Thread: Yes, a true Scotsman! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028037
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm calling all Shipmates to Hell who don't understand the No True Scotsman fallacy. I'm seeing this fallacy invoked over and over again when it hasn't actually been committed. Shouting "No True Scotsman fallacy!" when your opponent hasn't actually committed one is dumb. It shows that you don't really understand this fallacy which makes you look incredibly stupid.
Here's a lesson. The No True Scotsman fallacy in its basic form goes like this:
A: No X would ever do Y.
B: Z is an X and he does Y.
A: But Z is not a true X.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
In this example, the fallacy has been invoked correctly. A has committed a logical error indeed.
However, almost all of the times this fallacy is invoked on the Ship, it goes like this:
A: Doing Y is not an inherent characteristic of being X.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
The invocation of the fallacy is false here. A has committed no logical error. You may disagree with his statement, but you cannot invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy to prove him wrong.
Some examples:
A: No Muslim would ever commit an act of violence.
B: Bin Laden is a Muslim, and he committed acts of violence.
A: But Bin Laden is not a real Muslim.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
The No True Scotsman fallacy has been invoked correctly. A has indeed committed a logical error.
A: Violence isn't an inherent trait of Islam.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
The No True Scotsman fallacy has been invoked wrongly here. A committed no logical error. You may disagree with his statement, but you cannot invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy to prove him wrong.
Another one.
A: No Christian would ever be divisive and flame conflicts.
B: Paisley was divisive and he flamed conflicts.
A: But Paisley was not a true Christian.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
Correct invocation of the fallacy.
A: I don't consider being divisive and flaming conflicts like Paisley did to be characteristic of Christianity.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
Wrong invocation of the fallacy.
These are just some examples I've found on the Ship. There are much, much more. Just search for the word "Scotsman" on the Ship, you'll find lots and lots of examples of this fallacy being invoked wrongly. It's stupid.
Once again, the basic form of the No True Scotsman fallacy is this:
A: No X would ever do Y.
B: Z is an X and he does Y.
A: But Z is not a true X.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
Mathematically, the fallacy is about defining a set of people, and redefining it later on in the discussion. But person A needs to actually do that. He actually needs to define the set and then redefine it. He actually needs to say "No X would ever do Y". Defining a limited set in itself is not a fallacy.
I hereby propose that whenever someone accuses his/her opponent of committing the No True Scotsman fallacy, (s)he needs to take the definition of the fallacy, fill in what X, Y and Z are, and actually show that the other person has committed this fallacy.
Otherwise they're just morons.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Didn't Wood create this thread in Purgatory a couple of weeks ago?
( Thread here.)
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on
:
It seems you could save yourself a bit of trouble by starting with 'No *true* x would do y' in the first place.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Yes he did, and I posted there. Since then, I've seen two or three more instances of the fallacy being invoked wrongly. I thought it might attract a bit more attention here.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yes he did, and I posted there. Since then, I've seen two or three more instances of the fallacy being invoked wrongly. I thought it might attract a bit more attention here.
If they take the time and trouble to read your lengthy post (unlikely), what makes you think they will understand it? (no more likely)
So you're looking at the combination of two unlikely states. I'm afraid most of your target audience will, in your words, remain moronic.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Sioni Sais: So you're looking at the combination of two unlikely states. I'm afraid most of your target audience will, in your words, remain moronic.
I'm afraid you're right. It's so bloody stupid. Oh well, I guess I just wanted to get it off my chest. Sorry for making this mess in your Hell.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
I blame the Scots.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
No true Scotsman would get the "No True Scotsman" fallacy wrong.
But many Scotsmen do!
They are not true Scotsmen!
Phases and stages, circles and cycles, and scenes that we've all seen before.
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on
:
Was Ian Paisley a true Scotsman? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
I'm not sure that it's a confusion so much as a shorthand.
Consider the true version of the fallacy:
Violence is alien to Christianity
What about the Inquistion?
They weren't real Christians
No true Scotsman!
This is Le Roc's version of the shorthand.
Violence is alien to Christianity
No true Scotsman!
Now, I agree that some of the moves are missing, but effectively Christianity has been defined in a question-begging way that eliminates the historical record from any assessment of it's de-merits. The no true Scotsman fallacy, in this case, is implicit rather than explicit but the whole business of not counting evidence against ones case is, nonetheless present.
It's possible to re-frame the assertion in a non-question begging way, of course. e.g. to say something like: "The activities of the inquisition and the theology underpinning them were a sub-Christian betrayal of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth".
But one doesn't avoid committing a logical fallacy by mere sleight of hand.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Gildas: This is Le Roc's version of the shorthand.
Violence is alien to Christianity
No true Scotsman!
No, it isn't. My version of the shorthand would be:
Violence isn't an inherent trait of Christianity.
No true Scotsman!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
The longhand version of this would go something like this.
A: Violence isn't an inherent trait of Christianity.
B: What about the Inquisition?
A: I admit that violence has been done in the name if Christianity, but they don't represent all of Christianity.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
Wrong invocation of the fallacy. And this has happened a lot of times to me on the Ship.
Of course, after this you can have a long discussion on what is or what isn't an inherent trait of Christianity and whether the Inquisition represents it. But then you're already outside of True Scotsman territory.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
I seem to recall being told this as follows
A: All Scotsmen put salt on their porridge - it's only soft southerners who use sugar instead
B: My uncle Hamish McTavish who lives in the croft just outside Inverness where he was born always uses sugar not salt when we visit him
A: Your uncle is no true scotsman
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The No True Scotsman fallacy in its basic form goes like this:
A: No X would ever do Y.
