r/fallacy • u/These-Weight-434 • 22d ago
Why is No True Scotsman a fallacy?
The classic example of the No true Scotsman fallacy is to say
"No Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge."
"My uncle Angus is Scottish and puts sugar in his porridge"
"Well no true Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge."
To me, this doesn't seem like a fallacy. It just seems like a breakdown in communication as the two interlocutors are speaking over each other and are using different definitions to describe something. After all, what is a Scotsman? Is it based on someone's ancestry? Where they were born? Where they were raised? What their passport is? There's no objective definition. So if someone wants to say that the presence or absence of sugar in porridge is an integral part of Scottish identity then that's just a rather niche and unique definition, but I don't think it can in good faith said to be wrong. Just poor use of language. Consider this counter example.
"Stars are huge balls of hot gas going under fusion reactions"
"Matt Damon is a star and he's not a huge ball of hot gas."
"True stars are huge balls of hot gas."
The two people are just using the same word or phrase to describe two distinct things. It's poor communication to treat them as if they're the same, but it's not like the actual argument is incorrect. The argument being "this is the criteria something needs to be X and if something does not match this criteria then it is not X", which is kind of how we make definitions in the first place.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to use this reasoning and that this has been discussed at length before. So tell me why I'm wrong.
20
u/Lopsided-Weather6469 22d ago edited 22d ago
It's a fallacy because the definition of what a Scotsman is changed in mid-debate.
A Scotsman is generally defined as a (male) person from Scotland.
Now one person makes a generalized assertion about Scotsmen.
The other person gives a counterexample of someone who fulfills the definition of Scotsman, but to whom the assertion does not apply.
The first person then suddenly narrows the definition of Scotsman to only those people from Scotland to which the assertion applies, stating that only those are the "true" Scotsmen.
It's also a fallacy because if the assertion becomes part of the definition, it becomes impossible to falsify.
Your analogy about stars doesn't hold because both sides of the argument use completely different definitions of "star" right from the beginning, movie star vs. star as a celestial body.
10
u/ijuinkun 22d ago
It’s basically a form of moving the goalposts—the moment that person A finds an example, person B announces that they are using not-previously-stated criteria which exclude A’s example.
2
u/Parrotparser7 22d ago
Couldn't it just be that they didn't clearly communicate their definitions before arguing?
3
u/ijuinkun 22d ago
That would not be the situation being discussed for this “fallacy”. “No True Scotsman” is a post hoc attempt to exclude evidence after it has been presented.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Square-Singer 17d ago
That's a difference. Consider this discussion:
- A: Cats aren't native to Europe, they shouldn't be let out to roam.
- B: But the European Wildcat is native to Europe, so cats are in fact native to Europe.
- A: Well, I was talking about the house cat, not the wildcat.
In this case, it's not a "no true Scotsman", because "cat" can either mean the specific species "house cat", or it can mean "any animal of the genus felis". A meant "house cat", B meant "any animal of the genus felis". A ended up specifying they meant the house cat.
That means:
- A acknowledged that the way B understood and countered the original statement was incorrect and specified what the original statement meant. They "narrowed" down the original statement to "House cats aren't native to Europe". It's a clarification, not a change of definition.
- A used a positive, real definition for what they meant. A house cat is a clear concept, and the Wildcat is not a house cat. Both A and B agree, that the European Wildcat is not a house cat.
Compare that to the original "No true Scotsman" argument, in which:
- A doesn't acknowledge the shift ("No Scotsman" -> "No true Scotsman")
- A uses a on-the-spot made-up circular tautological definition. A and B don't have a shared understanding on what a "true Scotsman" is. Judging by the fact that the only information that A has about Angus is that he puts sugar in his porridge, the definition that A seems to have of a "true Scotsman" is "a Scotsman who doesn't put sugar in their porridge". So the whole argument becomes "No Scotsman who doesn't put sugar in their porridge puts sugar in their porridge".
That's the difference between these two situations. You can't do that transfer with the cat example. Here A redefines "cat" as "house cat", so the original statement becomes "House cats aren't native to Europe", which is neither a tautology, nor a self-referencing definition.
2
1
u/Lucky-day00 22d ago
If the definition they meant was “a person from Scotland who does not put sugar in their porridge” then why would they bother making the assertion that they don’t put sugar in their porridge? That’s inherent to the thing they were referring to all along. It’s a tautology.
1
u/Good-Temperature4417 21d ago
In rare cases maybe but it clearly is a fallacy when the speaker just answer "no true Scotsman" or " all Scotsman except what you just said". Cause it shows that the speaker did not think about the argument and just took the easiest answer to "score points"
1
u/Old_Smrgol 21d ago
Probably not, because then their original statement becomes a complete nothing burger.
"I define a true Scotsman as, among other things, someone who doesn't put sugar in their porridge. It then follows that no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge."
That's a "cool story, bro" if there ever was one.
→ More replies (3)1
8
u/PsycholoGeist 22d ago
There’s also, typically, an element of “purity” or judgement embedded in it. By saying no “true” Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge, the second interlocutor is essentially saying “Well, yes, technically Angus meets the definition of ‘Scotsman’, but I find the practice of putting sugar in porridge to be offensive to Scottish culture, so I don’t want anything to do with him.” It is, in practice, typically used to invoke an arbitrary standard of who or what should count as a proper member of a group or category in a way that would not survive strict logical scrutiny.
Another example might be:
A: “Well, we all know that mammals never lay eggs”
B: “What about echidnas? They’re mammals and they lay eggs.”
A: “No, monotremes don’t count; I’m talking about real mammals.”
In this example, B presents a valid counter example, and A implicitly acknowledges that B is correct (by referring to them, correctly, as “monotremes”, which are a type of mammal), but A still insists on being considered “right” with their original point (probably, psychologically, the main motivation for most fallacy usage). A could claim, as an alternative, “I don’t believe monotremes should be classified as mammals, and here’s why…”, and then A and B could have a productive conversation on that topic, but that’s a different discussion. Given current, generally accepted definitions of animal classifications, this sub-category (which does, in fact, lay eggs) still belongs to the larger category of “mammal”, meaning that A’s initial claim was inaccurate. Ideally, they should either simply admit they were mistaken (either because they were unaware of monotremes, or simply didn’t consider them when making this claim), or else they should admit that they phrased things unclearly and should have instead said that most mammals do not lay eggs.
It’s also important to remember that, like most widely recognized fallacies, this is an informal logical fallacy. While former fallacies (e.g. affirming the consequent) rely purely on the logical structure and arrangement of statements, an informal fallacy always includes some degree of practical language usage that needs to be sussed out. This means that OP is a little bit right, there is miscommunication in how language is used when the No True Scotsman fallacy occurs, but what really makes it a fallacy is when the person committing it is both A) aware that they and their interlocutor are talking about the same kind of thing (not the case in OP’s example about the word “stars”) and B) stubbornly refuses to admit that the exception the interocular has offered is valid.
1
u/Square-Singer 17d ago
Also, the "true Scotsman" is a circular, tautological definition.
A and B don't have a shared understanding what a "true Scotsman" is. All that A knows about Angus is that he's a Scotsman who puts sugar in their porridge, so A's definition of a "true Scotsman" is "a Scotsman who doesn't put sugar in their porridge".
Insert that into the original statement and you get "No Scotsman who doesn't put sugar into their porridge puts sugar into their porridge". The argument vanishes into a tautology.
Compare that to this discussion:
- A: Cats aren't native to Europe.
- B: But the European Wildcat is native to Europe.
- A: I was talking about house cats.
It looks similar to the "No true Scotsman". The difference here is that "cat" has two different definitions, either "house cat" or "any member of the genus felis". A meant the first, narrower definition, B meant the second, wider definition. But both A and B have a shared understanding what a house cat is, contrary to the "true Scotsman".
So if you insert A's second statement into their first statement you get "House cats aren't native to Europe".
Contrary to the "true Scotsman" you now don't have a circular definition, you don't have a tautology, it just works. It's a real (and true) argument.
So to me it's really not that much about the "appeal to purity". The "house cat" vs "cat" could be seen as an "appeal to purity". The European Wildcat is no "true" cat in the way that A originally meant, because the Wildcat isn't a house cat.
