Talk:No true Scotsman/Archive 1

Removed Sections: What this fallacy is not
The article formerly contained sections which were confused, or at least confusing, on what exactly constitutes the NTS fallacy. The mere use of "true X" is not the fallacy; there can be an argument or assertion about who is a "true Christian" or who is a "true Communist" and that does not, in itself, constitute the fallacy; the distinction between a true and a nominal Christian is as valid as the distinction between an ethnic and a practicing Jew, for example. Like any informal fallacy, NTS can be considered a tactic of debate; its essence is that a term is redefined, after its use in an assertion, specifically to accommodate a counter-example to the assertion. Its function as a tactic of debate is to rebut a counter-example to an assertion: if there is no counter-example, there is no fallacy—not this fallacy, anyway. See also Korny's comment below.

The sections removed indicate a failure to understand this. They are, moreover, unverifiable interpretation. I would request that anyone who adds these sections again please attempt to rewrite them with the comments above in mind, or to cite some verifiable source. ——Jemmytc 14:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Except the counter examples are often implied.Hamishthetrue (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What the article needs is something on the motivation of the fallacy and it should be provided with all articles on fallacies: why do people commit them or this one in particular? What is the confusion at the heart of each of them? JB's filleting makes the article boring. I suggest JB rewrites with the idea in mind that wikipedia is about incremental improvement, not blanket negativity. 62.64.205.137 14:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I removed the content because it seemed to be erroneous, or at least to give the wrong impression. So please, excuse the blanket negativity!  —Jemmytc 12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You should not have blanket negativity.Hamishthetrue (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh! I didn't notice--you added the sections again!  I'm sorry, but I'm going to remove again.  Please don't add them back without rewriting; note that WP policy requires that contested material be cited and that this material seems to constitute original research. —Jemmytc 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamishthetrue: first of all, you are citing sources (a blog post, a personal essay on geocities without even a surname attached) which are not acceptable sources on wikipedia. More significantly, the sources you cite do not address the no true Scotsman fallacy. Your attribution of the fallacy to them is original research: if you wish to assert that something is an instance of the fallacy, you must back up that fact, at least if it is contested (and it is). Second, as I have tried to explain, this fallacy involves fundamentally neutralizing exceptions to a general statement by redefining the generalization. See An argument is a tree of inferences for the logical error inherent in the fallacy; note that the examples you provide do not evidence this error. See also the summary here (note that, unlike the previous article, this is not an acceptable source for this article, but its summary is very concise):

If you search the literature (that is, the literature on the fallacy) you will find that my impression of it is correct. Please do so. Please see WP:V for WP's standards for sources. Please stop accusing me of vandalism! I am only trying to increase the accuracy of the article. —Jemmytc 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is about "subjective redefinition" - that is blindingly obvious - you don't understand that redefinition of the same kind occurs when it does not hit you in the face. Go away and think about it, ask a teacher, and stop being a vandal. Hamishthetrue (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just responding to my comments, without even indicating in any way that you have read them, is not discussion. Nobody said anything about "subjective redefinition," and you have not addressed anything I said, nor remedied the issues raised regarding WP:V.  Please read that page and note that the burden is on you to justify your additions. —Jemmytc 02:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this just an example for another logical fallacy
population A does/avoids B but C is sample of A and does/avoids B

therefore C is not (not a true) element of A.


 * Is this just an example for Begging the question or Faulty generalization or another logical fallacy?
 * Does this have any unique features that distinguish it from other logical falacies?

It seems like this is an example of the Special pleading logical fallacy. I've added a proposal to merge this into the article on Special Pleading. Every X is in the category Y x1 is an X, and is also in the category Z Therefore, x1 is not in the category Y. (Example of Special Pleading) DelRayVA 192.31.106.34 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of the article is not to claim that "No true Scotsman" is a unique form of logical fallacy, but that it is a label for one such fallacy, and one that people may come across and want to know more about. I think the right way to relate it to other logical fallacies is to link to them. cshirky (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

POV
Saying a commie who disavows the USSR is making a logical fallacy is absurd--communism is a very complex ideology with major subgroups that often have conflicting ideas on what communism means (ex: some types of anarchism vs. Stalinism). Anarchists and others in the anti-authoritarian wing of communism objected to the soviet union as soon as it formed and even before, not just after it failed. I am getting rid of this statement, if someone has a disagreement, put it here. But you better actually know something about communism before changing it back, in other words you have to know more than what they teach you in your awful high school history class. Just because the Nazi's called themselves National Socialists, doesn't mean they were socialists, likewise, just because the USSR called themself communists doesn't mean they were communists.
 * I understand what you're saying; I have three objections: (a) the Soviet/Chinese "experiment" in Communism clearly dominated Communist theory and writing during the 20th century; (b) though I can't argue that some Communists disavowed Lenin/Mao/etc. from the beginning, there are also those who disavow them now (and in the 60's, 70's, etc.) out of convenience, i.e. if the Soviet experiment had been successful they wouldn't be making that claim; (c) this article is short on real-world examples and that's a concrete one. How about if it's reintroduced with a caveat stating some of what you said? Korny O'Near 19:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Korny. The same arguments that the objector wants to apply to communists could also be applied to liberals or conservatives, and that example has been retained.  -- Temtem 22:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty good compromise, but I'm going to change the current text a bit. (original poster)

The problem with all the examples (communist, liberal, concervative, christian) are that the there are nothing near concensus about the definitions of any of these terms. So saying "no true whatever" is a valid way to limit how you use the term. Of course, "no true liberal" would ever eat meat is way outside any common meaning of the term. But "no true liberal would ever propose outlawing hate speach" is not, even if "outlawing hate speech" is often considered part of the liberal agenda in the USA (or so I guess, I'm not from the USA). Same with communism, "no true communist would ever support the USSR" falls nicely within some common definitions of the term.

I'm also unsure about the claims of ussr-support dominated communist thinking. What happened was that those who did not support ussr or china dropped the tainted communist label, but not communist theory. So was they communists back then? And can they call themselves communists now the ussr has collapsed, and china has embraced capitalism? May they even be the "true" communists, in their own eyes? I think it is a valid POV, and not a logical fallacy. --Per Abrahamsen 14:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

- I believe the genus term in this definition (as of February 16, 2004) is incorrect. The exchange is not an "argument" that could be construed as "fallacious." It is an example of a common discursive practise, in which assumptions on the part of one speaker, concerning the denotation of some term, are communicated to another speaker, once it becomes clear they're not using the terms the same way. Consider:

A: "No VW bug has a twelve-cylinder engine." B: "But my VW bug has a twelve cylinder engine." A: "Yes, but no true VW bug has a twelve cylinder engine."

What B understands by "VW bug" is clearly not what A intends by the term. A then clarifies by asserting he's referring to some "essential quality of a VW bug," rather than the class of things commonly called "VW bugs." There is no argument here, there is only a process of clarification. A might follow up by saying "We might call your car a VW bug, but let's agree it's not a real one."

This is not an example of a logical argument, in which referential terms are assumed to remain fixed, and where deviations from what is fixed result in a fallacy. It is an example of a discursive process of defining what a "VW bug" or "A Scotsman" can mean.

Surely this discursive practise can be manipulative, but it can be equally productive. Scientists, possibly more often than Christians, engage in this kind of exchange all the time, as they seek to clarify what makes their practise essentially scientific. "No rational inquiry should stray far from empirical observations. " "But Newton/Freud/George W. Bush stray very far from empirical observations!" "Yes, but REAL rational inquiry must not stray too far..."

If anyone thinks I'm on the right track here, I'll gladly do a rewrite!

