Talk:No true Scotsman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Votes for deletion This article was the subject of a previous vote for deletion.
An archived record of the discussion can be found here.

Please note that the author does not state that Uncle Angus put the sugar on his porridge, merely that Uncle angus likes the taste of porridge with sugar.

Waynovitch

Contents

[edit] Is this just an example for another logical fallacy

population A does/avoids B but C is sample of A and does/avoids B

therefore C is not (not a true) element of A.

It seems like this is an example of the Special pleading logical fallacy. I've added a proposal to merge this into the article on Special Pleading. Every X is in the category Y x1 is an X, and is also in the category Z Therefore, x1 is not in the category Y. (Example of Special Pleading) DelRayVA 192.31.106.34 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Saying a commie who disavows the USSR is making a logical fallacy is absurd--communism is a very complex ideology with major subgroups that often have conflicting ideas on what communism means (ex: some types of anarchism vs. Stalinism). Anarchists and others in the anti-authoritarian wing of communism objected to the soviet union as soon as it formed and even before, not just after it failed. I am getting rid of this statement, if someone has a disagreement, put it here. But you better actually know something about communism before changing it back, in other words you have to know more than what they teach you in your awful high school history class. Just because the Nazi's called themselves National Socialists, doesn't mean they were socialists, likewise, just because the USSR called themself communists doesn't mean they were communists.

I understand what you're saying; I have three objections: (a) the Soviet/Chinese "experiment" in Communism clearly dominated Communist theory and writing during the 20th century; (b) though I can't argue that some Communists disavowed Lenin/Mao/etc. from the beginning, there are also those who disavow them now (and in the 60's, 70's, etc.) out of convenience, i.e. if the Soviet experiment had been successful they wouldn't be making that claim; (c) this article is short on real-world examples and that's a concrete one. How about if it's reintroduced with a caveat stating some of what you said? Korny O'Near 19:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Korny. The same arguments that the objector wants to apply to communists could also be applied to liberals or conservatives, and that example has been retained. -- Temtem 22:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Pretty good compromise, but I'm going to change the current text a bit. (original poster)

The problem with all the examples (communist, liberal, concervative, christian) are that the there are nothing near concensus about the definitions of any of these terms. So saying "no true whatever" is a valid way to limit how you use the term. Of course, "no true liberal" would ever eat meat is way outside any common meaning of the term. But "no true liberal would ever propose outlawing hate speach" is not, even if "outlawing hate speech" is often considered part of the liberal agenda in the USA (or so I guess, I'm not from the USA). Same with communism, "no true communist would ever support the USSR" falls nicely within some common definitions of the term.

I'm also unsure about the claims of ussr-support dominated communist thinking. What happened was that those who did not support ussr or china dropped the tainted communist label, but not communist theory. So was they communists back then? And can they call themselves communists now the ussr has collapsed, and china has embraced capitalism? May they even be the "true" communists, in their own eyes? I think it is a valid POV, and not a logical fallacy. --Per Abrahamsen 14:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the genus term in this definition (as of February 16, 2004) is incorrect. The exchange is not an "argument" that could be construed as "fallacious." It is an example of a common discursive practise, in which assumptions on the part of one speaker, concerning the denotation of some term, are communicated to another speaker, once it becomes clear they're not using the terms the same way. Consider:

A: "No VW bug has a twelve-cylinder engine." B: "But my VW bug has a twelve cylinder engine." A: "Yes, but no true VW bug has a twelve cylinder engine."

What B understands by "VW bug" is clearly not what A intends by the term. A then clarifies by asserting he's referring to some "essential quality of a VW bug," rather than the class of things commonly called "VW bugs." There is no argument here, there is only a process of clarification. A might follow up by saying "We might call your car a VW bug, but let's agree it's not a real one."

This is not an example of a logical argument, in which referential terms are assumed to remain fixed, and where deviations from what is fixed result in a fallacy. It is an example of a discursive process of defining what a "VW bug" or "A Scotsman" can mean.

Surely this discursive practise can be manipulative, but it can be equally productive. Scientists, possibly more often than Christians, engage in this kind of exchange all the time, as they seek to clarify what makes their practise essentially scientific. "No rational inquiry should stray far from empirical observations. " "But Newton/Freud/George W. Bush stray very far from empirical observations!" "Yes, but REAL rational inquiry must not stray too far..."