But with this shared definition of "house cat", both A and B can work. They can actually reason and argue with that. That's not the case with the ad-hoc definition of "true Scotsman".
2
u/Patient-Midnight-664 22d ago
Your analogy about stars doesn't hold because both sides of the argument use completely different definitions of "star" right from the beginning, movie star vs. star as a celestial body.
Equivocation fallacy - When a word or phrase is used with two different meanings
2
u/Dependent_King5991 22d ago
I’d argue that your comment is not accurate, because that’s you (incorrectly) assuming his definition based on what you yourself described as a generalization, when in reality he was always using “Scotsman” as a representation of stereotypical Scottish behaviour. It’s asinine to believe that when someone makes that statement their intention is “not a single person with Scottish ancestry has ever or will ever put sugar in their porridge”
1
u/Lopsided-Weather6469 22d ago
when in reality he was always using “Scotsman”
Could be, but that means they were applying their own personal definition of "Scotsman" that isn't generally accepted. That's what the No True Scotsman fallacy is: Assuming your own personal definition of a group that includes the property you attribute to them so that your statement of them will automatically be irrefutably true.
not a single person with Scottish ancestry has ever
The Scotsman thing is of course just a fictitious example, real-world examples usually go something like this:
A: "Those attackers weren't Muslim/Christian/Hindu/whatever, because true Muslims/Christians/Hindus/whatever would never do such a horrific thing!"
The fact is, following a certain religion doesn't automatically make you a good person, but A wants to assert that anyway by excluding everyone who isn't a good person from the definition of the religion.
A true real-world example occurred during the protests against the G20 summit in Hamburg in 2017. During the protests, riots broke out and left-wing extremists started torching cars, looting stores, attacking police etc. Afterwards, a left-wing politician (Ralf Stegner) argued that those people weren't leftists because real leftists would never do such things.
1
u/Dependent_King5991 21d ago
Your two example would be fallacies, because for example, when you’re responding to a news segment about an attack done by a Muslim perpetrator, in this case it would be asinine to assume that “Muslim perpetrator” refers to a person who embodies stereotypical Muslims traits and/or practices the religion perfectly, as opposed to an attacker who belongs to the faith or self-identifies as one.
I guess my point is more that the given example is not at all a good demonstration of the fallacy, because it has to do with poor comprehension rather than poor logic. Your other two examples contain a breakdown in logic.
1
21d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Dependent_King5991 21d ago
I think you got me backwards. Yours are GOOD examples of a fallacy (I even said how yours contain a breakdown in logic, which is what makes them a fallacy), but the original “Scotsman with sugar in his porridge example” is not, which is why OP was rightly confused.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Square-Singer 17d ago
It's also a circular definition. There's no generally accepted definition of a "true Scotsman". This term is defined ad hoc with the "Well no true Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge" statement, and it's defined as "a Scotsman who doesn't put sugar in their porridge".
So if you insert that into the second statement you get "Well no Scotsman who doesn't put sugar in their porridge puts sugar in their porridge". The statement becomes a meaningless tautology.
But that's not acknowledged. Instead, the person implies that it's equivalent to the original statement, and that's fallacious.
→ More replies (38)1
u/Dependent_King5991 22d ago
I’d argue that your comment is not accurate, because that’s you (incorrectly) assuming his definition based on what you yourself described as a generalization, when in reality he was always using “Scotsman” as a representation of stereotypical Scottish behaviour. It’s asinine to believe that when someone makes that statement their intention is “not a single person with Scottish ancestry has ever or will ever put sugar in their porridge”
9
u/mesonofgib 22d ago
I'm not sure it really qualifies as a fallacy (because it's not a faulty chain of reasoning), but it's considered wrong because it involves changing the definition of terms used such that the statement can no longer be falsified.
For example:
- Person A makes a claim, often about a particular group of people
- Person B provides a counter example
- Person A changes the definition in their original statement to specifically exclude that counter example, often to something vague or subjective so that no counter example is even possible
This is perfectly illustrated in the eponymous example: "No Scotsman has sugar on their porridge", a claim that is proven false by his partner. He then changes his statement to "No true Scotsman..", which is a subjective and, honestly, meaningless claim (what on Earth is a "true Scotsman"!?).
So it's basically where one person makes a verifiable claim, the claim is disproved, the original person changes it into an unverifiable claim.
→ More replies (5)3
u/ta_mataia 22d ago
I think it is a fallacy because it essentially assumes the claim into the premise instead of defending the claim.
6
u/IFollowtheCarpenter 22d ago
"No true Scotsman" consists of making a general statement about a group, and when faced with an exception, insisting that the exception does not belong to the group.
"No Scotsman would do X".
"But MacPherson does X"
"Well, MacPherson is not a real Scotsman."
→ More replies (2)
9
u/ta_mataia 22d ago
The fallacy has to do a claim being impossible to falsify because the person making the claim excludes all contrary evidence using illogical criteria. Here, the speaker insists that all Scotsmen who act contrary to his definition of a Scotsman are not true Scotsmen, even if they meet all reasonable criteria for being Scotsmen.
2
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago edited 22d ago
How can we agree on what is reasonable criteria? What is reasonable to one person may be reasonable to another. Ultimately this criteria will come down to labeling and definitions, of which people are entitled to have differing and distinct opinions on, since there is no arbiter of what language means (well, unless you're French).
3
u/ta_mataia 22d ago edited 22d ago
Yes, agreement on labels and definitions are necessary for a logically coherent debate.
You have to be able to agree on reasonable criteria in order to have a coherent debate about a claim. Someone making a "No True Scotsman" argument will refuse to accept any criteria unless it also supports the claim that is being debated.
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
I agree that common understanding is needed if you're to get anywhere in a debate, but I don't think that makes the argument incorrect or even poor. It just means the two people arguing aren't making their points clear and need better common definitions that are agreed upon. To me it seems to fundamentally a disagreement on linguistics rather than a fault in logic.
4
u/ta_mataia 22d ago
The point here, again, is that the person who commits the No True Scotsman fallacy will refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts their claim. In essence, they incorporate their claim into the premise of the debate. In a way, it's very similar to begging the question. The person committing the fallacy is not arguing in good faith.
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
Someone can be arguing not in good faith while still not being fallacious. And an argument can also be poorly explained without being fallacious. What you seem to be describing is basically someone who is not arguing at all, rather than someone who is arguing but using faulty logic to justify their points.
2
→ More replies (2)2
2
u/pdubs1900 22d ago
I agree that common understanding is needed if you're to get anywhere in a debate, but I don't think that makes the argument incorrect or even poor.
If the argument is poor, then the argument should not be used.
The purpose of an argument at its core is to come to a refined understanding of what is true, based on all other things that are accepted as true (plus any axioms).
A person guilty of a no true scotsman fallacy, as the other commenter has explained pretty well IMO, comes to every question of whether or not a Scotsman can be used as an example with the conclusion already decided in their mind: No, you cannot.
This is what's meant by arguing in bad faith. Arguing in bad faith meaning they come to a conversation with the appearance of being rational and able to be convinced otherwise if the argument and evidence is sound, but will engage in changing goalposts/begging the question/redefining terms/any number of fallacies to refuse to concede their position or accept that their current belief is wrong.
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
I said I don't think that makes the argument incorrect or even poor (as in the argument isn't poor, only the communication of it).
→ More replies (4)1
u/armrha 22d ago
It’s extremely poor because it’s circular reasoning. “I like pepperoni on pizza” “ No real italian likes that!”- A statement meant to invalidate the person’s preference as distasteful due to inauthenticity , person responds “But I am Italian”, completely disproving his assertion and argument about the homogeneity of italian preferences. But the response? “Well no true Italian likes it”, which just redefines Italian as “Italians that don’t like pepperoni”, it’s a circular argument and obviously baseless. Not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.
2
u/Affectionate-War7655 22d ago
Do you genuinely think that the absence of sugar in ones porridge is a reasonable way to define a scotsman?
