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

In my opinion, "no True Scotsman" is not a logical fallacy at all. It might sometimes be an evasion, but that would depend on what were the intentions of whoever used this argument.Admittedly, it is also my opinion that most "logical arguments" aren't. That is, they are not really logical arguments.What makes something a logical argument is the following of particular rules of inference to reach a conclusion. Those rules of inference are supposed to be formal, thus independent of the meaning of the terms involved. A logic fallacy is the incorrect application of those rules of inference.Most arguments, including most of what are called "logical arguments" are really arguments about the premises, or arguments about the meanings of the terms. Thus what is in dispute is not the logic.This thread already demonstrates my point. Several posters have disagreed with you over the meaning of "true Scotsman". And they haven't all agreed with each other as to what that meaning is.

ROTFLPeople disagree all the time about who is and who isn't a Christian.If there are two Christians in the room, there will be at least two different sets of standards as to what makes somebody a Christian.

FaithThe point is that there is no objective definition of the christian faith. That you feel strongly that scripture supports you does not mean that christians are required to adhere to your definition unless your authority is sacrosanct in some way.There are christians that are gay and if you would say that they are not you must also provide the means to demonstrate that christianity excludes them without reference to personal asides. It would seem to me that in the christian religion gays hold positions of authority within. For instance from the website Borrow Quick Money – Payday Loans Guide Now since I can show that the are people who are defining themselves as christians fully accepting of gays and lesbians is, in and of itself, a refutation of the premise that no true christian can be gay also.

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

This is true. As I said outsiders can't judge it. It doesn't make a statement about what a Christian is to be a fallacy however or moving any goalposts.

You are answering some other argument. The only point I'm making is that a statement from within any particular doctrinal system is not a fallacy if it is consistent with that system. It doesn't have to be consistent with your system or any other system. It is not moving the3 goalposts to have such a position.

FaithThen it is not your contention that a gay person cnnot also be a christian? If not then indeed we are not talking along the same lines.
If yes then the fact that there are christians that are gay and practicing homosexuality refutes that contention. This is ok as long as you do not further state that they are not true christians because no true christian can be gay also.

Down through the ages there have been several broad definitions established as to who is a Christian. The most widely accepted of those is probably the Nicene Creed. It was adopted in 325 AD IIRC.Someone who accepts the Nicene Creed is a Christian. If they are homosexual and accept the Nicene Creed they are a homosexual Christian. If they are evil and accept the Nicene Creed they are an evil Christian.It is short, and pretty clear. Certain Sects can of course add other conditions to join their group. For example, one sect may say that a homosexual cannot join their club. That is fine, but it has nothing to do with the large communion that is Christianity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You have just blended together 4 very different principals there, all of which I find irrelevant to each other.Can you clearly define the specific differences between the 4?
Born a Scotsman
Scotsman by choice
Scotsman (which of the 2 I don't know) living in America
Christian by choice.Hows it go again?
A+B=C, B+C=A, C does not = AIf people who make up these bogus sayings like NTS are going to start making all these rules, then they must live by them. You bring up a very good point here. To me it is one of self conviction. But it is mis-construding the truth.The truth is that no-one can be Christ, but that is where it ends.
It is also why you cannot relate being a Scotsman to being a Christian.What makes you a true Christian is accepting Jesus as the Son of God.This is a choice of heart. Something that cannot be measured.If you are born in Scotland, or living there, then you are a Scotsman. There are no other criteria than that. Anything else is hear-say.However, truly accepting Christ, there is criteria. To be in Christ, is to follow that criteria. If you choose to not follow that criteria, then you are not acting in a Christ like manor, and therefore Christianity is not to blame.A better analogy would be a runner who runs in the Olympics. He's an Olympic runner. He wins the race. He gets busted using steroids. Is he still an Olympic runner? whether he got busted before or after the race, makes no difference.Is it the fault of the Olympics?
Does he still get to be the winner?If he was a Scotsman, he still would be a Scotsman. Not Christianity, but individual religions, maybe.If one Scotsman robs my house, do I blame all of Scotland?
Do I not trust all Scotsman from here on out? I think atheists are doing a fine job of that.But the NTS fallacy falls short of the truth. True, but irrelevant in how it relates to the NTS fallacy. Also true, but irrelevant. Your actions dictate who you are, not your mouth.Being a Scotsman has a different set of rules.So the 2 do not relate. In a court of law, who's fault would it be? Christ, or man?This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 02-16-2006 10:58 AM

Basically it comes down to equivocation because of one word and many meanings, as NWR points out in message #17.All anyone needs to know is that if somebody's actions contradict the definition of the term, then they are genuinely NOT described that way.Example; Joe claims to be a footballer.Term; Footballer. Definition; Kicking a ball around. But Joe never kicks balls around. He is in contradiction with the kicking of balls. He is NOT a kicker of balls. He is therefore not a true footballer.This can be stated as long as we are clear on the term. If we say no true scotsman puts sugar on his porridge;Term; Scotsman. Definition; bloke from the North.As you can see, the predicate "no sugar on his porridge", doesn't contradict the definition. You can come from the North and have sugar or not have sugar, and it won't affect your Northness.Yay

Me too, I'm all against the kicking of balls.TTFN,WK

Thanks jar, I knew something like this existed, but didn't know where to look.

It is my contention that a PRACTICING gay person who does not recognize it as a sin is not a Christian. The fact that there are gays who CALL themselves Christians does not refute my contention. I do so state. And I have the right to state it, as I have a consistent definition of Christianity that excludes practicing gays.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I knew you were never a true Scotsman. No true Scotsman is against the kicking of balls! That is, unless they're his balls.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-16-2006 11:07 AM

If he is not following the rules of being a Christian, then how can he be one? More important, how could you then blame the rules of being Christian.If he murders someone, he is going to jail, not Christianity.Maybe the wuthor of the NTS, should consider changing to NGS, no-good-scotsman.