-pixote


 * I think there's 2 ways to interpret the issue. In one case, A really is making an earnest definition of what he/she means by a term: so in this case, A really is saying, "such and such is part of my definition for such and such". This occurs most often in politics and so forth, where various people are "contesting" the meaning of a term in discourse. It would be more honest and forthcoming if A would just admit that he/she is bringing definition to a term, instead of this kind of indirect way of changing or establishing meaning.
 * Another thing happens when there is already a clearly defined meaning of a term, and in this case, A is engaging in a logical fallacy. For example, "Scotsman" can be given a clear definition, say, a native inhabitant of Scotland. In this case, it is quite possible for a counterexample to exist, and to say "No 'true' Scotsman" in effect excises all counterexamples, making the statement vacuously true. Of course, this is fine, provided one is honest that this is what one means: see the first usage. One might legitimately be trying to make a contribution on what it means to be a "true Scotsman" as a form of identity or culture, independent of being a native inhabitant of Scotland. The problem occurs when someone uses the argument in the former sense, but masks this usage by giving the appearance of the latter sense. This amounts to constructing a definition while giving the impression that the definition is a consequence of logical deduction, not definition.

---

I can't understand what the Evolution example is doing here. It seems to be falacious, since 'Evolution', as it is argued over is agreed to be defined as an historical event. It is not 'redefined' by supporters and opponents. It is simply argued whether or not it happened.

Furthermore, it does not seem to be an example of the 'no true Scotman' argument anyway.

-- There is almost no disagreement whether micro evolution took place. The question is whether macro evolution took place. The definition of what macro evolution is changes depending on the circumstance. Generally when arguing about macro evolution it is just called evolution.

Even when talking about macro evolution, many people who are debating the issue, are really debating whether God created the universe. They want to use macro evolution as a proof that God was unnecessary. Then when arguing the issue, evolution means no God and those who are countering it mean there is God. EW

What's the bit on terrorism actually trying to say? I think the article would be better without it - the examples above are perfectly clear. Evercat 20:07 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

A friend of mine often "defends" his point by insisting that something is "technically" right. Is this an example of "no true Scotsman"? Here's the example: A: 3+4=6! B: No, 3+4=7! A: Technically, 3+4=6.
 * What the f*** is '"Technically, 3+4=6."' supposed to mean?
 * I can offer a better example of the use of "technically" that might make more sense to you. It's based on my own experience, so it's subjective but true nonetheless :)
 * In recent years there was a campaign to conserve water in the UK with the suggestion that one should take showers rather than baths, because, it was claimed, showering uses less water. In the US, there was a similar campaign - but with the exact opposite message: take a bath rather than a shower, because it uses less water. So which campaign was right?
 * *Technically*, they both were. Why?
 * Baths in the US are generally speaking much smaller than their UK counterparts so they use less water. Ergo, if you shower in the US you'll use more water than if you take a bath, but if you shower in the UK you'll use less water than if you take a bath.
 * On the other hand, someone who is pulling your leg might well make an outrageous statement and justify it by saying "technically, blah, blah" just to wind you up. :) AncientBrit 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So, I think the vegetarian example is a weak one. A vegetarian may prefer steak, but choose not to eat it for religious or ethical reasons. Not vegetarian advocacy here -- it just doesn't seem like a good example. Maybe "No true vegetarian eats meat"? -- ESP 19:48 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, done. Evercat 20:11 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * It's still pretty problematic. Japanese vegetarian includes fish.  So do "vegetarian" diets from certain parts of India (fish are the "fruit of the sea").  Fish also isn't vegetarian to traditional Catholics.  Of course, goose used to be vegetarian, as well as several other "meats".  It all depends on the definition of meat, and hundreds of millons of people in the world use (in their own languages) a different definition of meat, so it's a pretty weak example.  Surely you can use something more solid than that.  How about "No true atheist would believe in God."?  -- Rei 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking perhaps to put that "No true vegetarian would eat a true beef steak." 64.90.198.6 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

-

Tony Blair today told the Parliamantary enquiry into the reasons for going to the Gulf War that he haadn't exagerated the threats from Iraq. He said

"That would be dishonest and if I had done something dishonest I would have resigned. But I haven't resigned" Seems like a very good example of this fallacy/argumentping 11:56, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that. He's saying "if P then Q. Not Q, therefore not P" -- it's not terribly substantial, but it holds. -- Tarquin


 * Yes, the problem is he hasn't substantiated that he would have resigned. --128.211.218.162 01:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-

It should be noted that scenes and subcultures rely heavily on the "no true scotsman" principle. Most people recognize arguments like no real punker/skater/hacker/etc. would be caught dead wearing/listening to/reading/etc. These arguments are often used in an attempt to keep the scene pure and exclusive. A strange twist to this is the hiphop scene, where four elements, (DJ's, MC's, Breakdance, Grafifity) should be an indication of a true hiphopper. But some VJ's try to advocate visuals as a fifth element presumably to gain entrance to the scene. "No true hiphopper can't go without these five elements, therefore a true hiphopper should hire a VJ for his underground party!" Neat way to secure a job. 

Using the fallacy fallaciously
I've seen the "No true Scotsman" fallacy used to do the very thing that makes it a fallacy in the first place:

Claim: Nowhere does God say to kill everyone you disagree with; no true Christian would do such a thing. Reply: That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You can't say "he's not a true Christian", because what really makes one a "Christian"? Thus, if one fundamentalist idiot goes on a killing spree in the name of Christianity, all Christians are guilty!

This sort of reminds me of misuse of the "Person-Who Fallacy". E.g. "No one supports this tax increase." Reply: "But I know a person who supports it." Rebuttal: "That's the Person-Who Fallacy. Just because one person supports it doesn't mean everyone does." Re-Rebuttal: "Um, I didn't claim everyone supported it... you only need one counterexample to prove your claim false." --Birdhombre 14:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Similarly, I've heard the No True Scotsman fallacy being condemned as overused:
 * "X claims that blowing up buses is not a true expression of Islam. However, X could say the same thing about any action that does not fit into his definition of Islam; the "No true Scotsman" fallacy can apply to anything that does not fit your definition of your religion, and therefore X remains ignorant of the truth." Which is unfair generalization of the worst sort.

Indeed; maybe the problem is assuming that being a Scotsman, or Muslim, or whatever, automatically implies a whole set of qualities outside the raw definition, which can in a way be seen as stereotyping, positive or negative. The truth is that every American from Martin Luther King to, say, Timothy McVeigh is (or was) "equally" American, and factors like moral qualities are irrelevant to "American-ness." (The same of course goes for every other group.) For more info on the idea raised in this section, see the Argument from fallacy, which in a sense can include iself. -- Lenoxus 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to this point, I've seen a lot of fallacious use of No True Scotsman used to entrentch a prior Straw Man fallacy, particularly in political debate.

It's not uncommon to hear supporters of capitalism to claim that the fact that the undemocratic command economy of the Soviet Union could not compete with the crony capitalist economy of the USA proves that Marxist theory is flawed. When confronted with the fact that Marx did not advocate an undemocratic planned economy, a common response is to fallaciously claim this to be a No True Scotsman.

Perhaps it might be appropriate to compare fallacious use of No True Scotsman to disputing the fact that no true Scotsman is born in Switzerland and culturally identifies as Swiss, can trace ten generations of ancestors who were born in Switzerland and culturally identified as Swiss, cannot speak or understand English in any Scottish accent, cannot answer basic questions about Scottish culture, and obtains a stolen Scottish passport to evade Swiss national service. Lindsay40k 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor examples
I find both the lesbian and the Christian examples to be not quite accurate. I removed the lesbian one, but it was restored. Here's what I think: this fallacy is basically a way to save face after someone makes a generalization that's too sweeping and is then corrected. It doesn't apply to someone who, from the beginning, wants to exclude someone from a group because they don't think this person belongs. The example of someone saying "no true lesbian dates men" is not relevant to this article, because it can be a firmly-held belief and not just a rhetorical device. An improvement might be a speaker saying "Every lesbian is pro-choice." Retort: "well, actually, Jane X is pro-life." "Well, no true lesbian is pro-life." Again, the key is rhetoric over an actual functional definition.

