Talk:No true Scotsman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
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] Removed Sections: What this fallacy is not

The article formerly contained sections which were confused, or at least confusing, on what exactly constitutes the NTS fallacy. The mere use of "true X" is not the fallacy; there can be an argument or assertion about who is a "true Christian" or who is a "true Communist" and that does not, in itself, constitute the fallacy; the distinction between a true and a nominal Christian is as valid as the distinction between an ethnic and a practicing Jew, for example. Like any informal fallacy, NTS can be considered a tactic of debate; its essence is that a term is redefined, after its use in an assertion, specifically to accommodate a counter-example to the assertion. Its function as a tactic of debate is to rebut a counter-example to an assertion: if there is no counter-example, there is no fallacy—not this fallacy, anyway. See also Korny's comment below.

The sections removed indicate a failure to understand this. They are, moreover, unverifiable interpretation. I would request that anyone who adds these sections again please attempt to rewrite them with the comments above in mind, or to cite some verifiable source. ——Jemmytc 14:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Except the counter examples are often implied.Hamishthetrue (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What the article needs is something on the motivation of the fallacy and it should be provided with all articles on fallacies: why do people commit them or this one in particular? What is the confusion at the heart of each of them? JB's filleting makes the article boring. I suggest JB rewrites with the idea in mind that wikipedia is about incremental improvement, not blanket negativity. 62.64.205.137 14:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I removed the content because it seemed to be erroneous, or at least to give the wrong impression. So please, excuse the blanket negativity! —Jemmytc 12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You should not have blanket negativity.Hamishthetrue (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't notice--you added the sections again! I'm sorry, but I'm going to remove again. Please don't add them back without rewriting; note that WP policy requires that contested material be cited and that this material seems to constitute original research. —Jemmytc 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamishthetrue: first of all, you are citing sources (a blog post, a personal essay on geocities without even a surname attached) which are not acceptable sources on wikipedia. More significantly, the sources you cite do not address the no true Scotsman fallacy. Your attribution of the fallacy to them is original research: if you wish to assert that something is an instance of the fallacy, you must back up that fact, at least if it is contested (and it is). Second, as I have tried to explain, this fallacy involves fundamentally neutralizing exceptions to a general statement by redefining the generalization. See An argument is a tree of inferences for the logical error inherent in the fallacy; note that the examples you provide do not evidence this error. See also the summary here (note that, unlike the previous article, this is not an acceptable source for this article, but its summary is very concise):

The manoeuvre of argumentation sometimes nicknamed the "no-true-Scotsman" move can be thought of as an example of stipulative reasoning. The manoeuvre is used as a counter-attack when a generalisation is falsified, in the following manner. Generatisation: No Scotsman is generous. Falsification: MacDonald is a Scotsman, and he is generous. Counter-attack: No true Scotsman is generous.

If you search the literature (that is, the literature on the fallacy) you will find that my impression of it is correct. Please do so. Please see WP:V for WP's standards for sources. Please stop accusing me of vandalism! I am only trying to increase the accuracy of the article. —Jemmytc 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is about "subjective redefinition" - that is blindingly obvious - you don't understand that redefinition of the same kind occurs when it does not hit you in the face. Go away and think about it, ask a teacher, and stop being a vandal. Hamishthetrue (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Just responding to my comments, without even indicating in any way that you have read them, is not discussion. Nobody said anything about "subjective redefinition," and you have not addressed anything I said, nor remedied the issues raised regarding WP:V. Please read that page and note that the burden is on you to justify your additions. —Jemmytc 02:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[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)


Further to this point, I've seen a lot of fallacious use of No True Scotsman used to entrentch a prior Straw Man fallacy, particularly in political debate.

It's not uncommon to hear supporters of capitalism to claim that the fact that the undemocratic command economy of the Soviet Union could not compete with the crony capitalist economy of the USA proves that Marxist theory is flawed. When confronted with the fact that Marx did not advocate an undemocratic planned economy, a common response is to fallaciously claim this to be a No True Scotsman.

