|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 'True' Scotsmen
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
May I draw the attention of all hosts to some recent exchanges on the Purg 'religion and violence' thread, and ask you to have a rather serious look at the way the 'no true Scotsman' farrago is currently being used by some Shipmates.
Not only in threads I've been involved in but in others it seems to me that one only needs to use a phrase such as 'True Christianity' for somebody to invoke the Scotsman and after that whatever you try to say is dealt with in that mode.
I'd suggest that there are more than a few cases where genuine issues are involved about whether a particular doctrine or practice is a legitimate development in the religion in question or a dubious development, and these issues absolutely do not need to be muddied by the pesky Gael. As I pointed out on the thread, as an example from outside Christianity, there is surely,a serious debate to be had on whether 'Islamic State' is a legitimate development of Islam; and the life and death nature of IS's actions means that it is wildly inappropriate to bring the Scotsman anywhere near.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I've recently started a Hell thread about the Scotsman being invoked often on the Ship where he doesn't apply.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
What is it you propose the hosts and admins do, Steve? Sanction your opponents, or just proclaim you the winner of the argument?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I would like to know what we could do about the current Scotsmen inflation. Purgatory has been tried, and then Hell ...
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I would like to know what we could do about the current Scotsmen inflation. Purgatory has been tried, and then Hell ...
Clearly Styx is the next step.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: Clearly Styx is the next step.
It wasn't me who started this thread, but maybe. Not many places left to try.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Purgatory is a place for rigorous debate. You are perfectly within your rights to correct a logical fallacy someone posts there, providing you avoid personal attacks. "I think you'll find that your objection to my post that no true [whatever] would believe it is incorrect, because ...".
The hosts are here to keep sufficient order for discussion to happen, that is to make judgements of infringements of our 10 Commandments. They're not there to rule on the quality of the arguments people put forward in defence of their views or to criticise the views expressed by others. You can all do that for yourself.
Alan
[not a true Scotsman]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Alan Cresswell: "I think you'll find that your objection to my post that no true [whatever] would believe it is incorrect, because ...".
My experience is that this doesn't help; people will simply continue to shout 'No True Scotsman!' at you.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Then treat their argument with what it deserves. If they can't be bothered to formulate a strong case to support their claim that your views are wrong, or to support their own views, then either accept you'll need to pick apart their argument, such that it is, piece by piece or ignore them. If that results in them getting into a screaming fit that actually just shows even more how weak their arguments are. If that becomes disruptive then the hosts can step in to stop things getting overly personal or something.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
May I draw the attention of all hosts to some recent exchanges on the Purg 'religion and violence' thread, and ask you to have a rather serious look at the way the 'no true Scotsman' farrago is currently being used by some Shipmates.
For my part, my attention was drawn. I then leafed through the voluminous host manual and all the Ship Commandments and Guidelines, and nowhere did I find anything instructing me to score quality of argument, so I said nothing.
However, since this has become a topic of debate here, for the avoidance of doubt, let me spell it out: the hosts' role does not include ruling on the logical quality of arguments put forward.
Any more discussion of hosts' roles belongs in the Styx.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
[snicker]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Oops. Does this mean I can be Styx host for the day?
Note to self: do not post with eyes shut.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I appreciate that it is not the function of the Hosts to score the quality of our arguments. I'm not asking for that. However, I understand that it is their explicit function to create room to keep the discussion flowing, especially in Purg.
What now happens often with regards to the No True Scotsman Fallacy (and not only to me) is this:
Opponent: "You committed the No True Scotsman fallacy!"
LeRoc: Points to the Wikipedia definition of the fallacy, and explains why I haven't committed it.
O: "You committed the No True Scotsman fallacy!"
L: Gives an example how if my argument had been different, it would have been a No True Scotsman fallacy, explaining why it isn't in this case.
O: "You committed the No True Scotsman fallacy!"
L: Gives an example from real life, where you wouldn't call this a No True Scotsman fallacy.
O: "You committed the No True Scotsman fallacy!"