I'm willing to change this, I just want to make sure other people are on the same page. [Update: forgot to include my tag in here before - Korny O'Near 15:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)]
 * I agree there. Debating whether a lesbian is a lesbian if she sleeps with men is something directly related to its definition, whereas their stance on abortion is not... just as it would be fine to say "no ture pro-lifer supports abortion" but not "no true pro-lifer would choose to live in Ohio". The former directly relates to the definition of the term, whereas the latter would be a generalization. I guess the hangup is just with the use of the word "true": are there women out there just pretending to be lesbian, or are lesbian in name only? "True" is kinda redundant... or pointless. --Birdhombre 14:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The video engineer example needs to be changed. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not expert in the field. For example, it's not an appeal to authority to cite a biology on evolution or a climatologist on global warming. However, it's an appeal to authority to cite an engineer's (attempt) to refute evolution and/or evidence for Intelligent Design. I've made the appropriate changes to the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.161.140.3 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Its an appeal to authority to use the credentials or other authority of your proponent as your argument. Your claims is silly. The whole point is that something is or isn't logical as a fundamental property of the claim or argument rather than the proponent. While climatolgists may be more learned on climate issues, that doesn't mean appealing to their credentials as your argument's support is valid logic. Similarly, it doesn't mean its valid logic to cite an engineer's credentials to discredit his logic when he says "its 30 C today" based upon his thermometer reading. The whole point is that its the logic rather than the proponent that is the issue.ΔΜ (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Christian example" is flawed and I removed it. As has been covered above it is difficult to establish a common definition for the term "Christian." Disputing the definition is not the same as an ad hoc redefinition. In this example the argument: "No true Christian can lose his salvation, therefore X was never a true Christian" could be defended by asserting that it is impossible to tell with certainty if any person is a true Christian, but only possible to tell if they are *not*. This is actually a commonly held doctrine supported by Jesus' parable of the Wheat and the Tares among others. It's better to keep examples of logical fallacies clear and simple. Better not to get into complex, muddy examples that use words for which there is no one, clear definition. Ahusni (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this example. Studying Theology single honours, can basically say that teleologically-motivated murdering sprees in the name of political idealism from a man who rejects the literalism of the Christian Bible is pretty contradictory to Christianity. He identifies himself as a "right wing Christian" but has voiced that it chould be possible to be a "Christian agnostic" or "Christian Athiest" - a position not very far, if not completely compliant to Richard Dawkins (who also wants Christian heritage retained despite his objections to Bibilical literalism). While it is possible that a Christian can go on a murdering spree, the appeal to true christianity isn't comparable to an insane appeal to a link between one's nationality and one's integrity, but to adherence to the instructions given directly and through example within the various Judaeo-Christianic documents. In a nutshell, it's not a good example at all. - TYB

There are no accepted definitions for most broad political or religious terms
In fact, defining these terms are often a political battleground. Refering to what a "true" Liberal or Christian may or may not do is not a post-hoc or ad-hoc change of the definition to win an argument, but an attempt to define the terms for the argument.

Please do not reinsert the old political and religious examples, except as examples of how the "no true Scotsman" term is abused. They are both semantically wrong and very much POV. --Per Abrahamsen 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's all about context here: was the "no true..." statement used without prompting, to make a point, or was it done in response to someone pointing out a flaw in a generalization? This fallacy only applies to the second case. So the context matters: in some cases, the very same statement could be either a "no true Scotsman" fallacy or not, depending on what prompted it. For instance, "no true conservative would vote for this tax increase". If one Politician A said it to Politician B to try to convince him/her to vote against a tax increase, then it might be hyperbole, but it's not an example of this fallacy. On the other hand, if that same Politician A said on a talk show, "no conservative is voting for this tax increase", then the host said "but Politician B is", then the politician responded, "well, no true conservative...", it would be an example of this fallacy. The difference is that the second case is concerned only with creating with creating an appearance of consensus; the first case is concerned with actually creating consensus. So yes, you can have it in a political context. Just brushing aside all uses of the fallacy in political and religious contexts doesn't make sense: that's where they're most often used, and the examples provided were valid ones.


 * If you want to replace them with examples that are less controversial, like "no true Mac user would use Microsoft Office" or the like, that's possible, but the article needs some sort of examples, not just a lengthy explanation of why the fallacy is supposedly not a fallacy at all. Korny O'Near 14:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are talking in the context of the UK (or Danish) political systems, where "conservative" would refer to a specific political party (we have card carrying conservatives), the Scotsman phrase applies. But not in the US political system, where the "conservative" label is ill-defined.  The communist example would also be valid in a country with a strong (enough for membership to be the accepted definition of the term) communist party, or in a context where being a communist is not about party membership.  I don't see it matters whether the statement is made in a talk-show or a private conversation.  I always imagine the Scotsman example being made in a private setting (a parent trying to convince his son not to use sugar).  What really matter is whether the speaker is trying defend a particular "valid" definition, or just adapting the definition to the circumstances.


 * "No true Scotsman" is an example, so I don't see a desperate need to give more. And I don't explain how the fallacy is not a fallacy. I explain how the fallacy is often applied on non-fallacies. --Per Abrahamsen 16:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, I understand that that's what you're doing, but is it true that the fallacy label is often misapplied? I'd like to see an example of that. And I still think the Communist example is a perfectly good one: note that it's used on countries and governments, not people; so it has nothing to do with party membership. It's a speaker saying, "such-and-such government was not truly Communist", in order for the speaker to avoid having to account for the previous failings of the political system he/she is advocating. That's what my earlier example was about (forget the talk show bit): the fallacy is a way of making the world look simpler than it actually is. Korny O'Near 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's probably worth pointing out that a socialist, and not without significant historical evidence, could easily claim that Mussolini and Hitler are examples of why Capitalism is Fascism, just as you're attempting to pin Stalin on Socialists. Of course, no true Capitalist would agree with Mussolini, but I think the removal of the reference to 'communism' is very wise, and your take on it is *very* POV.

Last paragraph
I do not see why it should be here.


 * Indeed. It is a great compliment to people like me, born and brought up in Scotland, but it is not truly necessary. Maybe it helps to explain the situation, though.--Zhengfu 10:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph is very odd. It certainly digresses from the point and seems to be written by someone that doesn't realise you traditionally add salt to Scottish porridge rather than sugar. So the sweetening is not only potentially weak but also goes against traditional behaviour (hence the "true" label). I suggest it's edited down considerably. Panlane --82.38.227.22 19:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The rant about sugar being potentially seen as feminine struck me as incredibly odd. I agree that it seems entirely out of place. Maybe I'll check back later and edit it down myself when I'm a bit more awake and alert. --Brad R. 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

After the editing which has converted the last paragraph into two, I vote to delete the current last paragraph. Dan Watts 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Badly written
I can't follow this lame unencyclopaedic prose.

You might try reading the Uncyclopedia. 64.90.198.6 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No true Wikipedian reads the Uncyclopedia! --Hugh7 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WHy does this article not reference a single source?Bless sins 12:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph after the contents, especially, seems very obscure and could perhaps be moved down as well as simplified. --Hugh7 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole discussion of "treating the definition as fixed" vs. "treating the case as fixed" is so indirect as to be nearly indecipherable. --Thomas B&#9816; talk 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Example?
"Captain, as a good Scotsman, I'm ashamed to admit that my knowledge of Milton is somewhat sketchy. " - Scottie from Star Trek. This seems like an excellent example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, used by an Canadian actor playing a Scotsman no less. The implication being that a good, or true, Scotsman would have knowledge of Milton (an English author).Steve 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * good is different than true. It just means that Scotsman are expected to know Milton, or value knowledge of him. not that if one does not know Milton he is not a Scotsman, or even not a good one. Rds865 (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He's not saying that he (the character) isn't really a Scotsman; rather, it is expected of him to know Milton and he doesn't. Knowledge of Milton is correlated with being a Scotsman, but it is not the definition of a Scotsman. -moritheil Talk 11:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Isn't this fallacy really about, in the simplest terms, falsely applying changeable behavior to a definition of something that isn't changeable? Being a Scotsman is not based upon behavior and is something that can never change. You're either a Scotsman by birth and forever after or you're not. Anything you chose to do in life will never change that.

