[horizion2025]

Essentially a motte-and-bailey. "mitigate" is the same. Can be used when the risk is only partially eliminated but you can be lucky (depending on perspective) the reader will believe the issue is fully solved by that mitigation.

[toomuchtodo]

TIL. Thanks for sharing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

[kiitos]

what a great reference! thank you!

another prolific example of this fallacy, often found in the blockchain space, is the equivocation of statistical probability, with provable/computational determinism -- hash(x) != x, no matter how likely or unlikely a hash collision may be, but try explaining this to some folks and it's like talking to a wall

[gerdesj]

"Essentially a motte-and-bailey"

A M&B is a medieval castle layout. Those bloody Norsemen immigrants who duffed up those bloody Saxon immigrants, wot duffed up the native Britons, built quite a few of those things. Something, something, Frisians, Romans and other foreigners. Everyone is a foreigner or immigrant in Britain apart from us locals, who have been here since the big bang.

Anyway, please explain the analogy.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle)

[horizion2025]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

Essentially: you advance a claim that you hope will be interpreted by the audience in a "wide" way (avoid = eliminate) even though this could be difficult to defend. On the rare occasions some would call you on it, the claim is such it allows you to retreat to an interpretation that is more easily defensible ("with the word 'avoid' I only meant it reduces the risk, not eliminates").

[gerdesj]

I'd call that an "indefensible argument".

That motte and bailey thing sounds like an embellishment.

[Sabinus]

From your link:

"Motte" redirects here. For other uses, see Motte (disambiguation). For the fallacy, see Motte-and-bailey fallacy.