Argument to moderation

Template:Short description Template:Use British English Oxford spelling Template:Use dmy datesTemplate:Redirect-synonym Argument to moderation (Template:Langx)—also known as the false compromise, argument from middle ground, fallacy of gray, middle ground fallacy, or golden mean fallacy<ref name="Nizkor">Template:Cite web</ref>—is the fallacy of assuming that the truth or best solution always lies in the middle of two opposing positions.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

It does not suggest that an argument for the middle solution or for a compromise is always fallacious, but rather that it is wrong to assume that compromise is correct in every situation. It thus applies primarily in cases where insisting upon a compromise position is ill-informed, unfeasible, or impossible, or where an argument is incorrectly made that a position is correct simply because it is in the middle.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

For example, if one person correctly claims the daytime sky on Earth is blue and another incorrectly claims it is yellow, an argument to moderation would falsely conclude that the sky is green, an intermediate color, simply because it lies between the two claims.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

See also

• Template:Annotated link
• Excluded middle – Opposite logical fallacy to the argument to moderation
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link