The castral mote fallacy: what it is and how it is intended to mislead

A review of the characteristics of the castral mote fallacy, widely used in debating.

Many people have beliefs that they themselves do not question, truths that in their heads are of unquestionable logic but are weak. However, these ideas do not cease to be beliefs, sometimes very absurd, thoughts that are very easily refuted with a little logic and reason.

When these people find themselves in a situation in which what they have said is questioned or the exact opposite is demonstrated, to defend themselves they usually resort to other more moderate and more common sense arguments that they hide as if they were what they really wanted to say.

It happens that they are in a debate and what they say first is an affirmation that is comfortable for them, but it is controversial and easily dismantled. In order not to look like people who say absurdities, they release a second, more moderate statement. This strategy is the fallacy of the castral mote.. Let's see it below.

What is the castral mote fallacy?

The castral mote fallacy is a type of informal fallacy in which the arguer conceives of two positions that share similarities but have different defensiveness. One of these positions or opinion is modest and easy to defend, something that is practically part of common sense (mote). The other, on the other hand, is much more controversial, being a more difficult opinion to defend (castro), especially if someone attacks it with rational and logical arguments.

The fallacy occurs when a controversial opinion is being given and someone attacks it, causing the defender of that opinion to switch to another opinion that is easier to defend.The arguer is not a "modest" argument, claiming that this is what he was defending at the outset. The arguer is moving forward with his controversial opinion but, when it is challenged with arguments that make sense, the arguer insists that he was just moving toward a more modest position.

What are its origins?

The castral mote fallacy appeared on the philosophical scene in 2005 thanks to British philosopher Nicholas Shackelcurrently professor at Cardiff University, Wales. Calling it originally "motte-and-bailey doctrine", Shackel explained this fallacy in an article in the journal Metaphilosophy, explaining that it was a very common phenomenon in the new century. However, despite the fact that this idea emerged in the mid-2000s, it was not until 2014 that this type of fallacy became popular thanks to the blog "Slate Star Codex".

This fallacy takes its name from a very interesting type of fortification of the Middle Ages: the castral motes.. These were a special type of castle that consisted of two very clear differentiated elements: the castro and the motte. Although the castro and the mota were two parts of the same castle, they had very different functional characteristics that are very similar to the types of arguments used today when the fallacy that shares the same name is given.

The castro was the place where daily tasks were performed. There were fertile lands to cultivate, workshops to make manufactures and huts to live in, i.e., the castro was a productive and habitable area. This part of the castle was surrounded by a barrier or ditch, but they were easily crossed, so the castro was not a very safe place in case of invasion.

The motte was the easiest part of the castle to defend, but at the same time the least habitable.. It consisted of a high tower made of stone, with hardly any windows, cold, dark and damp, in which no one would choose to live by choice. Its purpose was that, when the castro was attacked, the inhabitants of the castle would take refuge in the motte while waiting for the attack to cease. Thus, the castro motes combined the best of both structures, being habitable environments and offering protection.

And what do these castles have to do with the debates?

As we said, the castral motte functioned in such a way that, on a peaceful day, its inhabitants would exploit the castro, i.e., take advantage of its lands, workshops and huts. In case of an invading attack, these inhabitants would take refuge in the tower, being uncomfortable but well protected until the danger disappeared. Well then, Shackel found that many people used a strategy very similar to the one used by our medieval ancestors when arguing their views.

Many people defend theories that contain two types of assertions. On the one hand, they spout assertions that are very difficult to defend to others but happen to be the main claim of their theory. This part of their theory would be the equivalent of the castro of the medieval castral mote, the comfortable point, pleasant to believe, but also weak and unprotected from reason and common sense. Let us call it "idea-castro". An example would be the main argument of postmodernism: "all reality is a social construction."

The problem with the idea-castro is that it is easily objectionable, that is, it can be very easily demolished, using even the very arguments used by the one who promulgates it. Taking the idea that "all reality is a social construction", if this were so, then wouldn't it be enough that we all agree to put an end to misfortunes? hunger, HIV, wars and coffee overflowing from our cups are all real facts, what are we waiting for to change our reality?

This objection here exposed puts the person who sustains his idea-castro in trouble. The idea that reality is something socially constructed is not common sense. Most of the important issues in our world cannot be changed simply by changing the way we view them. This would be the logic that would dismantle the main point of postmodernism.

What happens next? Well, following the simile of the castral mote, when his castro-idea is attacked, the person has to take refuge and goes to a safer but uncomfortable place.. This is where he resorts to the idea-mota, an idea that is closer to common sense and logic, is more rational and moderate. In the case of postmodernism, the advocate in question would say that what he meant was that, in reality, society influences the way we see reality and that this was the idea he originally wanted to defend. If we have understood something else, it is because we have not known how to understand it.

In fact, the ideas are so reasonable that they may even turn out to be obvious. But this is not what is important, but their function of sheltering those who say one thing and, when they are "caught" say another different but related idea to protect themselves when their ideas-castro have been assaulted with some rational and logical argument. It is at this point when, following the example of the postmodernist, he will say that it is necessary to see how we put ourselves, that after all he was only defending the most obvious position, that is to say, the idea-moth that the end has brought to light.

After commenting on this clarification and clarifying the "misunderstanding", we will probably end up agreeing with that person, coming to the conclusion that there are certain aspects of our way of perceiving the outside world that do depend on how we have been brought up and the type of society in which we have grown up. Even so, that person would have to accept that such a blunt assertion as that reality is a social construct is fallacious, which probably won't happen since, when he finds someone who doesn't question this assertion, he will try to shoehorn it into his head.

