The way to avoid the fallacy is just saying "no good Scotsman" instead of "no true Scotsman". There are good Scotsmans and bad Scotsmans, orthodox Scotsmans and deflected Scotsmans.
Actually in studies on consciousness all the time in academic papers a lot of retorts are "Well that just isn't consciousness though" - It seems to me science commits this fallacy a lot as a way to cover when a theory isn't working out, they can just shift the definitions around, this is done in statistics as well, one can force a result by figuring out a way to exclude people who once qualified as a particular thing and now that they no longer qualify as a true member we can force the statistical result or study result to achieve the ends we were looking for.
Unknown etc: "... science commits this fallacy a lot as a way to cover when a theory isn't working out." - I think you probably mean hypothesis rather than theory. Can you give an example of where you have seen the phenomenon you describe in relation to consciousness? Similarly this: "... figuring out a way to exclude people who once qualified as a particular thing and now that they no longer qualify as a true member." I would be interested in looking at a concrete example, one where the exclusion was not rationally justified.
The problem here seems to be with unclear definitions. The first person's definition of Scottsman was someone that lives up to Scottish principles. The second person's definition of Scottsman is someone that was born in Scottland. Hence the confusion by what is meant by the word.
The issue of concern is the subtle shift in the definition halfway through the thought experiment. The reader initially is using the first definition, then switching to the second once they find the first is clearly false. It also raises questions about identity. If I identify as a Scotsman because I was born in Scotland and you identify me as not a Scotsman because I don't live up to what you think are Scottish values, who is right? It seems my definition is more common, and your definition seems to have some holes (what are "Scottish values?" who gets to define them? Is someone that is generally a good person but living in another country living up to them, and therefore a "Scotsman despite never going to Scotland?)
Example, we have two English men. 1 is English since generations the other one got the citizenship after 10 years in England. The second one has lived all 10 years without a deep interest in England and its history, following his own culture beliefs. So which one is a true English?
@@InventiveHarvest I ve bumped into other videos talking about logical fallacies and I learnt the scotsman fallacy suffers of the fallacy of equivocation due to the same word having potential different meaning (or context) haha
I think this is actually a problem when discussing definitions and sets. If you define swans as being white birds of a particular genus, then there couldn't be a black swan similar to how there can't be euclidean circles that aren't round. But this poses a problem: when do you change a definition?
Exactly, you can only make this fallacy when you're using it about a quality that doesn't have anything to do with how you are defining the set. For example, saying that pastors who abuse children are not TRUE Christians is NOT employing the no true Scotsman fallacy, because true Christians are defined as being Christian if they have "love among themselves." A pastor abusing Children is NOT loving(it's horrendous and abhorrent), so it means he does not qualify as a true Christian, thus it is not a fallacy to say that.
*A "No True Scotsman" fallacy occurs when a premise that is in need of support, is bolstered by an ad hoc definition, where, if the definition is accepted, it excludes refutation of the premise.* I am offering this here so that my comments can be understood in light of it. What this means is that a definition of "swans" which includes their being white, is actually an impediment to any exploration of whether or not they might all be white. Similarly, a definition of Christian that includes never leaving the faith, would not be of service to an exploration of whether or not Christians do leave the faith.
@@chillydoritos7304o that’s still no true Scotsman. Your definition of Christian excludes all of the Christian who committed atrocious acts over the course of history which as the church’s have a long history of atrocities, you are now excluding all of them. That is literally no true scots right there. A Christian is defined by what they believe. Not what they do.
it seems to me this only works as a fallacy if the 'true scotsman' is an unchanging and clearly defined subject. It could just as easily be claimed that the fallacy is to not understand 'the true scotsman' as subjective (which I posit it is). Thus making the counter fallacy to the supposed 'true scotsman' the actual fallacy.
