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

NTS doesn't allow any definitions.I could steal your idendity and become you, does that make me you?

the answer is no, there were never any "true christians" there never have been any, theres not single group or denomination in the history of christianity who were "true christians"even the first followers of christ never agreed on anything even whether christ was devine or the son of god, as for the NTS thing, it comes down to people pointing thier fingers at someone who doesn't agree with them and saying "they arn't true christians!" in reality they are saying "they aren't true christians, because they don't follow my churchs dogma!"if people want to argue that the disciples were "true christians" they never agreed on anything eather infact the scizm between paul and peter shows there never was a "true christian" church
so the whole true christian thing is nothing but a dismissel of someones beliefs you don't like

A good point came to me while debating with schraf.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.

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

No, it just means that you can't change definitions to suit your argument, like Christians usually do.

I've always had it, but aparrently you do not.That whole "gobbedygook." Is not the exclusive logic behind the NTS.
Try again.We have covered all points that you just brought up already. No, and Yes.
We've coverd it.

Well crash, I actually agree with you. There are hypocrites, and there are gray areas. The whole thing is to vast to be summed up in some silly rule like the NTS fallacy. Especially groups of choice.

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

Would you claim that a qualified scientist(creationist), is not a true scientist? 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.Or perhaps you'd claim he isn't a scientist anymore? Yet what if he takes part in genuine science?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.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).

Then I would just be repeating myself, it's all been covered, we don't need to go over it again. If you don't get it, then that's your right. This thread is not about a theory, or a fallacy, it's about the logic of the NTS.

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.

Please go back and read the OP.The logic behind the fallacy, When applied to Christians, or groups of choice, is flawed, thats the whole point of this discussion, I guess you missed that?Why do I have to explain this, it's like you don't actually read whats in the thread, you just like to argue with me?

I think I disagree with you on this one. But that's okay, as reasonable people like you, are aware that argumentation isn't personal.I think Riverrat's disgruntlement is because of statements such as this one; If I said;Having a belief in Christ doesn't make one a "true" Christian if one leaves behind all Christian principles and practice and method of peace. I would be under NTSF, yet you are not apparently under it??From our standpoint, it seems a bit of a double standard, that we are under the fallacy, but that you are apparently not.Yes, it depends on definitions Shraff, but as Crashfrog said, we can't define Christian without being told that we are defining it on our own terms. Also, the variables show that someone could practice science, and be known as a scientist, so it seems that in the real world, the NTSF applies afterall.If the double standard doesn't exist in the application of the NTSF, then it exists in the fact that we aren't allowed to define Christian, yet you are allowed to define Scientist/science.As far as I know, I don't know of any shared definition of 'science' or 'scientist'. The dictionary also seemed to qualify them easily, as people who deal with natural phenomena. Yes. That is a more logical position, IMHO....Fact is, I have asked many Christians if they would agree with my definition of Christian, and they've all replied, 'yes'. But that's neither here nor there, because you guys would rather keep 'Christian' as a vague term, so you can claim the NTSF.Come on, did you think I didn't notice that?I think it's fair that if your side INSISTS we are under the fallacy, even if we are using a specific definition, then we can also claim you are under it, when you use your own specific definition.Listen, it doesn't matter if I say 'no true Christian', because if I said that, you'd immediately assume I was using the term as it is generally defined, rather than my specific definition, which I have stuck to for many years. (so I am infact not under the fallacy, yet I am assumed to be).So you can define scientist if you want, but when you say 'scientist', I will also assume that you refer to the usual vague definition of qualified guys and gals.