Argument to moderation

"Fallacy of gray" redirects here. The term may also refer to the continuum fallacy.

Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as the false compromise, argument from middle ground, fallacy of gray, middle ground fallacy, or golden mean fallacy—is the fallacy that the truth is always in the middle of two opposites. It does not necessarily suggest that an argument for the middle solution or for a compromise is always fallacious, but rather applies primarily in cases where such a 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.

An example of an argument to moderation would be considering two statements about the colour of the sky on Earth during the day – one claiming, correctly, that the sky is blue, and another claiming that it is yellow – and incorrectly concluding that the sky is the intermediate colour, green.

See also

• Centrism – Political orientation
• Dialectic – Discursive method of arriving at the truth by way of reasoned contradiction and argumentation
• False balance – Media bias on opposing viewpoints
• Horseshoe theory – Alleged similarity of the far-left and far-right
• Overton window – Range of ideas tolerated in public discourse
• Ratchet effect – Restrained ability of human process reversal
• Straw man – Form of incorrect argument and informal fallacy
• View from nowhere – Principle in journalismPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
• Wisdom of the crowd – Collective perception of a group of people
• Paradox of tolerance – Logical paradox in decision-making theory