Talk:No true Scotsman: Difference between revisions

 

Line 84: Line 84:

::By the way, people are polite on here all the time without announcing that they’re being polite. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 18:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

::By the way, people are polite on here all the time without announcing that they’re being polite. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 18:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

:::The example mentioned now does not fully explain when is the argument fallacious, and when is it, athough tightening the definition, not amounting to a fallacy. Also, the example mentioned now fails to explain fully the fallacy as a general phenomenon. Creating a “scenario” isnt OR, just as demonstrating a Modus Ponens isnt. This is simply an explanation in more thorough and reader friendly term of the fallacy, as put forward by the cited litreature. –[[User:Amir Segev Sarusi|Amir Segev Sarusi]] ([[User talk:Amir Segev Sarusi|talk]]) 21:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

:::The example mentioned now does not fully explain when is the argument fallacious, and when is it, athough tightening the definition, not amounting to a fallacy. Also, the example mentioned now fails to explain fully the fallacy as a general phenomenon. Creating a “scenario” isnt OR, just as demonstrating a Modus Ponens isnt. This is simply an explanation in more thorough and reader friendly term of the fallacy, as put forward by the cited litreature. –[[User:Amir Segev Sarusi|Amir Segev Sarusi]] ([[User talk:Amir Segev Sarusi|talk]]) 21:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

::::I’ve just reviewed the ”Modus Ponens” article. By the same logic, would we also remove the examples provided there? Those examples were written to illustrate the syllogism itself. This is neither original research nor synthesis; it simply makes the sources clearer for the reader. – [[User:Largoplazo]] [[User:Amir Segev Sarusi|Amir Segev Sarusi]] ([[User talk:Amir Segev Sarusi|talk]]) 08:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

The great Igor Stravinsky said: “Instinct is infallible. If it leads us astray, it is no longer instinct.” I have no idea if he was joking or “comitted” the fallacy. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:34F4:C4D7:E406:4142 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would not be a good quote to add to the page. It’s kinda-sorta similar to “no true Scotsman”, but going much further. Stravinsky is not saying that instinct that leads us astray is not “true” instinct, trying to sweep a contradictory outlier under the rug by introducing a narrower (but subjective) variant term. Stravinsky was categorically denying that something you claim to be instinct which led you astray in any way can be instinct at all, which is more analogous to the skeptical Scotsman when confronted with a bad-acting fellow countryman denying that the other party could even be from Scotland and must be an immigrant posing as a Scotsman, or perhaps a devil in human disguise. Stravinsky’s assertion is utterly nonsensical to begin with. Our instincts “lead us astray” probably more than anything else. Aside from just basic counter-factuality, Stavinsky was moving rhetorically toward an extreme version of fallacy of equivocation, redefining the entire concept of instinct to exclude a vast class of anything that does not produce positive results, which does not agree with anyone else’s definition of the term. “No true Scotsman” (which tries to introduce a narrower sub-term and definition, not redefine the whole concept “Scotsman”) is related to equivocation, but is a definition-narrowing ploy, not a defintion-replacement ploy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps, I agree that S seems to create more ontological havoc then in the typical example. He does say “no longer” though, suggesting he might not have agreed with your analysis.

Here is another fun example taken from Zen Buddhism which delights in this sort of game:

A monk asked Seijo: “I understand that a Buddha who lived before recorded history sat in meditation for ten cycles of existence and could not realize the highest truth, and so could not become fully emancipated. Why was this so?”

Seijo replied: “Your question is self-explanatory.”

The monk asked: “Since the Buddha was meditating, why could he not fulfill Buddhahood?”

