? I would say it's fairly simple: remember you only ever intended to sack the bailey and never had any intentions over the motte in the first place, and even if they stand at the top of their castle calling out that your father was a hamster, you've still taken the ground they desperately wished they could defend, so now you're free to ransack what they treasure most and all they can do is hope you leave.