If anyone thinks I'm on the right track here, I'll gladly do a rewrite!

-pixote

I think there's 2 ways to interpret the issue. In one case, A really is making an earnest definition of what he/she means by a term: so in this case, A really is saying, "such and such is part of my definition for such and such". This occurs most often in politics and so forth, where various people are "contesting" the meaning of a term in discourse. It would be more honest and forthcoming if A would just admit that he/she is bringing definition to a term, instead of this kind of indirect way of changing or establishing meaning.
Another thing happens when there is already a clearly defined meaning of a term, and in this case, A is engaging in a logical fallacy. For example, "Scotsman" can be given a clear definition, say, a native inhabitant of Scotland. In this case, it is quite possible for a counterexample to exist, and to say "No 'true' Scotsman" in effect excises all counterexamples, making the statement vacuously true. Of course, this is fine, provided one is honest that this is what one means: see the first usage. One might legitimately be trying to make a contribution on what it means to be a "true Scotsman" as a form of identity or culture, independent of being a native inhabitant of Scotland. The problem occurs when someone uses the argument in the former sense, but masks this usage by giving the appearance of the latter sense. This amounts to constructing a definition while giving the impression that the definition is a consequence of logical deduction, not definition.

---



I can't understand what the Evolution example is doing here. It seems to be falacious, since 'Evolution', as it is argued over is agreed to be defined as an historical event. It is not 'redefined' by supporters and opponents. It is simply argued whether or not it happened.

Furthermore, it does not seem to be an example of the 'no true Scotman' argument anyway.

-- There is almost no disagreement whether micro evolution took place. The question is whether macro evolution took place. The definition of what macro evolution is changes depending on the circumstance. Generally when arguing about macro evolution it is just called evolution.

Even when talking about macro evolution, many people who are debating the issue, are really debating whether God created the universe. They want to use macro evolution as a proof that God was unnecessary. Then when arguing the issue, evolution means no God and those who are countering it mean there is God. EW

What's the bit on terrorism actually trying to say? I think the article would be better without it - the examples above are perfectly clear. Evercat 20:07 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

A friend of mine often "defends" his point by insisting that something is "technically" right. Is this an example of "no true Scotsman"? Here's the example: A: 3+4=6! B: No, 3+4=7! A: Technically, 3+4=6.

What the f*** is '"Technically, 3+4=6."' supposed to mean?
I can offer a better example of the use of "technically" that might make more sense to you. It's based on my own experience, so it's subjective but true nonetheless :)
In recent years there was a campaign to conserve water in the UK with the suggestion that one should take showers rather than baths, because, it was claimed, showering uses less water. In the US, there was a similar campaign - but with the exact opposite message: take a bath rather than a shower, because it uses less water. So which campaign was right?
*Technically*, they both were. Why?
Baths in the US are generally speaking much smaller than their UK counterparts so they use less water. Ergo, if you shower in the US you'll use more water than if you take a bath, but if you shower in the UK you'll use less water than if you take a bath.
On the other hand, someone who is pulling your leg might well make an outrageous statement and justify it by saying "technically, blah, blah" just to wind you up. :) AncientBrit 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I think the vegetarian example is a weak one. A vegetarian may prefer steak, but choose not to eat it for religious or ethical reasons. Not vegetarian advocacy here -- it just doesn't seem like a good example. Maybe "No true vegetarian eats meat"? -- ESP 19:48 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, done. Evercat 20:11 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's still pretty problematic. Japanese vegetarian includes fish. So do "vegetarian" diets from certain parts of India (fish are the "fruit of the sea"). Fish also isn't vegetarian to traditional Catholics. Of course, goose used to be vegetarian, as well as several other "meats". It all depends on the definition of meat, and hundreds of millons of people in the world use (in their own languages) a different definition of meat, so it's a pretty weak example. Surely you can use something more solid than that. How about "No true atheist would believe in God."? -- Rei 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking perhaps to put that "No true vegetarian would eat a true beef steak." 64.90.198.6 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair today told the Parliamantary enquiry into the reasons for going to the Gulf War that he haadn't exagerated the threats from Iraq. He said