Perhaps it might be appropriate to compare fallacious use of No True Scotsman to disputing the fact that no true Scotsman is born in Switzerland and culturally identifies as Swiss, can trace ten generations of ancestors who were born in Switzerland and culturally identified as Swiss, cannot speak or understand English in any Scottish accent, cannot answer basic questions about Scottish culture, and obtains a stolen Scottish passport to evade Swiss national service. Lindsay40k 15:22, 4 September 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)

The video engineer example needs to be changed. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not expert in the field. For example, it's not an appeal to authority to cite a biology on evolution or a climatologist on global warming. However, it's an appeal to authority to cite an engineer's (attempt) to refute evolution and/or evidence for Intelligent Design. I've made the appropriate changes to the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.161.140.3 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (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)

good is different than true. It just means that Scotsman are expected to know Milton, or value knowledge of him. not that if one does not know Milton he is not a Scotsman, or even not a good one. Rds865 (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Marker at top of page

Since this page does cite an external source, why does it have the marker at the top saying it doesn't ?

[edit] Question

Isn't this fallacy really about, in the simplest terms, falsely applying changeable behavior to a definition of something that isn't changeable? Being a Scotsman is not based upon behavior and is something that can never change. You're either a Scotsman by birth and forever after or you're not. Anything you chose to do in life will never change that.

Conversely, the fallacy cannot be accurately applied to things which are defined by behavior. The vegetarian example in the article exemplifies this. Being a vegetarian is based upon behavior. However, so is being a Christian, but that doesn't seem to stop certain people from trying to use this fallacy to counter arguments like, "Hitler wasn't a real Christian." Hitler's behavior was absolutely not in line with Christ's teachings, so it is not a fallacy to say that he wasn't a real Christian. 67.135.49.158 06:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The fallacy is that one alters the definition a group to defend an assertion about the group against an exception. It is fallacy precisely because it can be used to defend any assertion about any group from any exception. In order to be a fallacy, it is important that the form does not, in fact, serve to define the group; if, rather than "Hitler wasn't a real Christian," one said, "A Christian is someone who behaves in a Christ-like fashion, which Hitler did not," one would have an unreasonable and nonstandard definition of 'Christian,' and might be accused of changing one's tune, but would not invoke the fallacy, because the earlier assertion, "Hitler was no Christian" would still be properly defined (though redefined). If one utters, unadorned, "But Hitler wasn't a real Christian," one has still failed to assert anything about Hitler, because 'Christian' is still undefined. —Jemmytc 04:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is about redefining groups, but when committing the fallacy, people think there is such an entity as a 'true Christian' or a 'real Christian' besides 'unsatisfactory Christians'. The fallacy concerns feelings about 'truth' and 'reality' - not everything in philosophy reduces to simple group theory. The article should address this. The whole subject is more complicated than you think. It is a common thing in philosophy for people to hit on a 'clear view' of a subject and then go blind to all the further complications. 62.64.205.137 14:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
People may think that way, but that has nothing to do with the fallacy. Anyway, you keep adding back these unreferenced sections! Please cut it out. —Jemmytc 13:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
SO you suggest it is OK if it is renamed "No Red Scotsman"? "No Honest Scotsman"? And the sections were referenced (with allowances for copyright) -- 62.64.202.58 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is "Scotsman" assumed to be defined, but not "Christian?" Seems a bit biased to me. 67.135.49.158 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
JB, do make a case, because so far you have contributed nothing except a blinkered and simplistic view of things. And what you said above is wrong. Hamishthetrue (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, do make a case.Hamishthetrue (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
JB. There is no OR in the article. That is just your excuse for vandalism. There is not a single fact that can't be checked. An article cannot simple repeat the sources. There has to be some dot-to-dot.Hamishthetrue (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jemmy Button

Stop being a vandal. Hamishthetrue (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expand

This doesn't really explain what it is very well or how it's used. It needs some examples and secondary-source commentary or something. — Omegatron 23:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a much better description:

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm — Omegatron 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs expanding. And it needs someone to suspend Jemmy Button, who keeps vandalizing the article (3RR?) - despite the fact that other editors are trying to improve it. 62.64.206.132 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not vandalism; it's revert warring. Using the word "vandalism" for things that are not vandalism dilutes the meaning of our policies against it. Please discuss your changes here instead of revert warring with each other. Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not — Omegatron 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We can see that Jemmy Button is the only person who is reverting against the consensus of all the other editors. Hamishthetrue (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this original research?

