To say that I see a lot of logically invalid arguments on instagram and facebook would be like complaining that summer is hot and rain is wet, and certainly not worth writing a blog post about. But I have recently run across an insightful set of articles/blog posts which explains a logical fallacy/argument tactic I'm seeing all over social media now, and I wanted to provide a summary of that tactic.
1. The Motte and Bailey Defense
Around the time the children of Viking raiders were settling into Northeastern France and establishing Normandy, a new type of defensive structure had been developed. The fortification consisted of a strong tower on a hill, called a Motte, overlooking a flat, walled-in area called a Bailey surrounded by a ditch. The walled-in area was where people lived and worked, but in times of trouble they could retreat to the higher tower.
Sometimes a would-be attacker could be held off at the ditch/dike of the Bailey, but stronger assaults might overrun the Bailey and force the defenders back up onto the Motte, from which they could more easily resist their attackers, as it is difficult to charge up a hill and attack a stronghold which is free to attack you back as you do so, especially without strong siege engines. (Which grew more common after the early Middle Ages, as castles grew to be larger and more impressive structures)
So with the Motte-and-Bailey structure we have the basic idea of a less-easily defended but desirable piece of land, marked with a wall and/or ditch, and a strong tower to which one can retreat and be safe from an attacker when necessary.
 |
| A very basic version of the Motte and Bailey fortification which illustrates the concept well |
2. The Motte and Bailey Doctrine/Informal Fallacy
That brings us to the argument tactic which uses the same name. The idea of a "Motte and Bailey Doctrine" was coined by Nicholas Shackel, who recognized that it could be used as a logical fallacy when arguing. Another thoughtful analysis of the idea can be found both linked to from his own article or directly here.)
Rather than get bogged down in the difference of the Motte and Bailey "Doctrine" vs. how it is used as an informal logical fallacy, which is explained by Shackel in the link above, I am going to mostly refer to it as a "tactic" from now on, since that is how I see it being used, as a way to "win" arguments easily without having an actual debate between contrasting ideas.
The Motte and Bailey tactic involves making a bold and controversial claim (metaphorically, the piece of land you want to secure within your Bailey), then if pressed hard on it, pulling back to say "you only meant" some commonly-held truism which few people will be willing to argue with (a retreat to the defensive Motte).
One can frequently see Motte-and-Bailey tactics being employed on controversial social topics.
1. Bailey position: "I think anyone who wants to get into America that badly should be allowed in."
2. (Someone argues against this, starts to gain ground)
3. Retreating to the Motte: "Well I just can't agree with the government tearing children away from their parents and treating people like animals."
4. (Argument stalls as others say they don't agree with that part either)
1. Bailey: "Defund the police!"
2. (Someone argues that this is a horrifically bad idea)
3. Retreat to Motte: "We don't mean totally defunding the police, we just mean some of the overburden of policework should be shifted to qualified social workers, along with some of their budget."
4. (Discussion turns to whether this is actually a decent idea or not)
5. Returning to Bailey later... Next posted meme: "Stop police oppression! Defund the police!"
Very few people are going to argue that the government should be tearing children away from their parents or that the numerous examples of wrongful deadly force by police are not indeed more than merely tragedies but indicative of a bigger problem that requires more than official apologies and a few officers laid off. But the point of the Motte-and-Bailey tactic is that this is not the primary assertion being made, merely a strong back-up position to retreat to temporarily until you leave them alone and they can continue pushing controversial positions that shift the Overton window in the direction they desire.
An example of the tactic mentioned by one of the bloggers I linked to at the beginning of this section, and used in one of my examples above, is how many attack labels used by SJW's are explained in much more neutral or reasonable-sounding terms if you push back against them, but the weaponized labels continue in every other case.
E.g. "Tear down their privilege!" when fought back against becomes "We don't mean you are intentionally a bad person, but that you have unconsciously profited from systemic power structures which favor you at the expense of others, and we are demanding with joyful vehemence that those systems be renegotiated." (Then they post another meme saying anyone who disagrees with looting should be silenced by force)
By contrast, the nicest version of this that I've personally encountered is LDS missionaries. They have a set of things they are instructed to tell you to persuade you to get involved with Mormonism. If you engage them regarding some of the odd sci-fi-esque beliefs the Mormons teach which are utterly at odds with the Bible, they will often retreat to claiming that they are Jesus followers who believe the Bible too, but then as quickly as possible return to suggesting you take a first step down the road towards joining Mormonism.
