 |
| Today: Abbotsford |
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
When making arguments, people may hedge with ambiguous premises. (185). Or people may use a definitional retreat to make words within premises mean something else. (185).
The third type of this defensive type of argumentation is to use shifting ground. (185).
This fallacy is used with attempts to avoid criticism of an original premise (s) by shifting the meaning of premise or premises. (185).
This would require a new critique of the argument. (185).
My example:
Premise: I think x is a bad thing.
Conclusion: Yes, x should be banned.
After negative critique from others, the shifting ground fallacy is used:
Premise: Rather, x is usually a bad thing.
Conclusion: Well, x should probably be banned, anyway.
As Pirie explains the arguer will change the ground he/her is standing on and still maintain the continuity of the argument. (185). It is fallacious to change the substance of what is being stated.
In my example, the premise shifts from 'is a bad thing', to 'is usually a bad thing'.
The conclusion shifts from 'should be banned' to 'should probably be banned, anyway'.
Based on my years of discussion and debating, this is a tempting fallacy for intellectual and non-intellectuals, alike, to use as defence. As with my writing on my websites, sometimes arguments simply require edits in humility. The person in my example is attempting to save face, when he/she should more likely reconsider the entire line of reasoning.
Pirie opines that politicians at times use the shifting ground fallacy rather than admit that he/she changed their mind. (186). The shifting ground fallacy is often used when one cannot prove his/her point but does not want to appear to be wrong, or admit he/she is wrong. (186).