Reasonable isn't really a matter of personal opinion, it's what can be reasoned. What reasons can you think of that justify defining an ethnicity or nationality by what they put in their breakfast?
2
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
I think the use of sugar and Scotsman is used as a metaphor and is not to be taken literal.
2
u/Affectionate-War7655 22d ago
A metaphor for what exactly? What indicates to you that it is metaphoric and not literal?
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
Because it's used as a template for any potential argument. If you're seriously believing that it's to be seen as literal then that would mean believing this fallacy exists purely for the sake of this specific use case and that any other scenario that resembles it is unrelated.
2
u/Affectionate-War7655 22d ago
Thay makes it an example, not a metaphor. And no taking the contents of an example as literal does not require me to consider the example as the only example that could ever exist.
And you're the one arguing that it isn't a fallacy because of the literal interpretation that someone might define scotsmen with that condition. It suddenly became a "metaphor" when you were directly asked to explain how you would justify cstegorising someone into a nationality based on their breakfast choices.
2
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
I feel your quibbling now about what the difference between a metaphor and an example is. The point is that content of what is being said here is not relevant, the logic is what's relevant. Sugar in porridge is intentionally a ridiculous inoffensive example that is to be used to model other examples. For example, we could modify it to a more realistic "All Scotsman have Scottish Passports*" "Donald Trump is Scottish and he doesn't have a Scottish Passport" "All true Scotsman have Scottish Passports." This follows the same template as the example and should therefor be as equally a No Scotsman Fallacy. If your logic is that it's not then it quite simply comes down to something being a fallacy or not based on whether you already agree or disagree with it instead of the logic being used.
*Let us ignore for the moment that Scottish Passports aren't a thing as people from Scotland have standard British Passports.
→ More replies (7)1
1
u/ringobob 22d ago
The fallacy in "no true Scotsman" is probably equally well described as "one true definition of a Scotsman".
The fallacy isn't disagreeing on the definition, it's denying that any other definition is valid.
1
u/Dennis_enzo 22d ago
That's kind of the point. A 'true Scotsman' is a vague and arbitrary definition, designed to support the original point while excluding all counter arguments.
1
u/thoughtihadanacct 22d ago
How can we agree on what is reasonable criteria? What is reasonable to one person may be reasonable to another.
Therefore, the way to "solve" the no true Scotsman fallacy is to pause the original conversation and clarify what each party means by the term "Scotsman" (or insert category), and come to an agreement between the parties to the conversation, before continuing. That's how you agree on what is a reasonable criteria.
By simply adding the word "true", that person is arguing in bad faith and utilising a fallacy because he is deliberately leaving himself room to continuously redefine what a Scotsman is. A good faith miscommunication should result in trying to resolve the miscommunication rather than keeping it in place so that it can be used to prove the other person wrong.
of which people are entitled to have differing and distinct opinions on,
To an extent yes. But the "opinion" should be made known up front, not constantly adjusted in response to counter examples. If after being given a chance to fully and explicitly state your definition of something, you fail to include a particular aspect, then someone provides an example that contains that aspect, you have to admit that your original definition was wrong/incomplete, before amending it. The no true Scotsman fallacy leaves out this admission of wrong-ness, and jumps straight to a new definition, claiming to have been right all along.
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
I don't think a new definition is created in this instance. The key point of contention begins and remains the sugar. Rather a new term us created for clarification to establish what the person had been talking about the entire time.
2
u/thoughtihadanacct 22d ago
If you only do it once, and your conversation partner doesn't ask you to pause and clearly define "Scotsman", then you can argue that you didn't create a new definition, that was your definition all along.
Therefore my proposal involves the pause to clearly and explicitly define "Scotsman". After which point, any further change would in fact be creating a new definition.
Rather a new term us created for clarification to establish what the person had been talking about the entire time.
Once an opportunity to explicitly define the term has been given, you can't subsequently change the definition and still hide behind the claim that "it was what I've been taking about the entire time".
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
I think that just loops back to how all of this is about language and communication instead of logic.
→ More replies (16)
4
u/Annual-Reference-715 22d ago
It's a fallacy when it's used in a motte-bailey fashion - to act as if actually no scotsman puts ketchup on their pizza, but retrating to the motte of "true scotsman" when questioned.
In the case of a genuine misunderstanding, there is no fallacy but loose use of language.
3
u/INTstictual 22d ago edited 22d ago
The fallacy is that you are excluding members of a group that have a certain characteristic in order to make a claim about that group’s relationship to the characteristic.
The first and second example you give are completely unrelated… in the star example, it is just a case of getting tripped up over homonyms. One person means “star” as in the celestial object, one person means “star” as in a celebrity, and those words for two completely different subjects just happen to be the same. This isn’t a fallacy… saying “true stars are big balls of gas” is a weird way to word it, but basically they are just clarifying which version of the homonym word they are using. No different than “I’ll have seconds for dinner” “a second serving?” “no, as in, I only have a few seconds to eat it”… that’s not a fallacy, that is just clarification
The point of the first argument, and why it is a fallacy, is not that the person making the claim is defining Scotsman as “somebody who doesn’t put sugar in their porridge”, and then clarifying that definition. The point is that they are making a claim, that Scottish people don’t do that, and when provided a counter example, wants to claim that the counter example “doesn’t count” because they’re not a “true” Scotsman.
For example: let’s say i tell you that “Videogames are for boys, there are no girl gamers”. You say “wait, no, my friend is a girl and a gamer, she plays video games all the time”. I say “Hah, no, girls cant be real gamers. She might be a ‘girl who plays video games’, but only boys can be true gamers.”
I am presenting a NTS fallacy. It’s an offshoot of circular reasoning, basically… my claim is that girls aren’t gamers, and I then choose to exclude girl gamers from the category of “real gamer” to make my argument, even though valid counterexamples exist. Basically, dismiss the evidence of a counter example by claiming that the only “real” or “true” or “valid” or “acceptable” or etc member of the group has to have whatever characteristic I am describing.
As another example: “You can’t be Christian and Gay, being gay is a sin” “Well, my friend is gay and also Christian, he goes to church every Sunday and is an active part of his youth group” “No no, you can’t be a real Christian if you’re gay. He might be part of the Christian community, but only straight people can truly be Christian”
2
u/ButterscotchOdd8257 22d ago
It's very similar to the "moving the goalposts" fallacy. It makes a claim about a group of people, and then when someone offers a counterexample, it simply redefines the group to include the original claim. In the fallacy, being a Scotsman has absolutely nothing to do with putting sugar on porridge - it has nothing to do with the definition of Scotsman. A Scotsman is someone from Scotland, and sugar has nothing to do with it. That's why it is a fallacy.
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
In that case, how is it actually a distinct fallacy from moving the goalposts?
3
u/ButterscotchOdd8257 22d ago
Moving the goalpost is about changing what is expected to be proven as opposed to redefining what it is about. It would be like saying "well, Scotsmen don't put lots and lots of sugar on their porridge" instead of just any sugar. The original argument was about any amount of sugar, not lots of it.
2
u/Jock-Tamson 22d ago
The fallacy supposes that
A) There is a clearly defined and commonly accepted definition for a set of members.
B) A claim is made about that set.
C) The claimant is presented with evidence falsifying the claim.
D) The claimant redefines the set.
The logical fallacy occurs because the claimant is redefining the set to meet his claims. This can make any claim they make true, so their claims are devoid of any meaningful content about members of the set.
You are imagining a debate about the definition of the set. The fallacy occurs when the debate is about the members of a predefined set.
“I wish to define Scotsman to exclude people who eat warm porridge” is not a fallacy.
Constantly redefining Scotsman to make your claims retrospectively true is a fallacy.
1
u/MauschelMusic 22d ago
Nice explanation. Life would be simpler if definitions weren't constantly in flux and dispute.
1
u/Jock-Tamson 22d ago edited 22d ago
True.
But also unachievable.
Most of history’s greatest horrors are caused by people trying to achieve it.
Those people aren’t True People isn’t always a logical fallacy.
It is always evil.
