Death of a Scotsman (Re: the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)

quote:

---

For instance, killing an abortionist is just so completely out of keeping with Christian doctrine there's no way that person can be a Christian.

---

But this is just your personal opinion.There are probably hundreds, possibly thousands of people, including clergy, who would disagree with you, all of them considering themselves Christians.On the other hand, there are probably many thousands of people who call themselves Christians who oppose ALL killing, including "legal" killing such as in war and executions by the state. Pacifist Christians, if you will.Clearly, "Christian doctrine" is interpreted in many, many different ways and there is absolutely no way for anyone to declare a particular doctrine the "correct" one, since humans are flawed and can never interpret it 100% perfectly.

quote:

---

I could believe I am black, but I am not. No true black would be white.

---

That depends upon one's definitions of "black" and "white"Ever hear of the black folks who could "pass"?

If you define "schrafinator" as someone who has that name, rides horses, and posts in this forum, then that is a clear definition that disqualifies you from being "schrafinator."How "black" and "white" have been defined by different people and groups vary greatly over the years.How do you want to define "white"?How do you want to define "black"?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 12:30 PM

quote:

---

If there never were any true Christians int he history of the world, then there are no-true-scientists in the world.

​

Also if the no-true-Scotsman theory is valid, then creation science is science, and all those that subscribe to the NTS fallacy better be prepared to admit that creation science is science.

​

I satnd by my original thought, and is that the NTS fallacy is untrue, and cannot be applied to all things.

---

This makes no sense. It is gobbedygook.Christians look back on the deeds and attitudes of Christians from centuries ago, and they find those deeds and attitudes reprehensible.Instead of saying "I can't believe those Christians behaved like that!", or "Those Christians were pretty bad Christians.", they use the "NTS" fallacy and instead deny that these self-proclaimed Christians of yesteryear were actually Christians at all, because no true Christian would ever do those reprehensible things.The analogy you are trying to make with scientists is invalid, and here is why.Let's say that scientists today look back on the medical experiments that were done on people in Tuskeege and find that what was done was reprehensible.What scientists do is say is, "Those scientists were unethical.", and, "The types of experiments that those scientists conducted must never be allowed again."IF they were to say "Those people who conducted the experiments on the people in Tuskeegee were not true scientists, because no true scientist would ever conduct an unethical experiment." THEN the analogy would be appropriate.However, no one denies that those people conducting the experiments on the people were, in fact, scientists. They scientists, and they chose to conduct unethical experiments upon a group of people that the culture at the time considered more disposable.Got it now?There are universally agreed-upon criteria for who is considered a scientist. The same cannot be said about who is considered a Christian.EDITED to correct statements about the Tuskeegee Airmen. The experiments were done there, but I mistakenly thought they were done on the military folks. They were done on the locals, not the Airmen.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2006 01:29 PM

quote:

---

That whole "gobbedygook."

---

Which?Your message that was garbled and misused the NTS fallacy?

quote:

---

Is not the exclusive logic behind the NTS.

---

What is not the exclusive logic behind the NTS fallacy?Your garbled message?Unless you would like to explain it to me.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-04-2006 07:32 AM

quote:

---

I've always had it, but aparrently you do not.

---

Really? Please clearly explain, line by line if required, how my recent example of the NTS fallacy is in error.Please also explain, line by line, how the message I characterized as "gobbeldygook" is, in fact, a clear and accurate description of the NTS fallacy.In particular, I am very interested in your explanation of the logical progression of the following:

quote:

---

Also if the no-true-Scotsman theory is valid, then creation science is science, and all those that subscribe to the NTS fallacy better be prepared to admit that creation science is science.

---

Keep in mind that the NTS fallacy is a fallacy, not a "theory".This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-04-2006 07:38 AM

quote:

---

Would you claim that a qualified scientist(creationist), is not a true scientist?

---

It would depend upon his or her adherence to scientific tenets and methodology in the scientific work that they did and wished to promote as scientific work.If they did adhere, then by this definition they are, indeed, a true scientist.

quote:

---

If I am to stick by my earlier post, I would say that you CAN claim this if the person is in contradiction with the definition. So I'm guessing a CS fails because s/he doesn't observe the method of science. Yet s/he's qualified as a scientist already, so it seems that you would be under the NTSF, as he could well carry on in his science, as he previously did.

---

Having a degree doesn't make one a "true" scientist if one leaves behind all scientific principles and practice and method of inquiry.

quote:

---

Or perhaps you'd claim he isn't a scientist anymore? Yet what if he takes part in genuine science?

---

If he or she takes part in genuine science, some of the time, but the rest of the time they abandon scientific principles completely, I would say that they are a scientist, but a very poor one that frequently promotes pseudoscientific garbage.For an example of someone like this, look at Dr. Laura.

quote:

---

It's a bit complicated this specific scenario. I'd have to say that because s/he qualified as a scientist and still takes part in it, then infact you would be under the NTSF, because generally, colleagues and his/her employers, would consider him/her a scientist, by qualification and profession.

---

The thing is, there are people doing real science who do not have degrees. A ten year old girl published a paper in JAMA, afterall.

quote:

---

It just seems more logical to say that he's a bad/poor scientist. Do you agree? (I admitt that I am torn between whether it is the NTS fallacy or not, because of the complications).

---

Hey, it really depends upon which definition of "scientist" you want to use.

quote:

---

This thread is not about a theory, or a fallacy, it's about the logic of the NTS.

---

The No True Scotsman fallacy IS A FALLACY.By frigging definition.That's why it's called the "No True Scotsman FALLACY".Good grief.