Seijo said: “He was not a Buddha.” 2A01:CB0C:1704:9A00:95EF:75ED:76A8:D7EE (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section seemed unnecessarily confusing, especially the first two sentences. This is not a particularly complex concept, and there must be better and more simple ways to describe it, especially when first introducing the concept. I removed the incorrect use of “a posteriori” and “a priori” and tried to make a few edits, but it probably still needs work. – notwally (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A vital clarification.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/07/11/why-the-no-true-scotsman-fallacy-isnt-always-a-fallacy-2 71.231.252.56 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the authors of the article are providing incorrect examples. The “No True Scotsman” fallacy occurs when a fact that contradicts a universal statement is unreasonably dismissed as an exception.

For example, when Sam claims that he dislikes Christians in general because Bob, a Christian, is a terrible person, he is committing a faulty generalization. Similarly, when Sam berates libertarians by asserting that they all, without exception, hold chauvinistic views, he is also committing a strawman fallacy. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable and valid to provide counterexamples and criticize his positions.

A correct illustration of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy would be the following:

— I hate libertarians! They’re all racists and bigots!

— But I am a libertarian, and I am neither racist nor a bigot. Moreover, I have many friends who also hold libertarian views and are not chauvinists.

— Oh, you’re just not real libertarians! You’re actually socialists falsely calling yourselves libertarians!

Or an even more extreme example:

— Company X’s products are so reliable that they’ll be used by three generations of customers’ descendants!

— I bought a hair dryer from Company X, and it broke after a week.

— That’s because you have a bad aura! Foockla (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is wrong, or rather “not even wrong”. It really misses the point entirely. It goes astray when it starts asking the question “what makes a definitive counterexample?”

The fallacy is informal and whether or not something is a counterexample is going to be determined by the context of the conversation and the sense of the propositional premises.

The NTS fallacy doesn’t care what is and what isn’t a counterexample, just that if a proposition is offered and a legitimate counterexample is presented in response, followed by an ad hoc revision of the initial claim to be an a-priori analytic claim that defines by language the conclusion to be correct, then the fallacy is committed. 2605:8D80:6A1:4EB7:3C0E:8FA:F9FC:DCEB (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t a fallacy at all; it’s a standard way of expressing an opinion to the effect that someone is falling short of a perceived ideal. If a teacher tells his class that “no scientist fakes their research”, and a student responds by listing examples of scientific fraud, the teacher would be forgiven for retorting: “of course, I meant no respectable scientist, no scientist worthy of the name”. There is no logical fallacy involved here, merely a clarification of the intended underlying sense. Most English speakers would recognise the original phrase as a standard idiom without needing to have it spelled out to them. 31.94.20.229 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing by ad hoc “expressing an opinion” that was not part of the reasoning before and thus changing one’s stated position without acknowledging it is a fallacy.

Even if it were not, Wikipedia follows reliable sources and not the original research of its editors. —Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the person in the example uses a definition of scientist like “someone who employs empirical methodology in the pursuit of truth over extended periods of time”, or something like “someone who employs empirical methodology professionally”, this would in fact be an example of the No True Scotsman.

In this case the more important feature is not whether or not the definition is ad-hoc (although that is necessary) but rather a question of a-prioriticity. Given the definitions above, we must decide amongst ourselves whether or not “engaging in occasional fraudulent activity” is CONTAINED LOGICALLY WITHIN THE DEFINITIONS. In this case, I think it is quite obvious that nothing about following empirical methods in many cases logically negates fraudulent activity in other cases, meaning if the original offerer of the definitions were to suddenly come to the same conclusion, and modify their definitions to something like “no true scientist commits fraudulent activity” without admitting to the incorrect claim, it would be an NTS.