Originally, Shackel expounded his doctrine of the castral mote to critique the processes of duplicity in argumentation that he found in numerous scholarly works of great modern philosophers, including Michel Foucault, David Bloor, Richard Rorty and Jean-François Lyotard. In addition, he used as examples of this fallacy many of the ideas found in the discourses of postmodernist currents.

Structure of the discussions with this fallacy

As an outline, let us see how is the usual structure of the debates in which the fallacy of the castral mote occursunderstanding as "controversial interpretation of a point of view X" a castral-idea and as "common sense interpretation of a point of view X" a mote-idea:

• Person 1 affirms (controversial interpretation of a point of view X).
• Person 2 criticizes (controversial interpretation of a point of view X).
• Person 1 states that he/she was, in fact, defending (common sense interpretation of a point of view X).
• Person 2 does not continue to criticize person 1. Person 2 leaves the discussion.
• Person 1 claims victory and quietly asserts again (controversial interpretation of a point of view X).

A variation of this phenomenon is the one below, especially common in thread-type discussions on social networks such as Reddit or Twitter.

• Person 1 states something with sufficient ambiguity that it can be interpreted as either (controversial interpretation of viewpoint X) or (common sense interpretation of viewpoint X).
• Person 2 criticizes (controversial interpretation of viewpoint X).
• Person 1 claims that he/she was actually defending (common sense interpretation of viewpoint X).
• Person 2 leaves the discussion or complains that person 1 was ambiguous.
• Person 1 claims victory and discreetly reverses the discussion by supporting (controversial interpretation of a point of view X).

Examples of this fallacy

Finding examples of the castral mote fallacy is quite simple. We simply need to open an account on a social network, for example Twitter, and see how its community debates all kinds of ideas, sometimes very absurd and in a toxic way. We could give an infinite list of examples of so many, so we have selected a few that are well representative of the phenomenon.

1. The existence of God

A religious group affirms that God is a supernatural creator entity that creates universes out of nothing, people from ribs or mud, is capable of splitting the seas in half and cures the sick (castro).

Atheists join the debate, saying that God cannot exist since it makes no sense for an entity with such powers to exist.

Religious people object by saying that, in reality, the word "God" is just another name for the beauty and order in nature.. These religionists ask the atheists if they are denying that there is beauty and order (mota) in the Universe.

The atheists agree that the universe is beautiful and accept the use of the word God to refer to such beauty, understanding it as a simple metaphor for order and beauty.

The religious again defend the idea that God is a supernatural and all-powerful entity, capable of doing everything they say he does.

2. Not accepting Jesus leads you to hell.

Some religious people affirm that if you do not accept Jesus you will burn in Hell forever (castro).

Some skeptics reply to this claim by saying that this does not make senseIf the religion defends that Jesus is peace and love, it is not logical that the fact of not following him implies punishment.

The religious defend themselves by saying that, in reality, "burning in Hell" is nothing more than a metaphor to say that a person who does not accept Jesus is lost, not knowing what to do in his life (mota).

The skeptics understand the metaphor, saying that in that case they will continue not accepting Jesus since it seems that he is in agreement with the decision that is taken, whatever it is.

The religious again defend that not accepting Jesus implies that we go to Hell head first, where our flesh will be filled with worms that will eat our entrails (castro).

The skeptics again criticize the point of view of the religious, using as an argument the same as before, that is, that it does not make sense that not accepting God or Jesus implies such a harsh punishment.

The religious again defend themselves by saying that those worms that will eat away at our entrails is just another metaphorical way of saying that living without God involves emotional suffering (mota)..

3. Presumption of innocence

Some extremist feminist movements argue that to be a real feminist it is necessary to agree with certain controversial ideas, among them the denial of the presumption of innocence of a man who is accused of having committed violence against women, both physical and sexual (castro).

Adding to the debate is someone who argues that denying the presumption of innocence is a violation of human rights and is not at all fair. In fact, that assumption would imply defending gender inequality, only this time reversing the balance.

The extreme feminists say that, in reality, what they meant to say is that they defend that women and men are equal and that with this statement what they meant was that special consideration should be given to the protection of the victim of gender violence (mota).

The person who has commented that the denial of the presumption of innocence is unfair is satisfied to hear the new idea that extreme feminists have put forward. Extreme feminists are again saying that the presumption of innocence should be denied for any man who is investigated for violence against women, whether or not there is evidence.

4. Pseudotherapies

Many promoters of pseudo-sciences, such as reiki, homeopathy, Bach flowers or other alternative therapies, claim that their treatments help to cure women. claim that their treatments help cure cancer, eliminate chronic pain or improve problems like Diabetes or cholesterol (castro)..

Before their claims, someone replies that they have scientific evidence that what they are claiming is not true, that they do not help at all to improve the state of health of those who undergo these treatments.

The promoters of these pseudotherapies say that in reality their intention is to give hope to those people who need it most and that the placebo can help them to get rid of some stress and feel more cared for. Besides, there are diseases that cannot be cured with either scientific or alternative medicine, but the alternative at least does not apply invasive treatments and does not induce annoying side effects (mota).

The person who has criticized them feels satisfied with the explanation, considering that although he knows that the promoters of these treatments know that their therapies do not cure, at least they do it to calm those who need it most, apparently acting in good faith. So, this person stops criticizing them.

The promoters of pseudosciences are at it again, claiming that yes, their treatments cure and that patients with serious medical illnesses should abandon conventional medical treatments to follow their own, which are more "natural", benign and do not induce unwanted side effects.

Bibliographical references:

• Shackel, Nicholas (2005). "The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology". Metaphilosophy. 36 (3).
• Boudry, Maarten; Braeckman, Johan (May 2010). "Immunizing strategies and epistemic defense mechanisms". Philosophia. 39 (1): 145-161 (150).