The Fallacy of Shifting Ground

A Tract Book Essay

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A. (Phil.), J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

One of the more interesting, and often unnoticed forms of arguing falsely, or

fallaciously, the the Fallacy of Shifting Ground. The whole idea is not very complicated,

it works like this: I start out an argument having the key word defined implicitly or

explicitly as Definition A, during the middle of the argument I then, without really letting

anyone know, shift the key word definition to Definition B, and continue the argument.

Let me give an example. I’ll make up an interesting word, “Theosphany.” Now, as far

as I know, Theosphany doesn’t really even have a definition, but I’ll make one up. Let us

assume for the sake of argument that the word Theosphany means political theology.

Here is the situation. I am on a law faculty and one of the faculty members

believes in liberation theology. At a faculty meeting, Stan Smith attacks the professor,

Joe Farmer, and accuse him of Theosphany. Stan Smith tells everyone that Theosphany

is one of the most terrible crimes there is, and additionally, that Theosphany is a serious

sin.

Joe Farmer tries to defend himself. He asks, “Why do you think that I have

committed Theosphany?” “Well,” Stan Smith says, “you believe in Liberation Theology,

that is Theosphany.”

Now, here comes the shift in ground.

 Joe Farmer replies, “But you’re a republican you are against abortion on the

basis of the Bible, that’s Theosphany too.” “No, its not,” Stan Smith replies,

“Theospany does not include the Bible.” “Oh,” says Joe Farmer, as he gets fired from

his job for Theosphany, and gets put on a psychiatric ward.

Now, we the audience know that the original definition of Theosphany was “political

theology.” Without telling anyone, the definition was changed from that to “Political

Theology not involving the Bible.” Now, if Joe Farmer knew what was going on, he

would have asked what the logical distinction was between Theosphany as originally

defined and Theosphany as later defined. Joe Farmer might have been able to argue that

there really is no rational basis to exclude Biblical Theology from the overall idea of

Theosphany. Once this was done, Joe Farmer could have accused Stan Smith, of

Theosphany, and accused Stan Smith of hippocracy, or even have argued equitable

estoppel against him. So, watch out for the Fallacy of Shifting Ground.