The "no true Scotsman fallacy" is a logical fallacy where someone defends a generalization by dismissing counterexamples as not belonging to the group in question, rather than admitting the generalization might be flawed. It often involves changing the definition of the group or using subjective qualifiers like "true," "pure," or "real" to exclude problematic examples.
Here's a breakdown:
- Initial Claim:
A universal claim is made, like "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
- Counterexample:
Someone presents a counterexample, such as "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
- The Fallacy:
Instead of accepting the counterexample, the person argues, "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," effectively excluding the example by adding a subjective qualifier.
- Reasoning:
This fallacy avoids addressing the validity of the original claim by shifting the goalposts and redefining the group to exclude inconvenient examples.
So if you say something like "No real Christian would act like that "
Some people accuse you of this fallacy