No true scotsman

[Senator Cheese]

I have a problem with the "No true scotsman" fallacy. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term - it refers to a fallacy wherein the object of debate is defined to suit the needs of the individual making the argument.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The problem I see is that it can be used ad absurdum both to discredit entire groups or to shift blame.
An example would be: "Christians don't kill homosexuales - those that do aren't real Christians" or "Muslims aren't terrorists - those that kill are no true Muslims!"
While I would even go so far as to agree with both statements, that is beside the point. The problem that I am seeing is that you can accuse both of this fallacy even though the statements seem valid.

Is there a logical "rule" as to how to apply this rule stringently?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is a logic fallacy, thus, there isn't going to be a logical way to apply it.

You can only make statements like that accurately when they describe a trait or action which directly is required to be considered a part of a group, such as "no true Scotsman has no Scottish heritage in addition to not living in Scotland at any point in their lives", or "no true atheist believes in deities" because in order to be considered an atheist you can't believe in deities, because being one means you don't.

 

[Chany]

I have a problem with the "No true scotsman" fallacy. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term - it refers to a fallacy wherein the object of debate is defined to suit the needs of the individual making the argument.



The problem I see is that it can be used ad absurdum both to discredit entire groups or to shift blame.
An example would be: "Christians don't kill homosexuales - those that do aren't real Christians" or "Muslims aren't terrorists - those that kill are no true Muslims!"
While I would even go so far as to agree with both statements, that is beside the point. The problem that I am seeing is that you can accuse both of this fallacy even though the statements seem valid.

Is there a logical "rule" as to how to apply this rule stringently?

The two statements you provide are true Scotsman fallacies, given a basic definition of Christians and Muslims. They are dodges to avoid taking on the baggage of moral crazies who definitely fall into the "Christian" and "Muslim" categories.

However, they are statements usually made in response to other true Scotsman fallacies, such as "all Christians kill homosexuals" and "all Muslims are terrorists". This is why they seem like valid claims to make. In order for them to be true, all Christians must attempt to kill homosexuals and all Muslims must be terrorists as part of their category. If they don't, it becomes like the Scotsman example from Wikipedia: an overgeneralization of a category of people who only a part of which truly represent the proposition. . Now, it is true that "some Christians kill homosexuals" and "some Muslims are terrorists", but this is most likely a subcategory.

We would have to define what makes one a Muslim and what makes one a Christian before we can make any statements about them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is there a logical "rule" as to how to apply this rule stringently?

The fallacy occurs when you include requirements that fall outside of the definition. Scottish heritage is defined as being born and raised in Scotland, not what you put on your porridge. Being a christian is probably best defined by the Nicene Creed. There are two major sects of Islam, and each is defined by which textual authorities you accept.

 

[keith99]

Any real Scotsman knows it is not that a true Scotsman will not put sugar on his porridge, it is that no true Scotsman will endure the additional expense.

Edit: I wrote the above in jest, but it does go to a subtle difference. The above does go to a Scottish stereotype, but more important saying one is not a true Scotsman in the paying case is NOT claiming the person is not a Scot, rather it claims he has been corrupted in some way, influenced by outside influences. It may be a judgment, but it is NOT a denial that a Scotsman did the deed.

Most of the time I see the 'No True Scotsman' argument it is claiming someone never was a member of the group in question.

 

[Kylie]

I have a problem with the "No true scotsman" fallacy. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term - it refers to a fallacy wherein the object of debate is defined to suit the needs of the individual making the argument.



The problem I see is that it can be used ad absurdum both to discredit entire groups or to shift blame.
An example would be: "Christians don't kill homosexuales - those that do aren't real Christians" or "Muslims aren't terrorists - those that kill are no true Muslims!"
While I would even go so far as to agree with both statements, that is beside the point. The problem that I am seeing is that you can accuse both of this fallacy even though the statements seem valid.

Is there a logical "rule" as to how to apply this rule stringently?

It is possible to reach a valid conclusion from invalid premises.

P1. All flying creatures are kinds of birds.
P2. I saw an owl flying today.
C. Therefore an owl is a kind of bird.

Premise 1 is clearly flawed, even though the conclusion is correct.

