Middle Ground Fallacy

I say, bananas are yellow. You say, bananas are red. Can’t we compromise and just call them orange?

Here’s another example, let’s say two people argue about eating raw chicken. One says it can contain harmful bacteria and must be fully cooked. The other says it’s totally fine to eat raw. To settle the debate, they compromise by only cooking the chicken partially, so it’s still a little pink inside.

That’s the middle ground fallacy in action, and a salmonella special waiting to happen (1,2). Yikes!

Also called appeal to moderation, golden mean fallacy, or gray fallacy, this reasoning suggests that the middle point between two opposing views is automatically the most accurate (3,4,5,6). But truth isn’t decided by averaging opinions. If one of those extremes is clearly false, then the compromise isn’t a fair solution – it’s a distortion of the truth (3,7).

This fallacy is sneaky because it “feels” fair (8). But it’s misleading (2,4,5,7,8):

• It gives both arguments the same weight, even when only one is supported by science (read more about the false balance bias – 9). Raw chicken can carry harmful bacteria like Salmonella and Campylobacter, and the only way to kill it is by cooking the meat thoroughly.
• It assumes that the middle ground is always the best answer – but “a little pink” is still unsafe.
• It ignores the possibility that other, better solutions might exist.
• It can encourage people to present radical or false claims, hoping others will settle on a “reasonable” middle, which would still include misinformation.

Sometimes, finding a compromise is helpful. But when it comes to facts, “meeting in the middle” isn’t always the best – or the most accurate – solution (2,4,5,7,8).

To avoid falling for it (6):

• Ask: Is there evidence for both sides?
• Evaluate each claim on its own, not just where it sits on a spectrum.
• Remember: half-truths can still be harmful.

Truth isn’t always found halfway between two opinions. Sometimes, it’s firmly on one side.