B: Z is an X and he does Y.
A: But Z is not a true X.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
In this example, the fallacy has been invoked correctly. A has committed a logical error indeed.
Not true. Speaker A commits a fallacy here if, and only if, there is a redefinition that has no other purpose than precisely to exclude the counterexample of Speaker B. Otherwise this exchange can simply indicate a clarification. Typically this means a conflict of definitions: other people define X in a manner that Speaker A finds invalid, and Speaker B has highlighted this.
Thus to pick one of LeRoc's false examples:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
A: No Christian would ever be divisive and flame conflicts.
B: Paisley was divisive and he flamed conflicts.
A: But Paisley was not a true Christian.
B: No True Scotsman fallacy!
Correct invocation of the fallacy.
No, this is not a fallacy at all, or at least it certainly need not be one. If Speaker A in fact defines a Christian as someone who would never be divisive and enflame conflicts, then his reaction to Speaker B's counterexample Paisely is perfectly valid. He is simply saying that while Paisely may have claimed to be a Christian, according to Speaker A he isn't one. Paisely was a false Christian (somebody who claimed to be Christian but was not) according to the very criterion that Speaker A has initially proposed. There is no redefinition here, merely an acknowledgement that other people use the word differently as shown by Speaker B's counterexample.
Notably, the "original" versions of this fallacy (as listed by Wikipedia) works because there is an universally accepted definition of what it means to be a Scotsman, namely to have Scottish nationality. The fallacy grips because we find it absurd to say that someone is Scottish if they have Scottish nationality and do not put sugar on their porridge. The addendum is artificial by the strength of the definition via nationality alone. But while the idea that everybody who is baptised is Christian is very common, it is not sufficiently universal even among Christians to consider every other definition as artificial.
In other words, the "No true Scotsman" fallacy requires a "Scotsman", it requires a universally accepted definition against which this fallacy can be committed. Otherwise we simply get a clarification of the definitions held by the speaker, just like we saw above that one can define "Christian" so that Paisely was not a Christian (even though he thought that he was).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Tell me, how long do you think a true Hellhost would wait before hurling a large lyre in the general direction of a bunch of annoying Shipmates milling about in Hell?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I've always wondered about the origin of the saying:
Lyre! Lyre! Your pants are on fire!
Obviously it came from Hell.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
There's a special corner of Hell reserved for people who make a habit of bad puns.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's a special corner of Hell reserved for people who make a habit of bad puns.
It's just next to the corner reserved for those who make habits out of bad nuns.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
...
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I feel a Circus thread coming on!
[ 06. October 2014, 15:55: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
So what's all this harping about? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Didn't we have a referendum on this fallacy a couple of weeks back? Or was that about something else?
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
I love this Ship so much.
You boys are so sexy when you're waving your nerdiness around in public for all to see. I need to be hosed down with some photos of dumb jocks.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't we have a referendum on this fallacy a couple of weeks back? Or was that about something else?
But that wasn't a true fallacy. I wonder if you have fallen for the no true fallacy fallacy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I need to be hosed down with some photos of dumb jocks.
Awesome idea.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I love this Ship so much.
You boys are so sexy when you're waving your nerdiness around in public for all to see. I need to be hosed down with some photos of dumb jocks.
No true Scotsman phallusy.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that wasn't a true fallacy. I wonder if you have fallen for the no true fallacy fallacy.
If he had fallen for the no true fallacy fallacy, then he would have affirmed that this wasn't a true fallacy. Instead, he appears to think that it was a true fallacy by popular vote. The one who has fallen for the no true fallacy fallacy is rather you, since you indeed assert that it wasn't a true fallacy!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
This is getting downright Monty Pythonesque.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
This thread describes why I never went past Philosophy 101. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
I usually avoid this thread. I made the mistake of trying to read the last few posts. Are they really written in English?
My head hurts.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't we have a referendum on this fallacy a couple of weeks back? Or was that about something else?
But that wasn't a true fallacy. I wonder if you have fallen for the no true fallacy fallacy.
But was it a true referendum?
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But was it a true referendum?
No true referendum would give a result the majority didn't want...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is getting downright Monty Pythonesque.
No true Monty Python sketch would be this protracted.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is getting downright Monty Pythonesque.
No true Monty Python sketch would be this protracted.
Life of Brian was nothing but one big long Monty Python sketch.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
"No it wasn't!"
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is getting downright Monty Pythonesque.
No true Monty Python sketch would be this protracted.
Quite. Graham Chapman would have been along ages ago to proclaim that "This is getting silly". I don't want it to get any sillier. Geddit?
Sioni Sais
Hell host
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
It was fun while it lasted.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Quite Matt Black.
And the Monty is wayyyyy over-egging the pudding.
Only a true American would do this.
[ 01. November 2014, 00:00: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Quite Matt Black.
And the Monty is wayyyyy over-egging the pudding.
Only a true American would do this.
Go home Martin60, you're drunk!
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is getting downright Monty Pythonesque.
No true Monty Python sketch would be this protracted.
Have you any cheese?
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Quite Matt Black.
And the Monty is wayyyyy over-egging the pudding.
Only a true American would do this.
Go home Martin60, you're drunk!
Quite. Let sleeping threads lie.
ANOTHER pointless Martin60 thread CLOSED Please, just quit it already. Next time, it will be referred to the admins.
—Ariston, Hellhost
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0