The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is used (and misused) by theist and atheist alike. Theists sometimes tend to be guilty of committing this fallacy when they attempt to distance themselves from fundamentalists, or try to say that ex-theists were never really "true" theists. Atheists are also sometimes guilty of making this fallacy, by confusing atheism and skepticism.
However, recently I've noticed this fallacy either being used, or being misused in political debates. It is with that in mind that I'd like to take the time to educate people about the fallacy, and when it applies.
The fallacy itself was invented by Antony Flew in a 1975 book, where he imagined a Scotsman reading a headline about some (non-Scottish) rapist and remarking "No Scotsman would do such a thing!". The next day, the same Scotsman reads a headline about a Scottish rapist, but instead of admitting that his previous assertion was untrue, he changes it to "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
The Wikipedia article (as well as various philosophical sites online) often simplify this story to a proper structured argument such as the follows:
A: No Scotsman would commit rape.
B: But what about {insert name of Scotsman who committed rape}?
A: Well, no true Scotsman would commit rape.
It is important to note at this point that practically all these three parts of the argument are needed for a No True Scotsman to be valid. For instance, sometimes I see someone make a statement "No true X would Y" (where X is some type / group of people, and Y is some action), and then get accused by others of using a No True Scotsman. However, if the first two parts of the argument are missing, then strictly speaking this would not be a valid example of a "No True Scotsman".
That is to say, technically a "No True Scotsman" is an attempt to retain a previously unreasoned assertion. If such an assertion is missing, then the fallacy cannot be committed in its most strict interpretation. This isn't to say that other fallacies aren't being committed, as for instance the statement "No true vegetarian would eat broccoli" is quite obviously invalid. Perhaps a simpler way of explaining this would be to note that the "No True Scotsman" is a type of equivocation fallacy; a fallacy where more than one definition of a word is used in order to switch definition mid-argument. Thus, when a person has started off by stating "No true X...", a "No True Scotsman" fallacy hasn't been committed, because only one definition is being used.
There are of course numerous statements which use the "No true..." prefix and are perfectly valid:
"No true vegetarian would eat meat."
"No true atheist believes in God."
"No true Christian believes that Jesus isn't the son of God."
...etc.
None of these are examples of the fallacy, nor do they become examples of the fallacy if you add in the two neccessary preceding steps. For example, the following argument is not an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:
A: No vegetarian would eat meat.
B: My friend is a vegetarian and eats meat regularly.
A: Well, no true vegetarian would eat meat.
In this instance, A is perfectly justified in their claim that no true vegetarians would eat meat. Why? Because the very definition of a vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat. This is an important factor to consider before charging someone with committing a "No True Scotsman"; that if the definition of the word contains some restriction on people who use it to describe themselves, anyone who has some attribute which is contrary to that restriction cannot logically justify themselves with that definition.
In other words, pertaining to my example, the true fallacy lies with the friend of B, who is claiming to be a vegetarian and yet eats meat. This is logically impossible, and so we can deduce (as A does) that B's friend is not a true vegetarian, despite claiming to be such.
As RationalWiki puts it:
One could possibly argue about definitions, especially if there are multiple definitions for a single word, which is why such definitions should be cleared up either before making a statement about "true X", or after someone makes the accusation of a "No True Scotsman". If you make your definitions beforehand, then as long as your arguments are valid, nobody can justify a "No True Scotsman" against you, and if they try to, you can link them to this post!
I hope this helps explain things a bit better. I'd like to see this fallacy used less and less, so please share this with as many people as you see fit.
-Tiberius
However, recently I've noticed this fallacy either being used, or being misused in political debates. It is with that in mind that I'd like to take the time to educate people about the fallacy, and when it applies.
The fallacy itself was invented by Antony Flew in a 1975 book, where he imagined a Scotsman reading a headline about some (non-Scottish) rapist and remarking "No Scotsman would do such a thing!". The next day, the same Scotsman reads a headline about a Scottish rapist, but instead of admitting that his previous assertion was untrue, he changes it to "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
The Wikipedia article (as well as various philosophical sites online) often simplify this story to a proper structured argument such as the follows:
A: No Scotsman would commit rape.
B: But what about {insert name of Scotsman who committed rape}?
A: Well, no true Scotsman would commit rape.
It is important to note at this point that practically all these three parts of the argument are needed for a No True Scotsman to be valid. For instance, sometimes I see someone make a statement "No true X would Y" (where X is some type / group of people, and Y is some action), and then get accused by others of using a No True Scotsman. However, if the first two parts of the argument are missing, then strictly speaking this would not be a valid example of a "No True Scotsman".
That is to say, technically a "No True Scotsman" is an attempt to retain a previously unreasoned assertion. If such an assertion is missing, then the fallacy cannot be committed in its most strict interpretation. This isn't to say that other fallacies aren't being committed, as for instance the statement "No true vegetarian would eat broccoli" is quite obviously invalid. Perhaps a simpler way of explaining this would be to note that the "No True Scotsman" is a type of equivocation fallacy; a fallacy where more than one definition of a word is used in order to switch definition mid-argument. Thus, when a person has started off by stating "No true X...", a "No True Scotsman" fallacy hasn't been committed, because only one definition is being used.
There are of course numerous statements which use the "No true..." prefix and are perfectly valid:
"No true vegetarian would eat meat."
"No true atheist believes in God."
"No true Christian believes that Jesus isn't the son of God."
...etc.
None of these are examples of the fallacy, nor do they become examples of the fallacy if you add in the two neccessary preceding steps. For example, the following argument is not an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:
A: No vegetarian would eat meat.
B: My friend is a vegetarian and eats meat regularly.
A: Well, no true vegetarian would eat meat.
In this instance, A is perfectly justified in their claim that no true vegetarians would eat meat. Why? Because the very definition of a vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat. This is an important factor to consider before charging someone with committing a "No True Scotsman"; that if the definition of the word contains some restriction on people who use it to describe themselves, anyone who has some attribute which is contrary to that restriction cannot logically justify themselves with that definition.
In other words, pertaining to my example, the true fallacy lies with the friend of B, who is claiming to be a vegetarian and yet eats meat. This is logically impossible, and so we can deduce (as A does) that B's friend is not a true vegetarian, despite claiming to be such.
As RationalWiki puts it:
Quote:Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on).
One could possibly argue about definitions, especially if there are multiple definitions for a single word, which is why such definitions should be cleared up either before making a statement about "true X", or after someone makes the accusation of a "No True Scotsman". If you make your definitions beforehand, then as long as your arguments are valid, nobody can justify a "No True Scotsman" against you, and if they try to, you can link them to this post!
I hope this helps explain things a bit better. I'd like to see this fallacy used less and less, so please share this with as many people as you see fit.
-Tiberius