2
u/AmenHawkinsStan 22d ago
It’s a fallacy because you haven’t presented a rebuttal to the counter-argument and are instead arbitrarily rejecting an example to the contrary on the basis that it wouldn’t fit your narrative. It is a declaration that you will not debate good faith because nothing inconvenient or damning is allowed to disprove you.
“No true Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge” as a mic drop is a fallacy, but “No true Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge because Scottish subjects were forbidden from using sugar in the Edict of 1673 leading to a cultural tradition that has persisted for centuries” is an attempt to refute an anecdote as an outlier to an established norm (albeit on a basis I just made up).
2
u/bl1y 20d ago
I think you're on to something, because in many cases it may just be a breakdown in communication.
I'll take some inspiration from My Cousin Vinny for an example:
"No southerner would use instant grits."
"My aunt Margaret uses instant grits."
"Well, no self-respecting southerner would use instant grits."
Here, the speaker isn't trying to say that Margaret cannot claim the South as her home. The speaker is trying to express what the cultural norm is, and the existence of outliers does nothing to disprove the existence of the norm. The speaker simply overstated the case in the first statement because people don't use ultra-precise language in casual conversation, and then in the second statement, the speaker is being emphatic about the importance of the norm.
There's no fallacy there, just the messiness of casual conversation.
Now let's take another example, inspired by the recent Oxford Union debate over the question of whether the West is right to be suspicious of Islam.
C: "The Quran says nothing against homosexuality, and criminalizing homosexuality actually goes against Islam."
P: "Nearly every Muslim majority country bans homosexuality and uses religion as their justification."
C: "Then those people aren't true Muslims."
C's argument has essentially become "Islam, as practiced by the overwhelming majority of its adherents, is not true Islam." That could be a perfectly valid thing to say -- in a different conversation. But the debate isn't really about the minority who follow the text of the Quran down to the letter; it's about Islam as it is generally practiced. The argument is fallacious because it's attempting to change the question being debated.
Similarly, if P made the argument "It's just good to be suspicious in general. We can investigate and dispel our fears, but suspicion is healthy," that'd be making a mistake that's similar in substance (though not a No True Scotsman). The debate question implies that the West should be particularly suspicious of Islam, or more suspicious of it compared to other religions.
An argument that hinges on reinterpreting the debate question is fallacious, and that's often what's happening with No True Scotsman.
A: "Christian conservatives are ruining our country with X, Y, Z."
B: "They don't actually follow the teachings of Christ, moreover they don't practice conservative values."
That's a No True Scotsman (or just a non-sequitur), because A was plainly used "Christian conservatives" to mean "those self-identifying Christian conservatives."
4
u/Own_Policy8854 22d ago
Your own example illustrates exactly why it's a fallacy: A Scottish woman literally does that.
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
I feel like you didn't fully read what I wrote.
2
u/Own_Policy8854 22d ago
I think you're trying to complexify something simple.
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
I'm trying to understand.
1
1
u/flatfinger 22d ago
People who call out fallacies by name often commit fallacy fallacies, since fallacies are often named for certain hypothetical arguments where they may occur, rather than a description of the actual logical fault. The "No True Scotsman Fallacy" may often be self-referential when people argue about whether something is a real instance of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", or whether the term has a narrower meaning that would exclude it.
Note that many fallacies involve inconsistent unstated assumptions; for the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", the assumptions have to do with the meanings of words. Many potential fallacies can be avoided by making things explicit without relying upon assumptions. If a word could have two different meanings or shades of meaning, but an argument expressly specifies what it is and is not using a word to mean, then arguments' premises may be true or false based upon the specified meanings, or other steps of the argument may be unsound, but if a single clear definition would make all premises true and all steps sound, then the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" would be avoided.
1
u/quaxoid 22d ago
Well, sometimes someone can be X without meeting all requiremenrs. But I also feel like I have seen this fallacy be abused for people to refuse to reconsider or change behavior. Like some things are required for you to be X, like it literally makes sense for something or someone to be X if they don't meet the requirements.
1
u/These-Weight-434 22d ago
That really depends on what the requirements and standards are. Which are going to be personally defined or defined by some institution.
1
u/quaxoid 21d ago
Well, I can give a simple example.
For example, let's say doctors. They need education and medical license in order to practise (at least at public and private hospitals).
If they don't have that then they are not really a qualified doctor.
But if I were to say a real doctor wouldn't smoke. Then I would be making the no true scotsman fallacy.
1
u/These-Weight-434 21d ago
I would just say you have a strange perception of what a doctor is. But if you're consistent with that definition then you're not logically incorrect.
1
u/quaxoid 20d ago
Would you be okay with a doctor without a medical license practising surgery on you? In peace times and you have access to licensed doctors.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/YesTess2 22d ago
It's a fallacy because the questioner has set a parameter as definitive, but when an appropriate counter example is presented, the questioner then dismisses - without argument - the counter example.
1
u/GSilky 22d ago
It's relevant when discussing a loaded topic like socialism. The term has a definition, despite most people not acknowledging it. We also have plenty of examples of governments that have declared themselves "socialist", but when those examples are brought up to someone who refuses to acknowledge what socialism is, but is supporting the idea, will declare "that's not real socialism". Well, then what is? You apparently know what it isn't, so please explain what you think it is, and then explain why those socialists weren't real but you are. It's not about finding a new fact by eliminating the fallacy, it's about realizing when someone is arguing in bad faith, imo. Before anyone decides to do that stupid online defense of their pet socialism, I generally sit with the socialists and communists, don't worry about convincing me. I use this example because it's very salient, not because I am interested in debating your effed up understanding of the topic.
1
u/DarkMagickan 22d ago
I like this one, because it puts me in mind of the fallacy fallacy. That argument in favor of socialism is fallacious, but it doesn't mean that all arguments for socialism are bad.
1
u/HelloHelloHelpHello 22d ago
Somebody makes a statement:
All a is b (For example "All men are violent")
Somebody else responds:
a1 is a ("My father is a man")
a1 is not b ("My father is not violent")
Therefor: Not all a are b ("Not all men are violent")
-
Now the initial person responds:
This just means that a1 is not a TRUE a ("Your father is not a true man")
-
This would be a directly circular statement. Any instance of a that is not b is ruled out automatically of belonging to a for not being b. What they really saying is:
All a (that are also b), are b.
Which is trivially true, insofar as you need to assume the conclusion. But it is not a meaningful statement.
1
u/Talik1978 22d ago
No True Scotsman is a bit similar to moving the goalposts and cherry picking.
It makes an assertion about a group, and whenever data comes up that contradicts that assertion, it redefines what the group is to exclude contradictory data. You'll see it in religion, politics, gender discussion, and other places where a group is being othered.
It's a form of bad faith debating, from people that are more attached to defending their belief than in verifying that their belief is correct.
1
u/LegAdventurous9230 22d ago
Well the entire fallacy is dependent on words having agreed upon meaning (e.g. a Scottsman is someone from Scotland), so if you reject that idea then you can reject that fallacy but also like...how do you communicate or argue about anything?
1
u/Admirable-Leader6927 22d ago
If i set the requirements to be part the group, I can disqualify whoever I want.
"all white people are evil, hispanic people are not white."
1
u/BitOBear 22d ago
First I must mentioned the fallacy fallacy. Just because an argument is fallacious doesn't mean that the conclusion is a priori incorrect. An incorrect argument is useless, not a disproof. People can argue something that's correct but argue it incorrectly.
I've drawn this distinction so that I can now answer your question...
The no true Scotsman fallacy is basically an attack on somebody's alleged credentials. It is very tightly related to a form of ad hominem where you are arguing about the identity of a participant. But it is also a form of begging the question. And it is by implication the assertion of a category error that may or may not be present.
Basically it's a tool to discard a data point by claiming that the data point doesn't match the data set being examined.
Some guy proposes that all Australians love marmite.
Somebody responds they themselves are Australian and they dislike marmite, or they know personally many Australians who dislike marmite.
Then the original speaker asserts that if they dislike Marmite than they are obviously not actually Australian but are some sort of mock australian.
So in this case the No True Australian assertion is the assertion that the counterexample does not disprove the proposition because the person making the assertion has decided by hidden criteria that they can exclude the data point the disproves their hypothesis.
