homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Peak Langton (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Peak Langton
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just because I don't waste the Ship's space ...

[Killing me]

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62942 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Steve has invented a new version of the "No True Scotsman" type: "No true Muslim would not want to establish a dictatorial police state".
That way he avoids having to deal with the millions of Muslims who don't want such a thing. Because, after all, "no true Muslim..."

John

Posts: 5905 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
John Holding;
As I've previously pointed out, the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant to the real world arguments about which of possibly several variants of a religion is the true/original version. Your producing the fallacy here is evidence of a serious slip of logic on your part....

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John Holding;
As I've previously pointed out, the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant to the real world arguments about which of possibly several variants of a religion is the true/original version. Your producing the fallacy here is evidence of a serious slip of logic on your part....

And as others have pointed out to you, the fact that you can type things does not make them true.

You do not have the ability to assess which was the "true/original" version of Islam. You stating your opinion does not make it the unquestioned truth.

Even if your opinion was a historical fact, that doesn't mean that other people can't legitimately interpret their faith in other ways.

It isn't and it isn't. It's bollocks dressed up as fact intended only to paint Islam in the worst possible light and written by someone who hasn't the foggiest clue what he is talking about - akin to the man who thinks he knows what American literature is about because he once read Mark Twain and then refuses to take the time to read how other writers understood the tradition.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9829 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604

 - Posted      Profile for Teekeey Misha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John Holding;
As I've previously pointed out, the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant to the real world arguments about which of possibly several variants of a religion is the true/original version.

It's only irrelevant where it is clear what is "the true/original version" of a religion.

In "real world arguments about Islam", therefore, it is not relevant since it's not at all clear what is "the true/original version" of Islam.

What you are arguing is "the true/original version" of Islam is exactly that and no more; it's 'what you are arguing is "the true/original version" of Islam'. To insist upon a conclusion being proven when the only premise is your (possibly flawed) interpretation of facts is "evidence of a serious slip of logic on your part..."

[ETA That wasn't a cross post with MrC; I just hadn't read his post before adding mine. Perhaps repetition will help drive the message home?!]

[ 05. October 2016, 10:47: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]

--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.

Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is worse than that, though. It isn't just that someone can spend a small amount of time studying something that is outside of their tradition and come to a conclusion about it.

It isn't just that someone can apply their own understanding to someone else's tradition and keep suggesting that it is wrong because they're measuring it unfairly against a standard that isn't internally consistent.

And it isn't even just that someone thinks that they're in a position to pontificate about what is quote unquote "true" about another faith.

It is the combined effects of all those thought processes; which amounts to the fact that if Muslims were actually sincere, that if they actually read the Koran correctly, that if they did actually live up to the thing that they profess then they'd have no alternative but to believe in this state-building anti-Christian anti-truth religion which would be prepared to use violence whenever it felt like it.

It is to say that someone outside of the religion thinks they have the right to tell people inside that religion what it is that they ought to believe in, and that thing is the very worst thing imaginable.

And then to dress it up as some kind of obvious conclusion reasoned out by an impartial observer.

[ 05. October 2016, 11:00: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9829 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Personally, given my interactions with Muslim folk, ( stereotype-- Their Women make fantastic infant/ toddler teachers) I am inclined to think of Muslims as just folk, trying to wrangle a complicated and archaic religion of the Book the same way we are.

--------------------
"Take your broken heart, make it into art"-- Carrie Fisher (1956-2016)

Posts: 35051 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Personally, given my interactions with Muslim folk, ( stereotype-- Their Women make fantastic infant/ toddler teachers) I am inclined to think of Muslims as just folk, trying to wrangle a complicated and archaic religion of the Book the same way we are.

Hold on a minute. If these women were obedient Muslims then wouldn't they be blowing up infidel Westerners at every opportunity?

Or am I taking Steve Langton's analysis beyond its logical outcome?

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 23893 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If we were obedient Christians, we wouldn't wear wool blends, and I would be in a red tent right now, because " I didn't come to abolish the law, but fulfill it."
But aren't we supposed to be discussing that elsewhere? I thought this thread was to be reserved for those times when we want to avoid telling Steve how tiresome he is personally in Purg.