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

If this wasn't the example given when the phrase "No true Scotsman" was coined by Antony Flew, then is this a story made up by a Wikipedian? If so it should be removed immediately per WP:NOR.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Our phrasing suggests that this is what Flew actually wrote; I will check when I have time, and add a citation. But the real question is: does it correctly represent usage of the no True Scotsman argument, as it probably does? We are allowed to explain things, you know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doxa.com reference

I'm not sure but does 'We can say "no true Christian would be anti-Semitic" since Christ was Semitic.' contain a logical fallacy in itself because it assumes that these Christians wouldn't be performing logical fallacies themselves? Also, the spelling in the article is atrocious like 'coulee' for 'could' and 'lad' for I don't know what.

What is the purpose of its citation anyway? Munci (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Doxa.com self published? second, it kinda makes an argument that Christians don't really use the NTSF. That is just like a vegetarian, does not eat meat, a Christian doesn't believe there is no God. There are multiple definitions of Christian, so it becomes confused. That is to trinitarians, nontrinitarians aren't true Christians, because they don't prescribe to true Christianity. As for the true Communist part, the term is more broad. Mainly these are cases sub groups, or even different groups with the same name. Rds865 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At first I got a totally different site because whoever added the reference in the first place had added 'doxa.com' as a title but 'doxa.ws' as a reference. I really can't tell if it's self-published or what because it has no 'About Us' section and I've not seen the site other than the reference here. It doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else on wikipedia whatsoever so I doubt it's a credible source. You've already deleted it anyway so any problem is already solved. Munci (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "un-American" under McCarthyism as an example of the fallacy

Surely the all time classic example of the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy has to be the use of the term "un-American" during the McCarthy period, when all sorts of people were denounced as not being true Americans because some aspect of their political beliefs differed from those of the government. I think this is such a well known and obvious example that there should be a reference to it (probably after the bit about Patton's quote), but before I add anything does anyone have any views? Kbathgate (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morality as a consequence rather than as a focus

I get the impression from the article as a whole that the morality of being called "true" in the meaning of "good" is really at the centre of the 'No true Scotsman fallacy' - but I do not see how 'No True Scotsman' by necessity would have anything to do with defining people as good or evil. The argument:

Argument: No dogs run up ladders. Reply: My dog runs up ladders. Rebuttal: I meant to say, no real dog runs up ladders.

..is fully a 'no true scotsman' argument, but there is no moral dimension to whether dogs run up ladders or not. Overall the issue is complicated and it feels like the article needs compiling into a more comprehensive and contiguous whole, but I'm not sure how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.66.11 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giant revert

There may have been good changes in the article since my giant revert. Someone could merge those back in, maybe. The old change I reverted was added without discussion, after the page had been locked at my request to prevent edit warring. Now you are edit warring again. I knew that the lock wouldn't do anything. But it's all I could get the administrators to do. Maybe they will do something else about it now... —Jemmytc 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not if you don't explain yourself better. I really don't understand what you find objectionable in the current version. Mangojuicetalk 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been explained before. The discussion is on this page. The current version of the page is just a bunch of folk psychological speculation on the part of Hamish. None of it derives from any writing about this fallacy. Hamish has inserted fake references in response to objections of WP:OR. I don't really care about this article, but it's sort of a test of WP in my mind: can I save No True Scotsman? Can an ordinary person do anything to keep rubbish out of an article—a minor article with few readers or writers—without checking in to revert every day? Perhaps the results are in at this point. I've spent too much time already; and now I'm explaining myself, redundantly, to you... —Jemmytc 09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think I see what you were talking about. I removed the video engineer example because it was (1) superfluous and (2) not really the same, as the laity of the speaker was an important point there but is not in the "No true Scotsman" example. I also removed the "no decent person" example; it seems quite different to me, first, because "decent" is obviously a meaningful qualifier whereas "true" seems less meaningful, which contributes to the deceptiveness of the argument, and also "person" is not a role whereas "Scotsman" is. In any case, Jemmy, if you simply call changes like these "vandalism" then you're the only one who really knows what is wrong with them, and it's rather incivil. Mangojuicetalk 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't look at the page, so I don't know what changes you kept. The whole section on the psychology of the fallacy is unacceptable in WP: it is all just made up. I guess "vandalism" is just meant to be a sort of threat. As if there were any way of blocking Hamish. Anyway he is continuing this edit war, after the page protection, and he's still not talking, except to call me "a shallow, selfish fool"... Have fun with it. —Jemmytc 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)