In any case, there are some people who kill homosexuals who declare themselves to be Christian, so the claim that Christians don't kill homosexuals is a faulty premise (unless you are suggesting that they do not have the right to categorize themselves as Christians if they so desire).

 

[quatona]

I have a problem with the "No true scotsman" fallacy. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term - it refers to a fallacy wherein the object of debate is defined to suit the needs of the individual making the argument.



The problem I see is that it can be used ad absurdum both to discredit entire groups or to shift blame.
An example would be: "Christians don't kill homosexuales - those that do aren't real Christians" or "Muslims aren't terrorists - those that kill are no true Muslims!"
While I would even go so far as to agree with both statements, that is beside the point. The problem that I am seeing is that you can accuse both of this fallacy even though the statements seem valid.

Is there a logical "rule" as to how to apply this rule stringently?

I suspect that the adding of "true" already gives away the fallacious nature. If the statement isn´t true without the "true", it doesn´t get any truer by adding it.

Are there Scotsman who put sugar on their porridge? Certainly. So who gets to define what makes a "true" Scotsman? Ultimately, this is just a variation of circular reasoning. The trait or behaviour in question is not and has never been part of the definition of the term, and the speaking person makes it up as he walks along.

Are there Christians who kill homosexuals? Of course there are. The interesting part: Nowhere in Christian doctrines do we find the idea that Christians don´t or cannot commit sins or do something immoral. Quite the contrary: Nobody is without sin.
Plus, the same person who here appeals to this non-existing definition will appeal to "Nobody is without sin" at the next turn, quite fine - if only it serves his argumentative needs.

However, a question that could be discussed is: Should Christians (according to their doctrine) kill homosexuals or shouldn´t they? And next it could be discussed what a Christian should do after doing something they shouldn´t have done.

 

[juvenissun]

I have a problem with the "No true scotsman" fallacy. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term - it refers to a fallacy wherein the object of debate is defined to suit the needs of the individual making the argument.

The problem I see is that it can be used ad absurdum both to discredit entire groups or to shift blame.
An example would be: "Christians don't kill homosexuales - those that do aren't real Christians" or "Muslims aren't terrorists - those that kill are no true Muslims!"
While I would even go so far as to agree with both statements, that is beside the point. The problem that I am seeing is that you can accuse both of this fallacy even though the statements seem valid.

Is there a logical "rule" as to how to apply this rule stringently?

Logic needs rules to exercise. And the initial rules are set through science.

So, Why should a true Scotsman not to put sugar in porridge? WHY? May be person A is wrong to begin with.

Second, of course, the word "true" needs to be described. A baby of any nationality born in the US is a US citizen. Is the baby a "true" US citizen?

Any such No True Scotsman fallacy needs to be analyzed on its content.

 

[Gadarene]

Really not seeing the problem here. You've presented two cases where the fallacy applies.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Recently I've seen it applied to the overwhelmingly Christian prison population we have here in the US. --Something about steel bars turns people to God better than stained glass.

Anywho, the poster claimed that they couldn't have been True Christians™ because no real Christian would do something that would end him up in jail. As if Christians can't make mistakes or at least that the mistakes they do make aren't ever gonna be punishable by law. Well, I'm nobody to be defining someone else's beliefs so if a prisoner says he's Christian, I'm just gonna have to accept that's what he is.

I understand that the bible has a specific definition for a Christian and perhaps a True Christian™ is one who can live up to that standard but given our extremely limited knowledge, I think it is no one's place to be saying who is or is not a True Christian™. That is something only God can determine.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Being a christian is probably best defined by the Nicene Creed.

Being a Christian is best defined by the New Testament.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

In any case, there are some people who kill homosexuals who declare themselves to be Christian, so the claim that Christians don't kill homosexuals is a faulty premise (unless you are suggesting that they do not have the right to categorize themselves as Christians if they so desire).

I'm sure somewhere there are also professing atheists who have killed homosexuals. I'm also sure there are professing "Christians" who are by definition not a Christian. Individuals cannot unilaterally declare themselves to be Christian or atheist. In both cases the person must actually fit the definition despite what they say in order to be in said category.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

The most important fact to remember about this fallacy is that Scotsman do exist. So simply saying "no true Scotsman is X" does not automatically commit the fallacy.

