Scott Alexander explains the 'motte and bailey doctrine', a rhetorical fallacy, providing examples and comparing it to the 'weak man fallacy'. Longer summary

This post explains and analyzes the 'motte and bailey doctrine', a rhetorical fallacy popularized by the author. The concept involves making a controversial claim (the bailey) and then retreating to a more defensible position (the motte) when challenged. Scott provides several examples of this fallacy in action, including in religious arguments, feminism, and pseudoscience. He then compares it to the 'weak man fallacy', showing how they are mirror images of each other. The post concludes by advising readers to avoid vague, poorly-defined concepts in debates and instead focus on specific, clear propositions. Shorter summary