# Motte and Bailey The [motte-and-bailey fallacy](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey) is a form of argument where a person conflates two different positions which are superficially similar. One of them is more-or-less common sense — it is easy to defend, but isn’t saying much, the other is striking and controversial and very difficult to defend. For example: 1. (Motte) There are problems in the world 2. (Bailey) The world is a bad place and is getting worse > “The world is such a terrible place, look at what it is happening, everything is getting worse.” > “What do you mean? We’ve been making so much progress. We’re improving by almost every metric we value; life expectancy, level of violence, deaths by preventable illness, wealth and self-reports of happiness.” > “Yes but we still have problems x, y and z” Here we have someone making a sweeping yet insubstantial claim; _the bailey_, and when they are challenged, they retreat to a more secure foundation; _the motte_. Worse still, at junctures like this, many will continue to proclaim belief in the bailey and even influence others to adopt it. The cycle repeats, when they are challenged on the bailey they fallback on the motte. The use of a motte-and-bailey fallacy in my view is remarkably common and is often one of the main ways we hold our ideas immune from criticism and maintain our misplaced beliefs.