No True Scotsman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- John Corvino explains the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, also known as “moving the goalposts.”
Dr. John Corvino is a speaker, writer, philosophy professor, and Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit. Read more at JohnCorvino.com.
John Corvino's Better Argument series was filmed at Wayne State University by James Wright and Mayabeth Jagosz, with funding from the American Philosophical Association.
No true Scotsman would vote no to their Independence 🏴💪
FREEEEEDOOOOOOM. as I scream on stage being executed because I fought for freedom.
thank you for explaining that shit in 19 seconds.
This is an amazing playlist. Wish it continues.
Something wrong about the christians example. If you are communist and libertarian then you are not communist by definition. The self proclaimed doesn’t make you christian, muslin, communist, libertarian etc. if you do contrary things.
Change Christian to Muslim for a more realistic analogy
What, because "no true Christian" would commit an act of terrorism? Did you pay attention to the video mate?
Your lack of self-awareness xD
@@robbiecouch9897 christians terrorist is like say communist libertarians. The video lack proper explanation, because this fallacy its about no specifics things like “animals behavior”, but christians, muslin, communist, libertarian have very detailed descriptions. So basically, this video uses Straw Man Fallacy to explain other fallacy.
No true scotsman only applies in a world where there are no definitions.
What’s the difference between moving the goal post and clarifying the meaning of a term?
The former is ad hoc, done merely for the purpose of avoiding having to admit that one is wrong.
Yeah, I think that's right. Post hoc rationalization is easy to observe when there is a burden in the first place. In administrative proceedings, hearing officers are bound to put forward their reasons for denying a claim. On appeal, the government can rely only on the arguments put forward in the lower forum or the claimant can rightly argue a post hoc rationalization (i.e. the government is making up a new argument after the fact.)
But, supposing I wanted to say that in all my years of travelling through Europe, I'm really struck by the way Scotsmen have this idiosyncratic pride in taking their whiskey without ice. I say, "No Scotsman puts ice in his whiskey." My interlocutor's rejoinder than his uncle is Scottish and puts ice in his whiskey seems pedantic. I wasn't making an absolute universal claim, I want to say. I was generalizing in the normal way. All philosophers generalize. But, being a little tipsy already, I say, "No TRUE Scotsman puts whiskey in his ice... I mean ice in his whiskey."
Of course, I've changed the scenario. But, the point here is that the very example which gives name to the fallacy seems like a moment violating the Principle of Charity. Without the burden of the sort which exists only in formal structures likes an administrative hearing, I would think that the No True Scotsman fallacy would never be proper because, always, the Principle of Charity would apply prior and cut the Scotsman short. One would always say, "Well, perhaps you mean something a little different than what I'm hearing because my uncle is Scottish..."
I think the only value of the No True Scotsman is a kind of instruction to listen carefully to one's interlocutor. Over time, the argument may subtly change. Evidence marshaled on Monday may not be apposite on Tuesday. Perhaps the thinker is changing his position. Perhaps not. Either way, attend to those differences.
@@johncorvino how do you know the motive of the responder? In your example the person could be clarifying the objection not shifting the goalposts.
Excellent content; looking forward to more.
it's Bourbon...!! Shame on you if its not True Scotch Whisky..!! haha
It is hilarious you used "Christian" for the terrorist example. It betrays so much.
"It's burbon." - said with the shade of a magnolia
He broke it down perfectly ✊🏽
You need more subs, you deserve them.
I'm having a very hard time understanding this fallacy. Here's an example to demonstrate my confusion: Andy claims to be a member of a religion that is explicitly against violence. Andy then goes out and kills someone. Bob also belongs to the same religion. Bob states that Andy is not a true member of the religion because he did something explicitly against the teachings of the religion. I don't understand how Bob is committing the NTS fallacy. It seems to me that he has a good point.Thanks for the upload John!
There's an important difference between the case you describe and the NTS fallacy. In NTS, the narrowing is ad hoc; it is done explicitly for the purpose of avoiding the counterexample. In the case you describe, however, one can point to the explicit teachings of the religion, which presumably do establish what a "true" member would or should believe. (In real life it's usually messier than that, but the point remains: NTS involves an ad hoc moving of the goalposts.)