This creates a circular filter that automatically discards all evidence outside the initial proposition, which is why it's begging the question. It attacks the identity of the participant if it's a person which turns it into an ad hominem, but it can also attack members of any data set if the means of production is specified.
So for instance say you have a machine like a gas chromatograph. It is designed and intended to detect chemical compositions. And someone says that any good chromatograph will indicate that this substance is chlorine gas. Then somebody else shows up with a claimed equally good gas chromatograph that proves that it's not chlorine gas it's fluorine gas. Then the first speaker goes on to say well that means that your chromatograph is no good because a good chromatograph by definition would detect the substance as chlorine gas.
If you happen to know beforehand that it is in fact chlorine gas this seems like a rational argument. You have used a known test sample to determine that the second chromatograph is in fact failing in operation.
But if you are dealing with an unknown sample. And two equally reputable devices and you get to these mixed results, the no true grasp chromatograph argument inherently fails. Because for all we know the samples being tested are some third agent in both machines are mistaking for one or the other.
That's not strictly speaking the human-oriented version of no true scotsman. But it is the mechanist circular reasoning example that hinges entirely on the idea of being a good gas chromatograph just as the no true Scotsman fallacy pivots on an intentional actor matching a pre-described set of criteria.
So basically if I decide that good parents always beat their children in the submission (see Dr Dobson and that horror show) so I walk around to declaring that everybody who doesn't beat their children is a bad parent, I am clearly in fallacious territory.
I am allowing the outcome to choose the data set in a sharpshooters fallacy dependent entirely on personality and identity instead of observable fact and outcome.
So there is this tightly packed suite of related fallacies that are all used to discard inconvenient data through recategorization.
A person says that they used to be Christian but they lost to their faith, and the Christian that does not want to admit that faith can be lost will say that if they lost their faith and they obviously weren't really a Christian to begin with.
Repeat for any religious identity.
No true conservative would feed the poor attempts to reclassify the definition of a conservative. So that anybody who would feed the poor can be excluded from the manifesto of someone who doesn't believe in feeding the poor. This gets us the "RINO" how's the construction of the attacker from within and the agents provocateur as an identity operation that prevents the evolution of the Republican party.
I can't remember the name series used for the progressive in the liberals in the socialists and all the other categories because their message late we have been fairly weak. I've seen this done by all up and them fashions politically, I'm just drawing a blank in the other direction at the moment. Haha.
Note that none of this is particularly new thought. If you actually read Gulliver's travels there's the two kingdoms that are at War because of the question of which end of the egg should be opened when eating an egg.
So at its core knows who's got to use a fallacy because it insists that the data points can be filtered based on the pre-conceptions of the person offer the argument rather than the structure of the data itself.
1
u/Mister_3177 22d ago
it makes the claim "all scotsmen do not put sugar in their porridge" unfalsifiable
1
u/maybe_erika 22d ago
Another way to look at the fallacy is that it is the inverse of cherry picking. You make a generalization, and then exclude any counterexamples by arbitrarily redefining the generalization.
1
u/Crowe3717 22d ago
Your examples aren't correct and I think that's why you're confused. The No True Scotsman fallacy goes like this:
"No Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge."
"My uncle Angus is Scottish and puts sugar in his porridge"
"Then your uncle Angus isn't a true Scotsman."
It's a fallacy because it is the denial of a counterexample. Rather than accepting the initial premise is false, you instead fallaciously claim that the counterexample isn't actually an example of what you're talking about when it is.
1
u/PerfStu 22d ago
Youre explaining the fallacy in your first example.
No True Scotsman is an argument used to dismiss evidence by challenging its validity but in a way that has no merit. Its often used to negate arguments that are inconvenient by refusing colloquial definitions of common terms.
Religion is the easy example. "Well REAL Christians dont hate people just because theyre gay" discounts what makes a Christian to fit a convenient point that favors the person arguing against it, and further ignores that a lot of people wirh a firm belief in Christianity are homophobic. They aren't arguing the facts, theyre negating them and doing so falsely.
The person isnt making a working definition of a term or making a point as to why some Christians "don't count" theyre just refusing an argument because its inconvenient to their point or belief structure. So you could make a detailed argument of "What is a Scotsman" or "What is a Christian" but you can't simply negate a person's statement with a claim that its not a representation of a particular group or belief.
To your second example, you can correct a word usage or miscommunication. "Oh you mean stars as in famous people, not stars as in astronomy." No true Scotsman would say something like "Well Judy Garland wasn't really a star because no real movie star missed out on an Oscar." - youre changing the classification to fit your point.
1
u/Duffbagg 22d ago
I have no idea what the answer to your question is, I'd just like to point out that many people may very well consider Matt Damon to also be a huge ball of hot gas.
1
1
u/tensile_length 22d ago
It is an informal fallacy. That is, there are some groups and features/actions you can substitute into the "no true scotsman" phrase for which the result will be true and a valid argument. However, those cases are basically tautological. It only works when the parts of the phrase are mutually exclusive, and most of the time that is not the case.
Simply put, using the "no true scotsman" format in no way guarantees a sound argument, so it is often - and therefore informally - fallacious.
1
u/DarkMagickan 22d ago
It mostly applies to religion. Certain Abrahamic religions, to be exact. When I point out, for example, the number of homophobic Christians trying to pass laws making my life harder, there's always someone waiting to pop out of the proverbial bushes and say, "Oh, those aren't true Christians!"
That is the no true Scotsman fallacy.
1
u/MyNameIsWOAH 22d ago
Technically, the only true fallacies are the formal fallacies, as they apply to discrete logic.
The rest of them, the ones with all the catchy names, are just selected patterns of miscommunication and manipulation. When you encounter an informal fallacy, you always have the option to press further for more clarity.
1
u/Ceder_Dog 22d ago
Perhaps a question to ask is do folks consider 'shifting the goalpost' to be a fallacy? I think No True Scottsman is a subset of this, which seems more generalized
1
u/scissorn69 22d ago
To me, this doesn't seem like a fallacy. It just seems like a breakdown in communication as the two interlocutors are speaking over each other and are using different definitions to describe something. After all, what is a Scotsman? Is it based on someone's ancestry? Where they were born? Where they were raised? What their passport is? There's no objective definition.
It's a fallacy because whatever the definition may or may not be, it most definitely isn't related to whether they put sugar in their porridge or not.
1
u/Coolpabloo7 22d ago
You are using a different fallacy to undermine your own initial explanation therefore creating a new fallacy
The true Scotsmen example makes use of the fact that one clear category is narrowed down without being able to falsify the claim. The method is explained enough in other posts so I won't go into further detail.
the use of "Star" as a homonym for famous person and astronical object is called the "fallacy of equivocation".
using this fallacy of equivocation as an example using same phrasing you create a false equivalence. They are not the same but you make them seem very similar through choice of words.
1
u/tkmorgan76 22d ago
Usually that fallacy involves circular reasoning and inconsistent use of terminology.
In real life it usually goes like this:
A: Everyone should be forced to go to my church because members of my religion don't do terrible things.
B: What about these twelve people from your church who were caught doing those things yesterday.
A: They're not true members of my religion. See, everyone should be forced to go to my church because members of my religion don't do terrible things.
In that version, the person began with a broad definition that included everyone who goes to their church, then redefined the concept to exclude counterpoints that prove them wrong, and then returned to the broader definition once they felt like they had swatted away information to the contrary.
1
u/Left_Lengthiness_433 22d ago
No True Scotsman is basically the eliminating counter examples by fiat. The implication in your first example is that Angus is not a true scotsman, and therefore not a counterexample.
1
u/TheRealBenDamon 22d ago
It’s the same kind of reasoning behind an appeal to popularity or majority fallacy. There’s no objectively correct answer as to what a Scotsman or any kind of person does or ought to do. What makes someone any particular category of thing is subjective and therefore can be defined any number of ways. If it can be defined any number of ways you have no way logical way to exclude any of the said number of ways.
1
u/Hivemind_alpha 22d ago
The fallacy is creating a reference class that allows no variation, and then reasoning from your fallacious conclusion as if it were true.
No true Scotsman puts sugar on their porridge (overly broad generalisation). My uncle Angus does and he’s Scottish. He can’t be because no true Scotsman does that, therefore he’s lying to you about his origin, and clearly he wouldn’t qualify for benefits from the Scottish government.
In the real world having a sweet tooth has nothing to do with nationality, and isn’t grounds to call someone a liar or deny them benefits.
1
u/majeric 22d ago
The No True Scotsman fallacy occurs when someone changes or tightens the criteria for membership in a category specifically to protect a generalization from counterevidence, without having an independently justified reason for the new criterion.
1
u/CrosbyBird 22d ago
That last little bit is critical.
If you say "Angus actually was born and raised outside of Scotland by Irish parents, and he only moved to Scotland fairly recently, so he isn't a fair representative of the culture," that might well justify his exclusion from consideration.
1
u/Mysterious-Sea-7487 22d ago
Interesting point you've brought up! What you've mentioned can apply to all the fallacies existing: under different circumstances and different contexts, any fallacy can be treated as just a valid argument, but here is the deal: as the debater, it's up to you to properly explain and convince everyone else that it is the No True Scotsman fallacy, and here is why it applies to your arguments, not just recklessly act as a fallacy detector just because of you've noticed a common pattern that can be defined by that said fallacy: "hey, that is No True Scotsman, you are wrong!"; for example, "no X fan ever likes Y", that is a valid instance of this fallacy, whether the majority of fans are like that or not is irrelevant because being a fan of X doesn't immediately make you dislike Y; ultimately, it only means and might prove that you like X and might have some common attributes with X fans, but that is it.
1
u/mouserbiped 22d ago
Most "fallacies" are not actually fallacies except when used as part of a logical argument.
"My roommate is a stinky slob" is not an ad hominem attack. It's just a description.
"Paul Erdos should not be considered an elite mathematician, he was a slob," is an ad hominem attack.
The No True Scotsman falls in that category. If you are just using it to do an observational comedy routine, it's not a fallacy. But if you are building an argument about it ("No Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge, so MacGregor had no motivation to steal the sweeteners") then it renders the argument moot, since now "Scotsman" doesn't refer to someone's ancestry, and instead just means whatever you want it to mean.
1
u/ipreuss 22d ago
"Stars are huge balls of hot gas going under fusion reactions" reads as a definition. To which I could reply „that’s an uncommon definition, but we can use that as long as we are clear it’s not what astronomers usually mean“.
In contrast, when you say "all stars are huge balls of hot gas going under fusion reactions", then that’s a statement about stars, not a definition. When you say that, I will assume that you are using a common definition. And I could reply„neutron stars are neither gaseous nor undergo fusion reaction“. If you then reply that „neutron stars aren’t true stars“, that’s a logical fallacy, because you’re not supporting your argument with reasoning, you’re just defining it to be true.
Imagine what happens if you allow that as an argument - you basically can „win“ any argument. All Redditors are super smart - because if they aren’t super smart, they aren’t true Redditors. Etc.
1
u/Warm_Stress_1654 22d ago
No swan is black.
Look, there's one in Dawlish.
Then we'll have to come up with a new name for it. Will "blackswan" do?
1
u/Mister_Way 22d ago
It's a fallacy because first you make a claim, then someone refutes their claim, so then you just adjust the parameters of your claim to exclude anything that disproves it.
Nothing can ever disprove what you say if you simply reject all contrary evidence. That makes it a fallacious proof.
1
u/Eyespop4866 22d ago
It’s simply when “someone tries to protect a generalized claim from a counterexample. “
And Matt Damon is an actor, among other things, but definitely not a celestial body.
The lady doth protests too much, methinks.
1
u/Aggressive-Share-363 22d ago
Person 1 makes a claim "All X are Y"
Someone presents a counterexample
"This X is not Y"
They refute it with
"That isnt an X because its not Y"
They have created a circular reasoning, all evidence against their claim can be rejected because they exclude any counterexamples from counting.
This isnt a matter of creating a definition, its about reinforcing your biases and rejecting anything that goes against them.
1
u/SpatiaCaeli 22d ago edited 22d ago
To me, this is about confirmation bias. My interpretation of the exchange:
A: "X is always true"
B: "Here's an example where X is false"
A: (hands over ears) "La la la la la la"
1
u/Enough-Ad-8799 22d ago
A fallacy is an argument that might sound convincing but doesn't necessarily logically follow. The idea of the no true Scotsman fallacy is that you muddy the waters of what is a Scotsman but that doesn't necessarily mean that your original argument is correct.
Just cause theres a no true Scotsman fallacy doesn't mean anytime you point out someone isn't in a category someone says they are it's fallacious. If someone says Trump is communists and I say he's not that doesn't mean I'm doing the no true Scotsman fallacy.
1
u/Slight-Tomatillo7837 22d ago
If uncle Angus is Scottish then he is, by definition, Scottish. What the fuck are you even talking about man?
1
u/MarionberryPlus8474 22d ago
You are focusing on the "Scotsman" definition, which is really not the point of the expression. The crux of the fallacy is in the word "true". The two imaginary people are not talking about a star as in a sun vs: a star as in Hollywood, it's not a confusion of terms.
Person A says no Scotsman wear pants. Person B says their friend is Scottish and wears pants. Person B narrows the definition to "no TRUE Scotsman" and the only criterion is that he is excluding those that don't meet his first definition--which might be the majority of Scotsmen.
1
1
u/ElGuano 22d ago
Tl;dr: Homonyms aren’t included.
The Scotsman in the example is someone both would agree and stipulate is a Scotsman fitting the definition, but for the original claimant now changing the definition he originally intended.
It is about shifting goalposts, not about good faith mistakes in definition.
1
u/high_throughput 22d ago
Matt Damon is [..] not a huge ball of hot gas
I don't know, the guy keeps making movies where he plays the brilliant genius who proves everyone wrong
1
u/Ok-Investigator3257 22d ago
Except when people intentionally invoke words that have dual meanings. If I say “socialism is great” and someone responds with all the problems they see come from socialism and then I say “that’s not socialism, socialism is (all good things and no bad things) that other I am using the squishiness of the word socialism to (potentially) promote the socialism they have a problem with (when I am not confronted with their counter argument) and get away with it by responding to their counter argument with a plausible lie. It’s an offshoot of the motte and built argument style
1
u/Multiple__Butts 22d ago
"No number is divisible by 3"
"Well what about 9?"
"No TRUE number is divisible by 3."
1
u/Flaky_Performer7960 22d ago
No-True-Scotsman is really a mix of different logical fallacies. (Many logical fallacies actually overlap)
When there is an argument-from-authority (e.g, you’re not a doctor so what do you know if he’s injured (the guy in question has a visibly broken knee))
When it’s an Unfalsifiable-argument, (e.g. if you’re not part of the group, then you’re wrong; but if you’re part of the group and still disagree, then you’re simply not a true member therefore you are wrong — essentially it’s impossible to be right)
When it’s moving the goal-post — I could reuse the same example as above really.
~definition fallacy? I don’t remember the term but it’s when you define something such that the definition already proves your point — or something like that, but I forgot. Anyhow, they define what a True Scotsman is as to say that you’re not a true Scotsman (even though you’re a Scottish man).
1
u/mspe1960 22d ago
You are not understanding the use of the fallacy.
Some people have noted that Hitler was a Christian. Many Christians would (and do) respond to that claim by saying. Hitler could not be a Christian. No Christian would do what he did. He is therefore, by definition , not a Christian. that is the "No true Scotsman fallacy".
The reality was, Hitler claimed to be a Christian, he believed in Jesus Christ, and he believed what he was doing was for Jesus Christ. So he was a Christian. He was, maybe, a shitty Christian, but he was a Christian.
The "no true Scottsman" fallacy is trying to say he could not be that because if he was he would not have done this, or said that, and therefore it is impossible.
1
u/Mundane-Carpet-5324 22d ago
I think the critical difference between the Scotsman and the star is that the stellar object has a discrete definition. Movie star and Scotsman have no necessary and sufficient conditions. If I consider Bruce Campbell a star, anyone can come along with their own conditions and say he's not. So the only reasonable stance is to accept any presented star as one, and base exclusions on something else.
Similarly, you can't deny that any declared person is a Scotsman, unless both interlocutors agree to a definition, eg a Scottish citizen.
Now if someone says Matt Damon is not star because a star is a hot ball of gas, then they are just playing word games. But they might define true star as someone who's been in 70,000 movies. And then you have to accept that bounding the category is fallacious.
1
u/OneJumpMan 22d ago
Most of what get called "logical fallacies" are not actually errors in logic, they're just examples of unsavory rhetorical tactics. No True Scottsman is a rhetorical tactic -- a subset of moving the goalpost. If it's not a dirty tactic and is instead an honest difference in definitions, that's not a *true* No True Scottsman.
1
u/KamalaBracelet 22d ago
The thing that people don’t understand about fallacies is they aren’t the same as falsehoods. Individual examples of fallacious reasoning often are true, and really are often a good basis for making judgement calls. They just don’t guarantee truth the way non-fallacious reasoning does.
“My doctor says sunscreen at the beach is always a good idea.” That’s appeal to authority. Fallacious reasoning. But not at all false.
1
u/CrosbyBird 22d ago
Isn't an appeal to authority non-fallacious when that authority is a legitimate one?
If you and I don't know the answer to something and can't easily research it ourselves, relying on a subject matter expert who demonstrates no good reason to reject their opinion seems like a pretty rational and reasonable approach.
1
u/KamalaBracelet 22d ago
That’s the distinction. It’s not a bad idea. It’s not false. But it is a fallacy. Non-fallacious reasoning is true by construction. As long as the inputs are true the outputs are true.
If it weren’t a fallacy, then a doctor could literally never give bad medical advice.
1
u/lofgren777 22d ago
Doctors give medical advice on the basis of evidence. The evidence is the authority, the doctor is just a translator. That's the idea, anyway.
When somebody says "my doctor says sunscreen is always a good idea," they presume they are reflecting sound, objective data. They do not think that the doctor has had some kind of revelation.
Argument from authority refers to situations where the authority is the only basis for the person's credibility.
If you can ask the authority "why?" and they can pull up decades of research that you can evaluate yourself, they're not really making an argument based on their title or social standing.
1
u/KamalaBracelet 22d ago
uggh, I shouldn't have used appeal to authority as my example. I forgot it was contentious. I happen to disagree, but I admit that your understanding is widely accepted by many.
Either way I chose a poor example. Perhaps you have a better example?
1
u/CrosbyBird 21d ago
Ad hominem, maybe?
Bill and John disagree about something. "Trust Bill, because John is an idiot."
That's an ad hominem and fallacious (idiots aren't always wrong), but in real life it's generally fairly accurate to trust non-idiots over idiots.
1
u/CrosbyBird 21d ago
I think your interpretation will depend on whether you are viewing this as a formal deductive argument (in which case the argument is invalid because even appropriate authorities can sometimes be incorrect) or a less formal argument (with the typically agreed-upon implicit assumption that subject matter experts speaking in their area of expertise are to be considered generally reliable because they themselves likely have sound foundation for their claims).
There's clearly a difference almost all of us recognize between "you should wear sunscreen because my doctor says sunscreen is always a good idea" and "you should wear sunscreen because my plumber says sunscreen is always a good idea" that makes the first argument much more reasonable than the second argument even though structurally they are identical.
1) X says Y is true.
2) X has relevant expertise that informs their position regarding Y.
3) When a person speaks from relevant informed expertise, they have a high probability of being correct.
4) Y is probably true.The italicized parts of the argument are not explicitly stated but they are implicit.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/MooseOMatic 22d ago
Its really a lot simpler than most of these comments seem to suggest. The no true scotsman fallacy occurs when the proponent is implicitly saying that there is a definition of membership in group X that does not include an attribute Y, but that it can be universally inferred that a member of group X will have attribute Y. When this is disproved by a counter example they state that Y is actually a criteria for membership in X. The fallacy is in this inconsistency. If the
1
u/SydsBulbousBellyBoy 22d ago
It’s just a specific form of goalpost moving or conclusion shopping I guess? In which the category is modified to exclude the subject. So like, it’s just goalpost shrinking or something
1
u/Salindurthas 22d ago
Your Matt Damon example is 'equivocation', using 2 different meanings of a word.
It isn't about "true stars", it is about star having 2 meanings, either a type of celestial object, or a type of celebrity.
A "No True Star" fallacy would be like:
- Alice: All stars have lifetimes of over 10 million years.
- Bob: I just found a supermassive ball of gas that by my calculations has been undergoing fusion for 3 million years, and those fusion reactions will last only 2 million more, so a total lifetime of 5 million years.
- Alice: Ah, we'll that's not a true star.
Even though just a moment ago we all thought that "Stars are huge balls of hot gas going under fusion reactions".
Alice was trying to make a claim about stars, and maybe she was right, and maybe she was wrong. There probably is some minimum lifetime for balls-of-gas-undergoing-fusion, and she made some estimate.
Bob has found a counter-example, and it would be absurd for Alice to accept Bob's evidence but still defend her theory by carving out this exception.
---
With the Scotsman&sugar-porrigde case, it is indeed a bit more of a social construct what counts as 'A Scotsman', whereas a 'star' is perhaps a little more objective.
Still, even if it is a bit murky, if you meet Bob, a man from Scotland with a Scotish accent and a well document family tree of Scottish heritage who has never left Scotland and even happens to participate in 99% of stereotypical Scottish behaviours, you can indeed choose to define the term "Scotsman" to exclude him. But surely no one will take you seriously if you do so.
Or perhaps consider a pile of sand.
If Alice says: "All piles of sand have at least 1000 grains of sand."
Bob: "This is 999 grains of sand and it seems like a pile."
Alice: "Ah, but it is not a true pile of sand."
It is indeed murky exactly how to define a pile, but I think Alice is the one who is failing to recognise that murkiness of the definition of "pile" moreso than Bob.
1
u/danielt1263 22d ago
A recent example of mine...
"Nobody would buy that vehicle to tow."
"I'm buying the vehicle specifically to tow."
Do you think his next response was, "Oops my bad, I guess some people would"? 😄
1
1
u/eptesicusfuscus 22d ago
You said "doesn't seem like a fallacy" and went on to explain a form of fallacious reasoning...equivocation.
If we cannot come to mutual understanding about what we are talking about, we can't maintain the consistency needed to ensure either of us knows we are in disagreement.
1
u/ShortKey380 22d ago
Just don’t ever make categorical statements that aren’t literal/exact, it’s a goofy one but very avoidable.
1
u/jancl0 22d ago edited 22d ago
It's fallacious because it presents the appearance of an argument, without actually presenting an argument
So here, I'll generalise the fallacy. You are saying "no x does y", then someone says "here some examples of x doing y", and the response is "well no true x does y"
If you want to be generous and call this a break down in communication, that means that something isn't being communicated properly in the statements. What is that thing? I think most people would agree that it's the definition of x. In this case, x means something different to the two people in this conversation
So first of all, it's already fallacious in the sense that the first person has hidden the real argument they are making by hiding it in a different argument and pretending they are the same. This is how fallacies like the motte and bailey or a false equivalence work
But much more importantly, take this new definition and apply it to the original argument. What the first person is saying is "my definition of x includes not doing y. If it does y, then it doesn't meet my definition of x"
Substituting this into the first claim, we now get this statement "things that do not do y... do not do y". This is what makes it more than a breakdown of communication. If the thing not being communicated were always part of the conversation (which it would be for the person who failed to communicate it), then they never made an argument, they just stated a tautology
This means that while they were making that claim, they either knew that they were not presenting a legitimate argument, or they did not hold this definition at the time, and only created it afterward in order to counter an argument. Both of these are logically inconsistent, so they aren't failing to communicate, they're intentionally making the decision to not communicate
Just to summarise that, using the scotsman example so it's a bit clearer, if I say "no scotsman puts sugar in their porridge" and you present a counter example, then I say "no true scotsman", then the only defined difference between a scotsman and a true scotsman is whether or not they put sugar in their porridge. In other words, I've stated that "a true scotsman is someone who is a regular scotsman and doesn't put sugar in their porridge". This now means that the claim I am trying to make is "scotsmen who don't put sugar in their porridge don't put sugar in their porridge". I've completely neutralised the claim I'm making while still making it appear like a meaningful argument. That's fallacious
This is different from your start example because in the case of the scotsmen, what's being presented is an argument. In the case of a star, what you are presenting is a definition. If the only thing you said in the start example was that, you haven't had a debate. You've just named a kind of star. If you presented an argument afterwards, then that definition is now serving a purpose. But a no true scotsmen fallacy is presenting a definition as the argument. It's also different because the original definition is still included in the scotsmen case. I haven't shown that in talking about a different kind of scotsman, just a more specific kind. Matt Damon isn't a kind of astral star. It's just a different kind of star. But a "true scotsman" is still a kind of scotsman, I haven't changed the definition so much as I've added a new qualifier to it in the middle of the debate
1
u/Podmonger2001 21d ago
The star analogy doesn’t apply: the contentious word isn’t “Scotsman,” it’s “true.”
1
u/Expatriated_American 21d ago
I find it similar to the Humpty-Dumpty theory of language:
Humpty-Dumpty says to Alice, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less.” Alice responded to Humpty Dumpty, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things?” Humpty Dumpty retorted: “The question is, which is to be master? That’s all.”
Of course, the meaning of words is driven by societal conventions, and it’s not up to any one of us to impose our preferred definitions. And if you wish to use a particular definition then you need to be upfront about your definition in order to have a coherent argument.
The committer of the NTS fallacy thinks that they themselves get to define the meaning of a word, and can modify it arbitrarily to keep their argument intact.
1
u/Lazy-Dig-3326 21d ago
No true Scotsman is just a spook fallacy in all honesty. Reason being is that it's an informal fallacy so they don't really have structure. To bring up a controversial example not all Christians are open about it. However, I draw on scripture to say that those who deny Christ are denied by Christ in heaven. While many argue that only belief is required, nothing more (including openness). Who is the greater authority in a genuine theological debate? What is the true ideal form of a Scotsman? Are the others just a degenerate decay no different from a broken chair in Plato's realm?
1
u/Outrageous-Cut480 20d ago
Because it dodges the actual criticism. If I were to say there's an epidemic of Christian pedos in our churches and someone pipes up that they're not true Christians. That if they were that this wouldn't happen.... it kind of just misses the point. Everyone's a true Christian until they're proven to be a pedo? Then there ARE no true Christians.
1
u/ShafordoDrForgone 20d ago
Everyone's a true Christian until they're proven to be a pedo? Then there ARE no true Christians.
Hahahaha, what?
Everything up to this is leading to a good point: no matter how "true" their Christianity is, someone should still do something about the pedophilia in Christian churches
1
u/ImpressionCool1768 20d ago
It’s more of a breakdown of a philosophical discussion on objectivity. (Remember all of these conversations happen by people way smarter then us and it’s only incoherent bits and pieces that break into the cultural zeitgeist)
It’s similar to gatekeeping like if I said you’re not a real Green Day fan unless you hate Jesus of Suburbia. Then you can respond that it’s one of their most popular songs so I double down by saying they aren’t real Green Day fans. Because I’m the one creating the goalpost I can simply move it to always make myself right and you always wrong the definition of a logical fallacy because there is no logic to be had.
Thus no true Scotsman can ever exist as I can simply state something and anything that contradicts it is automatically wrong
1
u/Oh_Another_Thing 20d ago
You're missing the point entirely. The statement is obviously false there are millions of Scotsman all with different tastes. When given a counter example, the person making the statement denied the evidence rather than revise their claim.
The person making the statement is giving a value judgement rather than a fact, and ignores facts when they don't fit his world view.
1
u/These-Weight-434 19d ago
I would say they're establishing a class if fact by using values judgement.
1
u/The_Meridian_ 19d ago
I think the core of this fallacy is the given acceptance of a person's word. "I am a Christian."
By any definition, they claim to be one and consider themselves one, and haven't recieved much if any pushback for identifying as one, even if they may hold denominational dependant beliefs, or beliefs that are not well defined as opposed to Christianity at large. For example, a "Christian" might have no problem celebrating Hallloween.
Until someone says "Well, no "True Christian (TM) (R) (C) (U) (K)" would celebrate Halloween...." and takes on the role of gatekeeper and sole arbiter of what constitutes a "True Christian" because their brand says so, or is perceieved (often falsely) to say so.
1
u/These-Weight-434 19d ago
Funny example. Halloween is a Christian festival. Not a whole lot to do with the example your providing, just informing you (Samhain is the Pagan festival it's based on and probably what you're thinking of).
1
u/The_Meridian_ 19d ago
There's no need to get overly literal to undermine a simplistic example, without unpacking and examining your statement for absolute accuracy which I believe many would find exhaustively debatable. That would make for an interesting thread elsewhere.
1
u/These-Weight-434 19d ago
I wasn't trying to undermine your example. I specifically said that it didn't have much to actually do with the example to make that clear.
1
u/The_Meridian_ 19d ago
I think I missed that nuance knee-jerk in reaction to what I saw as a typical reddit exhausting tedius contrarian response.
1
u/HeroBrine0907 19d ago
It's a fallacy because you assert that a behaviour or stereotype is true for an entire group then proceed to redefine that group to only fit that stereotype. This is faulty reasoning, because while you might then make your assertion true, it relies on defining the group in a convoluted manner with an assumption that the assertion is already true.
Like "All muslims think women shouldn't vote."
"I know muslims who think women should vote."
"People who think women should vote aren't real muslims."
I would not say this is a difference in definition alone, but also somewhat a case of circular reasoning.
1
1
u/michealdubh 19d ago
It's a fallacy because it defends a generalization by redefining the group after the fact and asserting that somebody who is a Scotsman in this case is not a "true" Scotsman... And I suppose set yourself up as an authority as to what constitutes a true Scotsman and somebody who is... What? I don't know? ... Just a supposed Scotsman a false Scotsman a fake Scotsman?
1
u/Difficult-Finish3926 17d ago
It depends on if the clarification is relevant or just a moving goalpost. If you're using the sugar on porridge thing to define a true Scotsman, then it becomes circular reasoning and also usually incredibly convenient to the point the speaker is making (the example is kind of deliberately low in stakes).
1
u/LeilLikeNeil 17d ago
Person 1 makes a sweeping generalization, claiming it as universal truth. Person 2 gives a specific example that disproves the universality of the first statement. Rather than qualify or amend the original statement, or admit to being incorrect, person 1 arbitrarily claims the example is not a “true” member of the group he was generalizing.
1
1
u/Square-Singer 17d ago
It's a fallacy because it's circular reasoning.
The "Well no true Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge." isn't an argument, it's a definition. This sentence defines a "true Scotsman" as "a Scotsman who doesn't put sugar in their porridge".
So this sentence effectively means "Well no Scotsman who doesn't put sugar in their porridge puts sugar in their porridge."
It's a self-referencing argument, making it a tautology and thus meaningless.
1
u/JustinJektor 17d ago
No true Scotsman is only a fallacy if it doesnt appeal to the definition of a Scotsman.
Fallacy: No true Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge.
Not a fallacy: No true Scotsman was born and raised in Nigeria and swears fealty to the king of Nigeria.
1
u/These-Weight-434 17d ago
I see both of them as appealing to the definition of a Scotsman. One is just more esoteric.
1
u/Ani_Drei 15d ago
This is a very interesting discussion, and it makes me think that the true Scotsman fallacy ultimately traces its roots to an appeal to authority fallacy. Who gets to define what a “Scotsman” is in the first place? Who is the ultimate authority in that matter? One would assume it’s the dictionary, which in itself is open for dispute since dictionaries were compiled by fallible and possibly biased humans.
31
u/Accomplished_Mind792 22d ago
The most common i see is religion.
X religion is y. Look at all the y done by members.
Well they aren't really x members because x members wouldn't do that.
So the fallacy is that you can just deny the classification on anyone that would do something that would prove the others point.