Conversely, the fallacy cannot be accurately applied to things which are defined by behavior. The vegetarian example in the article exemplifies this. Being a vegetarian is based upon behavior. However, so is being a Christian, but that doesn't seem to stop certain people from trying to use this fallacy to counter arguments like, "Hitler wasn't a real Christian." Hitler's behavior was absolutely not in line with Christ's teachings, so it is not a fallacy to say that he wasn't a real Christian. 67.135.49.158 06:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The fallacy is that one alters the definition a group to defend an assertion about the group against an exception. It is fallacy precisely because it can be used to defend any assertion about any group from any exception.  In order to be a fallacy, it is important that the form does not, in fact, serve to define the group; if, rather than "Hitler wasn't a real Christian," one said, "A Christian is someone who behaves in a Christ-like fashion, which Hitler did not," one would have an unreasonable and nonstandard definition of 'Christian,' and might be accused of changing one's tune, but would not invoke the fallacy, because the earlier assertion, "Hitler was no Christian" would still be properly defined (though redefined).  If one utters, unadorned, "But Hitler wasn't a real Christian," one has still failed to assert anything about Hitler, because 'Christian' is still undefined. —Jemmytc 04:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it is about redefining groups, but when committing the fallacy, people think there is such an entity as a 'true Christian' or a 'real Christian' besides 'unsatisfactory Christians'. The fallacy concerns feelings about 'truth' and 'reality' - not everything in philosophy reduces to simple group theory. The article should address this. The whole subject is more complicated than you think. It is a common thing in philosophy for people to hit on a 'clear view' of a subject and then go blind to all the further complications. 62.64.205.137 14:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * People may think that way, but that has nothing to do with the fallacy. Anyway, you keep adding back these unreferenced sections!  Please cut it out. —Jemmytc 13:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * SO you suggest it is OK if it is renamed "No Red Scotsman"? "No Honest Scotsman"? And the sections were referenced (with allowances for copyright) -- 62.64.202.58 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is "Scotsman" assumed to be defined, but not "Christian?" Seems a bit biased to me. 67.135.49.158 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * JB, do make a case, because so far you have contributed nothing except a blinkered and simplistic view of things. And what you said above is wrong. Hamishthetrue (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, do make a case.Hamishthetrue (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * JB. There is no OR in the article. That is just your excuse for vandalism. There is not a single fact that can't be checked. An article cannot simple repeat the sources. There has to be some dot-to-dot.Hamishthetrue (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Biased which way? Theologically, the definition of a Christian involves true faith, and true faith is supposed to be seen via actions.  Sociologically, the definition of a Christian involves going to church.  Which is the "correct" definition?  Using the latter definition means that the fallacy is involved; using the former, saying someone is not a "true Christian" is actually a meaningful statement.  -moritheil Talk 11:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jemmy Button
Stop being a vandal. Hamishthetrue (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Expand
This doesn't really explain what it is very well or how it's used. It needs some examples and secondary-source commentary or something. — Omegatron 23:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a much better description:

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm — Omegatron 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needs expanding. And it needs someone to suspend Jemmy Button, who keeps vandalizing the article (3RR?) - despite the fact that other editors are trying to improve it. 62.64.206.132 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism; it's revert warring. Using the word "vandalism" for things that are not vandalism dilutes the meaning of our policies against it.  Please discuss your changes here instead of revert warring with each other.  Vandalism — Omegatron 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We can see that Jemmy Button is the only person who is reverting against the consensus of all the other editors. Hamishthetrue (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this original research?
''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."''

If this wasn't the example given when the phrase "No true Scotsman" was coined by Antony Flew, then is this a story made up by a Wikipedian? If so it should be removed immediately per WP:NOR.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Our phrasing suggests that this is what Flew actually wrote; I will check when I have time, and add a citation. But the real question is: does it correctly represent usage of the no True Scotsman argument, as it probably does? We are allowed to explain things, you know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Doxa.com reference
I'm not sure but does 'We can say "no true Christian would be anti-Semitic" since Christ was Semitic.' contain a logical fallacy in itself because it assumes that these Christians wouldn't be performing logical fallacies themselves? Also, the spelling in the article is atrocious like 'coulee' for 'could' and 'lad' for I don't know what.

What is the purpose of its citation anyway? Munci (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Doxa.com self published? second, it kinda makes an argument that Christians don't really use the NTSF. That is just like a vegetarian, does not eat meat, a Christian doesn't believe there is no God. There are multiple definitions of Christian, so it becomes confused. That is to trinitarians, nontrinitarians aren't true Christians, because they don't prescribe to true Christianity. As for the true Communist part, the term is more broad. Mainly these are cases sub groups, or even different groups with the same name. Rds865 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At first I got a totally different site because whoever added the reference in the first place had added 'doxa.com' as a title but 'doxa.ws' as a reference. I really can't tell if it's self-published or what because it has no 'About Us' section and I've not seen the site other than the reference here. It doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else on wikipedia whatsoever so I doubt it's a credible source. You've already deleted it anyway so any problem is already solved. Munci (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of "un-American" under McCarthyism as an example of the fallacy
Surely the all time classic example of the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy has to be the use of the term "un-American" during the McCarthy period, when all sorts of people were denounced as not being true Americans because some aspect of their political beliefs differed from those of the government. I think this is such a well known and obvious example that there should be a reference to it (probably after the bit about Patton's quote), but before I add anything does anyone have any views? Kbathgate (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're gonna add "Un-American" to the synonyms for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, can we add the phrase "Real Americans", also? Eldritch2k4 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Morality as a consequence rather than as a focus
I get the impression from the article as a whole that the morality of being called "true" in the meaning of "good" is really at the centre of the 'No true Scotsman fallacy' - but I do not see how 'No True Scotsman' by necessity would have anything to do with defining people as good or evil. The argument:

Argument: No dogs run up ladders. Reply: My dog runs up ladders. Rebuttal: I meant to say, no real dog runs up ladders.

..is fully a 'no true scotsman' argument, but there is no moral dimension to whether dogs run up ladders or not. Overall the issue is complicated and it feels like the article needs compiling into a more comprehensive and contiguous whole, but I'm not sure how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.66.11 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Giant revert
There may have been good changes in the article since my giant revert. Someone could merge those back in, maybe. The old change I reverted was added without discussion, after the page had been locked at my request to prevent edit warring. Now you are edit warring again. I knew that the lock wouldn't do anything. But it's all I could get the administrators to do. Maybe they will do something else about it now... —Jemmytc 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not if you don't explain yourself better. I really don't understand what you find objectionable in the current version.  Mango juice talk 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been explained before. The discussion is on this page.  The current version of the page is just a bunch of folk psychological speculation on the part of Hamish.  None of it derives from any writing about this fallacy.  Hamish has inserted fake references in response to objections of WP:OR.  I don't really care about this article, but it's sort of a test of WP in my mind: can I save No True Scotsman?  Can an ordinary person do anything to keep rubbish out of an article—a minor article with few readers or writers—without checking in to revert every day?  Perhaps the results are in at this point.  I've spent too much time already; and now I'm explaining myself, redundantly, to you... —Jemmytc 09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I see what you were talking about. I removed the video engineer example because it was (1) superfluous and (2) not really the same, as the laity of the speaker was an important point there but is not in the "No true Scotsman" example.  I also removed the "no decent person" example; it seems quite different to me, first, because "decent" is obviously a meaningful qualifier whereas "true" seems less meaningful, which contributes to the deceptiveness of the argument, and also "person" is not a role whereas "Scotsman" is.  In any case, Jemmy, if you simply call changes like these "vandalism" then you're the only one who really knows what is wrong with them, and it's rather incivil.  Mango juice talk 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at the page, so I don't know what changes you kept. The whole section on the psychology of the fallacy is unacceptable in WP: it is all just made up.  I guess "vandalism" is just meant to be a sort of threat.  As if there were any way of blocking Hamish.  Anyway he is continuing this edit war, after the page protection, and he's still not talking, except to call me "a shallow, selfish fool"...  Have fun with it. —Jemmytc 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's rubbish if you ask me. But I would advise any normal contributor to avoid words such as "vandalism", or indeed any Wikipedia buzzword. Leave those to Wikipedians. If you don't know the shibboleths you will shoot yourself in the foot. Ignore the rules and use plain english. --EmbraceParadox (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Chronology
This link seems to suggest this is older than 1975. --EmbraceParadox (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

 * In putting forward the above rebuttal one would be employing an ad hoc shift in argument. The proposer initially treats the definition of "Scotsman" (i.e, a man from Scotland) as fixed, and says that there exists no predicated case that fall inside. When one such case is found, the proposer shifts to treat the case as fixed, and rather treats the boundary as debatable. The proposer could therefore be seen prejudicially not to desire an exact agreement on either the scope of the definition or the position of the case, but solely to keep the definition and case separate. One reason to do this would be to avoid giving the positive connotations of the definition ("Scotsman") to the negative case ("sex offender") or vice versa.

