|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: No True Scotsman (not actually anything to do with Scotland)
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
I'm talking about the No True Scotsman fallacy, actually, and stuff related around it.
Why's it called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Because of philosopher Anthony Flew, who wasn't Scottish.
He tells an imaginary story about a Scot (no idea why it has to be a Scot, but this is what people call it now, so damage is done), to whom I shall refer as Archie MacHypothetical, because I think it is funny. So Archie sees a report in a newspaper of some awful crime perpetrated by some Cockney down in Old London Taaahn.
"No Scotsman would do that," thinks Archie.
The next day he hears about an even more abominable crime, only it's perpetrated by this bloke from, oh, I don't know, Kirriemuir.
"No true Scotsman would do that," thinks MacHypothetical.
See what MacHypothetical did there? Because Archie has in his head the idea that Scots Are Good, when he is faced with evidence that a Scot is Not Good, he questions the Scottishness of said bad person, in a really interesting way, in that he's questioning the innate condition of Scottishness, rather than the fact that the perpetrator of that second crime has lived in the Glens all his life.
This is partly relevant for me because recently I have seen an interesting variation of this. Recently, through (believe it or not) professional connections, I've become acquainted with couple of American colleagues who identify politically as Marxists.
Now, the American Marxist is a rare, rare beast, and, counterintuitively, a pretty hard line one. No left is as hard as the American left.
Now. Usually, conversations about socialism in the US often go like this:
Che: Yay socialism!
Chuck: Yeah, but Stalin.
Che: ...
Chuck: Laters.
And thus the conversation stops, dead. Or they start fighting. Either way, it's the end of discussion.
Now I have actually seen these guys respond to that conversation-ender like this:
Leon: Yay socialism!
Chuck: Yeah, but Stalin.
Leon: Aha, but what if I told you that everything that you thought you knew about Stalin was a lie?
Chuck: Sorry, what?
Leon: Seriously, it's all propaganda and lies, spread by a hostile West.
Chuck: Are you seriously telling me...?
Leon: Yup. Stalin was actually a hero.
Chuck: Surely-
Leon: Yeah but the people who described Stalin's atrocities in detail were all fascists. Surely you don't want to be on side with fascists?
Chuck: well, no, but -
Leon: Well, here, let me tell you...
And it goes on. It still probably ends in blows, to be honest, but these guys, professional young men with degrees, do really truly honestly believe that Stalin's reputation needs to be rehabilitated. And that he's just got a press problem.
They perform some seriously strenuous mental gymnastics to achieve a rehabilitation of Stalin, like gymnastics of Olympic Gold standard, and in consequence they quickly, terrifyingly quickly, have to get to the leftist equivalent of holocaust denial.
Now while I don't know as much about the current state of Marxist thought as you might think I do, I know something that is flat out wrong when I see it.
But. See, the thing is, that here is the No True Scotsman fallacy taken to its most terrifying extent.
These guys are socialists (I consider myself one too, although frankly I would probably get myself against the wall with a blindfold pretty quickly in the highly unlikely circumstance of them running a country I was in).
Stalin was a socialist. Stalin was bad. No true socialist would be bad, therefore either he wasn't a socialist (and I've heard that argument more, tbh) or people were lying and he was actually good.
The thing is that they cannot deal with the complexity of the idea that this guy was one of theirs... but yet was still bad. Rather than tackle that and think seriously about what that means and how to rebuild their beliefs around the baddest of bad eggs, they would rather take on a position that, although it requires more work, requires less critical thought, and crucially, less honesty.
Now I was thinking about this in the Mark Driscoll thread, and I said,
quote:
Originally posted by me:
Like it or not, Driscoll is one of ours, and he's a bad'un, and we have to find ways of dealing with that.
Because as a practising protestant of non-conformist stripe, with evangelical roots (although I haven't been theologically evangelical these ten years, easy), I have to consider dudes like Piper and Driscoll, for all his vileness, to be Ours.
Something that we as nonconformist Christians have to accept as Our Problem.
It strikes me though that Christians are at least as susceptible to Archie MacHypothetical's fallacy than anyone, and I while I have several ideas about why that is and fewer about how to approach instances of it other than to pull people up and go, "hey, don't do that" I think it's time I shut up and let people respond.
So why do you think us Christians are so quick to deny the faith of people who aren't as pure as ourselves? What approaches can we use to prevent it on an instutional and personal level?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Epic OP ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm not sure it's a case of denying faith of those who aren't as pure as ourselves, more a question of distancing oneself from someone with ostensibly the same labels but different failings (or even views).
