Philosophy Now Forum

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:18 pm a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Go on, please tell us what problem you think this solves? We've sat through this for a while now. We deserve to know.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:37 pm Either you're being disingenuous or despicable, i can't tell which.

Neither can I; probably a bit of both.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:40 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:18 pm a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Go on, please tell us what problem you think this solves? We've sat through this for a while now. We deserve to know.

I have. Repeatedly. You're not listening. You didn't even give your own example of what you think the problem is so i could refute it directly. You're all nay-saying and no philosophy. Why isn't there a block option here?!

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:45 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:40 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:18 pm a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Go on, please tell us what problem you think this solves? We've sat through this for a while now. We deserve to know.

I have. Repeatedly. You're not listening. You didn't even give your own example of what you think the problem is so i could refute it directly. You're all nay-saying and no philosophy. Why isn't there a block option here?!

This thing is so well known it's even on Urban Dictionary, you're just about the only person with no dea what it means.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 20scotsman

These are the author's word's

Antony Flew wrote:Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal 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 Press and Journal 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'.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:33 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:45 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:40 pm
Go on, please tell us what problem you think this solves? We've sat through this for a while now. We deserve to know.

I have. Repeatedly. You're not listening. You didn't even give your own example of what you think the problem is so i could refute it directly. You're all nay-saying and no philosophy. Why isn't there a block option here?!

This thing is so well known it's even on Urban Dictionary, you're just about the only person with no dea what it means.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 20scotsman

These are the author's word's

Antony Flew wrote:Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal 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 Press and Journal 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'.

And that's a problem how? He simply clarified what he meant in the first place, which should be obvious to all, that to be thought a member of Any society, in this case Scottish, implies a certain moral code. It's no fallacy. If you like you can drop all the particulars and rephrase it as "I don't like people who act that way." Any regular English speaker should understand what was meant. It's not equivocation either. It's not a double-standard, it's none of those things. It's not even a grammatical mistake. But in any case, There is a such a thing as a true Scotsman, whether or not that example gets to the heart of what one is.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:46 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:37 pm Please confirm though, that you actually think proving there are scotsmen actually has anything to do with the no true scotsman fallacy?

I hope he confirms it; that would be almost too good to be true.

I can't even tell if I won my bet there. On the one hand his response is wonderfully insane. On the other, he somehow still doesn't the point of Flew's story, so the penny didn't actually drop.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:48 pm so the penny didn't actually drop.

It is very entertaining watching the penny teetering on the brink of wherever it's going to go next, though.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:40 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:33 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:45 pm

I have. Repeatedly. You're not listening. You didn't even give your own example of what you think the problem is so i could refute it directly. You're all nay-saying and no philosophy. Why isn't there a block option here?!

This thing is so well known it's even on Urban Dictionary, you're just about the only person with no dea what it means.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 20scotsman

These are the author's word's

Antony Flew wrote:Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal 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 Press and Journal 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'.

And that's a problem how? He simply clarified what he meant in the first place, which should be obvious to all, that to be thought a member of Any society, in this case Scottish, implies a certain moral code. It's no fallacy. If you like you can drop all the particulars and rephrase it as "I don't like people who act that way." Any regular English speaker should understand what was meant. It's not equivocation either. It's not a double-standard, it's none of those things. It's not even a grammatical mistake. But in any case, There is a such a thing as a true Scotsman, whether or not that example gets to the heart of what one is.

Okay buddy, let's try and help you get the point. You see, the thing is if you make some all encompassing claim, say "all kittens are delightful" somebody might then tell you that their kitten is not delightful, rather it sneaks into their room and wakes them up every morning by shitting in their eyes. Are you with me so far? There's a big general claim, and then a specific claim is made that shows what is known in the business as a counterexample.

So the no true scotsman fallacy is what comes after the specific claim. The problem lies with making up some spurious excuse on the fly for not counting that specific claim against the general claim. So for instance, "no true kitten would shit in your eyes", or "you must have one of those nasty little mini tigers instead if a kitten". You see the appropriate response would be something like "most kittens are delightful then" or "I take it back, not all kittens are delightful".