(Christians are not immune to falling into this tactic either. I give a couple examples in the last section of this post but you can probably come up with various others from your own experience)
Perhaps the easiest way to recognize someone employing the Motte-and-Bailey tactic is that you can think you've reached some kind of conclusion or concession through dialogue, or reached some kind of common ground that they will honor, but they quickly return to making the same statements they made previously as if your conversation/debate never occurred. They only retreated to a non-controversial position as a tactic to endure a probing line of thought or challenge that they had no interest in actually pursuing, so that they could resume promoting their position later.
Just as the villagers do not want to live in the cramped Motte defense tower, but will come down from the Motte and resume their productive activity in the Bailey area as soon as possible, so someone using the Motte-and-Bailey tactic will typically go back to making the same claims they had been making before being challenged as soon as they can. It's an effective tactic, since they can continue trying to push controversial positions with relative impunity, and it's not likely that someone will challenge them every single time. (Medieval peasants did not have the "block" option)
People using various versions of "all I'm saying is" or "I'm just saying" or "I can't believe you don't agree that [basic thing that 95% of people agree on]" are also a strong clue that the Motte and Bailey tactic is being employed.
3. Why People Like This Tactic
On the other hand, for those who are already involved in political movements or actively promoting certain ideologies, real arguments are usually a waste of their time, since they are not seeking information but busy convincing others to join them (or refrain from interfering).
The Motte and Bailey fallacy can be used intentionally as a clever tactic for ideologues, but it's also a handy work-around for this information-overloaded world we live in. With so many thoughts and assertions and memes flying around, we want to stake out a piece of opinion real estate (our Bailey) too, but we haven't necessarily crash-tested the idea. In many cases we're merely reacting to the tsunami of information that we're encouraged, even commanded, to express an opinion and take a stance on. Then along comes someone who feels differently and furthermore has an argument prepared against your opinion. Rather than reformulate your stance, or worse, admit defeat and give in to theirs, it's easier to retreat to a defensive position that can hardly be disagreed with then return to the opinion-giving and stance-taking.
It's easy to see that trying to convince a politician on the campaign trail to join the other party instead is almost certainly going to be fruitless effort. The Motte and Bailey tactic, which politicians do indeed often employ in their "debates," is a way to deflect opposing viewpoints, in view of your social media following, while minimizing the possibility that your opponent can score points on you or peel away any followers. Yes it's boring to retreat to truisms and slogans, but it's safer than risking a real defeat at the game of ideas, and it requires your opponent to either do the same or run the risk of looking unreasonable, confirming the stereotype of "the other side."
Imagine a way to end a chess game in a stalemate at any point in the game within two moves. If your goal is to win 1000 games as soon as possible and be dealt as few checkmates as possible, using the fast stalemate to tie up all the hardest games will vastly increase your progress.
4. Motte and Bailey Tactics -- Real Life Examples
To provide some real life examples by way of illustration, Wikipedia's article on the Motte and Bailey fallacy mentions Trump's campaign slogan of "Make American Great Again" as a rhetorical Motte which protects a more controversial Bailey such as building border walls (ironically, a literal attempt to strengthen America's geographical "Bailey").
That probably isn't the greatest example because that slogan itself was the subject of considerable controversy throughout the campaign, whereas the best Motte and Bailey defenses are not "preaching to the choir" but retreating to a Motte which people on the opposite side of the argument from you would also hasten to agree with. ("Make America Better" would be a true Motte and Bailey slogan)
One historical example would be the Temperance Movement in the United States, which eventually led to the Prohibition. Condemning drunkenness and the debauchery that surrounded that lifestyle and the establishments which catered to it was a strong Motte, from which the controversial Bailey of supporting a ban on alcohol sales across the nation could be defended. Thus if you opposed a ban on the sale of alcohol, you could be accused of supporting all the problems alcoholism can bring about. And it worked, though the same cannot really be said for the Prohibition itself.
(I will note in passing that in a very similar fashion, both sides have continually used this tactic on the abortion legality debate)
A very skillful current example of this tactic is the brilliantly-named Black Lives Matter movement. Led by avowed Marxists dedicated to social revolution, it would ordinarily not have gained much traction or support. However their chosen name invokes the Motte and Bailey defense automatically, since the Bailey of "Black Lives Matter" (the movement) has the Motte of "Black lives matter" (the principle).
