(May 31, 2012 at 2:22 pm)Polaris Wrote:(May 30, 2012 at 7:07 pm)padraic Wrote: Well,not quite anyone. About a billion Catholics disagree.. You seem to be implying that Catholics are not 'real' Christians.
That argument is a no true Scotsman fallacy, beloved of dogmatic believers.
Well Jesus was the start of the no true Scotsman "fallacy" so...
Well no,he didn't actually.
Anyway,so fucking what? That does not validate anything you say.
Why do you put word fallacy in inverted commas? Are you of the opinion that makes it untrue?
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Quote:No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
Quote:Origin
The use of the term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.[2]
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking
When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