Accusing someone else of committing the No True Scotsman fallacy has become a stop-all discussion ender. To me, calling someone on this Fallacy without backing it up but simply repeating the accusation has become disruptive of discussions. Three people have already complained about this, in Purgatory, in Hell and now in the Styx.
I'm not asking for Hostly warnings when this happens, but I do think it is good to draw attention to this. Perhaps even discussing this in Styx can already help.
[ 03. November 2014, 10:46: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Alan Cresswell: "I think you'll find that your objection to my post that no true [whatever] would believe it is incorrect, because ...".
My experience is that this doesn't help; people will simply continue to shout 'No True Scotsman!' at you.
Then you're free to ignore them and continue the debate with others. Of course, it may be a head-to-head, so the debate would end right there. People back out of debates in various way and if they want to make themselves look foolish in the process, that's their problem.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Sioni Sais: Then you're free to ignore them and continue the debate with others.
Sigh, it isn't about me. So much for trying to start a discussion about a posting behaviour that a number of people find disruptive on the Ship.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, we're not seeing lots of people posting here to say it's a problem. That there was a thread in Purgatory (which, as I recall, was more about defining the "true scotsman fallacy" rather than saying it's disruptive) and a short thread in Hell, and now one in the Styx, does not constitute evidence of a large problem on the Ship.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm not sure how little or large the problem is. On the Purg thread, some people agreed with me that the accusation of committing this fallacy is (sometimes? often?) made falsely.
I personally find it a problem because I've come to expect more from the Ship. I've left other boards on the internet because conversations there often ended with stop-all discussion enders. I believe that the Ship can do better. One thing I like about the Ship is that it gives room for intelligent debate that usually avoids enders like this. Except when it comes to accusing someone of this fallacy. I find that weird.
Once again, I'm not asking for Hostly warnings, thread closings, bans, or anything like that. But I understand that the H&A keep their pulse on the Ship, and discuss between them how things are going and in which direction they are heading. I just want to use the Styx to point your attention to a problem that I (and at least one or two other Shipmates) are signalling. So maybe you can include this in your discussions.
You can use stop-gap arguments like "if you don't like a discussion you can walk away from it". Or make (rather weak) arguments here that the problem doesn't exist. That's up to you. But I'm signalling something that I perceive as a problem on the Ship, and I'm asking for your attention about it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cattyish
Wuss in Boots
# 7829
|
Posted
Is the No True Scotsman thingy a dead horse yet?
Cattyish, just wondering.
--------------------
...to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived, this is to have succeeded.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posts: 1794 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
neigh
(Couldn't resist)
[ 03. November 2014, 20:50: Message edited by: Uncle Pete ]
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I appreciate that it is not the function of the Hosts to score the quality of our arguments. I'm not asking for that. However, I understand that it is their explicit function to create room to keep the discussion flowing, especially in Purg.
Years ago the hosts intervened more frequently than they do now; then the policy of hosting lite was adopted. Nowadays our primary function is to make sure that the 10 C's and the guidelines of each board are observed. Trying to 'create room to keep the discussion flowing' can result in stifling a thread.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Moo: Trying to 'create room to keep the discussion flowing' can result in stifling a thread.
I guess this depends on how it's done. According to the FAQ, an explicitly important task of the Hosts is "to take part in the flow of discussion and shape the unique character of each board".
I think that one of the thing that makes the Ship's Purgatory (and by extension other boards, including yours) unique is that conversations don't usually run into stop-all discussion enders. That happens a lot on other internet forums, but not often here. I think this is something that makes the Ship special, and it is worth to preserve that.
In my view, if you accuse someone of committing the NTSF, you should be prepared to back it up, and not just repeat the accusation. When someone makes an unfounded statement in Purg, often there are a number of people calling him/her to back it up (including Hosts posting as Shipmates). But somehow, this seldom happens in the case of an NTSF accusation. Maybe the one accused of this fallacy makes this call, but then the other person simply repeats the accusation. After which it moves into a "Yes you did" "No I didn't" discussion, and that is something that can really stifle a thread. I've seen it happen.
I think this is part of the Purg ethos: if you make an unfounded statement, people ask you to back it up, and not simply repeat the statement. The only thing I'm asking is: why don't we include NTSF accusations in this?
If you accuse someone of committing the NTSF, back it up. Don't simply repeat the accusation.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
OK, I agree that 'quality of argument' is not usually a hostly concern. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that I've now seen the "You're doing the No True Scotsman thing!" line deployed several times and at least on the threads where I've seen it used (and not just ones where I've been accused of it) I don't think it's been properly used once.
What usually happens is this - what is under discussion is a situation where over time (usually) Christianity has developed in various ways, and there is a quite serious question about whether some of the developments are legitimate developments of the original teaching, or mistaken/misguided/contradictory/whatever. And these are not trivial issues - on the contrary, they are some of the more 'life-and-death' issues we discuss here and deserve to be properly discussed.
But instead, the moment someone innocently uses a phrase about 'true Christianity' or some equivalent, some - well, as I said above, 'clever-dick' - pops up with a reference to the 'Scotsman' thing and often just won't let it go so that the serious discussion gets totally derailed. I don't think this is reasonable or good for the Ship.
Someone above asked how I'd sanction it. I think I'd simply ask the person making the accusation to explain exactly how he thinks the other person has done the 'Scotsman' thing - that is, lay out what he thinks is the logic involved. If he does so, it can then be answered by "Oh sorry I did" or "Oh sorry I see why you thought that but actually I was saying this different thing..." or of course "Come on mate, you've just seen a 'true something-or-other...' phrase and done an irrational knee-jerk 'no true Scotsman' response which is totally inappropriate... You may think you're being clever but..." The matter can then be fairly quickly cleared up, hopefully; but if someone persists in deploying the argument inappropriately and is clearly disrupting a genuine discussion, perhaps then the hosts could intervene - the requirement to explain why you think it's a 'no true Scotman' job would I think supply the hosts with a reasonable opportunity to judge the situation and do something about it.
Above I deliberately used the example of Islamic State to try and make the point clear in a non-Christian situation. Surely with Islamic State there is a genuine question to be asked - which it seems many Muslims are actually asking - whether the conduct and ideas of IS are a legitimate development of the beliefs and practices expounded in the Quran and by Muhammad himself, or whether, and to what extent, they might be well, inappropriate and in in reality unIslamic developments. That kind of question needs to be discussed without being disrupted by knee-jerk 'no true Scotsman' accusations, especially in view of its very much life-and-death nature.
To take an example I was involved in, someone on a thread responded to a suggestion that Christianity isn't violent by raising the episode of Hypatia, murdered in Alexandria by a mob who at least thought they were Christians acting in a Christian way. I suggested that this was not properly Christian conduct according to the original teaching, but a case where a wrong idea had developed as a result of the recent 'nationalisation' of the Church in the Roman Empire. That as far as I'm concerned is a serious point; there seems to be a real dislocation between the NT teaching and the lynching of Hypatia. I think a lynching in the name of Jesus needs proper discussion, not to be trivialised.
The attempt to discuss that was promptly disrupted by one of these knee-jerk 'Scotsman' accusations which made the subsequent discussion virtually impossible. I'm particularly annoyed because in this case the person who had accused me more or less backed out of the thread himself, but had left the person who originally raised the Hypatia issue well confused and I found it pretty much impossible to clarify things.
I'm not sure this is a huge problem yet but it may well become a major problem at the current rate, and I thought the hosts might at least give it some thought and have some advice ready against future problems.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see why you are annoyed but equally I can see why your accuser acted in the way they did. It might not have been an argument I'd have used myself but I can understand why they might have used it in this particular context.
There are plenty of Christians around who don't always act in a Christ-like manner ... does that always mean that they are not 'true Christians'?
If you or I lapsed in some way tomorrow would that obviate any claim we've ever made to being Christian?
Of course, lynching people in the name of Christ is of a very different order and that's why I have some sympathy with the irritation and annoyance you feel.
But the way to deal with it, as far as I can see, is to challenge your accuser to justify his accusation. Ask them to explain why they are levelling the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy in this instance.
If they can't then that's their issue. If they can then there's grounds for further debate.
I really don't see why this is an issue for the Hosts.
It's between you and the person who deployed the 'No True Scotsman Fallacy' accusation.
Says Gamaliel, the No True Welshman ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: Ask them to explain why they are levelling the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy in this instance.
The problem is, they never do. They simply repeat the accusation.
quote:
Gamaliel: It's between you and the person who deployed the 'No True Scotsman Fallacy' accusation.
Hmm, if it's true that this is derailing a significant number of threads (and I think it is), then maybe it's a wider concern.
quote:
Gamaliel: I really don't see why this is an issue for the Hosts.
The way I see it, the Styx isn't just a place to ask things of the Hosts, it's also a place where we can signal things to eachother about the Ship.
If because of this thread, a number of Shipmates will be more careful to back up their statements if they accuse someone of the NTSF, or to call on other Shipmates to do this, then I'm already a happy camper.
The No True Scotsman Fallacy is often misapplied. Just Google "No True Scotsman misapplied" and you'll find numerous discussions about that. Yet we throw it around on the Ship all the time (really, use the Ship search function, we do it a lot, and often wrongly) and no-one gives a peep. Surely we're more intelligent than that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The thing is, while the staff can pull people up on a discussion board for being rude or threatening or repetitive or posting in some other objectionable manner, it's a bit hard to see how we can pull them up because their content is wrong. This is a discussion board, after all. One of the purposes of it is for people to try to convince other people that they are wrong, which can only happen if we allow things to be posted that we think are wrong.
So perhaps yes, if someone just bleats "No True Scotsman" over and over again without any further discussion and disrupts the flow of lots of discussions by doing so, it might be a matter for mods/admins. But individual cases of misapplying the fallacy - sorry, I rather think that it's necessary for Shipmates who view that it's fallacious to argue that it's fallacious as and when it happens.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
There are plenty of Christians around who don't always act in a Christ-like manner ... does that always mean that they are not 'true Christians'?
If you or I lapsed in some way tomorrow would that obviate any claim we've ever made to being Christian?
Well exactly - indeed in the example I quoted I'd been trying to make that kind of point and the NTS line was deployed to mess up the discussion...
As I see it, the person concerned was actually guilty of a kind of reverse version of the NTS farrago. What he was effectively saying was
"Because 300 years after Jesus a pagan was lynched by some people who considered themselves Christians, that means that right back to the beginning Jesus always taught that pagans should be lynched - and don't you dare disagree with me or you're just doing the NTS thing..."
That's not a good argument and I submit certainly not a historically accurate one. It's just an unhelpful cheap shot.
Orfeo, I kind of agree with you. But perhaps, in view of the frequent misuse, a bit of hostly attention could be given - perhaps a warning in the posting guidelines to be careful in using the NTS accusation, and a warning that if you do use it people are entitled to challenge its appropriateness and require you to justify the accusation - and that you will need to justify it or shut it! It's taken me quite a while to fully work out the implications; it's potentially seriously confusing to people who face the accusation out of the blue and it's being misused as well....
Hostly comment please...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton
Someone above asked how I'd sanction it. I think I'd simply ask the person making the accusation to explain exactly how he thinks the other person has done the 'Scotsman' thing - that is, lay out what he thinks is the logic involved.
There is nothing to stop you from posting this as a shipmate. Actually, IME, such comments are more effective coming from shipmates than from hosts. If the offender brushes you off, you can always call them to Hell.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: The thing is, while the staff can pull people up on a discussion board for being rude or threatening or repetitive or posting in some other objectionable manner, it's a bit hard to see how we can pull them up because their content is wrong.
I agree with this, and I've said so before on this thread. I guess the only thing I'm asking of the H&A right now, is to be aware of this. There at least a number of Shipmates (as in: greater than 1) who perceive that:- The NTSF accusation is made relatively often on the Ship.
- Many (I would say: most) of the times, this accusation is made falsely.
- These accusations aren't challenged as often as other unfounded statements are on the Ship.
- Often, the only person who challenges this accusation is the one who's being accused. However when this happens, almost every time the other person simply repeats the accusation.
- Cumulatively, this is having a negative effect on the quality of discussions on the Ship.
At least in my case, my perception may be wrong of course, but the concern is genuine, and I'm happy that we have a Styx where I can express this concern. And I imagine that the H&A who have both an official and a non-official interest in the flow of the discussions on the Ship would be happy to hear this concern.
To me, the solution is simple: challenge eachother more when someone makes a NTSF accusation. I'm making this suggestion to everyone who reads the Styx (something we're all required to do). I guess that whether the Hosts (posting as Shipmates) can have a role in this is open for debate.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Moo;
quote:
There is nothing to stop you from posting this as a shipmate. Actually, IME, such comments are more effective coming from shipmates than from hosts. If the offender brushes you off, you can always call them to Hell.
Broadly agreed, except I'm not much of a Hell person. Indeed these days I might well respond quite roughly to an NTS accusation. But it's not an easy thing to deal with and takes a bit of thought to respond properly; I would always feel a responsibility to double-check whether I am doing the NTS thing, for instance. Perhaps the point could be made that other Shipmates who perceive misuse of the NTS could support the person who's being got at.
If it is true as someone said above that googling for 'NTS misused' brings a considerable response, this may be a wider problem that we don't want too much of on the Ship. Pro tem I'll be content if hosts just keep a bit of a watch on the situation, and Shipmates aware of this do their bit to discourage improper NTS.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Orfeo, I kind of agree with you. But perhaps, in view of the frequent misuse, a bit of hostly attention could be given - perhaps a warning in the posting guidelines to be careful in using the NTS accusation, and a warning that if you do use it people are entitled to challenge its appropriateness and require you to justify the accusation - and that you will need to justify it or shut it! It's taken me quite a while to fully work out the implications; it's potentially seriously confusing to people who face the accusation out of the blue and it's being misused as well....
Hostly comment please...?
Is this not what the Purgatory guidelines already say? The fact that they say 'you need to back up your opinions' as general principle, rather than specifically drawing attention to a particular opinion that ought to be backed up rather than just asserted, doesn't make it any less applicable.
Personally I think that specifically referring to No True Scotsman in the posting guidelines would cause precisely one result: a constant awareness of No True Scotsman such that people keep referring to it. Not really what you're after. The only way we could possibly address it is to have some kind of big, extensive lesson on NTS that we try to make everyone read, which (1) is probably blowing the issue out of all proportion and (2) still probably wouldn't work.
You can't quarantine the Ship from all the fallacies and muddle-headed thinking that exists in the world (even if we manage to agree just what is false or muddle-headed). It's going to be here just like anywhere else. We don't have qualification exams to root out people with lesser analytical skills.
In any case, I have to confess I'm not that sympathetic to the whole complaint. Mostly it's not a case of citing NTS wrongly, it's actually a case of citing NTS early and skipping a step because of an assumption the person you're arguing with would supply the intermediate step if given an intermediate post to do it in. The truth is people jump a couple of steps ahead in the argument like this all the time on the Ship. It's far from confined to NTS. And the best response is not just to say "no it's not NTS" and start a bare yes/no back-and-forth, it's to specifically identify the intermediate step and declare that you don't agree with that.
And yes, if you mention something like "True Christianity" you are walking straight into that territory. So either don't talk about "True Christianity" in the first place (I've not followed the discussion so I don't know why you'd need to), or make it clear that your "True Christianity" is an abstract construct that doesn't correspond to the behaviour of individuals who would thereby be "True Christians".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
[*]These accusations aren't challenged as often as other unfounded statements are on the Ship.
[*]Often, the only person who challenges this accusation is the one who's being accused. However when this happens, almost every time the other person simply repeats the accusation.
If this is true, why is it, do you think, that the rest of the forum is just sitting around eating popcorn while this happens?
[ 04. November 2014, 14:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: Is this not what the Purgatory guidelines already say? The fact that they say 'you need to back up your opinions' as general principle, rather than specifically drawing attention to a particular opinion that ought to be backed up rather than just asserted, doesn't make it any less applicable.
I agree. I'm just suggesting that we apply 'you need to back up your opinions' more when it comes to NTS accusations. I concur that putting an explicit reference to NTS in the guidelines wouldn't be a good idea.
quote:
orfeo: The only way we could possibly address it is to have some kind of big, extensive lesson on NTS that we try to make everyone read, which (1) is probably blowing the issue out of all proportion and (2) still probably wouldn't work.
Maybe this is what we're doing right now ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
orfeo: If this is true, why is it, do you think, that the rest of the forum is just sitting around eating popcorn while this happens?
This is a question I've asked myself a number of times, and I don't have a good answer to it. If I were cynical, I would say that a lot of people don't know very well what NTS means ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In my view, if you accuse someone of committing the NTSF, you should be prepared to back it up, and not just repeat the accusation. When someone makes an unfounded statement in Purg, often there are a number of people calling him/her to back it up (including Hosts posting as Shipmates). But somehow, this seldom happens in the case of an NTSF accusation. Maybe the one accused of this fallacy makes this call, but then the other person simply repeats the accusation. After which it moves into a "Yes you did" "No I didn't" discussion, and that is something that can really stifle a thread. I've seen it happen.
Can I just observe, going back in the thread a bit, that your own description of what you say is happening did not involve you requiring people to back up their NTSF accusation.
Seriously. Your description of what you do is primarily defensive. It consists of you explaining why it isn't a No True Scotsman fallacy. You haven't actually described challenging a person to say why it IS a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Maybe you should try that. Maybe, when someone makes that accusation, and you think/know the accusation is false, just say "why is it a No True Scotsman fallacy?". Make them spell it out.
Watching them struggle to turn their abstract notion into a concrete relationship with what you've actually said will probably reveal the errors in their accusation far better than the approach you seem to have been taking, of explaining the correct abstract notion by providing Wikipedia links or illustrating a different argument (not the one you're actually making) that would in fact be an example of the fallacy.
That, I suspect, might be exactly why other people don't get involved. Because you've actually volunteered to do all the heavy lifting.
[ 04. November 2014, 14:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
orfeo: Maybe you should try that. Maybe, when someone makes that accusation, and you think/know the accusation is false, just say "why is it a No True Scotsman fallacy?". Make them spell it out.
I'm not sure if it will always work, but it is a good suggestion.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
For now, what I said earlier;
quote:
Pro tem I'll be content if hosts just keep a bit of a watch on the situation, and Shipmates aware of this do their bit to discourage improper NTS.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It could be, of course, that certain Shipmates don't like the 'No True Scotsman' thing because they're actually losing the argument ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I think there are some good suggestions here as to how to deal with the NTSF without it having to be enshrined as Holy Writ in the rules for use of the Boards. That seems like an over-reaction to me.
One may as well sanction the 'But this isn't a Christian board' schtick or any other regularly used trope or slogan here on the Ship.
Get over it already.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It could be, of course, that certain Shipmates don't like the 'No True Scotsman' thing because they're actually losing the argument
I think it just as often that they do not truly understand its proper usage. cf. irony
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
And while we're at it let's not forget the falsely accused strawmen, whose population far outstrips the Scotsmen on the Ship. Not least amongst those claiming the Scottish high ground.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
It could be, of course, that certain Shipmates don't like the 'No True Scotsman' thing because they're actually losing the argument ...
And then again certain Shipmates might like the 'No True Scotsman' thing because it's easier than making a proper argument.... Give the poor Gael a rest!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If 'Do not cite debating tricks inaccurately' became C11 we would have so much scope for awarding shore leave that the Ship of Fools could be renamed HMS Bounty.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm the person who cited the example of Hypatia when Steve was going on about the non-violence of early Christianity and explaining that people who thought they were Christian but aren't following "legitimate" branches of Christianity.