There was a comment thread on a video from the 90s of Selma Hayek facetiously flirting with Conan O'Brian on his show, she says she likes Irishmen because they are passionate, and they proceed to comically flirt. The comment thread is rife with rebuttals to the assertion and claim that Conan O'Brian is Irish. "He's not Irish." No one was debating that he's Irish on a nationality basis. He's Irish decent and diaspora, he's 6'5 ft tall or whatever, with red hair, and named O'Brian. But people were getting very upset about this casual claim that he's Irish or Irish American, rejecting they he's Irish at all, on a cultural, ethnic, AND national basis, because of the national basis. Of course he's now Irish-Irish, but he's still Irish, and that can't be denied. But apparently it can when people are walking around with the cognitive dissonance that only your birthplace or your parents birthplace and your passport and identity forms dictate what you are. Then inverting this nationalistic logic some more, happens all the time on an immigration basis, foreign ethnicities that are born in a country and do culturally assimilate are similarly regarded as "not true" nationality, again on the basis of ethnicity, or an impure culture. It's a very pervasive and dangerous fallacy when it comes to these matters of immigration and culture. 100 million Irish diaspora apparently aren't even Irish, because you cease to be Irish as soon as your grand parents stepped off the boat or you step off a plane, or you shoot out of your mother's borth canal in a different country. Sorry Conan, but a lot of the Irish reject your Irishness because it doesn't make sense to them, and they will reject any arguments to the contrary. Pretty fascinating and disturbing pervading logic, and it's not just the Irish of course. I just found it fascinating and sad that the comment thread was so heated between Irish people rejecting him as Irish, and everyone else trying to convince them otherwise. Oh well, very sad.
This fallacy can apply to any language game: such and such linguistic community can always denounce a particular member on grounds of not holding whatever "true" doctrine represents the collection of beliefs and desires of that group. "Trump was not a true/real republican president" etc. The deflationary risk of this fallacy is to extent the misconception of truth to some metaphysical baggage as well. X is not a real Christian because they reject doctrine Z. However, I think this is where Wittgenstein's noncognitivism & pluralistic readings of forms of life are helpful. Since there really is no truth-aptness to such assertions, there is always a community that has sufficient resemblance to the one rejecting it while also accepting the doctrine themselves. What is heretic to a Byzantine can be accepted as the case to a Catholic. Pluralism is inevitable in the contexts of propositions that hold no truth value.
To be clear are you a skeptic about the meaning of such group terms like "republican" or "heretic" doubting that they have any meaning at all, or are you a pluralist, thinking that they have different meanings to different people in different contexts, but in those contexts do have real meanings. The former would dismiss the need for such a fallacy, but the later, it seems, would not as once you provided the appropriate context or language game you could assess whether someone were applying the criteria correctly or not (i.e. whether one actually subscribed to the planks of the Republican party's platform).
I worked out a suitable way to explain what a No True Scotsman fallacy is in under 200-characters. *"A "No True Scotsman" fallacy occurs when a premise that is in need of support, is bolstered by an ad hoc definition, where, if the definition is accepted, it excludes refutation of the premise."* It is important to note that the No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is not specific to the groups that people choose to organize themselves into, or the allegiances that people might feel towards others. An example of the NTS fallacy can involve those things, but that does not mean that the fallacy is specific to those things. A Marxist could be talking with a monarchist and put forward the idea that mature democracies do not start wars. This assertion would be immune to counterexamples if the definition of mature democracies is accepted to include that they do not start wars. With that acceptance, any democracy that did start a war would, by that act, be proven to not be a mature democracy. In this example, nobody's allegiance to individuals or groups is involved. Neither the fallacy, nor that example needs to be about a qualified form of something, like a _true_ Scotsman, or a _mature_ democracy. The example given here could just as well be about the definition of democracies, without a qualifying term.
As a proponent of qualified essentialism I find all too often those other essentialists guilty of this fallacy. There's a way to make the argument without being fallacious, but it's without being fixated on titles but rather very specific qualifications. I'm not able to make the lecture right now. But if anyone asks me I'll write it sometime later.
The only way there's a declaration of fallacy is when an outsider (not of the Scottish Tribe) believes that the phrase "true Scotsman " were actually referring the physicality or ethnicity rather than the "customs and culture" of the Scots. The added label "No true" indicates that the parameters of trust and expectation taught and practiced by members of the tribe have been violated Therefore it is a statement of Fact not fantasy. A culturally adapted Republican speaking to another Republican does not (and should not) accept that there's a fallacy somewhere in the phrase RINO..
RUclips boxers being described as not real boxers - even though some of them trained hard in boxing for several years (enough to qualify a non-famous person as a boxer).
That actually doesn't even qualify... which is what makes this "fallacy" odd and overly contrived. For this to apply someone would have to make a claim like, "a boxer never allows video to be taken of him training." To which, you reply: "Yes they do, boxers on youtube do it all the time." THEN, "those youtube boxers aren't real boxers." I've always had a problem with this fallacy for that reason. A more concise fallacy would be something like "the sweeping generalization fallacy" for which you wouldn't need all those specific steps to get at the heart of what makes this fallacy a fallacy.