Partly I think it's just a natural human thing:
- I like to think of myself as basically OK
- I like others to think of me as basically OK
- this person shares some of my labels, but is a cock
- therefore I must explain why his cockishness invalidates his labels so that mine remain unsullied
Partly I suspect it's also down to a desire for certainty, clarity, simplicity and a naturally adversarial media and political system.
I no longer engage in The Religion Thread in another online community because the conversation will always go roughly the same way - essentially Christianity is trashed out due to "But the crusades ...", "But war ...", "But child abuse in church ...", "But homophobia ...".
One can answer "Yes, all those happened, but that's not Christianity, that's people who call themselves Christians and may be Christians fucking up, missing the point, and making a mess". Trouble is that naturally leads to "So what's the point? If the people tasked with showing the way are so flawed, it's all bollocks, right?" or "So basically the only real Christian ever is you, and then only sometimes".
People don't like messy answers. They don't like to hear:
- yes, that's wrong
- yes, that person is a Christian/Evangelical/Tory/Socialist
- yes, so am I
- yes, they're still wrong
- BUT that doesn't make the gospel wrong, it just means people aren't perfect
At heart, not matter how much they protest, I think people really do want easy answers. They want silver bullets. They want neat. They want understandable. They want to know and for there to be no ambiguity.
Because they can't get it, they either tear down the thing they feel should have given it but hasn't, or cling to it whilst pushing away the things that make it complex.
Or maybe that's just me.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I once had a discussion on the Ship that went more or less like this:
Adversary: All Muslims are evil terrorists.
LeRoc: I disagree. Many Muslims are peaceful, in fact I believe a majority of them are.
A: Bin Laden is a Muslim, and he's an evil terrorist.
L: I don't believe that Bin Laden represents all Muslims.
A: You're saying that Bin Laden is not a real Muslim! True Scotsman fallacy!
I don't believe his invocation of the True Scotsman fallacy was justified here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I once had a discussion on the Ship that went more or less like this:
Adversary: All Muslims are evil terrorists.
LeRoc: I disagree. Many Muslims are peaceful, in fact I believe a majority of them are.
A: Bin Laden is a Muslim, and he's an evil terrorist.
L: I don't believe that Bin Laden represents all Muslims.
A: You're saying that Bin Laden is not a real Muslim! True Scotsman fallacy!
I don't believe his invocation of the True Scotsman fallacy was justified here.
Nope. You weren't saying that at all. You were saying something that was actually true.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
I don't think "Scotsman", "socialist" and "Christian" (or "Muslim") are interchangeable here.
A working definition of "Scotsman" does not need to include any ethical qualities. Any male person who identifies as Scottish and is not manifestly deluded about their connection to Scotland could be described as a "Scotsman". Not being a villain isn't part of the definition, which is why Archie's statement is a fallacy.
"Socialist", though, does suggest at least some degree of commitment to a system of values. It is possible to be more true or less true to socialist values, and to have and express opinions about what sort of conduct really is closer to the Socialist ethic properly understood. It means something to say that Stalin was no true Socialist, namely that there is a proper understanding of Socialism which is inconsistent with Stalin's recorded beliefs and actions, whereas it doesn't mean the same thing (or much of anything) to say that Sawney Bean was no true Scotsman.
"Christian" falls somewhere between the two. There are Christian values, beliefs and ethics, and it is possible to be more or less true to those. But there is also quite a wide (though not universal) consensus that "being a Christian" is achieved by some sort of sacramental initiation, personal commitment, conversion experience or declaration of faith. So it is possible to be a Christian (in the sense of having done whatever it is that the speaker thinks necessary to become one), but not to share (what the speaker regards as) Christian ethics. Such a person can be seen as being a real, "true" Christian, but a bad one. A morally bad Scotsman, isn't bad in regards to his Scottishness, so "no true Scotsman" is a fallacy. A morally bad Socialist (bad according to socialist ethics, that is) may well not be a Socialist in any useful sense of the word at all. A morally bad Christian is a third category again - he remains Christian, but his badness neither leaves his Christianity untouched (as it would his Scottishness) nor obliterates it altogether (as it might his Socialism). He's a "true" Christian but an unworthy one.