--------------------
"Take your broken heart, make it into art"-- Carrie Fisher (1956-2016)

Posts: 35051 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*coughs*

Yes. Yes you all are.

--------------------
Get your arse to Mars

Posts: 8698 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Personally, given my interactions with Muslim folk, ( stereotype-- Their Women make fantastic infant/ toddler teachers) I am inclined to think of Muslims as just folk, trying to wrangle a complicated and archaic religion of the Book the same way we are.

Hold on a minute. If these women were obedient Muslims then wouldn't they be blowing up infidel Westerners at every opportunity?
Clearly Kelly is stereotyping the typical Western liberal too-benevolent-wool-pulled-over-their-eyes approach to nasty nasty Islam. [Devil]
Posts: 9220 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Teekeey Misha;

quote:
What you are arguing is "the true/original version" of Islam is exactly that and no more; it's 'what you are arguing is "the true/original version" of Islam'. To insist upon a conclusion being proven when the only premise is your (possibly flawed) interpretation of facts is "evidence of a serious slip of logic on your part..."
Teekeey, contrary to the impression some try to give of me here, I agree that what I'm arguing for is what I'm arguing for - I'm not asking people to just all bow down and agree with my view because "The Langton has spoken". I am putting forward an argument - and you would do well not to accept mr cheesy's exaggerated version of what that argument is - and a fair bit of the reasoning by which I've reached that conclusion.

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong by better evidence and argument if anyone ever bothers to produce it, not to mention if they'd argue with what I'm actually saying rather than an extreme version I don't recognise as mine....

That stuff by Sioni Sais about;
quote:
If these women were obedient Muslims then wouldn't they be blowing up infidel Westerners at every opportunity?
is simply not what I'm saying. In deference to an earlier ruling by Doc Tor, I'm transferring the further explanation to the Islamic Extremism thread where I think Doc Tor would prefer further comments on this issue (as opposed to the standard gratuitous insults to me) to be posted....
Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604

 - Posted      Profile for Teekeey Misha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Teekeey, contrary to the impression some try to give of me here...

TBH I'm not much bothered by other people's impressions; I prefer to form my own.
quote:
I'm not asking people to just all bow down and agree with my view because "The Langton has spoken". I am putting forward an argument - and you would do well not to accept mr cheesy's exaggerated version of what that argument is - and a fair bit of the reasoning by which I've reached that conclusion.
(a) I haven't suggested that you are demanding submission. (b) I'm quite capable of drawing a conclusion without MrCheesy's help, thank you. (c) I am suggesting that the particular piece of reasoning on which I commented was flawed. You seem to have missed the point I was making, though, so allow me to try again more slowly.
  1. The question of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" arose.
  2. You said "the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant"
  3. You then used the premise that the Scotsman Fallacy is irrelevant to accuse your interlocutor of "serious slip of logic".
  4. I agree with you that there are circumstances in which the Scotsman Fallacy doesn't apply, because there are circumstances in which "No True Scotsman" can be a valid defence. In those circumstances, therefore, the Scotsman Fallacy is irrelevant.
  5. It is clear, though, that NTS can only be irrelevant if the premise of the argument in which it is used is absolutely irrefutable.
  6. In the argument (over two threads), that premise is not irrefutable. Therefore, the Scotsman Fallacy is relevant, whether the "hypothetical Scotsman" is employed by you or by those proposing the counter argument.
  7. Therefore it was;
  1. your logic that was flawed in the argument about Islam AND
  2. your logic that was flawed in reasoning that John Holding's logic was flawed.
I wasn't saying "Hey look! Mr Cheesy's being mean to Steve... PILE ON!"
I wasn't saying "Hey Steve, I disagree with your argument about Islam (although I do but that's by the by).
I was saying, "Hey Steve! Damning someone else as illogical when it was, in reality, your logic that was flawed makes you look rather foolish."

[ 05. October 2016, 23:53: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]

--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.

Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
I agree with you that there are circumstances in which the Scotsman Fallacy doesn't apply, because there are circumstances in which "No True Scotsman" can be a valid defence.

Well, no, it cannot be. No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy.
quote:
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion
If you have a reasoned assertion, than it does not qualify as No True Scotsman.

But it doesn't matter. Scotland has an official church, therefore Scotsman are Constantinian and they are not proper Christians causing any logic using Scotsman to be flawed.

[ 06. October 2016, 00:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it doesn't matter. Scotland has an official church, therefore Scotsman are Constantinian and they are not proper Christians and any logic using Scotsman will be flawed because of this.

So you're basically saying, no true Scotsman is an Anabaptist.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62942 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it doesn't matter. Scotland has an official church, therefore Scotsman are Constantinian and they are not proper Christians and any logic using Scotsman will be flawed because of this.

So you're basically saying, no true Scotsman is an Anabaptist.
So are you saying that Anabaptist = logical fallacy?

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So are you saying that Anabaptist = logical fallacy?

I can only speak from my own experience.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62942 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So are you saying that Anabaptist = logical fallacy?

I can only speak from my own experience.
Coward [Biased]

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So are you saying that Anabaptist = logical fallacy?

I can only speak from my own experience.
Coward [Biased]
Who insults and runs away, can insult another day.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62942 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604

 - Posted      Profile for Teekeey Misha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, no, it cannot be. No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy.
quote:
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion

This is precisely why I hate the "No True Scotsman".

Because people have heard the term "No True Scotsman" linked to the word "fallacy" they make the (entirely erroneous) assumption that "No True Scotsman" must be a fallacy, which simply isn't true. Nor did Flew intend that it should always be interpreted as a fallacy; he merely used the phrase to illustrate how it is is a fallacy when it is a fallacy.

It's rather like 'Godwin's Law'. Somebody suggests that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazism or Hitler approaches 1" and suddenly every idiot who can copy and paste from Wikipedia is racing round shouting "You mentioned Nazism or Hitler; that means you automatically lose the argument!" as if Nazism or Hitler can't ever be perfectly appropriate comparisons in an argument.

So to your "Well, no, it cannot be" I say, "Well, yes, it can be, so stop trying to force your errant opinion on me, you Hitler-esque philosophy-Nazi."

--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.

Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

So to your "Well, no, it cannot be" I say, "Well, yes, it can be, so stop trying to force your errant opinion on me, you Hitler-esque philosophy-Nazi."

You need to get out more.

If you are going to make the assertion that nearly everyone uses the term incorrectly, it would be nice if did more than merely assert this is so.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

So to your "Well, no, it cannot be" I say, "Well, yes, it can be, so stop trying to force your errant opinion on me, you Hitler-esque philosophy-Nazi."

You need to get out more.

If you are going to make the assertion that nearly everyone uses the term incorrectly, it would be nice if did more than merely assert this is so.

She did do more than merely assert it is so. She referred back to Flew, inventor of the term, and gave his view of the matter. That's more than mere assertion.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62942 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
She gave what she says is his view. She might be correct, but all I saw online is a quote demonstrating the fallacy. Without showing more, it is still just an assertion.

She still needs to get out more.

[ 06. October 2016, 02:21: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy and its rebuttal the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy that seems to be an atheist v Christian debate. Haven't the time to read those at the moment.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy and its rebuttal the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy that seems to be an atheist v Christian debate. Haven't the time to read those at the moment.

So God's a Scotsman? [Eek!]
Posts: 2788 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy and its rebuttal the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy that seems to be an atheist v Christian debate. Haven't the time to read those at the moment.

So God's a Scotsman? [Eek!]
Lol.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does that mean Sean Connery is God?

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17654 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Does that mean Sean Connery is God?

He lives in America, can he be a True Scotsman?

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So in what circumstances could you say "No True Scotsman would do x" and it not be a fallacy? I thought the whole point was that it was a fallacy because the debater was trying to project his opinion onto a whole diverse group of people who - most likely - do not have an agreed position on the matter.