Erm, yeah. Are there actually people who won't get the example, but will be enlightened by this bit of text? Can we do better than this?

Also, what happened to the porridge example? It was entirely appropriate, and it was given by Flew as well, wasn't it.

Can we also perhaps add the context in which Flew used it. --EmbraceParadox (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Until explained, I did not know exactly what the fallacy was. I thought the fallacy was just changing definitions. — trlkly 22:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph quoted at the beginning of this section has been changed somewhat to:


 * "In putting forward the above rebuttal one is equivocating in an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. The proposer initially treats the definition of "Scotsman" (i.e, a man of Scottish ancestry and connection) as fixed, and says that there exists no predicated case that falls within that definition. When one such case is found, the proposer shifts to treat the case as fixed, and rather treats the boundary as debatable. The proposer could therefore be seen prejudicially not to desire an exact agreement on either the scope of the definition or the position of the case, but solely to keep the definition and case separate. One reason to do this would be to avoid giving the positive connotations of the definition ("Scotsman") to the negative case ("sex offender") or vice versa."


 * However IMO it is still very difficult to follow.


 * To be specific on one point, what does "the above rebuttal" refer to? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've shortened this a bit but it's still somewhat confusing. -moritheil Talk 11:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Scotsman
'...the definition of "Scotsman" (i.e, a man from Scotland)' is wrong. It is applying the identity test used in England and continental Europe, of geography. However, the Scots and Irish use a Celtic test, of affinity (ancestry and connections), not place. We see it as when the Duke of Wellington used it in denying he was Irish simply because he was born in Ireland, "Jesus Christ may have been born in a stable but that didn't make him a horse" (there is some irony here). So I am changing that part. PMLawrence (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Except genetic studies have shown that all the inhabitants of the British Isles are overwhelmingly Celtic in origin. Wanting to be of different 'stock' from the English doesn't make it true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.85.212 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want some interesting, if muddled thinking on this, see the "Modern Celts" article. Attempts to include Gordon Brown in this dubious classification have been countered by "Gordon Brown is an opportunist", with the implication that he is ergo not a true Celt. Ausseagull (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Example (Perseverance of the Saints)
I read this example and think it is somewhat confusing. I'm not even sure applying the fallacy is appropriate here since Calvinists actually do believe that by definition saints never lose their faith, so this would not be a case of redefining something after the fact.

Once a Christian, you cannot lose your faith. :B: But Mark used to go to church, and then lost faith in Jesus. :A: Yes, but Mark was never a true Christian in the first place.

This example deals with the Perseverance of the Saints vs. Conditional Preservation of the Saints debate in Calvinism and Arminianism respectively i.e. whether one can subsequently fall into a state in which one cannot gain salvation after having entered a state in which one will gain salvation. A concludes, probably erroneously, that B takes the view that all churchgoing people are true Christians. When B provides a counterexample for A's assertion, A redefines "Christian" to mean "someone who is genuinely converted", tautologically satisfying his initial assertion.[3]

The analysis is also odd; it faults A for assuming that B believes churchgoers are Christians. However, A did not bring up the example of the churchgoer, B did! Furthermore, B did so as a refutation of A's point! B appears to believe that bringing up a "churchgoer" who lost faith in Jesus was a valid refutation of A's assertion about "Christian". So yes it is valid to believe that B is asserting that a churchgoer is equivalent to a Christian.

I think rather than including extraneous doubt on the definition of "Christian", why not just focus on the definition of "faith"? That serves to illustrate the fallacy of "no true Scotsman" much more clearly, in my opinion, especially since this dialog isn't really about defining a Christian as much as it is about whether or not a Christian can lose faith. The point of this example is to create a tautology through re-definition, and I don't think the example currently does that. How about this one? (changes in bold)

Once a Christian, you cannot lose your faith. :B: But Mark used to be a Christian, and then lost faith in Jesus. :A: Yes, but Mark did not have true faith.

This example deals with the Perseverance of the Saints vs. Conditional Preservation of the Saints debate in Calvinism and Arminianism respectively i.e. whether one can subsequently fall into a state in which one cannot gain salvation after having entered a state in which one will gain salvation. A asserts that faith is permanent and cannot be lost. When B provides a counterexample for A's assertion, A redefines "faith" to mean something which cannot be lost, tautologically satisfying his initial assertion that faith cannot be lost.[3]

That is a much more clear-cut tautology, no? We can leave out the whole "churchgoer" vs. "Christian" thing and let the core of the example argument stand. What do you think?

Full POV disclosure - I believe in perseverance of the saints, so I realize I am helping to improve this argument, even though it's making an example against my own belief. I'm fine with that :) I enjoy being able to understand and argue from other POVs.

JorenCombs (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I posted this. I would like to see my proposed example added to the article, but I'm hesitant to do so without some consensus.  I do believe that the original example is flawed as a demonstration because it includes extra "stuff" that adds another fallacy, that of false induction (all churchgoers are Christians), to the argument and does not clearly present the redefinition that is characteristic of all "no true Scotsman" fallacies.  The example is further muddled by introduction of new terms that are unnecessary to the demonstration.  I think the original argument, rather than redefining "Christian", is better suited towards redefining "faith", and I believe my proposed demonstration of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is therefore better.  Can other readers please comment on this?  Am I out to lunch, or does my idea seem reasonable to you? Joren (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As for why it became something about churchgoers vs. Christians - there is a certain tension between religion scholars and the practicing religious. Anthropologically, religion scholars define Christians as people who partake of the culture of Christianity, but theologically, Christians define themselves as people who truly believe.  The difficulty is that with social science tools, it is impossible to make the distinction of who "truly believes."  I think a prior editor attempted to make this article relevant to that debate, but skipped several steps, resulting in incoherence. -moritheil Talk 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In putting forward...
In putting forward the above rebuttal one is equivocating in an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. Is it possible to say that in a way a normal human being can understand it? Thanks.--345Kai (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly normal. Do you mean "laymans' terms"?  There's always |The Simple Wiki for that, but I can try to rephrase this, as it's rather clumsy.  -moritheil Talk 18:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A fallacy or a joke?
Geez, folks... "Surely no encyclopedist would take "no true Scotsman" seriously as a philosophical concept." "The editors of this article seem to be..." "Well, at least no true encyclopedist would take "no true Scotsman" seriously as a philosophical concept." [laughter all around, and possibly relinking to pages about humor.] 209.137.177.15 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Glasgow Morning Herald"
There is no such paper as the Glasgow Morning Herald. The Herald is the daily paper from that city. Until 1992 it was called the Glasgow Herald. Now it's just called the Herald. You wouldn't call it the New York Morning Times so why throw in this weird "Morning" in there in this case? Is this what Mr. Flew called it in "Thinking About Thinking"? If so, then the quote shouldn't be altered (even though it's incorrect.) Anyone know...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotty59 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Human crimes called "inhuman"
I see this was edited out with the line "We can do better than that." But no one has stepped up to offer another example in its place. So, can we do better than that?

