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^[1]—is the fallacy that the truth is always in the middle of two opposites.^[2]

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.^[3][4]

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.^[5]

See also

• Philosophy portal

• Centrism – Political orientation
• Dialectic – Method of reasoning via argumentation and contradiction
• False balance – Media bias on opposing viewpoints
• Horseshoe theory – Posited 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