I don't think, on the whole, that most Churches have a problem with that. "Not a Christian" is, IME, a jibe flung by fundamentalists at those they perceive as too liberal on theological grounds (that is, they are alleged to have failed the relevant 'commitment' test), much more than it is an ethical criticism. YMMV.
[ 12. September 2014, 14:42: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think "Scotsman", "socialist" and "Christian" (or "Muslim") are interchangeable here.
A working definition of "Scotsman" does not need to include any ethical qualities. Any male person who identifies as Scottish and is not manifestly deluded about their connection to Scotland could be described as a "Scotsman". Not being a villain isn't part of the definition, which is why Archie's statement is a fallacy.
This is a good point.
quote:
"Socialist", though, does suggest at least some degree of commitment to a system of values. It is possible to be more true or less true to socialist values, and to have and express opinions about what sort of conduct really is closer to the Socialist ethic properly understood. It means something to say that Stalin was no true Socialist, namely that there is a proper understanding of Socialism which is inconsistent with Stalin's recorded beliefs and actions, whereas it doesn't mean the same thing (or much of anything) to say that Sawney Bean was no true Scotsman.
This is also a very very good point (and sort of what I was hoping someone would say).
Yes, this is true, but the problem is that my colleague and his mate seem to have another, more profound fallacy mixed up with this, namely that they seem to have taken the idea of "Socialist" further beyond simply ideological adherence, and have made it into something innate.
As in, no, Scot and Socialist aren't interchangeable, but my lefty pals are treating them as if they are.
And I think that Christians do that too. See, in answer to your other (good) pooint, in my time running with the hardline evangelicals (five years of my life, give or take) I found that it actually wasn't about failing a commitment test, it was about some sort of failure in an innate quality of Christianness that these people were perceived to lack.
I mean, it wasn't a failing of belief. It was more identified as a lack of the presence of Jesus/the Holy Spirit within them, an absence of the supernatural spark.
PS. I don't like the label "liberal", because of the baggage it has. It means a bunch of things and I am not sure I would apply it to myself.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I think with Christianity we have at least two senses of the word "Christian"--one is someone who accepts the doctrines, self-identifies as a Christian, etc. (which could include the gamut of wonderful and horrible people) and someone who behaves as a Christian is supposed to behave (showing Christ's love, etc.). So in a certain sense one could call, say, the Inquisitors true Christians (at least technically) and in another sense definitely not true Christians at least as far as their actions are concerned (though perhaps on some level, despite the evil and misguidedness they had on Earth, they might surprise us by being in Heaven).
But overall I agree with you--it becomes very easy to say "Oh that's not part of my group" when they are and they need to be rebuked or publically disassociated with. It's actually been very frustrating to have to say to people that I'm a Christian but "not like those other mean ones," because they've often encountered so many.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
It's actually been very frustrating to have to say to people that I'm a Christian but "not like those other mean ones," because they've often encountered so many.
I don't know about you, but while I don't hide my Christianity, it rarely comes up for a while when I get to know people, and when it does, I allow for the surprise that I - with my leftist views and ideas about sexuality and gender - should be part of that religion. It makes for good discussion.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Interesting post. Thanks, Wood.
I agree with Snag's theory about the desire for easy answers. I would say it's an inability to cope with a perceived cognitive dissonance (one of my lot believed, said, or did something wrong, which is impossible) and inability to cope with shame. People will go to great lengths to avoid feeling ashamed and to keep their worldview intact... this includes Christians.
The drive to disqualify can make use of "reasons" which range from the reasonable to the ridiculous. (In the case of Wood's Marxists, they have chosen the strategy of denying the facts of wrongdoing, rather than disqualification from group identity. Another strategy might have been to say that because Stalin was the epitome of Marxism, which for them is obviously right and good, what he did cannot be considered wrong.)
In the case of Christians, we tend to use disqualification. I think our diversity provides possible footholds for those who are seeking reasons to disqualify each other.
Let's say that a perceived "wrong kind of baptism" was a useful foothold for disqualification of other Christians. Statements which indicate unity in some areas - such as concerning baptism in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry - remove that particular foothold by affirming the validity of others' baptisms.
However:(1) there remains the question of what is reasonably included. In the example of baptism, is it reasonable to include or exclude baptisms under different Trinitarian names? And of course(2) those who are looking for reasons will drift from the reasonable to the ridiculous anyway.
Regarding approaches we can use: (1) be as inclusive and charitable as possible (2) make use of confession and forgiveness, first with yourself and your own lot, before going on a mote hunt.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't know about you, but while I don't hide my Christianity, it rarely comes up for a while when I get to know people, and when it does, I allow for the surprise that I - with my leftist views and ideas about sexuality and gender - should be part of that religion. It makes for good discussion.
Oh, for me it comes up fairly often--not only references to church ("sorry, not free then because we've got church") but also I wind up often having a particular (and fatiguingly repeated) discussion about some moral limits I have when negotiating play. ("I don't do A or B--is that OK?" "Sure, but why not?" "Um, it's basically for religious reasons." "Oh, what religion?" and so on with infinite slight variations.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I think there's another variant of this which goes something like this:
Acquaintance: I hat all lawyers and vicars
Me: But I'm a vicar and I used to be a lawyer
Acquaintance: Oh yes, but you're different
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Isn't the root of this, an unwillingness to consider the possibility that there can be a bad Scotsman, Socialist, Christian, Strict Baptist or whatever, that 'bad' is a quite different circle, that is entirely capable of overlapping with virtually every other circle known to humankind?
What is perhaps even more disconcerting, is that it is also capable of not-overlapping with quite a number of circles we might happen to dislike.
That may be where the problem comes from. If we already believe that, say, Socialist, Republican, disapproving of homosexuality or Canadian = bad, does that make it harder to avoid the corollary that being what we approve of, or 'like me' must automatically = good?
Many years ago, I remember a worthy, good man, who was very musical. The conversation turned to a classical singer who had recently ditched his wife and run off with another woman. It was quite clear that my companion assumed the wife must have been responsible in some way because as an able and sensitive musician, the defaulting husband could not have been simultaneously a love-rat.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I think a lot of the fallacy comes from the human trait of assigning a quick category to people and things so that they can be judged and put up into little boxes that require no further thought. It saves a lot of time down the road.
As in "Oh he is a (label of your choice) so you would expect that kind of thing from him."
The trouble with that is that it ignores the small fact that put it in a box with a label mentality allows the person doing it to live in something other than reality of the here and now.
The other trouble with that is that it allows us to put ourselves into a box labeled "Good Person" or "Bad Person" and ignore the fact that we are actually just "person" with all of the good and bad things that come with being a human.
Wood (welcome back, BTW) my story about your two little buddies is that something other than perfection in their chosen world view might require them to question things, or even accept that great concepts tend to be mediated by fallible humans into something other than the greatness of the conception.
My two cents worth.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
The trouble with that is that it ignores the small fact that put it in a box with a label mentality allows the person doing it to live in something other than reality of the here and now.
Which brings us to another fallacy these dudes display, the Nirvana Fallacy, which is the one where you base your argument on something that couldn't ever happen. Yeah, they say, obvs a Marxist-Leninist Republic of North Amerika would be perfect, a utopia, which is great but dude you might as well talk about the Big Rock Candy Mountain for all the support if offers your cause because how can you ever prove or disprove the point? quote:
The other trouble with that is that it allows us to put ourselves into a box labeled "Good Person" or "Bad Person" and ignore the fact that we are actually just "person" with all of the good and bad things that come with being a human.
Wood (welcome back, BTW) my story about your two little buddies is that something other than perfection in their chosen world view might require them to question things, or even accept that great concepts tend to be mediated by fallible humans into something other than the greatness of the conception.
My two cents worth.
I think that's exactly right.
Hi, btw
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I encountered this 'us and them' approach while studying A-level Psychology. It is human nature to be more lenient and flexible when considering those in our own group and more judgmental when considering those outside our group. You only need to look at denominational / churchmanship quarrels in the church to see this attitude in action.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I think there's another variant of this which goes something like this:
Acquaintance: I hat all lawyers and vicars
Me: But I'm a vicar and I used to be a lawyer
Acquaintance: Oh yes, but you're different
Closely akin to the "some of my best friends are Jews" defense.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I think there's another variant of this which goes something like this:
Acquaintance: I hat* all lawyers and vicars
Me: But I'm a vicar and I used to be a lawyer
Acquaintance: Oh yes, but you're different
Closely akin to the "some of my best friends are Jews" defense.
I dated someone who stated I was the lone exception to the behaviour of my "race". There is no limit to human strangeness.
*Meaning the milliner refused to serve you. BroJames?
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
We recently received a FB message from a Muslim friend whom we knew in India many years ago, in which he deplored the behaviour of ISIS/ISIL in Iraq, and passionately asserted that these were not really Muslims.
