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

"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.

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

quote:

---

A logic fallacy is the incorrect application of those rules of inference.

---

A formal logical fallacy, you mean. The No True Scotsman Fallacy is an example of an informal fallacy. These are not usually included in courses on logic (at least not symbolic logic) for the very reason that you imply -- they do not involve the incorrect application of rules of inference.Interesting notion you have. I have not seen before this informal fallacies described as errors in the premises, but now that you mention it informal fallacies (like the No True Scotsman Fallacy) do seem to either be erroneous premises or can be recast as errors in unspoken premises. Interesting.

---

"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

quote:

---

Several U.S. Army personel were indicted in that prison abuse scandal in Abugabi. Does that mean that the ENTIRE U.S. Military should be held accountable for the actions of these few?

---

I would reword that. The prison abuse (and what I think Omnivorous was trying to get at) is relevant to discussions whether military actions are generally feasible, since abuses like this will occur along with whatever "good" you are attempting.And this is how the NTSF is applied to Christian arguments. Where I have seen the NTSF invoked is when, for example, a conservative Christian is attempting to convince others how much more moral society was when it held to Christian values. When examples like slavery or imperialism are brought up, the response is usually, "Oh, but those aren't Christian values," even though it is the same society acting on a common body of principles. Either societies acting under "Christian principles" supported slavery, or they weren't acting under "Christian principles" at all. You can't just pick and choose to try to get an artificial example to support your preferred utopia.These people want to use a broad definition of "Christian" to include good people and good principles, but then want to narrow the definition when these same time periods produce bad people and bad principles. This is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It is basically the fallacy of equivocation.

---

"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

quote:

---

The NTS fallacy is a fallacy itself, and gets mis-used all the time.

---

Yes, it is misapplied at times. However, it is also correctly used at times. The times in which it is correctly used included when the criteria for membership into the disputed group are vague or not clearly specified, or when the arguer is equivocating, using (perhaps unintentionally) two different definitions of the disputed group.I'm sorry if the NTSF has been misapplied to any of your arguments, but the NTSF is a real (informal) logical fallacy that does occur, and when it occurs it does render the argument invalid. And, yes, there have been, and undoubtably will be, arguments used by Christians that are invalid because they commit the NTSF.-

quote:

---

It is a stupid saying made up from lies, to try and make specific groups of people responsible for individuals actions.

---

But if the arguer tries to give groups of people credit of the good actions of individuals while denying that the groups of people are responsible for the bad actions of individuals, then that could be an example of the NTSF. I have seen Christians try to do this.

---

"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

quote:

---

If a church gets together, and promotes something good, but only a few carry it out, the group can take credit. It was encouraged to do a good thing.

---

Talk about making no sense. No wonder you scoff at logical fallacies -- you probably commit a bunch yourself.

---

"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