Doesn't it therefore follow that it is a redundant debating technique in all cases - because who is to say what a "true" anything would do, and what definition of "true" is being used anyway?

Godwin's law IMO is a bit different in that one can conceive of some circumstances where comparison with Nazis might be legitimate - I don't know, say in comparing ethnic cleansing in one place with 1930s Nazi-occupied Europe - but on the whole it fails as a debating technique because a large amount of the time it is an ad hominem "you/he/they are acting like a Nazi", and there isn't very far you can go in a discussion beyond that.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9829 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ISTM that the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy is a form of petitio principii or begging the question in that the statement assumes that something is true which is in fact the point in question. Any counter example that may be found is excluded by definition, and if the whole class of Sotsmen are excluded, it doesn't disprove the case it merely demonstrates that the class of true Scotsmen is an empty set. ("Here's to us. Fa's like us? Gey few, and they're a' deid."* [Hmm, autocorrect doesn't like the Doric!])
(*Tr.: Here's to us. Who's like us? Very few, and they're all dead.)

Posts: 3229 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So in what circumstances could you say "No True Scotsman would do x" and it not be a fallacy? I thought the whole point was that it was a fallacy because the debater was trying to project his opinion onto a whole diverse group of people who - most likely - do not have an agreed position on the matter.

Others will doubtless understand the nuances better than I, but I thought it is a fallacy because it is an ad hoc attempt to defend an unsupported proposition by excluding from consideration anything that contradicts that proposition, akin to special pleading. It's not a matter of projecting an opinion on a diverse group; it's a matter of stating a proposition (no Scotsman would do x), and then responding to a counter-example (here's a Scotsman who did do x) not by reconsidering the proposition but by excluding the counter-example (he's not a true Scotsman).

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2443 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
it's a matter of stating a proposition (no Scotsman would do x), and then responding to a counter-example (here's a Scotsman who did do x) not by reconsidering the proposition but by excluding the counter-example (he's not a true Scotsman).

Thanks, I like that explanation, but it still sounds like the debater is imposing his own definition of "true" onto the group of "Scotsman" - so I'm still not clear how one could use a "true Scotsman" in an argument and it not be a fallacy.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9829 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I repeat. Steve and a couple of others are distorting completely the direction, shape and form of debate on the Ship. All live "discussions" become a question wading past his screed in search of real things to actually talk about, rather than restatements of wearily familiar positions irrespective of the subject, which turns into a pretext. This is a crisis, whether people like to admit it or not.

The current magisterial indifference will simply cement this distortion and mean that open-ended debate no longer happens on the Ship. Is this what those aboard really want? I hate it, in case you hadn't noticed.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2111 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
it's a matter of stating a proposition (no Scotsman would do x), and then responding to a counter-example (here's a Scotsman who did do x) not by reconsidering the proposition but by excluding the counter-example (he's not a true Scotsman).

Thanks, I like that explanation, but it still sounds like the debater is imposing his own definition of "true" onto the group of "Scotsman" - so I'm still not clear how one could use a "true Scotsman" in an argument and it not be a fallacy.
If you could logically establish the initial proposition—that it is indeed true that no Scotsman* would do x, and therefore no "true Scotsman" would do x.

* Just because it's called "no true Scotsman" doesn't mean the proposition has to involve people, or anything animate.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2443 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or I guess I should have added, if you can establish logically, not just by unsupported statement, that the counter-example (here's a Scotsman who did x) actually is not a counter-example because the Scotsman in the counter-example is not equivalent to the Scotsman in the proposition.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2443 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am COMPLETELY confused and lost by all this.

And my wife is Scottish.

Posts: 9220 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
If you could logically establish the initial proposition—that it is indeed true that no Scotsman* would do x, and therefore no "true Scotsman" would do x.

Yes, I can see that, I just can't see a circumstance where it could be used without it being a fallacy outside of mathematics.

It certainly seems to me to be impossible to use without it being a fallacy when discussing groups of people.

quote:
* Just because it's called "no true Scotsman" doesn't mean the proposition has to involve people, or anything animate.
No, I get that. And if one was to say something like "insects have 6 legs, spiders have 8 legs and therefore a spider is not a true insect", that makes some kind of sense - not least because one could back up any challenge with evidence from taxonomy and genetics to show that the two organisms are not closely related.

But it seems to me that whenever one is using this kind of rhetoric about humans it is going to be false, or at least biased.

So, for example, one might say that no doctor would deliberately hurt a patient. Then someone might reply "how about Shipman (or other notorious doc murderer)?" and the first person might reply "well, he obviously wasn't a true/real/proper doctor, because true/real/proper doctors don't act like that..."

And then it all comes down to semantics and how words are being defined and used (which is also true in the insect/spider example, it is just that those things are easier to discuss in the abstract whereas human characteristics are much more subjective) - is he a doctor because he has medical training? Is he not a real doctor because he murdered someone? What does it mean to be a "doctor", what is a "real doctor", etc.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9829 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
If you could logically establish the initial proposition—that it is indeed true that no Scotsman* would do x, and therefore no "true Scotsman" would do x.

Yes, I can see that, I just can't see a circumstance where it could be used without it being a fallacy outside of mathematics.
Or science, maybe? I'm not sure either. I was just trying to think it through, but I've thought about as far as I can.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2443 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
BT--

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I am COMPLETELY confused and lost by all this.

And my wife is Scottish.

Well, that explains it--you're dealing with a Scotswoman. A much more sensible creature!
[Biased]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17654 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh well, SL is going to educate us all about why anabaptist is the only authentic expression of the real Christian faith.

So that's something we've not heard before, I guess.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9829 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess I ought to say that I find Enlightenment(ish) expressions of free-thinking Christianity really engaging. The anabaptists, the quakers, the unitarians. I lap up that stuff.

But what is incredibly off-putting is the self-righteousness of people who believe that they're a modern-day Fox, Pennington or Wesley (not that the ranting Methodist is much of a thing these days) and that they have a stand-alone argument which can knock every other out when it turns out that the argument refuses to engage with real-world issues and instead resorts to regurgitating phrases and ideas which haven't had much relevance for hundreds of years.

The anabaptists online are particularly obnoxious and self-justifying. Yes, they say, I'm justified in trashing a starbucks on someone else's church building because we're the body of Christ and you're defiling the house of God.

Yes, they say, I'm fully justified in refusing to engage with civil society like police - and oh, by the way, I want justice when someone attacks me.

It's an utterly hollow and corrosive form of ideology that seeks to rubbish everyone else whilst omitting to actually offer any real alternative to anything.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9829 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And of course there are Mennonites who are not like that and who have been able to reconcile their tradition with living in society.

But one can only conclude that the internet ranters look at even those people from their own tradition as sell-outs and traitors from the Real Faith.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9829 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604

 - Posted      Profile for Teekeey Misha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I just can't see a circumstance where it could be used without it being a fallacy outside of mathematics.

No True Scotsman =
Premise 1: No X is/does Y.
Premise 2: Here's an X that is/does Y.
Conclusion: But no true X is/does Y.
The NTS is not a logical fallacy if P1 is irrefutable fact; or, if you prefer, the NTS is a logical fallacy is P1 is refutable. So in any case where P1 is irrefutable fact, NTS is not a fallacy but a logical defence.

P1: Champagne is not made in Canada.
P2: I have a bottle of Champagne made in Canada.
C: No true Champagne is made in Canada.
P1 is irrefutable fact and thus the NTS in C is not a fallacy but a logical defence (or at least a partial defence; it would need evidence to be a full defence.)

--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.

Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:


P1: Champagne is not made in Canada.
P2: I have a bottle of Champagne made in Canada.
C: No true Champagne is made in Canada.
P1 is irrefutable fact and thus the NTS in C is not a fallacy but a logical defence (or at least a partial defence; it would need evidence to be a full defence.)

OK but surely almost everything is refutable depending on the definitions being used;

Champagne is only produced in France due to history and certification.