And is the example valid? -moritheil Talk 17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we could just say that the basic definition of an "inhuman" act is "something 'no true human' would do", and leave it at that. It is, after all, something we see as "below" humanity as a whole. Medinoc (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Too Verbose?
This section in bold recently got removed because it is too verbose and possibly original research. I wanted to explain my revert and ask for some ideas:

This is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy is employed to shift the definition of the original class to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it. '''A universal claim is of the form "All x are y" or "No x are y." In the example above, the universal claim is "No Scotsmen are brutal maniacal rapists." The counterexample is given by the Aberdonian, who, it is implied, is a brutal maniacal rapist. The response relies on a continued insistence that No Scots are brutal maniacal rapists, and to thus conclude that the brutal maniacal and rapacious Aberdonian is no true Scot. Such a conclusion requires shifting the presumed definition of "Scotsman" to exclude all brutal maniacal rapists.''' In situations where the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the fallacy does not apply. For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is the single thing that precisely defines a person as a vegetarian.

I restored it because I actually find the second paragraph to be less confusing than the first... it actually explains what the first paragraph is talking about, covering terms like what the "universal claim" is in this fallacy, and what the "counter-example" is, and how it "shifts the definition." Without the second paragraph, the reader is required to figure out what these terms are supposed to mean in the context of this fallacy. I agree, this whole section is too verbose... so how can we reword it in a way that doesn't leave readers confused? Are there any other articles that cover these terms, that could perhaps be linked to in lieu of the second paragraph? Thoughts? Joren (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No true Christian?
Heard it referred to by this name as well, as Christians of certain sects dismiss ill behavior by other Christians. Which is much easier as well because "Christian" is more subjective. This brings in the question of range manipulation too in deciding how "big" a religion is. Torquemama007 (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I've no doubt you've heard it as "No true Christian," since it's much easier for an atheist who wants to discredit Christians (attacking the person instead of the argument) to make them look bad if they are forced to "own" everything bad anyone who calls himself a "Christian" might do. It's rather convenient for the atheist, then, to be able to outright dismiss whatever the Christian might say to counter this as "logical fallacy." Ironically, part of the reason that that itself is a flawed argument is a reason you think it's "easier" (I assume you mean is a good example of the fallacy) - it's subjective. "No true Scotsman" works because someone is objectively a "Scotsman" or not. If it's subjective, then what are you even arguing any more? There's nowhere to go from there. It depends on the definition of "Christian" that is used, and there are multiple valid ones. To say "Bob said he's Christian and he's an unrepentant murderer, thus Christians are hypocrites" or something on that order is the fallacious argument, not the counter-argument that says Bob broke the moral code of Christianity and thus cannot be considered a (true?) Christian ("true" being optional and merely semantic). -- Glynth (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum to discuss the topic. Does any of this concern direct edits to the article? Jess talk&#124;edits 01:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It certainly does concern potential edits if Torquemama007's post and the sentiments of certain others I've seen many times are any indication. What would you prefer, the comment being ignored (just hoping the potential bad edit in the future doesn't happen despite it being uncontested in advance), someone posting the equivalent of "you're wrong" and running off, or someone spelling out the case as to why a specific use of the label "No true Scotsman fallacy" is not logically valid? -- Glynth (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The original poster reported first-hand observational experience. It is also original research, and therefore can't be included in the article on the merits of this talk page alone.  However, rather than pointing out any logical flaws, you seem to be making it about the original poster ("you think it's easier" "what are you even arguing anymore"); you have provided a theory of how the original poster thinks, a theory which is equally original research.  So no, this is not the place for original research; talk pages are meant to be places for discussing how to improve the article, not for coming up with theories.
 * -- Joren (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You have a point about going to the heart of WP rules and pointing out "no original research allowed" and the like, but to characterize my post as NOT "pointing out any logical flaws" is simply incorrect. I went into significant detail about how logically flawed the "'no true Christian' is equivalent to 'no true Scotsman'" idea is (not simply picking on the other poster), and the dialog elsewhere on this talk page and the article's history make it plain that pointing out such flaws is worthwhile so as to help prevent or combat bad edits in the future. -- Glynth (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If Glynth's take on the "no true Christian" argument as an atheistic fallacy is correct, then we ought to have a separate article precisely on that debating tactic, or explain in this article why it is a purportedly fallacious advance. DeistCosmos (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Or we could leave it unmentioned entirely and stricken down immediately (with reasons stated as to why) each time someone comes around to insert the fallacy as a supposed example or "alternate" version of "No true Scotsman." (At this point I'm not advocating either way. Though I would prefer to live in a world where that fallacy wasn't notable enough to mention, I'm not certain if it is.) -- Glynth (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's a real phenomenon there and it is being talked about somewhere out there then it ought to be talked about somewhere in here. I mean, if there's a source for it, exactly what you talked about before about this argument being inapplicable to subjective theological identifications ought to be expressed herin, or in a companion article. Actually I think Dawkins used some frame of this argument in the God Delusion,so if there was a response discussing that, that would do for it. DeistCosmos (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, any new addition that does not have sources can be rejected out of hand. It is the contributor's responsibility to back up their claims with reliable citations, and if they have not done so, it is not necessary for us to disprove them.  WP:TRUE and all that... people shouldn't expect to be able to write stuff off the top of their head and expect others to do the hard work of verifying it for them.
 * -- Joren (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to see "No false Christians" as a potential inverse of the Scotsman fallacy, in which a group is judged by the actions or traits of one person, despite that action or trait disqualifying or interfering with inclusion with that group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.60.237 (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, oh my. I love how the Christians here, ranting and raving about an atheist conspiracy, strangely neglected the more suitable notion of that "fallacy" when it comes to conservatives and other typically right wing Christians. And that is the use of Islam. Probably because it's more apparently in Islam where their religious texts are more specific and very hard to take out of context, like many American conservatives tend to do, and it can be specifically pointed out in many instances when and where a person is an actual true Muslim or not. Gee, I wonder how that slipped past them in their rage about atheists? 124.169.65.77 (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Harlequin
 * And people implied what I posted might be improper because WP isn't a forum! "Conspiracy" nothing; look at the history of this page. Heck, start typing "no true scot" into Google and it suggests "no true scotsman christianity" and "no true scotsman religion" and the exact nonsense I'm fighting here shows right away up in the results. But let me guess -- you want to ignore the difference between objective and subjective so you can attack all Christians as hypocrites. And you say I'm ranting? History, and the continued existence of people like you justify my words. Yours, on the other hand.. Do you even know the difference between Islamist and Muslim? Troll elsewhere. -- Glynth (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Variants Section
People keep posting variants in this section that do not accurately represent the fallacy. No True Scotsman works because being a Scotsman simply means you are member of the Scottish ethnic group. There may be stereotypes and norms associated with the group but they certainly are not requirements for the term. Religion on the other hand is more complex. Whether or not someone can be considered a true member of a religion if identify themselves as a member but do not follow its tenants is a genuine subject of debate. PeRshGo (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow the reasoning, there - that the fallacy can apply to groups with subjective definitions seems extremely relevant. The only important issue for Wikipedia is whether a reliable source has invoked the fallacy in relation to a topic. Looking at the sources for the two removed articles, the emerging democracies example explicitly draws the parallel; the terrorism example only has the parallel drawn in comments. I'll reinstate the first, per WP:RS. --McGeddon (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears, then, that no true religion is subject to this fallacy. No? DeistCosmos (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And "no true Christian" gets 371,000 google hits, so.... DeistCosmos (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Variants section ended up being trashed. It didn't provide enough to the article to deal with the constant debate. PeRshGo (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of Breivik is a poorly researched example. Read his manifesto. He is claiming to be a cultural Christian because he uses the term Christian as a tool of manipulation. He says "if" there is a God. This example is too poorly researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealandreas (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