Those involved with Black Lives Matter can thus automatically respond that any people condemning their Marxist agenda or use of rioting, etc., are taking a stand against agreeing that Black lives matter. And with such a strong Motte, even those unaware of that agenda will respond to defense of the Bailey when it is attacked. (To extend the metaphor, one could say their Motte is made much stronger, its moral high ground made much higher, by the true premises on which it is founded. America's history provides innumerable examples of how Black lives have not been treated as valuable. By linking themselves to such a strong and important Motte, their Bailey of latter-day Bolsheviks is very difficult to assail)
5. Responding to the Motte and Bailey Defense
How would one respond to such a tactic? First, by observing that it is indeed a fallacy. It is not true that opposing the prohibition of selling alcohol is equivalent to promoting alcoholism. It is not true that opposing the BLM movement is equivalent to denying that Black lives matter. The argument may frequently come to a standstill at that point, or devolve into other informal fallacies like ad hominem or false dilemmas, but most real progress will be made by strongly pointing out the invalid linkage between Bailey and Motte. This is particularly important when the Motte is a statement which is actually important and worth defending.
A globally notable example of a Motte and Bailey tactic is how honest fear about the danger of COVID-19 has been used to justify a great number of very controversial decisions. While the pandemic by necessity required controversial and costly decisions--and every mistake in dealing a pandemic has its own death toll, even the right decisions have them--it is the reasoning used to justify those decisions in which we can see this fallacy.
As the debate continues to rage in the US over decisions made and currently being made about how to deal with COVID, social distancing, mask wearing, etc., let's consider a hypothetical argument between two people who disagreed a few months ago on whether the government had the right to close churches:
A: "We need to close churches until further notice" (Bailey)
B: "That sounds like prohibiting the free exercise of religion" (Attack on Bailey)
A: "We all need to make some sacrifices to save lives" (Retreat to Motte)
B: "..." (Breaks off attack)
B probably doesn't want to deny the Motte's premise or even disagree with it, but may feel that there is still an argument to be made for continuing church attendance. Very frequently, the Motte can call in Imperial backup troops in the form of "expert opinion" or "scholarly findings." Let's see what would happen if B persists:
A: "We need to close churches until further notice" (Bailey)
B: "That sounds like prohibiting the free exercise of religion" (Attack on Bailey)
A: "We all need to make some sacrifices to save lives" (Retreat to Motte)
B: "Our church is going to take precautions" (Attack on Motte)
A: "The CDC says it's too dangerous" (Reinforcing troops for Motte)
B: "I don't think the CDC fully understands this yet" (Attacking reinforcements)
A: "They are looking at the numbers and that's their expert conclusion." (Reinforcing troops stand firm)
B: "Then why have they already contradicted their previous statements multiple times?" (Pressing back the reinforcing troops into the tower)
A: "Oh, are you one of those COVID-conspiracy theorists? Do you believe in flat earth too?" (Dumping boiling oil from tower windows)
B: "What? No...[defensive argument]" (Burned by oil, breaks siege and driven down from Motte)
What could B have done differently? Once the argument got to whether the CDC could be trusted or not, there was probably no helpful outcome to the discussion. One other option would be to "stalemate" the argument by finding his own Motte:
A: "We need to close churches until further notice" (Bailey)
B: "That sounds like prohibiting the free exercise of religion" (Attack on Bailey)
A: "We all need to make some sacrifices to save lives" (Retreat to Motte)
B: "Churches save lives too, and provide hope and assurance for people who need it desperately right now." (Retreat to a different Motte which claims the same Bailey)
A: "..."
At that point the argument might keep going, but it can't continue as a Motte-and-Bailey fallacy because now both people are sitting on positions it's difficult to attack. Either someone runs up the other's hill to attack their strong position, or the argument proceeds along different lines.
Disclaimer: This example does not represent my own views on the right thing for churches to do or have done during this confusing season. I have been in Taiwan for the duration of the pandemic thus far and so I don't believe I could offer any helpful opinion from afar on it except regarding what things have been like in Taiwan.
6. So in Conclusion
The Motte and Bailey tactic is a cheap but effective tactic, frequently seen in these days of ideological turmoil. An intellectually honest person will avoid it in their own arguments (though lazy thinking can help it creep in) though if it's used against you, sometimes the best strategy is to fight fire with fire. Better though, to see it for what it is, and consistently work to separate the Bailey from the Motte, if the Motte itself doesn't turn out to be a paper castle.
In the best cases, a retreat to the Motte can be a retreat to premises and presuppositions, and those are what we should be comparing now anyway, since those are where the real differences between us lie, or else where we will find we are not really on different sides at all.
7. A Reminder to the Church
When Christians don't deeply understand God's word, or feel impelled to "impress the world" by trying to do apologetics based on the world's own epistemology, they can fall into this fallacy as well, as described in an example from the blog I linked to above:
"The religious group that acts for all the world like God is a supernatural creator who builds universes, creates people out of other people’s ribs, parts seas, and heals the sick when asked very nicely (bailey). Then when atheists come around and say maybe there’s no God, the religious group objects “But God is just another name for the beauty and order in the Universe! You’re not denying that there’s beauty and order in the Universe, are you?” (motte). Then when the atheists go away they get back to making people out of other people’s ribs and stuff."
