No True Scotsman

[cal]

"No True Scotsman" is a logical fallacy that is used far too often on this forum, and I've found that it doesn't have a simple solution like a personal attack would, because you can't always directly call it out, as not being able to figure out where the disagreement is coming from is usually the fallacy's fault itself.

 

I'm going to paraphrase the definition of this fallacy for those who have never heard it before:

 

It's considered a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument. <- Semantics! And there is even a thing called Google and even more things called Online Dictionaries that people refuse to reference for some reason.

 

The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, "Well, then, he's no true Scotsman." In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish any facts or new information, and is limited to Ian's definition of the word, "Scotsman."

 

You guys, specifically Rade (rade only did it frequently in a specific thread, it's not that common with him tbh) and a few others I can't remember by name, play the role of Ian ^ up there. You say a term is being used incorrectly and then say your use is more correct because you used it with something else in the thread already. This tactic you do does not compute. It confuses me and only leads members of the forum to present dictionary quotes showing that you are just wrong, and yet you tell me I am the one using the word wrong without giving a general-accepted definition of the word in reply.

 

I don't understand why you do this, pls stap. It's annoying and hinders our discussions. Thanks in advance, I guess.

 

edit: I suppose specific examples of this on the forum would be necessary to illustrate my point. Objective Ethics is probably the best one, as people are still entirely missing the core [****ing] concept of what Objective Ethics is. It is a FIELD of ethics that uses logics that have been turned into self-actuating axioms via way of universalizability. Once something is categorized under Objective Ethics, it is a universal truth, it will always be true, whether or not you want it to be, because you're wrong in every logically-sound sense of what it is to be wrong if you disagree with self-actuating systems of pure logic that have been universalized, plain and simple. That's the way logic works. I have given multiple accepted definitions of the words, and I continue to capitalize them as they are a name of something, I cannot equivocate the meaning of the words beyond that point, as there is literally no meaning beyond that point. By DESECRATING the original argument into something in which the value of what words are in general is nulled, you destroy anything else that the topic would have otherwise been about. If you choose to fail to understand the fundamental convections of language, I don't think you can handle the actual topic at hand, and so I have succinctly stopped replying to those people entirely. If someone fails to value logic, what logical argument can I present to them to show them they should value logic? There is none, the dialogue is moot.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Snax

[Moontanman]

No truly logical person would make those claims... :rolleyes:

[cal]

No truly logical person would make those claims... :rolleyes:

 

See: "If someone fails to value logic, what logical argument can I present to them to show them they should value logic? There is none, the dialogue is moot."

[Moontanman]

See: "If someone fails to value logic, what logical argument can I present to them to show them they should value logic? There is none, the dialogue is moot."

 

 

The no true scotsman thing drives me nuts too but logic cannot solve everything and doesn't always hold up... GIGO...

[Rade]

... You [rade] say a term is being used incorrectly and then say your use is more correct because you used it with something else in the thread already...

I say my definition contains logical constraints not present in your definition, that is why I disagree with you on the topic of objective ethics. Not all uses of 'no true' arguments are fallacy:

 

rade: no vegetarian would eat meat

snax: well, I am a vegetarian and eat meat every other day

rade: snax is no true vegetarian

 

==

 

So, who is logically justified, who makes the logical fallacy, rade or snax ?

[cal]

logic cannot solve everything and doesn't always hold up... GIGO...

But why tho? There's a lot of things I don't understand about logic functions, the most confusing aspect of them to me is their failure in odd situations. I don't get why logic fails for a lot of things and I don't think it's fair on logic's part to let itself give up like that half the time. I don't think I can accept that there won't ever be a logic to handle every possible situation, so please explain to me why logic fails now even though it seems like we have every logic tool we could ever want available to us.

 

God I suck at phrasing things. But seriously, I'm a pretty smart cookie and that **** escapes me completely. Could someone please explain to me what logical argument you use in a situation when logic is ignored?