O'Reilly calling Breivik not a true christian is a perfect example of a "No True Scotsman", it fits all the parameters. Those denying that it does are just apologists for their religion and must be ignored and blocked. Breivik admitted to being 100% Christian in his manifesto. The allusion of some here of his use the 'Cultural Christian' line is spurious, he was a Christian fighting for Christian Culture and did not use the term as some are postulating. If Breivik was not a Christian by the commonly accepted perimeters of the term, than there are no Christians on the planet whatsoever. The example is good and must stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rundstedt (talk • contribs) 07:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not including the O'Reilly/Breivik example because of some religious apologists flooding the page, would just prove to an even greater extent that Wiki is the poorest source for information. "I finally gave up editing on Wikipedia—I spent more time in “mediations” with abusive fanatics than editing entries. Wikipedia still has yet to solve this type of problem, and too many of its entries remain biased because bullies of all political stripes [but overwhelmingly on the right]  are seldom effectively sanctioned." - Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates. Wiki seems determined to prove their weakness and unreliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rundstedt (talk • contribs) 07:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the benefit of providing an "example" that doesn't fit the definition of a fallacy just because certain people like to smear certain religions and misusing this fallacy for their own ends has become a common way to smear them? Someone can objectively be a Scotsman, and you're born that way and shall always be that way. Being a Christian, on the other hand, does not work like that. I've already addressed this in the section above. -- Glynth (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No true Wikipedian
I love that the article itself is mere 18(!) lines long, while the discussion is massive! I guess it takes a real Wikipedian to write an article about this logical fallacy. 217.93.182.96 (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

is it a question of Glasgow vs Aberdeen?
In other words, does the story work as an example of the fallacy because the protagonist has to clarify that a man from Aberdeen is not a true Scotsman? In that case, the example about haggis would not work. "New Yorker (A): all Americans love bagels! in-law from Minneapolis (B):  I hate bagels! New Yorker:  all true Americans love bagels!" (i.e. someone from Minneapolis is not a true American.

So I don't have to have a common definition of (say) Christian, I just have to understand that person (A) has arbitrarily adjusted his/her definition to exclude (B)

"(A) All Christians believe in soul sleep. (B) I'm a Catholic and I don't!  (A)  All TRUE Christians etc."--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a fallacy of "moving the bar." The conclusion from your first example would be that while the in-law might be an American, the person is not a true American. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the point is the person is arbitrarily adjusting their definition to exclude that single person, and purely because they don't possess the trait that the speaker has just ascribed to "all Americans" - the story would work more clearly if both "New Yorker" and "In-law from Minneapolis" were "American #1" and "American #2".
 * I agree that the example is potentially a little confusing, but it's good to quote the original source, and I think the "simpler rendition" given in the article clears it up. --McGeddon (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting unclear examples
They are towards the end. It's unclear that what's wrong w/the exchange between Alice and Bob. Alice comes up w/one of her criteria for a true Scotsman. Ok, so she has an opinion. Where's the fallacy? The problem is that this situation doesn't make any statement on the objective criteria that Bob uses to determine that his uncle is a Scotsman, or, for that matter, what Alice's feelings could be about the criteria Bob uses. Alice just seems to have an opinion that doesn't come into conflict with any obvious authority here.

The example section which talks about democracy is even more confusing. This doesn't seem to be a fallacy but just a mealy-mouthed way of coming up w/more murky terms. The last sentence seems to all but confirm that. AngusCA (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Forms of the argument
Does no the vegetarian argument appear similar to. 1. All men have an XY chromosome. 2. My Uncle Alf is a man, and does not have an XY chromosome. 3. Well, all TRUE men have an XY chromosome.

Simply put, does not the vegetarian version, only show how this fallacy can be ill used. I am new to posting. --Irreverential (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anders Breveik and original research
This is original research. Where exactly do you source the notion that this is a "no true Scotsman" claim, and why is this particular example notable? Without sourcing it becomes WP:OR plain and simple, whether or not someone thinks it is a "perfect example." Please remove it. It has clearly been added here as part of someone's political WP:BATTLEGROUND outside of Wikipedia. The example is not sourced, and it is clearly not necessary.Griswaldo (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the reference with one that explicitly uses the term, and there are dozens of others if you don't like that one. It looks to me like you're the one on the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Absconded Northerner (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I am a liberal, and a non-believer at that.  This is not about my own political views at all.  Quite the opposite in fact. It's about Wikipedia's policies.  Media Matters is a blog, and one with a very well known POV at that.  They are not the type of source that we need to establish 1) that this is accurate and 2) that it is a notable example.  Any way you slice it this is a controversial example, and does nothing to aid the informational qualities of this entry.  Indeed it detracts from them by courting controversy.  We do not need to further someone's political agenda by using examples like these.Griswaldo (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a perfect example, and of course you have to go to certain types of source, precisely because the right-wing, Christian sources are all engaging in the fallacy! Just Google for '"Anders Breivik" "no true scotsman"' and look at all the hits. Absconded Northerner (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * NO. We should not be using any source with a political axe to grind (on the right or the left) when presenting examples of this logical fallacy here.  Sorry, but that's exactly the point, and exactly why I mentioned WP:BATTLEGROUND. Our aim is simply to inform our readers about the concept in hand, not to use it as a platform to make someone, or some group, we disagree with look stupid.Griswaldo (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * More than any other issue I've seen, this one is being mentioned alongside this fallacy. It makes perfect sense to include it as an example in such circumstances. Judging by the number of people who've added it to the page, I'm not the only one who thinks so. Absconded Northerner (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Absconded Northerner, try going to Google News instead - no hits. That indicates that the sources are likely unreliable.
 * In addition, I can see no particular reason to use this specific example, especially given that it is about an ongoing incident concerning a living person - there's plenty of alternative examples which would illustrate the term just as effectively. We don't need to use a controversial example, when others - equally useful to understanding the topic - exist.
 * Also revelent is WP:NOTNEWS - Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.  Chzz  ► 07:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this has no business being in the article. We don't just insert the usage-of-the week anytime someone revives an old phrase, logical fallacy, or manner of speaking. Any actual examples other than the original are unnecessary. The only way I could see this going in the article is if 5 or 10 years from now, it has become the "standard" example used in textbooks, research papers, and the like. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's the perfect example for this. Please stop censoring ideal content. You are not helping to improve the encyclopedia. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop insisting that we use the encyclopedia to make people and groups look bad. That is hurting the encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Northerner, please stop adding the disputed text back in while discussion is ongoing (he re-added it at 11:00, even though it's clear there's not consensus for it right now). Anyway, I agree that this has no place in the article. Using a real-life example, fraught with BLP issues, is totally unnecessary, and it offers nothing that a hypothetical example can't address. Professor Fluffykins (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Most people editing the page recently have been adding it back, so I believe I was correct to restore it against the attempts to censor the article by, I can only assume, people with a vested interest in hiding the truth. There's absolutely no BLP issue involved, and I can't understand why the huge number of articles on the Internet doesn't make it clear that this is a perfect example for this fallacy. The constant claims to the contrary have no merit. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In this discussion, there are four editors saying an emphatic "no", with policy/guideline-based reasoning, and only Absconded Northerner saying "yes". So, please, do not add it until obtaining consensus here. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 00:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I commend everyone for assuming good faith here and attempting to root their reasoning in policy but to take a moment and call a spade a spade, this is pretty clearly a bad faith addition, and that alone makes it inappropriate. I can’t be reasonably convinced that this example has been added to honestly help the reader understand the fallacy. It’s a clear attempt to politicize the article by taking advantage of a tragedy which in all honesty I find a bit despicable. PeRshGo (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical examples are sufficient to explain the fallacy. The problem with using real-life examples, especially those that are not notable, is that we could find so many of them that the page would be unbearably long or some sort of WP:SYN would have to take place. 24.16.133.58 (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, this "example" is not an example of the fallacy at all, as I've addressed multiple times above. Objective (Scotsman: concrete definition, immutable fact of birth) vs subjective (Christian: multiple definitions, unknowable/unprovable belief/state-of-mind). (Not to mention the fact that there's apparently no evidence the guy even fellowshipped with any Christian group at all; calling yourself a Scotsman doesn't make you a Scotsman.) -- Glynth (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many textbook examples of No true Christian, and O'Reilly on Breveik is a fairly weak one. Considering his audience, it seems more likely that O'Reilly is emphatically calling Breveik's acts deplorable on the assumption that christianity == good, or he's arguing emphatically that christianity is otherwise ethically incompatible with such acts. While there may be an implicit previous assumption that christians are incapable of killing sprees and acts of terrorism, and there may be evidence that Breveik can be considered christian, I (unfamiliar with the details) don't know that, and neither will many readers. Leave this out. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor Example: Nothing wrong With Alice's Statement
Alice is free to define "true Scotsman" as being someone of Scottish descent who likes haggis.

