Are we on shifting ground?
Amsterdam (2025) photo from Civil Engineering Discoveries, LinkedIn
Preface
Originally published 20170730, revised on Blogger 20250215.
The Pirie entry by entry review continues...
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
The Definitional Retreat
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). A 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 examples:
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).
Collins
'A definitional retreat takes place when someone changes the meaning of the words in order to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. By changing the meaning, he turns it into a different statement.' Pirie uses an example: 'When I said I hadn't been drinking, officer, I meant that I hadn't had more than I get through in a normal social evening.' (77-78).
My examples:
When I said I was a Christian, I meant that I think there is probably a God.
When I said you were fat, I meant that you were phat, as in excellent.
The author explains that a definitional retreat allows a person to save face when their argument has been demonstrated to significantly lack merit. (78). Pirie reasons that philosophers often change definitions when shown as questionable. (78). Definitions are not to be subjective, they have objective meanings. This is a reason I revise my writing, because sometimes corrections have to be made in premises, conclusions and reasoning.
Definition twisting, does not assist with my pursuit of the truth. My revisions are documented when significant. I admit that minor revisions are often made after publish, because some problems are not apparent until after publish. That is a visual issue, not an integrity one. But if I do change my mind...it is better to revise statements and/or arguments when needed and to note it.
Pirie mentions that UK finance ministers are good at the use of this fallacy. (79). They use definitional retreat. I think politicians often use fallacies when definitions are changed to portray a different story. Statistics can be stated to mean one thing in January and something else in December.
Shifting ground?
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). A 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 examples:
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).
Collins
Cited
'in American English'
'shift ground
to change position in an argument or situation'
2019 by Penguin Random House LLC and HarperCollins Publishers Ltd'
---
Hedging
'Hedging in arguments means sheltering behind ambiguous meanings so that the sense can be changed later.' (120).
To paraphrase the author's example:
We stated we did not want a full-fledged war in the Middle East; that is still the position, we entered into limited war. (120).
This type of argumentation allows for a 'definitional retreat.' (120).
'Hedging is fallacious because it puts two or more different statements under the guise of one'. (120).
It is a semantic game in parsing the difference between a 'limited war' and a 'full-fledged' war. Is any war 'full-fledged' without nuclear weapons?
Hedging hopes that the reviewer of argumentation, will not know better (120); the information presented becomes useless because it is not presented accurately. (120).
To avoid hedging one could state:
'We are entering into war; we are committed.'
Or:
'We are not entering into war, because the risks are too great.'
Hedging again...
We stated we did not want to colonize Mars, that is still the position, but we have several Mars space missions planned.
Interestingly, Pirie indicates that Nostradamus used hedging to make obscure predictions. (121). The author reasons that observers look for what they want to see as far as what has already occurred and apply what Nostradamus predicted. This does not assist in making accurate predictions. (121).
Hedging uses dishonesty and ambiguity. (121).
Logically Fallacious
Cited
Description: Refining your claim simply to avoid counter evidence and then acting as if your revised claim is the same as the original.
Logical Form: Claim X is made. Claim X is refuted. Claim Y is then made and is made to be the same as claim X when it is not.
References: Dowden, B. (n.d.). Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Cited
Description: Refining your claim simply to avoid counter evidence and then acting as if your revised claim is the same as the original.
Logical Form: Claim X is made. Claim X is refuted. Claim Y is then made and is made to be the same as claim X when it is not.
References: Dowden, B. (n.d.). Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
---
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