At a strictly logical level he is wrong; they are undoubtedly Muslims, but bad ones.
We did not say that, of course, because he is a decent person and we fully understood where he is coming from and why he is so upset, and I think this highlights something about the "true Scotsman fallacy", which is that in practice, we cite it or ignore it according to our perception of the person committing it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We recently received a FB message from a Muslim friend whom we knew in India many years ago, in which he deplored the behaviour of ISIS/ISIL in Iraq, and passionately asserted that these were not really Muslims.
At a strictly logical level he is wrong; they are undoubtedly Muslims, but bad ones.
We did not say that, of course, because he is a decent person and we fully understood where he is coming from and why he is so upset, and I think this highlights something about the "true Scotsman fallacy", which is that in practice, we cite it or ignore it according to our perception of the person committing it.
And also the intention of the person involved.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I think there's another variant of this which goes something like this:
Acquaintance: I hat all lawyers and vicars
Me: But I'm a vicar and I used to be a lawyer
Acquaintance: Oh yes, but you're different
Closely akin to the "some of my best friends are Jews" defense.
Don't you find it interesting how quickly people pile up on related fallacies?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's basically tribalism. However you identify your 'tribe', for some people it becomes necessary to defend members of the tribe. Or really, to defend the tribe itself (see below).
I suspect we all do it to some extent, by at least starting with the assumption that someone who is one of us/one of what we like has all the qualities that we like as well. But we do vary in the doggedness with which we hold onto that assumption.
"No True Scotsman" is basically a method of protecting the integrity of the tribe by ejecting someone from the tribe if there's enough evidence that they're not up to our notion of tribal standards.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I feel that whether it's a fallacy or not depends on the original proposition advanced.
Christianity is evil because Christians persecute people and atheists don't; What about Stalin?; he wasn't persecuting people because he was an atheist but for some other reason, is a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Stalin qualifies under the definition of atheist, and not under the definition of religious believer.
Atheism is evil, because Stalin persecuted people; Stalin wasn't representative of all atheists, is not a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Nothing under the definition of atheist requires that Stalin is representative of all atheists.
Just so: nothing about Islam requires that the IS as they call themselves are representative of them. Therefore, whatever else it is, saying they're not representative is not a No True Scotsman.
Logically, a single example is sufficient to rebut a universal generalisation, but not to establish a universal generalisation. A No True Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to get round inconvenient counterexamples to universal generalisations.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I suspect we all do it to some extent, by at least starting with the assumption that someone who is one of us/one of what we like has all the qualities that we like as well. But we do vary in the doggedness with which we hold onto that assumption.
"No True Scotsman" is basically a method of protecting the integrity of the tribe by ejecting someone from the tribe if there's enough evidence that they're not up to our notion of tribal standards.
Or to a notion of tribal standards that is imposed upon us by someone else and which we feel we have to defend against.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I feel that whether it's a fallacy or not depends on the original proposition advanced.
Oooh, good point.
quote:
Christianity is evil because Christians persecute people and atheists don't; What about Stalin?; he wasn't persecuting people because he was an atheist but for some other reason, is a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Do you know, I have actually had that very argument with a work colleague (except I think it was Pol Pot we were talking about, but).
quote:
Stalin qualifies under the definition of atheist, and not under the definition of religious believer.
Also, in discussions with the self-defined antitheists of my acquaintance, if Stalin comes up, they often discount him as Eastern Orthodox, citing his time as a seminarian, which is another variation of the fallacy (excluding ex-Christian from the category of atheists).
quote:
Atheism is evil, because Stalin persecuted people; Stalin wasn't representative of all atheists, is not a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Yes.
quote:
Logically, a single example is sufficient to rebut a universal generalisation, but not to establish a universal generalisation. A No True Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to get round inconvenient counterexamples to universal generalisations.
See, this sort of thing is why I have always liked you.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
... Also, in discussions with the self-defined antitheists of my acquaintance, if Stalin comes up, they often discount him as Eastern Orthodox, citing his time as a seminarian, which is another variation of the fallacy (excluding ex-Christian from the category of atheists). ...
Novel. I've heard some batty arguments over the years, but for me, that's a new one. So to be a real atheist, you have to be a cradle atheist, brought up by resolutely atheist parents, refusing to take part in your primary school nativity play and keeping your mouth firmly shut when everyone else sings at assembly. According to his equivalent of his testimony (to use one of our words) that excludes Professor Dawkins from being an atheist.