 

 

I say my definition contains logical constraints not present in your definition, that is why I disagree with you on the topic of objective ethics. Not all uses of 'no true' arguments are fallacy:

 

rade: no vegetarian would eat meat

snax: well, I am a vegetarian and eat meat every other day

rade: snax is no true vegetarian

Redundancy isn't an argument, it's a fallacy. In your scenario here you're defining both "vegetarian" and "no true vegetarian" as the same thing, so this is now a false premise because it doesn't follow with the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

I want to also note here for everyone, directly proving my point, that Rade is doing it again, where he is talking about the objectives of ethics rather than the topic at hand, Objective Ethics. So your argument is also more straw than before. The whole point of the "no true" arguments is that something gets redefined, like when I talk about Objective Ethics which is the most limited form of ethics and you say that your definition is different because it is even more restricted. What you're defining is something different, just say that it's something different instead of continuing to claim that it is not and then telling me I'm wrong for defining the same thing as you (which is what's happening now).

 

Also, for the sake of logic puzzles, in your quoted scenario, snax would be a vegetarian every other day. So that being said, it was a bad example all around.

 

 

So, who is logically justified, who makes the logical fallacy, rade or snax ?

We're both logically justified, did you not read what No True Scotsman is? The problem is that one person is inversely justified, not negatively justified, that's why this logically fallacy is only indirectly a fallacy, and also harder to point out (semantic argument). Also, keep in mind that I only said you did it for one thing, and I only pointed you out by name because you are the only person I found memorable on this forum (when I wrote the original post). So chill man, peace to the black sheep and all that.

 

 

Also:

It is a FIELD of ethics that uses logics that have been turned into self-actuating axioms via way of universalizability. Once something is categorized under Objective Ethics, it is a universal truth, it will always be true, whether or not you want it to be, because you're wrong in every logically-sound sense of what it is to be wrong if you disagree with self-actuating systems of pure logic that have been universalized, plain and simple.

That is the definition my friend, you cannot dissent from that definition without being wrong. What you are defining is something else, why do you insist it is not?

Edited May 5, 2013 by Snax

[Buffy]

But why tho? There's a lot of things I don't understand about logic functions, the most confusing aspect of them to me is their failure in odd situations. I don't get why logic fails for a lot of things and I don't think it's fair on logic's part to let itself give up like that half the time. I don't think I can accept that there won't ever be a logic to handle every possible situation, so please explain to me why logic fails now even though it seems like we have every logic tool we could ever want available to us.

 

Could someone please explain to me what logical argument you use in a situation when logic is ignored?

There are several reasons, but to start off, you have Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which while seemingly esoteric, have a direct impact on what you're talking about here. Colloquially they translate to "you can't prove your logic works by using your own logic." (Mathematicians will jump all over me for that, but then it's "application" of the theory, so by definition they won't like it). I suggest you look it up and make of it what you will, but the bottom line is that it's been proven that logic has it's limits especially when you try to "go meta" (which is where your next question comes from).

 

The other thing to think about is that application of logic, is exactly that: "application". Any "application" is dependent on an observer's mapping of reality onto an object. Logic normally punts on this issue by calling all the definitions in your application "axioms" meaning they are accepted as givens and the mapping itself is not part of the argument (and Gödel would point out, *can't* be).

 

All it takes for two people who have bulletproof logic to disagree, is a difference in their definitions (and that's where I believe you and Rade are in conflict, but I'll let him deal with that one).

 

The last item to deal with is Quantum Physics which always throws random chance into play in every real-world system: Unless your assumptions make very detailed allowances for randomness in nature, you cannot use logic prove outcomes with more than general or average (probabilistic) specificity. To a great extent, this can be the source of definitional differences on the axioms in play, because they create their own web of assumptions.

 

And of course all of this assumes that everyone's thought through all of the implications of their logical arguments, which is rarely the case. As with any logical argument, 90% of all bugs in computer programs come from the developer not dealing with boundary conditions and errors in assumption about what you can expect the real world to throw at you.

 

Logic is great, but it's hardly perfect, and like statistics it can be used as easily to prevaricate as it can to enlighten.

 

 

You can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t even get out of the game, :phones:

Buffy