Pin the Bailey

Minutes

When a position seems to change size depending on whether it is being advanced or defended, write down the bold version and the modest version side by side and ask which one is being claimed, so the speaker cannot enjoy the conclusions of one and the defensibility of the other.

How to do it

  1. 1Notice the movement. The bold claim (the bailey) appears when nobody is pushing back and does the practical work; the modest claim (the motte) appears under challenge and is nearly undeniable. Afterwards, the conversation drifts back to the bold one as though it had been vindicated.
  2. 2State both versions in plain words, as fairly as you can: "Earlier the claim was that X never works. Just now it was that X sometimes fails. Those are different claims."
  3. 3Ask which is meant, without hostility: "Which one are you defending? I agree with the second."
  4. 4Concede the modest claim explicitly if it is true. That removes the retreat as a refuge and shows you are not quarrelling for the sake of it.
  5. 5Hold the conclusions to the version that was defended. If only the modest claim stands, only what follows from the modest claim has been earned; say so when the larger recommendations reappear.
  6. 6Check yourself for the same pattern, particularly with slogans you like. Slogans are often baileys whose mottes are a paragraph long.

What to say

  • “I agree with the careful version you just gave. It is the stronger version from earlier that I am questioning. Are you still claiming that?”
  • “If the claim is only that it sometimes happens, what follows for the policy you proposed?”

When to use it

  • •A headline, slogan, or sales claim is sweeping, and the fine print or the defense of it is far more modest.
  • •A discussion keeps ending with agreement on something bland, and then the contested conclusion is treated as settled.
  • •A key term is used in a strict sense when challenged and in a loose sense when conclusions are drawn.

Counters

Motte and BaileyEquivocationStrategic AmbiguityDefinist Fallacy (Persuasive Definition)Definition ControlWeasel WordsMoving the GoalpostsGlittering GeneralitiesPufferyUp-To ComparativesLimited HangoutNon-Denial DenialAmbiguity Fallacy (Amphiboly and Equivocation)PalteringHedge Words

Evidence and how strong it is

The motte-and-bailey doctrine was named by the philosopher Nicholas Shackel (2005), using the image of a medieval castle: the bailey is the desirable, productive land that is hard to defend, and the motte is the unattractive stone tower one retreats to when attacked. Shackel introduced it to describe a pattern of argument in which a position is defined so as to be defensible in a modest sense, while the rhetoric trades on a much stronger sense; the term became widely known through later online discussion. It is closely related to equivocation as treated in the standard fallacy literature (Walton 2008), where the classical remedy is the same one used here: distinguish the senses and ask which is meant. The countermeasure is a product of conceptual analysis, not of experiment; there are no studies measuring its effect on audiences or on the people it is used with. Evidence strength: scholarly consensus about the fallacy and its logical remedy; no empirical test of the technique.

Cautions
  • Not every clarification is a retreat. People legitimately state things loosely and then tighten them, or hold both a modest claim and a bolder one with different degrees of confidence. Ask before you accuse.
  • Movements and institutions contain many speakers. The bold claim and the modest claim may come from different people, in which case no one is being inconsistent; pin positions to individuals, not to groups.
  • Winning the pin settles which claim is on the table, not whether it is true. The bold version still deserves evaluation on its merits if the speaker owns it.
  • The label has become a debating weapon in its own right. Describing the two claims is more persuasive than announcing the name of the fallacy.
  1. Shackel, N. (2005). The vacuity of postmodernist methodology. Metaphilosophy, 36(3), 295-320
    The original naming and analysis of the motte-and-bailey doctrine as a pattern of strategic retreat between a bold and a modest claim.
  2. Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press
    The treatment of equivocation and ambiguity and the remedy of distinguishing senses and asking which is asserted.
Last reviewed

More in Debate and argument

Argument Mapping

Draw the argument as a diagram, with the main claim at the top, the reasons for and objections against it beneath, and the support for each of those beneath them, so that gaps, repetition, and unsupported leaps become visible instead of being carried along by fluent prose.

The Toulmin Check

Test any single argument by asking Toulmin's six questions of it: what is the claim, what are the grounds, what warrant connects them, what backs the warrant, how strongly is the claim qualified, and under what conditions would it fail?

Fallacy Audit of Your Own Case

Before you publish, present, or press an argument, go through it as a hostile reader would, looking for the fallacies and statistical shortcuts you would attack in an opponent, and fix or cut what you find.

Flow the Argument

Borrow the competitive debater's note-taking method: write each of the other side's points in a column as they are made, put the responses beside them, and look at what is left unanswered, so that volume and speed cannot substitute for substance.

Pick the Strongest Claim

When faced with a pile of arguments, ask the other side to name their single best one, or choose it yourself, and examine that one thoroughly, instead of chasing every point or knocking down only the weakest.

State Your Position First

Before engaging with objections, questions, or someone else's summary of your view, say in one or two plain sentences what you actually hold and what you do not, so that the discussion is about your position and not a version built for you.