Ad temperantiam

The argument to moderation is a logical fallacy that assumes the truth must lie between two opposing viewpoints. This fallacy does not necessarily claim that seeking a middle ground is always wrong, but it applies when the middle position is ill-informed, unfeasible, or impossible, or when an argument claims correctness simply because it is a compromise.

The argument to moderation fallacy occurs when it is assumed that the truth must be found between two extremes. While compromise and finding middle ground can sometimes lead to reasonable solutions, this fallacy misleads by suggesting that the middle position is always the correct one. In reality, the truth might align entirely with one of the extremes or lie outside the given spectrum of positions altogether.

Recognizing this fallacy helps in evaluating arguments based on their merits and evidence rather than arbitrarily assuming that the middle ground is inherently valid.

Examples of False Compromise Fallacy:

1. Sky Color Example:
   • "One person says the sky is blue. Another says the sky is yellow. Therefore, the sky must be green."
   • This example is flawed because the truth (the sky is blue) is not necessarily a compromise between the two opposing statements.
2. Health and Nutrition Example:
   • "One diet expert says you should eat no sugar at all, while another says you should eat a lot of sugar. The best approach must be to eat a moderate amount of sugar."
   • The middle ground here may not be the healthiest option, as the appropriate amount of sugar intake depends on individual health needs.
3. Historical Interpretation Example:
   • "One historian claims that a certain event never happened, while another claims it was the most significant event of the century. Therefore, it must have happened but was only somewhat important."
   • The truth may be that the event either did or did not happen, and its significance cannot be accurately determined by merely finding a middle ground.