"That would be dishonest and if I had done something dishonest I would have resigned. But I haven't resigned" Seems like a very good example of this fallacy/argumentping 11:56, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. He's saying "if P then Q. Not Q, therefore not P" -- it's not terribly substantial, but it holds. -- Tarquin
Yes, the problem is he hasn't substantiated that he would have resigned. --128.211.218.162 01:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that scenes and subcultures rely heavily on the "no true scotsman" principle. Most people recognize arguments like no real punker/skater/hacker/etc. would be caught dead wearing/listening to/reading/etc. These arguments are often used in an attempt to keep the scene pure and exclusive. A strange twist to this is the hiphop scene, where four elements, (DJ's, MC's, Breakdance, Grafifity) should be an indication of a true hiphopper. But some VJ's try to advocate visuals as a fifth element presumably to gain entrance to the scene. "No true hiphopper can't go without these five elements, therefore a true hiphopper should hire a VJ for his underground party!" Neat way to secure a job. <Quirinus>

[edit] Using the fallacy fallaciously

I've seen the "No true Scotsman" fallacy used to do the very thing that makes it a fallacy in the first place:

Claim: Nowhere does God say to kill everyone you disagree with; no true Christian would do such a thing. Reply: That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You can't say "he's not a true Christian", because what really makes one a "Christian"? Thus, if one fundamentalist idiot goes on a killing spree in the name of Christianity, all Christians are guilty!

This sort of reminds me of misuse of the "Person-Who Fallacy". E.g. "No one supports this tax increase." Reply: "But I know a person who supports it." Rebuttal: "That's the Person-Who Fallacy. Just because one person supports it doesn't mean everyone does." Re-Rebuttal: "Um, I didn't claim everyone supported it... you only need one counterexample to prove your claim false." --Birdhombre 14:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, I've heard the No True Scotsman fallacy being condemned as overused:
"X claims that blowing up buses is not a true expression of Islam. However, X could say the same thing about any action that does not fit into his definition of Islam; the "No true Scotsman" fallacy can apply to anything that does not fit your definition of your religion, and therefore X remains ignorant of the truth." Which is unfair generalization of the worst sort.

Indeed; maybe the problem is assuming that being a Scotsman, or Muslim, or whatever, automatically implies a whole set of qualities outside the raw definition, which can in a way be seen as stereotyping, positive or negative. The truth is that every American from Martin Luther King to, say, Timothy McVeigh is (or was) "equally" American, and factors like moral qualities are irrelevant to "American-ness." (The same of course goes for every other group.) For more info on the idea raised in this section, see the Argument from fallacy, which in a sense can include iself. -- Lenoxus 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor examples

I find both the lesbian and the Christian examples to be not quite accurate. I removed the lesbian one, but it was restored. Here's what I think: this fallacy is basically a way to save face after someone makes a generalization that's too sweeping and is then corrected. It doesn't apply to someone who, from the beginning, wants to exclude someone from a group because they don't think this person belongs. The example of someone saying "no true lesbian dates men" is not relevant to this article, because it can be a firmly-held belief and not just a rhetorical device. An improvement might be a speaker saying "Every lesbian is pro-choice." Retort: "well, actually, Jane X is pro-life." "Well, no true lesbian is pro-life." Again, the key is rhetoric over an actual functional definition.

I'm willing to change this, I just want to make sure other people are on the same page. [Update: forgot to include my tag in here before - Korny O'Near 15:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)]

I agree there. Debating whether a lesbian is a lesbian if she sleeps with men is something directly related to its definition, whereas their stance on abortion is not... just as it would be fine to say "no ture pro-lifer supports abortion" but not "no true pro-lifer would choose to live in Ohio". The former directly relates to the definition of the term, whereas the latter would be a generalization. I guess the hangup is just with the use of the word "true": are there women out there just pretending to be lesbian, or are lesbian in name only? "True" is kinda redundant... or pointless. --Birdhombre 14:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There are no accepted definitions for most broad political or religious terms

In fact, defining these terms are often a political battleground. Refering to what a "true" Liberal or Christian may or may not do is not a post-hoc or ad-hoc change of the definition to win an argument, but an attempt to define the terms for the argument.

