I’ve long been confused why people don’t just use something like “bait and switch” or “rope-a-dope”?
It’s possible they’re not the exact same concept, but they seem pretty close, and the former (maybe the latter too) already has an intuitive meaning to people
There are a lot of similar terms, but motte and bailey is a uniquely apt metaphor for describing a specific rhetorical strategy. I think the reason it often feels unhelpful in practice is because it’s unusually unnecessary to be so precise when our goal is just to call out bullshit. I personally like “motte and bailey” quite a bit, but as a tool for my own private thinking rather than as a piece of rhetoric to persuade others with.
I would guess something like historical momentum is the reason people keep using it. Nicholas Shackel coined the term in 2005, then it got popularized in 2014 from SSC. 20 years is a long time for people to be using the term.
20 years is a long time sure, but I don’t think would be good argument for keeping it! (I understand you’re likely just describing, not justifying)
Motte & bailey has a major disadvantage of “nobody who hears it for the first time has any understanding of what it means”
Even as someone who knows the concept, I’m still not even 100% positive that motte and bailey do in fact mean “overclaim and retreat” respectively
People are welcome to use the terms they want, of course. But I’d think there should be a big difference between M&B and some simpler name in order to justify M&B
I’ve long been confused why people don’t just use something like “bait and switch” or “rope-a-dope”?
It’s possible they’re not the exact same concept, but they seem pretty close, and the former (maybe the latter too) already has an intuitive meaning to people
“Overclaim and retreat” also seems better than motte & bailey imo
There are a lot of similar terms, but motte and bailey is a uniquely apt metaphor for describing a specific rhetorical strategy. I think the reason it often feels unhelpful in practice is because it’s unusually unnecessary to be so precise when our goal is just to call out bullshit. I personally like “motte and bailey” quite a bit, but as a tool for my own private thinking rather than as a piece of rhetoric to persuade others with.
I would guess something like historical momentum is the reason people keep using it. Nicholas Shackel coined the term in 2005, then it got popularized in 2014 from SSC. 20 years is a long time for people to be using the term.
20 years is a long time sure, but I don’t think would be good argument for keeping it! (I understand you’re likely just describing, not justifying)
Motte & bailey has a major disadvantage of “nobody who hears it for the first time has any understanding of what it means”
Even as someone who knows the concept, I’m still not even 100% positive that motte and bailey do in fact mean “overclaim and retreat” respectively
People are welcome to use the terms they want, of course. But I’d think there should be a big difference between M&B and some simpler name in order to justify M&B