Many people think that they know what is right and wrong, and they have justified reasons for holding their beliefs. When you can dismiss everyone that disagrees with you as an "other" that everyone in your in-group thinks is wrong it is more comfortable and easy to dismiss them. When you realize that you have individuals in your in-group disagree with you, or act differently than you do, it is much harder to dismiss them or "other" them. It seems to come from a place of disgust, you are more concerned about a bug in your salad than one in your garden. It seems, the closer something unappealing is to you, the more you detest it.
After watching this video, I recalled that I had used this fallacy for defending myself. Once I had done something really stupid (had removed air from neighbours car tyre) and when she confronted me. I said, "I am really sorry ma'am. I don't know what took over me as no true good boy would behave in this manner. I was 12 I that time 😂
Well, if you include “refuses to remove air from someone else’s” in your definition of “good”, then you did NOT commit the No True Scotsman fallacy. In fact, if someone includes in their definition of “Scotsman” (provided they never change the definition) “one that never commits a heinous crime”, then they actually didn’t commit a fallacy
The Christian example is pretty bad considering it doesn't apply. The gospel is this Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you-unless you believed in vain.For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. A person to be truly born again, in other words to be a true Christian they have to understand sin realize it is death and decay and turn to the God that died and was resurrected for their salvation. But salvation is displayed throughout our stay here on earth. For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. Note: Where the Word of God says unless you believed in vain. Someone can call themselves a Christian and even believe they are a Christian while not actually being one, and the church could perceive this person is a Christian but it doesn't not make them one. And when you recieve the word of God it's impossible to continue in habitual sin.Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. Not to say we're sinless but when we sin there is forgiveness, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The Bible lays out what a true Christian is and does so therefore we can rightly discern at least outwardly (which is really an expression of our inward thoughts and desires) if someone believes the truth or not by wether they obey it. Edit: I will clarify anything I've said if need be
Most often seen when Christian apologists talk about Christians that became Atheists. "Well, they clearly never were a _real Christian._ No _real Christian_ would turn Atheist." or maybe "They can't have been saved, because once saved, always saved, so real saved people don't leave the faith". In this case, the pattern is "if they leave the in-group, they were never real members" - it's not so much avoiding a bad member as it is admitting that a member can change their mind.
i know your example defined christian as "beliefer of jesus", but in more useful terms i'd add some more values to it. things like pacifism, no banking (not using money to make money) would make good example values. oh wait, i just said no christian should engage in capitalism, i have basically denied christianity to 99.9% of christians. i could also be slightly more cynical and say that every person working (or making others work) on saturday is not a christian, but i wanted to stay with central values.
Your Christian example needs work. The argument there is the behavior does not support the belief system being claimed. At what point can one say you're not what you claim to be, and your behavior shows it?
Most definitions of Christianity classify it as a belief system: i.e to be a Christian, you simply need to believe some claim or set of claims such as "Jesus is the son of God." Individuals who convert on their deathbed are counted by many denominations as Christians, despite the only thing they changed being their belief. And many Christians believe that we are all sinners, so a Christian doing something wrong seems, if anything, in line with a Christian world view. You might think that Democrats who abuse women are hypocrites, or bad Democrats, but that does not mean they stopped being Democrats, or suddenly became a Republican. In the same way, a pastor that abuses children is arguably a hypocrite, and many would call them a Christian engaging in sin, but that does not mean they are not a Christian, or suddenly joined a different religion.