 

[quatona]

I'm sure somewhere there are also professing atheists who have killed homosexuals.

Why sure. "No true atheist kills homosexuals" would also be a fallacy.

I'm also sure there are professing "Christians" who are by definition not a Christian.

By whose definition?

Individuals cannot unilaterally declare themselves to be Christian or atheist.

Yes.

In both cases the person must actually fit the definition despite what they say in order to be in said category.

Well, in both cases the "true" would be redundant.
In the case of atheists the only non-fallacious statement would be "no (true) atheist believes in god(s)." There´s nothing else for an atheist to do that would violate the definition.

 

[Loudmouth]

Being a Christian is best defined by the New Testament.

Which books made it into the New Testament was decided by the same council that produced the Nicene Creed.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

You can't apply a fallacy logically, but with that said, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy does have some cases where it arguably doesn't apply.

Saying that someone is or is not a Christian involves some pretty difficult language issues. Some groups apply the term "Christian" very broadly. As an example, I don't believe that the seven sacraments are efficacious, I believe that Jesus was only a first century apocalyptic preacher, and I don't believe that Moses ever literally existed to act as a law giver. Still, according to the Vatican, I am a true Catholic. One under a latae sententiae excommunication for apostasy, definitely, but a Catholic nonetheless and a Christian because of my baptism. Other groups, on the other hand, apply it very strictly. According to most Protestants you can't actually know if someone is a Christian, because a Christian is someone possessing faith that can lead to salvation. Only God can know if that's present.

So, I question whether the term Christian has any one meaning. That being the case, you might be able to argue that no true Christian would kill a homosexual according to the definition applied by Person A, while according to the personal definition held by Person B, a true Christian might kill a homosexual, even though it is wrong. Both of those are correct in a subjective sense.

 

[Cearbhall]

Is there a logical "rule" as to how to apply this rule stringently?

In cases where two people could each say that the other is not a true fill-in-the-blank and have equal claims to legitimacy, I think it's necessary not to give either of them that power over the other person. On here, I've found that a person will basically respond with this: "Well I'm only going by the Bible, so I'm right and those who disagree are the fakes." What they don't realize is that everyone else is saying the same thing.

If you believe that religion is a man-made institution and that each set of beliefs was structured by humans over time, and you accept some of those changes as legitimate (for example, if you accept that people who aren't Roman Catholics can be Christians), then it's my opinion that it's necessary to accept any and all changes and allow people to self-identify. I don't see another objective way to decide who's Christian and who's not.

Out of respect, I sometimes use qualifiers such as "radical."

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Which books made it into the New Testament was decided by the same council that produced the Nicene Creed.

The definition of a Christian lies in New Testament as can be seen by a casual reading of both texts.

 

[Kylie]

I'm sure somewhere there are also professing atheists who have killed homosexuals.

No doubt.

I'm also sure there are professing "Christians" who are by definition not a Christian. Individuals cannot unilaterally declare themselves to be Christian or atheist.

Why not? I never had to apply to be an atheist. I never had to go through any initiation rites.

In both cases the person must actually fit the definition despite what they say in order to be in said category.

But when it comes to some things, it can be pretty difficult to be black and white about it...

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I have a problem with the "No true scotsman" fallacy.

So does everyone else who attempts to reason logically.

The problem I see is that it can be used ad absurdum both to discredit entire groups or to shift blame.

Yes. Outright lies can be used to the same effect.

Is there a logical "rule" as to how to apply this rule stringently?

Not in terms of general logic. It is an illogical (at least baseless) argument; so limiting the scope or adding rules is a waste of time. Is this the full question of the originating poster, or was the purpose to begin another attack on Christianity?

The Only Sure Weapon Against Bad Ideas Is Better Ideas.

The only response to bad logic is real logic and facts. Sadly, the proponents of bad logic typically do not recognize 'real logic' were it stuffed down their shirt, biting all the way.

Along with this, I'll add another horrible miscarriage of logic; the idea that because another's conclusion does not agree with the miscarrier, the second person is illogical or false in thinking.

"Logical" is not a synonym for 'agrees with me'. (Except in my case, of course.)

Don't get me started on 'no sense of humor'.