> What if I say X is we must all stop working and you say Y, we should carry on as we are?

> Do we fire half the company?

If we can fire half the people currently working in the economy, stop the pretense that "job" is something meaningful on its own and start dealing with the actual issue, things might actually get so much better!

I mean, I'm not sure if the GP committed a fallacy or not (he probably did with that blanket statement), but you picked a bad example.

Talk about a strawman example.

For two real-world examples: compare "We must ban slavery" to "We must allow slavery", and compare "Equal voting rights for women and men" vs. "No voting rights for women".

What's the sweet spot between those two pairs which isn't one of the endpoints?

This is funny. You're picking examples where this no middle ground to counter an example where there is: you can have organizations that are somewhat flat with a bit of hierarchy.

Do you realize you're doing this?

Yes, that was deliberate. You objected to ethanbond's comment because you regarded it as straw man example.

I restated ethanbond's objection to show real-world examples where your statement "When people say it must all be X and not Y, you can bet that there's a sweet spot between X and Y" does not apply. Therefore, it is not a strong rule for inductive logic, which is our point.

The midpoint fallacy is that the truth lies directly in the midpoint.

Typically it lies SOMEWHERE in the middle, but the fallacy is meant to point out that it's just as likely to lie very close to one end or the other, as directly in the middle.

Of course, if you construct a total straw man argument where we already know the god-given truth, you can show that a second argument will take you further from the truth.

"Somewhere in the middle" is one of three possibilities if you reduce everything to a one-dimensional line and pick two points. Even in the rare cases where an oversimplified single continuum expresses the best solutions to address a problem, there is little reason to assume that two point alternatives aren't together in being the wrong direction away from the optimum.

However, I really think golemotron was just referring to when a trend becomes a default that no longer needs to have its case made in new situations. Like assuming middlegrounds are implicitly correct, or cargo culting, it's just a form of assuming there are shortcuts that make understanding the mechanisms of success or doing actual analysis are unnecessary.

Your understanding of the middle ground fallacy does not accord with the rest of the world's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

The middle ground fallacy is the idea that given two ideas, the truth lies somewhere in between them.