@CarneadesOfCyrene Forgive me of any typos... I'm doing this from my phone. From a secular perspective, what you said makes sense. It becomes an issue, however, when the nuances in secular perspectives and Christian perspectives diverge. 2 parts of your response stand out to me. 1) What is a Christian? Most would agree that the secular definition says someone who believes Jesus is the son of God... And that fits for a secular purpose, i.e. to distinguish one Abrahamic religion apart from the others for ease of categorization. On the other hand, if you ask Christians what a Christian is, they'll often tell you "Someone who believes Jesus is God." But what does that mean? That's a heavy statement with a lot to unpack. What do both of the perspectives boil down to? Christians are people who profess that there is an omnipotent being who made himself human in order to save us from eternal damnation; furthermore they believe we merely need to accept him as such-- not merely by claiming it, but by keeping that belief in our hearts. We're talking about a core belief, not a modifier. That's what makes it such a difficult example to tack down properly. 2) [Paraphrased] "We're all sinners, so doing wrong is in line with Christianity." Yes, but no. Yes, we're all sinners. Yes, we're forgiven for our sins already. Yes, we're all going to sin again, and yes we're forgiven for that, too... But no, doing wrong is not in line with Christianity. The distinction is the mindset behind it. Take your "Gay Christian" scenario. Is it possible to be gay and Christian? Yes. But you can't be Christian and profess that a homosexual lifestyle is in keeping with tenets of the faith without cherrypicking and/or contradicting scripture. One mindset acknowledges the sins, the other justifies them. The latter is usually what Christians call out as "not truly Christian". And it's a fair criticism. The idea that someone can sin and say "it's fine because God made me this way" flies in the face of the Christian concept of dying to self. It's no different from an adulterous spouse saying "it's fine because God gave me feeling for the other person." So what is in line with Christianity? Acknowledging your own sins, striving not to sin knowing you're going to fail and be forgiven, and calling out sin for what it is, particularly when it's being justified in the name of the faith/God/Jesus. Situations like that are when groups are allowed to gatekeep (for lack of better phrasing) because failing to do so dilutes the teachings. It's not the same as saying something like "those Catholic Priests aren't true Christians." The first situation points out misconstrued doctrine, the second is the fallacy.
Sure, this may be a No True Scotsman fallacy, but it's not a *true* No True Scotsman fallacy!
The way to avoid the fallacy is just saying "no good Scotsman" instead of "no true Scotsman". There are good Scotsmans and bad Scotsmans, orthodox Scotsmans and deflected Scotsmans.
🤔 One Scotsman. Several ScotsMEN.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat how many languages do you speak?
Actually in studies on consciousness all the time in academic papers a lot of retorts are "Well that just isn't consciousness though" - It seems to me science commits this fallacy a lot as a way to cover when a theory isn't working out, they can just shift the definitions around, this is done in statistics as well, one can force a result by figuring out a way to exclude people who once qualified as a particular thing and now that they no longer qualify as a true member we can force the statistical result or study result to achieve the ends we were looking for.
Unknown etc: "... science commits this fallacy a lot as a way to cover when a theory isn't working out." - I think you probably mean hypothesis rather than theory. Can you give an example of where you have seen the phenomenon you describe in relation to consciousness?
Similarly this: "... figuring out a way to exclude people who once qualified as a particular thing and now that they no longer qualify as a true member." I would be interested in looking at a concrete example, one where the exclusion was not rationally justified.
Thank you. I've never heard of this fallacy before your brief lecture.
Of course! Thanks for watching, I am glad you enjoyed.
Really? Wow.
The problem here seems to be with unclear definitions. The first person's definition of Scottsman was someone that lives up to Scottish principles. The second person's definition of Scottsman is someone that was born in Scottland. Hence the confusion by what is meant by the word.
The issue of concern is the subtle shift in the definition halfway through the thought experiment. The reader initially is using the first definition, then switching to the second once they find the first is clearly false. It also raises questions about identity. If I identify as a Scotsman because I was born in Scotland and you identify me as not a Scotsman because I don't live up to what you think are Scottish values, who is right? It seems my definition is more common, and your definition seems to have some holes (what are "Scottish values?" who gets to define them? Is someone that is generally a good person but living in another country living up to them, and therefore a "Scotsman despite never going to Scotland?)
Example, we have two English men. 1 is English since generations the other one got the citizenship after 10 years in England. The second one has lived all 10 years without a deep interest in England and its history, following his own culture beliefs. So which one is a true English?
@@om-qz7kp it depends on context
@@InventiveHarvest I ve bumped into other videos talking about logical fallacies and I learnt the scotsman fallacy suffers of the fallacy of equivocation due to the same word having potential different meaning (or context) haha
I think this is actually a problem when discussing definitions and sets. If you define swans as being white birds of a particular genus, then there couldn't be a black swan similar to how there can't be euclidean circles that aren't round.
But this poses a problem: when do you change a definition?