It seems that everyone here is determined to be part of the great reward of the order and has the same opinion as if directed here for this reward...
anakin: your either with me or against me
obiwan: only sith deal in absolutes
anakin: ya but palpatine killed count duku and he was with him and palpatine is a sith!
obiwan: well no true sith would do that
"only a sith deal in absolutes" ≠ "a sith only deal in absolutes"
Thank you
This is actually a logical fallacy itself. I thought I was a vegan but I occasionally ate meat. That pissed everyone off! I was just wrong. Giving the power to label to anyone who wants the label is illogical. Truly any organization can self define who gets that label. This no true scottsman example is actually an example of a strawman
Bruh why would you call yourself a vegan if you ate meat to begin with? Sounds like something an uneducated person would do.
@@DantesInferno96 I was adamant about it for about a year. Then would give in when pressured. It helps illustrate my point. I deep down thought I was vegan even if I occasionally fell to peer pressure. I wasn't though. the use of terms like "true vegan" similar to a "true scottsman" or "true Christian" is to point out how they temporarily strayed from their commitment and were in that moment not being a true vegan or "Christian". I have a friend who doesn't own anything made from animal products and calls himself a vegan. But he has accidentally eaten non vegan foods. I call him vegan, even if he makes mistakes but those mistakes are not vegan. So when someone says they are Christian and then kills, steals, or does something unchristian its ok for Christians to say, he/they were not being a Christian when they did those things. If it's repeated over and over without repentance then just like the vegans who called me out, the group can say, you are consistently not a vegan... or Christian or scottsman.
Saying a group can't call out someone for not adhering to the clear guidelines is actually not fair. Their are clear guidelines for veganism and christianity... perhaps not for scottsmans, I can't say.
How the heck does a person unnecessarily capitalize words like “vegan” but never capitalize the first letter in the beginning of a sentence?
@@thealmightytom4309 I will fix it, im sorry if that offended you
~ ...but it's true when we speak about TRUE Christians.
This explanation is WAY better than Steven Novella's explanation in his lecture series on Critical Thinking which was "he's including the claim in the definition and therefore the premise. Referred to as making a semantic argument" - this is not a clear explanation! Thanks for helping make sense of it.
How is an appeal to purity fallacious? If I say no student of mine would flunk my class, and yet one claiming to be a student does indeed flunk, the term student implies "one who listens to the teacher" so stating mid argument "a true student" isn't shifting the goal post, its clarification to the original statement. You argue its to prevent the original premise from being wrong, perhaps instead the clarification is to shed light into what is implied by the statement.
Nicely explained
Great video.
I'm Scottish.......and I eat lentils.
Good explanation.
If john agrues that Jung's conception of the unconscious is not legitimate because Jung was not a true psychoanalyst.
Would this be no true scottsman?
From what i understand, changing a premise after a claim is what makes the fallacy apply.
hi, this is a very late reply but in case you are wondering, this is an appeal to authority. The reason why no true Scotsman wouldn't apply is because there is no counter-argument presented
what is the opposite of a fallacy ... in one word ??
You are nice, but you are cajoling.
Flattery? Subservience? Cultural low self-esteem? Desire to be part of the great order? Reward-seeking from people that seem to be above us? Psychological ideological slavery? Worship to the rich? Psychological dependence?
i was thinking something in the lines of ...
trullacy !
Christians INVENTED moving the goalposts
Christians and atheists enjoy moving the goalposts when they are involved in an argument
Goalposts aren't really involved in Christianity, change my mind.
@@emeraldelement5458 You know what I means
@@terryperring104 ok, I'll take the opportunity. So for everyone else, Bob here is running away from God because he doesn't want to be morally responsible to Him. He would rather go on living a life of sin and pleasure than seek righteousness in Christ and humble himself before Almighty God.
@@emeraldelement5458 I bet you're:- American, male, fat, full head of whitening hair, got glasses and podgy wife-too many fat kids, you go to church every Sunday in the hope it will get you possibly noticed by the fictitious character you want to be seen to believe in, in the hope it that it _may_ just _MAY_ save you from death. You are such a bunch of fake, disingenuous cowards- you make me fucking puke. Oh-and you're a Trump voter. Full house?