However, suppose the offerer had not chosen those two definitions and had intended prior to the conversation to communicate that their conception of a scientist is defined by: “one is a scientist for the duration of time that they employ empirical methodology to discern truth”. Suddenly this is not a No True Scotsman for two reasons: one that the definition was constructed prior to the conversation and therefore cannot be ad-hoc but more importantly, the original definition logically excludes the interlocutor from ever being able to offer a counterexample because it’s actually true. The claim is a-priori in nature, and thus there is no counterexample in which to improperly ‘dodge’. 2605:8D80:6A4:31D1:4D28:2BD0:87F6:F025 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources which discuss how the phrase is actually used in real life? I had it addressed to me as a child on many occasions (I point-blank refused to eat porridge oats without sugar). In my experience was a reproof for not eating it the way Scots should — i.e. a rebuke for not following a national tradition. Treating it literally is to miss the point. My parents knew very well that there are Scots out there who (like me) prefer it the “soft” way, with sugar. Pointing that out wouldn’t have changed a thing. The real argument was that such behaviour falls short of a perceived standard: namely, what is expected of “true Scots”. That might constitute a somewhat narrow-minded viewpoint, but it isn’t a logical fallacy. ~2025-37084-48 (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has suggested that phrases like “no true Christian ever kills, no true communist state is repressive and no true Trump supporter endorses violence” exemplify the fallacy.

On top of being false (the phrase “communist state” is inherently self-contradictory – communism is stateless), it just doesn’t actually add anything to the article. It’s tacked on at the end of the “Origin and philosophy” section, but it’s not related to the origin at all, doesn’t really add anything philosophical, and doesn’t help clarify the subject any more than other examples already do.

I would just delete the paragraph, but it seems that similar deletions have been reverted, so I’m looking for some sort of consensus first. DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really get it either. What is it adding for the reader? Valereee (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically my thoughts. I’ll axe the paragraph. DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reverted as “unsourced,” even though it introduced no new claims and merely expressed, in clearer terms, what already appears in the cited sources. I therefore request that the reverted edit be restored.

While I am adhering to the obligation to remain polite, I must state plainly that this reversion was entirely unjustified and unacceptable.

This was my edit:

Claim: “Sexual harassment can never be committed by a subordinate against someone higher in the hierarchy.”

Counterexample: Empirical data show that there are cases of sexual harassment by soldiers against female officers.

Ad hoc response exhibiting the No True Scotsman fallacy: “Those are not real cases of sexual harassment.”

The fallacy lies in the fact that, instead of addressing the evidence that refutes the claim, the speaker alters the definition of “real sexual harassment” so as to exclude the counterexample from the category. This is precisely the mechanism of the No True Scotsman fallacy: artificially preserving a universal claim by dismissing contradictory cases, without providing a substantive justification.
By contrast, the following example employs a similar structure but involves a substantively justified qualification, and therefore does not constitute a fallacy.

Initial claim: “A rectangle is a geometric shape in which all angles are right angles.”

Apparent refutation: “Here is a rectangle in which one of the angles is 85 degrees.”

Response: “This shape is not a real rectangle, since a rectangle is defined as a quadrilateral whose angles are all right angles.”

In this case, the argument is not fallacious. Although the speaker tightens the definition, the restriction is not arbitrary, because the defining property of a rectangle is precisely that all of its angles are right angles. Therefore, excluding the contradictory case (“this is not a real rectangle”) is justified and does not constitute an artificial attempt to preserve a universal claim.–Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Largoplazo —Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve created your own scenario and then made your own analysis of it, showing why it’s an example of the fallacy. That, as I see it, is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Anyway, it isn’t obvious to me why this is clearer than the straightforward example in the lead.

By the way, people are polite on here all the time without announcing that they’re being polite. Largoplazo (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The example mentioned now does not fully explain when is the argument fallacious, and when is it, athough tightening the definition, not amounting to a fallacy. Also, the example mentioned now fails to explain fully the fallacy as a general phenomenon. Creating a “scenario” isnt OR, just as demonstrating a Modus Ponens isnt. This is simply an explanation in more thorough and reader friendly term of the fallacy, as put forward by the cited litreature. —Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just reviewed the Modus Ponens article. By the same logic, would we also remove the examples provided there? Those examples were written to illustrate the syllogism itself. This is neither original research nor synthesis; it simply makes the sources clearer for the reader. – User:Largoplazo Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]