It also means there's no point in atheists trying to persuade other people to become atheists, because they can never be real ones.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
... Also, in discussions with the self-defined antitheists of my acquaintance, if Stalin comes up, they often discount him as Eastern Orthodox, citing his time as a seminarian, which is another variation of the fallacy (excluding ex-Christian from the category of atheists). ...
Novel. I've heard some batty arguments over the years, but for me, that's a new one. So to be a real atheist, you have to be a cradle atheist, brought up by resolutely atheist parents, refusing to take part in your primary school nativity play and keeping your mouth firmly shut when everyone else sings at assembly. According to his equivalent of his testimony (to use one of our words) that excludes Professor Dawkins from being an atheist.
It also means there's no point in atheists trying to persuade other people to become atheists, because they can never be real ones.
Well yeah, that one falls totally apart at the seams without even any serious effort.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bob Two-Owls
Shipmate
# 9680
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I think a lot of the fallacy comes from the human trait of assigning a quick category to people and things so that they can be judged and put up into little boxes that require no further thought. It saves a lot of time down the road.
Yes, we seem to start with a label and then make all kinds of assumptions based on our own experiences of that label. The problem comes when the label used in one that has been given by another person who might not have the same set of assumptions that we use. To use the Scotsman label (since I am a former one myself), to some that might mean dependable, trustworthy and plain-speaking, to others it might mean rude, arrogant and confrontational. The label is the same, the assumptions that go with the label depend on experience.
It always amuses me that at my former church I was told that I wasn't being a true Christian so many time that I eventually agreed and stopped being one. The vicar where I now live keeps telling me that I am a Christian and should be happy to call myself one, unfortunately my assumptions around the "Christian" label are now so ingrained that I can not do so.
Posts: 1262 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
It always amuses me that at my former church I was told that I wasn't being a true Christian so many time that I eventually agreed and stopped being one. The vicar where I now live keeps telling me that I am a Christian and should be happy to call myself one, unfortunately my assumptions around the "Christian" label are now so ingrained that I can not do so.
I find that desperately sad.
Although I am reminded about the article by an ex-Christian writer I once read who said that while he had come across more reasonable and less appalling versions of Christianity since leaving the faith, they could never convince him because "evangelicalism had inoculated (him) against Christianity."
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
Al Eluia said
quote:
I've heard it used so much in a Christian context (especially against Catholics--those weren't true Christians who started the Crusades, etc.) that it should be called the "no true Christian" fallacy. On the other hand, it's fun to say "Nae true Scotsman" with a Scottish accent.
However with Islamic State marauding about the Middle East, I think I can understand much better those folk in the Middle Ages who thought it was self-evidently a just war to retrieve Jerusalem from the Muslims by force of arms.
We often kid ourselves that The Crusades was an own goal we modern believers would never ever repeat. But now when even relatively 'Doveish' Christians are getting behind military intervention in Iraq and Syria ( just see the Ship thread on the subject) I'm not sure we wouldn't do it all again.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Yes, we seem to start with a label and then make all kinds of assumptions based on our own experiences of that label. The problem comes when the label used in one that has been given by another person who might not have the same set of assumptions that we use. To use the Scotsman label (since I am a former one myself), to some that might mean dependable, trustworthy and plain-speaking, to others it might mean rude, arrogant and confrontational. The label is the same, the assumptions that go with the label depend on experience.
It always amuses me that at my former church I was told that I wasn't being a true Christian so many time that I eventually agreed and stopped being one. The vicar where I now live keeps telling me that I am a Christian and should be happy to call myself one, unfortunately my assumptions around the "Christian" label are now so ingrained that I can not do so.
Funnily enough, in the last hour and a half I've been having a conversation where it's arguable I've been applying 'labels' to myself in exactly that way. Struggling with the idea that the label of 'Christian' couldn't be compatible with some other aspects of my personal life.
I grew up with a certain set of assumptions about how a good Christian boy behaved. Assumptions that have been severely tested since I came out.
So it can be self-inflicted.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I grew up with a certain set of assumptions about how a good Christian boy behaved. Assumptions that have been severely tested since I came out.
So it can be self-inflicted.
So much solidarity. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It's really weird how you can be singled out as a 'good Christian' or a 'bad Christian' for doing things, or behaving in certain ways - what some churches deem 'good' ways of being are considered 'bad' by others!
Substitute 'Christian' for 'Scotsman' and see what you come up with....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
