Discussion History Main / LikeFatherLikeSon

With the sheep-painting example, a \\\"true\\\" Golden Mean would try its best to incorporate elements of painting both colors, eg, paint half the sheep\\\'s bodies one way and half the other, or mix the two colors and paint all the sheep with the result, etc. In real life situations, the truth may well lie between or outside two positions, though often one side or the other will be a little \\\'\\\'closer\\\'\\\' to the truth (at least if we\\\'re talking about something objectively determinable, eg, the age of the Earth).

The fundamentally fallacious thing about the Golden Mean is that it seeks correct answers in terms of what the existing positions are, rather than in terms of the facts on the ground (or whatever). The argument from popularity and the argument from authority make similar mistakes. It\\\'s also possible to invert the fllacy, eg, to argue that we shouldn\\\'t paint any sheep \\\'\\\'because\\\'\\\' \\\"both sides\\\" should be made to feel unhappy. In fact, a good rule of thumb is that the phrase \\\"both sides\\\" heralds a \\\'\\\'potential\\\'\\\' Golden Mean coming. (saying \\\"Both sides have their points\\\" usually doesn\\\'t add to the conversation, and is rarely followed up by \\\"but one side is righter\\\".)