Exactly, you can only make this fallacy when you're using it about a quality that doesn't have anything to do with how you are defining the set. For example, saying that pastors who abuse children are not TRUE Christians is NOT employing the no true Scotsman fallacy, because true Christians are defined as being Christian if they have "love among themselves." A pastor abusing Children is NOT loving(it's horrendous and abhorrent), so it means he does not qualify as a true Christian, thus it is not a fallacy to say that.
*A "No True Scotsman" fallacy occurs when a premise that is in need of support, is bolstered by an ad hoc definition, where, if the definition is accepted, it excludes refutation of the premise.* I am offering this here so that my comments can be understood in light of it.
What this means is that a definition of "swans" which includes their being white, is actually an impediment to any exploration of whether or not they might all be white. Similarly, a definition of Christian that includes never leaving the faith, would not be of service to an exploration of whether or not Christians do leave the faith.
@@chillydoritos7304o that’s still no true Scotsman. Your definition of Christian excludes all of the Christian who committed atrocious acts over the course of history which as the church’s have a long history of atrocities, you are now excluding all of them. That is literally no true scots right there. A Christian is defined by what they believe. Not what they do.
it seems to me this only works as a fallacy if the 'true scotsman' is an unchanging and clearly defined subject.
It could just as easily be claimed that the fallacy is to not understand 'the true scotsman' as subjective (which I posit it is). Thus making the counter fallacy to the supposed 'true scotsman' the actual fallacy.
There was a comment thread on a video from the 90s of Selma Hayek facetiously flirting with Conan O'Brian on his show, she says she likes Irishmen because they are passionate, and they proceed to comically flirt. The comment thread is rife with rebuttals to the assertion and claim that Conan O'Brian is Irish. "He's not Irish." No one was debating that he's Irish on a nationality basis. He's Irish decent and diaspora, he's 6'5 ft tall or whatever, with red hair, and named O'Brian. But people were getting very upset about this casual claim that he's Irish or Irish American, rejecting they he's Irish at all, on a cultural, ethnic, AND national basis, because of the national basis. Of course he's now Irish-Irish, but he's still Irish, and that can't be denied. But apparently it can when people are walking around with the cognitive dissonance that only your birthplace or your parents birthplace and your passport and identity forms dictate what you are. Then inverting this nationalistic logic some more, happens all the time on an immigration basis, foreign ethnicities that are born in a country and do culturally assimilate are similarly regarded as "not true" nationality, again on the basis of ethnicity, or an impure culture. It's a very pervasive and dangerous fallacy when it comes to these matters of immigration and culture. 100 million Irish diaspora apparently aren't even Irish, because you cease to be Irish as soon as your grand parents stepped off the boat or you step off a plane, or you shoot out of your mother's borth canal in a different country. Sorry Conan, but a lot of the Irish reject your Irishness because it doesn't make sense to them, and they will reject any arguments to the contrary. Pretty fascinating and disturbing pervading logic, and it's not just the Irish of course. I just found it fascinating and sad that the comment thread was so heated between Irish people rejecting him as Irish, and everyone else trying to convince them otherwise. Oh well, very sad.
This fallacy can apply to any language game: such and such linguistic community can always denounce a particular member on grounds of not holding whatever "true" doctrine represents the collection of beliefs and desires of that group.
"Trump was not a true/real republican president" etc.
The deflationary risk of this fallacy is to extent the misconception of truth to some metaphysical baggage as well.
X is not a real Christian because they reject doctrine Z.
However, I think this is where Wittgenstein's noncognitivism & pluralistic readings of forms of life are helpful. Since there really is no truth-aptness to such assertions, there is always a community that has sufficient resemblance to the one rejecting it while also accepting the doctrine themselves.
What is heretic to a Byzantine can be accepted as the case to a Catholic. Pluralism is inevitable in the contexts of propositions that hold no truth value.
To be clear are you a skeptic about the meaning of such group terms like "republican" or "heretic" doubting that they have any meaning at all, or are you a pluralist, thinking that they have different meanings to different people in different contexts, but in those contexts do have real meanings. The former would dismiss the need for such a fallacy, but the later, it seems, would not as once you provided the appropriate context or language game you could assess whether someone were applying the criteria correctly or not (i.e. whether one actually subscribed to the planks of the Republican party's platform).
Of course, an Englishman like Flew would say this about Scotsman.
The question is whether, if you discovered that Flew was actually a Scotsman if your opinion of him would change. :)
Yes, but in this case Flew is an English man and not Scottish.