Please do not reinsert the old political and religious examples, except as examples of how the "no true Scotsman" term is abused. They are both semantically wrong and very much POV. --Per Abrahamsen 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's all about context here: was the "no true..." statement used without prompting, to make a point, or was it done in response to someone pointing out a flaw in a generalization? This fallacy only applies to the second case. So the context matters: in some cases, the very same statement could be either a "no true Scotsman" fallacy or not, depending on what prompted it. For instance, "no true conservative would vote for this tax increase". If one Politician A said it to Politician B to try to convince him/her to vote against a tax increase, then it might be hyperbole, but it's not an example of this fallacy. On the other hand, if that same Politician A said on a talk show, "no conservative is voting for this tax increase", then the host said "but Politician B is", then the politician responded, "well, no true conservative...", it would be an example of this fallacy. The difference is that the second case is concerned only with creating with creating an appearance of consensus; the first case is concerned with actually creating consensus. So yes, you can have it in a political context. Just brushing aside all uses of the fallacy in political and religious contexts doesn't make sense: that's where they're most often used, and the examples provided were valid ones.
If you want to replace them with examples that are less controversial, like "no true Mac user would use Microsoft Office" or the like, that's possible, but the article needs some sort of examples, not just a lengthy explanation of why the fallacy is supposedly not a fallacy at all. Korny O'Near 14:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If you are talking in the context of the UK (or Danish) political systems, where "conservative" would refer to a specific political party (we have card carrying conservatives), the Scotsman phrase applies. But not in the US political system, where the "conservative" label is ill-defined. The communist example would also be valid in a country with a strong (enough for membership to be the accepted definition of the term) communist party, or in a context where being a communist is not about party membership. I don't see it matters whether the statement is made in a talk-show or a private conversation. I always imagine the Scotsman example being made in a private setting (a parent trying to convince his son not to use sugar). What really matter is whether the speaker is trying defend a particular "valid" definition, or just adapting the definition to the circumstances.
"No true Scotsman" is an example, so I don't see a desperate need to give more. And I don't explain how the fallacy is not a fallacy. I explain how the fallacy is often applied on non-fallacies. --Per Abrahamsen 16:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Fine, I understand that that's what you're doing, but is it true that the fallacy label is often misapplied? I'd like to see an example of that. And I still think the Communist example is a perfectly good one: note that it's used on countries and governments, not people; so it has nothing to do with party membership. It's a speaker saying, "such-and-such government was not truly Communist", in order for the speaker to avoid having to account for the previous failings of the political system he/she is advocating. That's what my earlier example was about (forget the talk show bit): the fallacy is a way of making the world look simpler than it actually is. Korny O'Near 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It's probably worth pointing out that a socialist, and not without significant historical evidence, could easily claim that Mussolini and Hitler are examples of why Capitalism is Fascism, just as you're attempting to pin Stalin on Socialists. Of course, no true Capitalist would agree with Mussolini, but I think the removal of the reference to 'communism' is very wise, and your take on it is *very* POV.

[edit] Last paragraph

I do not see why it should be here.

Indeed. It is a great compliment to people like me, born and brought up in Scotland, but it is not truly necessary. Maybe it helps to explain the situation, though.--Zhengfu 10:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph is very odd. It certainly digresses from the point and seems to be written by someone that doesn't realise you traditionally add salt to Scottish porridge rather than sugar. So the sweetening is not only potentially weak but also goes against traditional behaviour (hence the "true" label). I suggest it's edited down considerably. Panlane --82.38.227.22 19:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The rant about sugar being potentially seen as feminine struck me as incredibly odd. I agree that it seems entirely out of place. Maybe I'll check back later and edit it down myself when I'm a bit more awake and alert. --Brad R. 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

After the editing which has converted the last paragraph into two, I vote to delete the current last paragraph. Dan Watts 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Badly written

I can't follow this lame unencyclopaedic prose.

You might try reading the Uncyclopedia. 64.90.198.6 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No true Wikipedian reads the Uncyclopedia! --Hugh7 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WHy does this article not reference a single source?Bless sins 12:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph after the contents, especially, seems very obscure and could perhaps be moved down as well as simplified. --Hugh7 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example?

"Captain, as a good Scotsman, I'm ashamed to admit that my knowledge of Milton is somewhat sketchy. " - Scottie from Star Trek. This seems like an excellent example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, used by an Canadian actor playing a Scotsman no less. The implication being that a good, or true, Scotsman would have knowledge of Milton (an English author).Steve 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/_/Talk%7ENo_true_Scotsman_aa4f.html"