The criticism may sting, or it may not because you've never done that, but it should remind us of the danger of trying to win arguments instead of souls. Our apologetics should not ever fall into the lazy habit of the Motte and Bailey doctrine, and we should never fall into the trap of treating God like an abstract concept. (Yet another reason why the fact of the historical incarnation of Jesus is so crucially important for our faith) We believe in a God who did build (and sustains) this universe, created men and women out of earth, and of flesh and bone, and sometimes responds with miracles today when we ask Him.
For a real life example of Motte and Bailey doctrine in the Church, we could consider certain proponents of Young Earth Creationism. Since the beginnings of the Modern Era, it's been tough for anyone raised outside of certain branches of the Church to swallow the concept that the whole earth, or even the universe itself, could be much younger than the theorized beginnings of Egyptian civilization. Yet I have encountered YECs who insist that if you don't believe this, you don't "really" believe the Bible. In this case, the infallibility of holy scripture itself is the Motte, and it's a very strong one, one in which I happen to live and find refuge without identifying with every Bailey established in its shadow.
What makes this a Motte and Bailey fallacy is that there are different ways to interpret the Hebrew of Genesis 1. As we wrap up this post I am not at all interested in going into a discussion of which interpretation I believe and why, but I can say that for anyone who understands there are multiple interpretations, has researched them, and in the end firmly believes the correct interpretation of the Hebrew is 6 sequential days of creation, where a day was 24 hours, even before the sun was created, I have no quarrel with that person whatsoever. God could have done it that way as easily as any other of the theories. The point here is that the Bailey of 6000ish years can be debated, and should stand on other merits beyond insisting that its defense is the veracity of scripture itself, since other well-known interpretations exist which do not contradict scripture. (We are not here speaking of those that do; their Motte is likely to be "Science," which involves its own Motte and Bailey dance since the term "Science" invoked as an authority really means many more things than the dictionary definition, but that is the one they will retreat to if pushed)
I am not picking on Young Earthers here. I was raised one and I have no way of knowing for sure which interpretation of the Hebrew of Genesis 1 is correct, though it's clear that many parts of the creation narrative of current secular science cannot be reconciled with what we find there, and so I am comfortable with regarding the secular science tale of a uncaused expansion of non-created energy as a creation myth by the Modernists, only one level above the Pangu story of ancient Chinese myth or Norse tales of Muspellheim and Niflheim. Science has thrown out various old narratives as new facts render them obsolete, and it is inevitable that they will do so with their current model as well, if Christ tarries. Meanwhile God remains God. Whether 6 24-hour days, 6 poetically described epochs, a literary structure of forming and filling, or something else, Genesis 1 is a true account of how He did it. We can debate which interpretation is right, and it's okay to choose one, but not okay to Motte-and-Bailey and claim you are the only one who really believes the Bible is true and not metaphorical any time someone wants to propose another interpretation based on the text.
What we all--regardless of our chosen Genesis interpretations--must be wary of, and graciously reprimand any believers we catch doing it, is fencing out the Bailey of our own pet or denominational or flavor-of-post-evangelicalism interpretation, then retreating immediately to the infallibility of scripture when questioned. Positions are not Doctrines are not Dogmas, and we must understand the difference. What's worse is when these Bailey walls are made into a hurdle that believers must first jump as a condition of believing in God, when it's belief in God that gives authority to scripture itself.
Christian denominations have carved out their own historic Baileys, which they vigorously defend, yet many still retreat to God's word and the Faith as their Motte. Some do no longer, and they are typically those which are most rapidly imploding as Millennials and Gen Z forsake the habit of cultural church attendance along with many of their elders. But so long as Christ crucified and risen according to the scriptures is indeed their strong tower, then when a denominational bailiwick is imperiled, let them find shelter in that feste Burg.
And it is directly to that mighty Keep of grace and redemption that we should be inviting those who do not yet know Christ, not to first pass the ditches and gates of our lovingly-cultivated Baileys, whether denominational or personal.
Introduce them to Christ through God's word, and let them be transformed by the renewing of their mind by the Spirit to the point that when it comes to choosing between the narratives of secular science (or of marxist dialectic) and God's truth, they will both choose the latter and be discerning enough that they can tell the difference. It has become all too clear these months that many long-time Christians cannot.