I worked out a suitable way to explain what a No True Scotsman fallacy is in under 200-characters. *"A "No True Scotsman" fallacy occurs when a premise that is in need of support, is bolstered by an ad hoc definition, where, if the definition is accepted, it excludes refutation of the premise."*
It is important to note that the No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is not specific to the groups that people choose to organize themselves into, or the allegiances that people might feel towards others. An example of the NTS fallacy can involve those things, but that does not mean that the fallacy is specific to those things.
A Marxist could be talking with a monarchist and put forward the idea that mature democracies do not start wars. This assertion would be immune to counterexamples if the definition of mature democracies is accepted to include that they do not start wars. With that acceptance, any democracy that did start a war would, by that act, be proven to not be a mature democracy. In this example, nobody's allegiance to individuals or groups is involved. Neither the fallacy, nor that example needs to be about a qualified form of something, like a _true_ Scotsman, or a _mature_ democracy. The example given here could just as well be about the definition of democracies, without a qualifying term.
Better than the video
Everywhere
As a proponent of qualified essentialism I find all too often those other essentialists guilty of this fallacy. There's a way to make the argument without being fallacious, but it's without being fixated on titles but rather very specific qualifications. I'm not able to make the lecture right now. But if anyone asks me I'll write it sometime later.
I would say, the perpetrator is not worth of being called a Scotsman then.
The only way there's a declaration of fallacy is when an outsider (not of the Scottish Tribe) believes that the phrase "true Scotsman " were actually referring the physicality or ethnicity rather than the "customs and culture" of the Scots.
The added label "No true" indicates that the parameters of trust and expectation taught and practiced by members of the tribe have been violated Therefore it is a statement of Fact not fantasy.
A culturally adapted Republican speaking to another Republican does not (and should not) accept that there's a fallacy somewhere in the phrase RINO..
RUclips boxers being described as not real boxers - even though some of them trained hard in boxing for several years (enough to qualify a non-famous person as a boxer).
That actually doesn't even qualify... which is what makes this "fallacy" odd and overly contrived. For this to apply someone would have to make a claim like, "a boxer never allows video to be taken of him training." To which, you reply: "Yes they do, boxers on youtube do it all the time." THEN, "those youtube boxers aren't real boxers." I've always had a problem with this fallacy for that reason. A more concise fallacy would be something like "the sweeping generalization fallacy" for which you wouldn't need all those specific steps to get at the heart of what makes this fallacy a fallacy.
3:26 I honestly don't understand this human desire.
Many people think that they know what is right and wrong, and they have justified reasons for holding their beliefs. When you can dismiss everyone that disagrees with you as an "other" that everyone in your in-group thinks is wrong it is more comfortable and easy to dismiss them. When you realize that you have individuals in your in-group disagree with you, or act differently than you do, it is much harder to dismiss them or "other" them. It seems to come from a place of disgust, you are more concerned about a bug in your salad than one in your garden. It seems, the closer something unappealing is to you, the more you detest it.
Feminist are the champions of this fallacy
The audio on this makes it unwatchable.
Seems closely related to the informal fallacy of "Moving the goalposts"
As a resident of the uk i call bunk on all of this, Scotland isnt a real place
i slightly resent scotsman is the example here... lol
After watching this video, I recalled that I had used this fallacy for defending myself. Once I had done something really stupid (had removed air from neighbours car tyre) and when she confronted me. I said, "I am really sorry ma'am. I don't know what took over me as no true good boy would behave in this manner. I was 12 I that time 😂
Well, if you include “refuses to remove air from someone else’s” in your definition of “good”, then you did NOT commit the No True Scotsman fallacy. In fact, if someone includes in their definition of “Scotsman” (provided they never change the definition) “one that never commits a heinous crime”, then they actually didn’t commit a fallacy
The way people use this online is toxic and justifys racism and sexism however this explanation makes a lot more sense thanks for explaining properly
Only a racist or a sexist would claim that!!!
Guess I'm first for once huh
Edit: neatly explained, nice video
Congrats! :)
The Christian example is pretty bad considering it doesn't apply.
The gospel is this
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you-unless you believed in vain.For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.
A person to be truly born again, in other words to be a true Christian they have to understand sin realize it is death and decay and turn to the God that died and was resurrected for their salvation.
But salvation is displayed throughout our stay here on earth. For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Note: Where the Word of God says unless you believed in vain. Someone can call themselves a Christian and even believe they are a Christian while not actually being one, and the church could perceive this person is a Christian but it doesn't not make them one.
And when you recieve the word of God it's impossible to continue in habitual sin.Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. Not to say we're sinless but when we sin there is forgiveness, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The Bible lays out what a true Christian is and does so therefore we can rightly discern at least outwardly (which is really an expression of our inward thoughts and desires) if someone believes the truth or not by wether they obey it.
Edit: I will clarify anything I've said if need be
Most often seen when Christian apologists talk about Christians that became Atheists. "Well, they clearly never were a _real Christian._ No _real Christian_ would turn Atheist." or maybe "They can't have been saved, because once saved, always saved, so real saved people don't leave the faith". In this case, the pattern is "if they leave the in-group, they were never real members" - it's not so much avoiding a bad member as it is admitting that a member can change their mind.
i know your example defined christian as "beliefer of jesus", but in more useful terms i'd add some more values to it.
things like pacifism, no banking (not using money to make money) would make good example values.
oh wait, i just said no christian should engage in capitalism, i have basically denied christianity to 99.9% of christians.
i could also be slightly more cynical and say that every person working (or making others work) on saturday is not a christian, but i wanted to stay with central values.
Keto dieters
ALBA GU BRÀTH !🏴😂
Your Christian example needs work. The argument there is the behavior does not support the belief system being claimed.
At what point can one say you're not what you claim to be, and your behavior shows it?
Most definitions of Christianity classify it as a belief system: i.e to be a Christian, you simply need to believe some claim or set of claims such as "Jesus is the son of God." Individuals who convert on their deathbed are counted by many denominations as Christians, despite the only thing they changed being their belief. And many Christians believe that we are all sinners, so a Christian doing something wrong seems, if anything, in line with a Christian world view.
You might think that Democrats who abuse women are hypocrites, or bad Democrats, but that does not mean they stopped being Democrats, or suddenly became a Republican. In the same way, a pastor that abuses children is arguably a hypocrite, and many would call them a Christian engaging in sin, but that does not mean they are not a Christian, or suddenly joined a different religion.
@CarneadesOfCyrene Forgive me of any typos... I'm doing this from my phone.
From a secular perspective, what you said makes sense. It becomes an issue, however, when the nuances in secular perspectives and Christian perspectives diverge. 2 parts of your response stand out to me.
1) What is a Christian? Most would agree that the secular definition says someone who believes Jesus is the son of God... And that fits for a secular purpose, i.e. to distinguish one Abrahamic religion apart from the others for ease of categorization.
On the other hand, if you ask Christians what a Christian is, they'll often tell you "Someone who believes Jesus is God." But what does that mean? That's a heavy statement with a lot to unpack.
What do both of the perspectives boil down to? Christians are people who profess that there is an omnipotent being who made himself human in order to save us from eternal damnation; furthermore they believe we merely need to accept him as such-- not merely by claiming it, but by keeping that belief in our hearts. We're talking about a core belief, not a modifier. That's what makes it such a difficult example to tack down properly.
2) [Paraphrased] "We're all sinners, so doing wrong is in line with Christianity." Yes, but no. Yes, we're all sinners. Yes, we're forgiven for our sins already. Yes, we're all going to sin again, and yes we're forgiven for that, too... But no, doing wrong is not in line with Christianity. The distinction is the mindset behind it. Take your "Gay Christian" scenario. Is it possible to be gay and Christian? Yes. But you can't be Christian and profess that a homosexual lifestyle is in keeping with tenets of the faith without cherrypicking and/or contradicting scripture. One mindset acknowledges the sins, the other justifies them. The latter is usually what Christians call out as "not truly Christian". And it's a fair criticism. The idea that someone can sin and say "it's fine because God made me this way" flies in the face of the Christian concept of dying to self. It's no different from an adulterous spouse saying "it's fine because God gave me feeling for the other person."
So what is in line with Christianity? Acknowledging your own sins, striving not to sin knowing you're going to fail and be forgiven, and calling out sin for what it is, particularly when it's being justified in the name of the faith/God/Jesus.
Situations like that are when groups are allowed to gatekeep (for lack of better phrasing) because failing to do so dilutes the teachings. It's not the same as saying something like "those Catholic Priests aren't true Christians." The first situation points out misconstrued doctrine, the second is the fallacy.
This is mostly used by Pastors and members of our church when someone commits sin lmao.
hypocrites 😂