I would have responded earlier but I didn't see this thread until then.
Since Steve seems to think it all went wrong with Constantine, it turns out that the vast majority of people through time who call themselves Christians aren't because they follow established Churches. It's a bit confusing because most of the other people on the ship use a more conventional category of Christian.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've been thinking about this a bit. I should say this post is the result of my personal thinking, rather than an official statement of Ship policy.
During discussions on the Ship we all fall into a variety of errors; we may be factually inaccurate, we may be presenting a strawman, we may commit the No True Scotsman Fallicy, we may do something else entirely. I suspect that most of us are not familiar with the precise technical definitions of the various logical pitfalls we fall into, but we all recognise a poorly phrased argument when we see it (except perhaps when it's our own argument).
The problem arising when someone sees a logically weak argument and decides to name a particular fallicy in responding - "you're presenting a strawman", or "that's a no true Scotsman". What then can happen is that everyone runs down the rabbit-hole of the "oh no it wasn't", "oh yes it was" pantomime act. Which is not helpful for the discussion (unless, of course, the discussion subject is "what is a strawman argument?" or similar). And, the original poorly phrased argument gets left unaddressed.
So, what I am thinking is that it's probably better not to be smart-arsed and name the fallicy, but simply address the logical flaw in the specific argument.
Imagine the following hypothetical exchange:
quote:
Posted by Shipmate X:
When Fred Bloggs introduced Magesterial Government into Splongism he led Splongists into error, with the exception of those who reject Magesterialism
One response could be
quote:
Response by Shipmate Y:
You've just introduced a Scotsman into the discussion
Has that really furthered the discussion? Not really, especially if the thread then runs down the pantomime route
I would suggest a better response would be
quote:
Response by Shipmate Z:
So, are you saying that Splongists who accept Magesterial Government are not actually Splongists at all? The only Splongists are those who do not accept Magesterialism? Are you aware that the majority of Splongists consider Magesterialism to be of secondary importance, considering it convenient but not essential? What is it about Magesteria that you find so incompatible with Splongism?
I suggest that this approach has the effect of pointing out the flaw in the original statement (whether or not it fulfills the requirement to be a Scotsman) and leads straight into a continuation of the discussion and hopefully a clarification of views.
So, for what it's worth, that is a personal suggestion.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Translation: Be cool. Don't be uncool.
Relevant trivia: Garry Marshall actually was a time-traveller, and he based the character "The Fonz" on Alan Cresswell.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think you'll find that was "Mr C" that was based on me.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
I'm the person who cited the example of Hypatia when Steve was going on about the non-violence of early Christianity and explaining that people who thought they were Christian but aren't following "legitimate" branches of Christianity.
(snip)
Since Steve seems to think it all went wrong with Constantine, it turns out that the vast majority of people through time who call themselves Christians aren't because they follow established Churches. It's a bit confusing because most of the other people on the ship use a more conventional category of Christian.
I certainly think things went badly wrong when the Christian religion became 'established' in the Roman Empire. I don't think the result is anywhere near as simple as "people who are in 'established' churches aren't Christians"; it's a lot messier than that! My problem was that the person who introduced the NTS thing made it pretty much impossible to discuss the situation properly.
Consider my paraphrase above of what seemed to be implied by the NTS accusation - that
quote:
"Because 300 years after Jesus a pagan was lynched by some people who considered themselves Christians, that means that right back to the beginning Jesus always taught that pagans should be lynched - and don't you dare disagree with me or you're just doing the NTS thing..."
I was trying, and I think perfectly properly, to counter that implication; and the errant Gael completely confused things and clearly left Palimpsest bewildered about what is actually a straightforward idea. I don't propose to re-argue that whole issue here, but the guy who inappropriately brought the Scotsman into it was a pain in the wotsit!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
It's true that the roaming Scot was a distraction, but only from the greater point that what you were peddling was bollocks history.
[ 06. November 2014, 22:35: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