Let's look for more examples we can use ... happily we don't need to look beyond this thread. Some some doofus makes the general claim that "No fake thing can exist without it's real correlate also existing". Somebody might counter with an example of a specific thing that very likely exists only as a fake. for instance "Seances where mediums talk to ghosts are all fake". At this point, a sane person would say, "okay, fair point, my argument wasn't very good". But the fallacious reasoner would probably invent some obviously nonsense excuse for why fake seances don't exist, even though they quite obviously occur very regularly in the real world. In this he is engaging in the no true scotsman fallacy, which would be super ironic given the circumstances, but really we're past irony and into a complete fucking farce now.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:53 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:48 pm so the penny didn't actually drop.

It is very entertaining watching the penny teetering on the brink of wherever it's going to go next, though.

I decided that I could best help by colouring in for him. I'm helpful I am.

The root of the no-true scotsman "fallacy" isn't moving the goalpost, that's a different thing, it's in whether or not a true thing is a valid concept at all. As the OP clearly shows, it is.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:26 pm The root of the no-true scotsman "fallacy" isn't moving the goalpost, that's a different thing, it's in whether or not a true thing is a valid concept at all. As the OP clearly shows, it is.

You forgot to mention how perfect and logically necessary the OP is. It's important to be consistent when marking homework, especially when you are in the habit of marking your own.

Not being familiar with the no true Scotsman terminology, I had to do some research. I was surprised to see that this thread had so much to say about what a man wears under his kilt.

Then I read further, and much to my flabbergastment, I found that a name had been given to a trivial piece of logic.

Doesn’t everyone know that a coin has at least 3 sides?

More to the point, here’s an obvious non-fallacy:

It always rains on Mondays. It rained on a Tuesday.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:41 pm Not being familiar with the no true Scotsman terminology, I had to do some research. I was surprised to see that this thread had so much to say about what a man wears under his kilt.

Then I read further, and much to my flabbergastment, I found that a name had been given to a trivial piece of logic.

Yeah, to the extent that this thing is famous, that's not because it is important at all, it's just because it deals a common argument strategy of people who make rash generalisations and then can't let go of them when the facts clearly don't support their claim. So it is relevant worryingly often, and thus gets flung about a lot.

I'd love to see the discussion where Advocate was berated for his poor defence of a rash generalisation with the words "no true scotsman" , I just want to see how bewildered the other guy must have been when this idiot tried to turn the tables by proving the scots exist. There must be a context for why this incredibly stupid thread exists at all.

If anything at all is being worn beneath a kilt, that is not a kilt, it's a skirt.

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=471570 time=1600286166 user_id=11800]
[quote=commonsense post_id=471559 time=1600281706 user_id=14610]
Not being familiar with the no true Scotsman terminology, I had to do some research. I was surprised to see that this thread had so much to say about what a man wears under his kilt.

Then I read further, and much to my flabbergastment, I found that a name had been given to a trivial piece of logic.
[/quote]
Yeah, to the extent that this thing is famous, that's not because it is important at all, it's just because it deals a common argument strategy of people who make rash generalisations and then can't let go of them when the facts clearly don't support their claim. So it is relevant worryingly often, and thus gets flung about a lot.

I'd love to see the discussion where Advocate was berated for his poor defence of a rash generalisation with the words "no true scotsman" , I just want to see how bewildered the other guy must have been when this idiot tried to turn the tables by proving the scots exist. There must be a context for why this incredibly stupid thread exists at all.

If anything at all is being worn beneath a kilt, that is not a kilt, it's a skirt.
[/quote]

You're no true philosoper, mate. You do a lot more being mean than accomplishing anything resembling thought.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:39 pm You're no true philosopers, mate. You do a lot more being mean than accomplishing anything resembling thought.

Well, if we're dropping truth bombs ... You have a clinical personality disorder and you need to talk to a medical practitioner. I don't need telling that I am no great philosopher, it's pretty obvious that I am not. But that's why I don't create inane spreadsheets and pretend they fix all the problems of philosophy.