But if one was to say "ah, but this sparkling wine is exactly the same chemically as that French bottle of wine" or "yes, but this authority says that the exclusive language is a nonsense and that other wines should be able to be described as being champagne" then I still can't see how that's an irrefutable statement.

Outside of mathematics, surely absolutely everything is refutable, no?

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9829 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604

 - Posted      Profile for Teekeey Misha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you are going to make the assertion that nearly everyone uses the term incorrectly.

I have asserted no such thing, but I know that reading for comprehension isn't your strong point so feel free to keep posting your lack of understanding.
quote:
You need to get out more.
That's almost (but not quite) as childish as your "It's stupid" whine. A for consistency; E- for progress.

--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.

Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I repeat. Steve and a couple of others are distorting completely the direction, shape and form of debate on the Ship. All live "discussions" become a question wading past his screed in search of real things to actually talk about, rather than restatements of wearily familiar positions irrespective of the subject, which turns into a pretext. This is a crisis, whether people like to admit it or not.

The current magisterial indifference will simply cement this distortion and mean that open-ended debate no longer happens on the Ship. Is this what those aboard really want? I hate it, in case you hadn't noticed.

Hosting

Styx is where Ship's business is discussed. Not here. If you genuinely feel this way, there's an open thread. Or just start a new one.

/hosting

DT
HH


--------------------
Get your arse to Mars

Posts: 8698 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy and its rebuttal the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy that seems to be an atheist v Christian debate. Haven't the time to read those at the moment.

There's also a Ship thread a few years ago where this was already nutted out quite well.

You attempting to stumble your way through it, and doing so quite badly against a Shipmate who clearly DOES understand how it works, is not helping this thread's actual purpose in the slightest.

[ 06. October 2016, 13:43: 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: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
John Holding;
As I've previously pointed out, the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant to the real world arguments about which of possibly several variants of a religion is the true/original version. Your producing the fallacy here is evidence of a serious slip of logic on your part....

Wow. You really are as stupid as they say.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18031 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604

 - Posted      Profile for Teekeey Misha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK but surely almost everything is refutable depending on the definitions being used...

Oh, if one isn't going to "depend on the definitions" then absolutely everything is refutable, even within mathematics.

P1: All triangles are polygons with three edges and three vertices.
P1: This shape has three edges and three vertices.
C1: Therefore this shape is a triangle.
Rebuttal:
P1: A triangle is only "a polygon with three edges and three vertices" if you depend on the definition of a triangle as "a polygon with three edges and three vertices".
P2: I'm not depending on that definition.
C2: Therefore, this square is a triangle.

If we're not going to depend on definitions being (by definition!) definite, then we can't ever demonstrate anything logically.

P1: Champagne is a sparkling white wine that complies with the regulations of CIVC.
P2: My Canadian "Champagne" is a sparkling white wine.
P3: My Canadian "Champagne" is exactly the same chemically as that French bottle of wine, lasts just as long comes in the same sort of bottle, is the same price, and was made by a Frenchman using French grapes and a French bucket.
C3: Therefore my Canadian "Champagne" is true Champagne.

Rebuttal 1: Your Canadian "Champagne" does not meet P1.
C4: Therefore it is not true Champagne.

R2: Yeah but I'm not depending on your definition.
C5: Therefore my Canadian "Champagne" is true Champagne.

P1: We are not depending on definitions any more.
C6: Therefore, this bottle of Scotch is true Champagne. [Roll Eyes]

To be refutable doesn't just mean "you can produce a refutation" but "you can produce a valid refutation." If we don't define terms, then it is impossible ever to produce a valid refutation of anything because we are not "doing philosophy" on common ground. (Very Wittgenstein!)

THAT is why Steve is wrong to suggest that NTS doesn't apply to his argument: he thinks his P1 is a precise and irrefutable term; everyone else thinks it is a vague and very refutable generalisation.

[ 06. October 2016, 14:22: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]

--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.

Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I am COMPLETELY confused and lost by all this.

And my wife is Scottish.

Just do as she tells you, it goes easier that way. [Big Grin]

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 10832 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools