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

This link:
Fallacies of Ambiguity: The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy
Explains the logic behind the fallacy.I understand the logic behind being a Scotsman, and saying no-true-scotsman would do that, but to relate that to a group of choice is illogical.A Scotsman is born a Scotsman and no matter what he does, he will always be a Scotsman.Being a Christian, or any other religion, is a matter of heart. It is a conscious decision you make in your heart. You are not born that way, so there is a choice involved.I could say I am a gay liberal, but does that make me a gay liberal?
Either way, I was not born that way, and at any given moment based on my actions, I would not be either of those things.Do agree with me, yes or no?
If no, then why. Explain why the logic of no-true-scotsman can be applied to religion, or any other group of choice. (Moved here from Message 1 - AdminNWR)

Is this really the case? What are the precise criteria for being a scotsman? Is there a genetic marker? Is it purely a question of geography, does being born in Scotland make one a scotsman? Suppose a scotsman renounced his nationality and became a nationalised canadian, would he still be a scotsman?Is choosing to identify oneself as a scotsman not exactly the same sort of choice as choosing to identify oneself as a christian? The criteria may be different but what makes the process distinct?TTFN,WK

You do not choose to be a Scotsman.
It's a faulty analogy.

Thank you for questioning this. This "no true Scotsman" argument always seemed to me to be misapplied too. There are very clear standards for being a Christian that make it possible and even necessary for someone who knows the standards to say that someone else is or isn't a "true Christian." And as you say, this is because it is not something one is born into, but a system of belief that one learns and practices according to those very standards.

I guess I have to disagree. To be a Scot is to embrace a national identity: our Scotsman might well, as many have, choose to become an American. While he did not choose to be born a Scotsman, he does implicitly choose to remain a Scotsman. Similarly, it is often by the circumstances of birth--national, familial--that one embraces a Christian identity, and then one chooses to remain a Christian or not. One cannot choose one's origins, but one does, day by day, choose one's identity.The NTS fallacy is usually cited in response to a no-true-Christian defense. Some criticism is made of past or current behavior by a self-proclaimed Christian individual or organization. Irrelevant, someone replies: if they did that, they are no true Christian. By this logic, the only true Christians are those that behave in Christ-like ways, by which criterion no one here at Evc (as far as I can see) has the right to claim to be a Christian. So any examination of the consequences of Christianity in the world becomes impossible, which, in the midst of debate, one cannot help but suspect is the point of the NTC defense.One might reasonably propose that the issue is an internal matter for Christianity. If there are folks falsely claiming to be Christians for ulterior motives, who better than true Christians to detect and denounce the falsehood? But that is not generally what one sees: instead, one sees a general reluctance to accept any criticsm of folks and institutions claiming to be Christian, whatever their behavior, unless it is beyond a large sectarian boundary.Protestants may denouce Catholocism as anti-Christian; Catholics may return the favor. One independent church may assert that another's doctrine or practice concerning, say, baptism, falls short of the true Christian bar. But we rarely hear a Christian observe that the jihadists are no true Muslims, or that virulently Palestinian-hating Israeli's are not true Jews, or that a corrupt Democratic official is no true liberal. Evangelicals never seem to denounce another evangelical, though we have seen that more than a few deserved denunciation.For an external perspective, all this seems like a distraction. If we call Christianity to account for its impact on the world, should we not include all that is done in Christianity's name, including the true flock and the wolves they allow amongst them?

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I think you are missing the forest for the trees.If someone goes to a church/synaguge/mosque, and follows the majority of the tenants of that religion, does that make something OTHER than that religion if they do not perform perfectly?If someone who is Jewish does something that is very much against the basic tenants of the Jewish religion, does not stop him from being Jewish? No, it does not.If a religious CHristian murders someone , does that make him not a christian?? No, it just makes him not a GOOD Christian. Trying to put the word 'true' before it is just a destraction trying to distance
the claimer from the person who failed to perform up to expectations.

"No True Scotsman" is just the name given to this fallacy based on an old joke. It is not meant to take the analogy to the Scotsman in the joke too seriously.Basically, the fallacy refers to a form of equivocation. It applies whenever it is denied that a particular person is a member of a particular group just because otherwise it would invalidate the argument of the person making the denial.

Well maybe if you addressed the rest of the post I might know if your argument is convincing.I'm not just going to tke your word for it.Even if you look at the exemplars in that initial article there is plenty of ambiguity. Is 'an Aberdeen man' neccessarily a scotsman? Was he born and bred in Scotland? Were his parents scottish? Has he lived in
Scotland all his life? 'An Aberdeen man' may be none of these things, merely being identified in a newspaper as 'an Aberdeen man' is therefore no guarantee of being a Scotsman by a number of possible criteria. Therefore perhaps in this instance Hamish is quite correct to draw a distinction between a true scotsman who would fit the specific criteria and an untrue scotsman who maybe merely be fitted into that category because he has been identified as being 'an Aberdeen man'. Without knowing the criteria, and being sure that those criteria are universal, we can't draw a distinction between these various groups.In the case of that particular example it may simply reflect some pretty sloppy thinking on Anthony Flew’s part.TTFN,WK

There are some things that just clearly make a self-described Christian not a Christian. It is possible for people to disagree on these depending on their school of thought, but it's not an invalid concept. 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. Christians sin all the time but committing an act like that and doing it IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, as they do, is simply a complete contradiction with what Christ stood for and taught. It's not about ulterior motives, the people consider themselves sincerely enough to be Christian, but they are wrong, and it's perfectly fair to say this about them, including people within large "sectarian" boundaries that are definable doctrinally.

riVeRrat The point of the True Scotsman fallacy has nothing to do with the nationality but with the shifting of goalposts when a person premise, after being nullified by a contrary example, is re-engaged by redefining the premise to accomodate the contrary evidence.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time. R.P. Feynman

Actually, it is more like a definitional statement -- this is what a Christian IS. It is to be determined by doctrine and can't be answered the way you all are answering it, from the outside. Different denominations have their own definitions. It's what makes a denomination you could say. There are cults who call themselves Christians. This doesn't invalidate the basic principle that from within your doctrinal system it is right to call someone who violates the doctrine a nonmember of your system.

Yes that is the way it looks to an outsider but the outsider is wrong, it is a false accusation. There is such a thing as false Christians and in fact entire false Christian institutions -- and yes those within those institutions are going to disagree, so the outsider is in a difficult position, but goalposts are not being moved, it's just a difficult position for an outsider to judge. It is valid to define an individual or group as a violator of particular principles. The outsider is not in a position to judge this and no right to call this moving the goalposts. That is not the case.

Hi, Faith.I was just responding to the OP, where it seems the claim is being made that the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" can only be applied to groups where membership is not voluntary.That is not true. The No True Scotsman Fallacy is a form of equivocation, or goal post shifting as sidelined aptly puts it. It is correctly applied whenever membership of a particular person into a particular group is denied for no other reason than inclusion of that person into that group would render one's argument invalid.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Faith The disagreement is not the issue it is when a definition is given Say for instance that no true christian is gay and I point out that a christian friend of mine is indeed gay you would be commiting the TS fallacy if you were to say that he was not a true christian unless you can specify what a true christian is that is not disputable and that would exclude him.

It is easy to specify that homosexual practice is an intentional violation of God's law, putting a practicing gay outside the camp, and I have every right to say so. A NONpracticing but otherwise self-identified gay, who may even fall into sin from time to time because we're all sinners and weak, would not be excluded by my definition. And I have every right to appeal to my definition.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-16-2006 10:14 AM