When someone revises one of the premises of their argument, we have to re-evaluate the argument with the revised premise.

First Alice said that every Scotsman likes haggis, but that may have been a mistake or simplification of her real point of view. She later clarified that.

Basically Alice's statements are simply informing us of her definition of one of the attributes of a "true Scotsman". (And, by the way, Bob's uncle fails to qualify, oh well!)

Alice is not making an argument, therefore there is no fallacy.

Definition-making is not argumentation!

All we can do is either accept the definition or reject it; but if we reject it, it is only for emotional reasons. We are committing the fallacy that in order to accept Alice's definition of a "true Scotsman" we must also accept that "true Scotsman" refers to some concept of a genuine, bona-fide, legitimate Scotsman (the only kind of Scotsman who may lay claim to his Scottish heritage). But in fact we don't have to accept this aspect of it at all, but only that Alice uses the label "true Scotsman" as a certain kind of category.

Alice is entitled to categorize the world as Alice wishes, and when we are discussing things with Alice, it behooves us to keep in mind Alice's categorizations. Next time Alice says that someone is a "true Scotsman", we can be sure that she's referring to a man of Scottish descent who does not dislike haggis (and possibly has other qualifying attributes we don't yet know about). 192.139.122.42 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarians
Would this "fallacy" also hold true if Alice and Bob would be talking about a vegetarian eating a steak? Just look at how easy it is to apply this "fallacy" upon vegetarians! It seems to me like this definition of a "fallacy" is more something like stuck-up moralistic self-righteousness than actual logic. --79.193.41.61 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because a "vegetarian" is clearly defined as someone who doesn't eat steak. The point of the fallacy is that Alice is making a bold statement about an undefined quality of a group (Scotsmen are "men born in Scotland", but Alice is asserting as fact her opinion that Scotsmen are "men born in Scotland who also enjoy haggis"). When presented with a counterexample, instead of considering that she have might been wrong in her original assertion, she simply dismisses the example. In a sense this is "moralistic self-righteousness", but it's also the fallacy of redefining an erroneous statement by adding the meaningless "no, I meant true Scotsmen" every time someone proves you wrong.
 * (A vegetarian example would be "all vegetarians are kind to animals" "that's not true, my uncle is vegetarian and he shoots foxes" "well, all true vegetarians are kind to animals".) --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant was moralistic self-righteousness on the side of the person calling out said "fallacy". Especially because most actually relevant debates ain't as simple and clear-cut as Scotsmen and haggis, where said person might in all seriousness defend their position that a vegetarian can be someone who eat steak, after all the other person is "just in denial" by preferring to talk only about "real vegetarians" who happen to not eat steak. It's a bit like, what's the use of pointing out it's more likely that all air molecules may suddenly become compressed to one side of the room, leaving the other in total vacuum, than for somebody to be winning the lottery? It may be true "logically", that is inside an ivory tower, but is hardly ever relevant or applicable in 99% of cases where it's brought up.


 * The real fallacy here is that of calling out "No true Scotsman fallacy!", which in most real-life cases is the positivistic, aka conservative, fallacy in order to maintain one's ethnocentric prejudices. You can force your own oppressive ethnocentric definitions upon people by accusing them of "no true Scotsman". Whenever this technique is used in real life, it mostly looks like this: "Okay, it was a black male that committed this rape, but you just can't use this to say that *ALL* blacks are rapists by nature or definition..." - "No true Scotsman!". See also accident (fallacy), overwhelming exception, faulty generalization, biased sample, and special pleading. --79.193.41.61 (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to express the relevant elements of this in a clear, unambiguous addition to the article. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I added a more parallel example (of an ethnic Japanese individual that considered himself a Scotsman) to the vegetarian section. I thought it clarified the article a bit by extending title example. It also seemed more appropriate then digressing into the vegetarian example, though I left that in place. 107.1.64.82 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think special pleading belongs in this article; they both describe the same fallacy, which goes by both names depending on the source. -- Josh Triplett (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. This is one form of special pleading, and which could be noted here, but there are many other forms not related to NTS, as noted at special pleading. cshirky (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If anything, perhaps this article should be merged into the special pleading article; however, I think the more prudent thing to do would be simply having a link in the see also section. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah. (By which I mean "I also say no".) I just now wanted to link to the Special pleading article; I didn't want to link to the No true Scotsman article. Is there a positive side to merging articles? I guess it makes a more entertaining and informative read, but it also makes a more cluttered and annoyingly unfocussed reference point. Card Zero  (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Special Pleading should not be merged in this article. They are quite different. No true scotsman, involves changing the subject of the assertion, while in Special Pleading the original assertion is flawed. Slacka123 (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Both are very distinct and different; and must not be merged unnecessarily. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

originality and notability
I doubt that the idea behind no true scotsman was original in 1975, or in 1675 either. So its notability is in doubt unless someone can show that the actual phrase "no true scotsman" is popular in some circle, perhaps in uk philosophy departments. I do think this should be merged into special pleading, if it's not deleted. It looks like an attempt to promote the philosopher A. Flew.216.86.177.36 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Faith and science
As Dr Zaius said in Planet of the Apes: "There is no contradiction between faith and science... true science!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.69.160.1 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The argument is very close to the famous "Ah, but those are not real communists! The GDR/China/Cuba/Albania was not a really communist state and/or a really communist economy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.151.33 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In The True Planet of the True Apes, Dr. Z said  "There's no contradiction between faith and science... true faith!"155.97.8.155 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No True Scot
No true Scot would ever say "No true Scotsman". Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Except, presumably, the Scottish founders of the Scottish newspaper The Scotsman (est. 1817).109.158.45.142 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hitler and Christianity
I see my addition was removed. I did not mean to start a religious argument, but to provide a commonly used example. It is a very common usage of this argument, and the should at least be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.210.185 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I came here looking for mention of Hitler's religion, since "Hitler claimed to be a Christian but was not a 'true' Christian" is the most common usage of this fallacy in modern times. I must wonder why Wikipedia would fail to include the Hitler/Christianity example even though it is frequently used and illustrates the subject perfectly. 66.158.180.46 (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably just because nobody's thought to add it, or because they've tried but couldn't find any reliable sources to support it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and by no means complete. Be WP:BOLD and edit the article yourself if it's missing something! --McGeddon (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also the part where Hitler specifically bemoaned the fact that Germany was Christian instead of Muslim, tried to create a Nazi church with no resemblance to any other Christian church, favoured the revival of Germanic Paganism... to say that Hitler was not a true Christian is surely no fallacy! It isn't a fallacy when what it claims is actually correct. Hitler's Christianity consisted of havign been born in a Christian country, as did most of today's atheists.2.80.244.126 (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because empiricists would have trouble blaming the actions of the Reich on Christian zeal. Whereas one could easily and readily make the claim that the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the Crusades are actual products of religious dogma/zealotry, it was not the primary component of Nazism despite a few extremist atheist assertions to the contrary.  When a social group states that Hitler doesn't represent their viewpoint, I think it is relatively unreasonable to attribute that person's viewpoint to those people.  Neither Nazi propaganda, policy, nor doctrine supports the position that the Nazi party was mostly a Christian religious movement.  Furthermore, whereas Hitler claimed he was a Roman Catholic, he frequently disputed with the Pope at the time, censored documents written by the Pope, and butted heads with individual diocese on multiple occasions. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)