Talk:No True Scotsman
- 1 No true Scotsman fallacy is not just about social groups
- 2 Seems to the opposite of Ad Hominem
- 3 Fundamental syllogism reversed
- 4 Chickenshit sexists called out by Nick Offerman
- 5 Fundamentalism applications
- 6 When you tell to communists that the "no true Scotsman" argument is a logical error while using it too
No time to edit now, sorry, but it's worth noting that the NTS fallacy is about ad hoc exclusions in order to sustain a universal claim. So, I the universal claim might be "all breakfast cereal is healthful," to which it is objected that Count Chocula isn't healthful. The NTS fallacy move would be to claim that Count Chocula isn't really a breakfast cereal. Social groups are just one example. — Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
Seems to the opposite of Ad Hominem
Conflicts with Ad hominem - attacking an organization's philosophy by attacking the characteristics of some members.
I have to do more research on identifying this fallacy , I recently used it to describe an argument that could rationally be considered its opposite of how it has been defined here and so I'm having misgivings..I'll explain so that if someone already knows an alternate fallacy rule that more directly applies they might reference it here: The person was using a slew of fallacies to establish a fertile platform to characterize what would otherwise be outrageous and convoluted positions At some point they were challenged and decided they might invalidate the opposite position by essentially saying any discussion of the concepts conclusion constituted validation of the conclusion and therefore made those arguing in opposition to the conclusion were in fact supporting it by arguing against it. Ostensibly disqualifying their opposition to it, and thus their argument. I interpreted this as a manner of arguing that their arguments are invalidated due to complicity with the conclusion and thus lacking no moral or logical high ground to attack the conclusion. ie If you denounce or argue against scotsmen/scotland you are a scotsman(as to discuss Scotland one thus becomes a scotsman, however...no true scotsman can argue against Scotland or the morality/logic of being scottish that is hypocrisy, thus if you yourself ARE a scotsman you cannot effectively denounce other scotsmen nor Scotland itself. I kid you not, that was the logical heirarchy..it was pretty bad and I shouldn't even have indulged a contribution to the discussion but I couldn't resist..so I did and now I wonder if I may have misidentified which fallacy is at the core of this argument. I definitely know it is one or more fallacy arguments but it seemed a bit mostly derivative of a no true scotsman scenario but perhaps its opposame. Its clearly a convolution of logic, but to name it I'm not so sure anymore.126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC) If I had to name it I'd call it positive exclusion. a form of no true scotsman wherein the argument is disqualified by being excluded from opposing the original position due to a perception of hypocrisy..or something like that. Kind of also like moving the goal posts now that fully analyzing it 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Fundamental syllogism reversed
It may seem rather rash of a contributor new tonight to reverse one of two inputs to the fundamental syllogism when I am not even from Scotland (though my name is Ian) but I am confident that the essence of the fallacy was expressed with the reverse of the P2 required, presumably as a confusion of what was happening. The first trio is surely P1, P2 are the two premises of a purported syllogism and C1 is its claimed conclusion, all three steps being in the underlying structure embedded in one person's argument asserting their fallacious claim. This is not the same as what is happening in the next trio, a conversation where two people (A and B) are stating things and A is attempting the fallacy (on-the-spot arbitrary redefinition special pleading by A) after B attempts to show an exception disproving A's claim in his first assertion.
In the first trio, P1, P2 and C1 are the implied steps in the fallacy proponent's assertion which is false and earns the label of the article's title. That is, the same person is the one asserting all three lines representing the fallacy.
I hope that is clear.
Chickenshit sexists called out by Nick Offerman
- You're right. Man should provide like the good slaves they are and stop complaining.--2d4chanfag (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
okay I suppose its bad form to pose a question in the talk section but here goes. regarding fundamentalism eg in religion. the article mentions when moderates or fundamentalists toward religions tend to assume a "no true scotsman" position on the beliefs or activities of the others' category of believers. My question is does this fallacy still tend to be applied even if and when the beliefs or conduct of those persons or sects is indeed divergent by way of verified scripture or established dogmas of the teachings or rituals of the religious context and not simply a result of anecdotal knowledge or minute interpretive ambiguity? eg One group's belief system is established to be based on the precise tenant of believing in the deity of a specific volcano..some generations later a splinter group characterizes itself as members of the the same cult but they redefine their version of the cult by doing away with core belief of the deified nature of the volcano. Now lets say: mainly because of cultural ignorance or similarities between the groups that may or may not actually be due to the volcano worship religion..(eg they eat the same kinds of meals)to the outside world who are not members of either versions of the cult and perhaps only a few if any outsiders actually have studied the culture to any extent, the second group is accepted as a sect of the same religion. While on the island a deep schism occurs wherein one or both cults declares the other apostates and therefore not within the same cult. Arguing that their arguments are weakened because of the "no true scotsman" fallacy would then itself likely produce a "fallacy fallacy" would it not? While I suppose it might be counter productive to indicate there could be a distinction where the use of the fallacy is not appropriate. I considered this question because I did find the article rather vague on this point in its definition implying perhaps that it makes no distinction when applied to the group dynamics of schism. TO pose it more simply, what I'm hoping to get clarified here is whether or not the "no true scotsman "fallacy is still identified when the arguments for distinctions determining affiliation with group dynamics are actually valid? Or does it not matter..attempts to disassociate members of social groups because of characteristics inherent to the subject of membership are by default considered examples of the "no true scotsman" whether the arguments are valid or not. IF so that conclusion itself would seem like examplary of a myriad of logical fallacies including: "appeal to authority","bandwagon",and "personal incredulity" eg because we are unclear if the distinctions outlined by one side of the argument are ACTUALLY determinate of affiliation we should consider it an example of "no true scotsman". eg religious membership or rhetoric is subject to the most popular opinion and not actual affiliation,practice,or adoption of distinct belief systems. Now I did note that earlier in the article under a different topic heading it was implied that the distinctions between the fallacy applied when the scotsman was making arbitrary or anecdotal criteria that did not at all exist in the definition of the group association.(the implication that a scotsman cannot be a sexual criminal of the kinds mentioned in the example. However it wasn't really made clear to me if this(that the distinguishing criteria must be false or subjective) is a prerequisite for the proper recognition of the a usage of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. The point is that some religious and other affiliation groups have a specific set of doctrines and ideals to the extent that merely claiming oneself or actions to be affiliated with their collective cannot always be logically taken at face value if their actions contradict those dogmas or doctrines. I would argue that this would be a fallacy of one who adopts or promotes the validity of the claim not of the person who disassociates the claims from the doctrine. My question might seem of the loaded question variety but I am truly wondering if there is a distinction in the criteria, and for whatever reason I'm thinking this talk section is an appropriate place to learn if that is the case or not.lol I suppose this topic could be interpreted as a loaded question that is actually a suggestion to further clarify this characteristic in the article if it is indeed known to be a determining factor in identifying the fallacy.184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
When you tell to communists that the "no true Scotsman" argument is a logical error while using it too
When musulmans are killing everyone "but they aren't the true musulmans, it's just terrorists" When feminists are hating men "no it's not real feminists! Real would want gender equality" When Stalin killed people "yes its because of communism " When you tell us that the "no true Scotsman" argument is a logical error while using it too — Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk