the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[Sculptor]

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

You have not got the answer because you are not a true philosopher. And no true philosopher would say such a thing

[Sculptor]

It's a full, complete, perfect, logical, necessary, actionable answer. Do you have a better one somehow?

Do you need a more technical formulation?

If false Scotsmen can exist, true Scotsman must exist.
False Scotsmen do exist.
∴ True Scotsmen exist.

Are you saying there are no false Scotsmen? You won't get very far with that refutation.

I don't need to "go" anywhere. There's nothing to refute until you make a point. You are appealing to classical logic. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%27s_paradox

There is no paradox in reality. I haven't heard of this one before so let me go see what it is so i can clear it up for you. The argument is complete and perfect anyway. There's nothing arbitrary about the actual existence of false Scotsman or the logical necessity of true Scotsman thereby. I don't see how that "paradox" even applies.

Please define the necessary characteristics of a "Scotsman"!

[Trajk Logik]

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Wrong on all counts
It's exactly like you do not understand the problem

How does this actually address what Advocate said? Is there such a thing as a false Scotsman and such a thing as a true Scotsman, or not? If so, what is a Scotsman? What is the definition?

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

You have not got the answer because you are not a true philosopher. And no true philosopher would say such a thing

Define "philosopher" and why Advocate would need to be one to get the right answer. How do we know that you are a philosopher and that you are right?

All you have shown is that the terms "Scotsman" and "philosopher" are meaningless.

[Harbal]

I don't define a woman like that. I define woman like the vast majority of people that use the English language do. You are free to define it how you please, but don't expect me to waste my time discussing Scotsmen and women with you as we would simply be talking past each other.

Please accept my apology, but when you first engaged in discussion with me I assumed you had freely chosen to waste your time.

You assumed wrong. I don't engage in conversation to waste my time.

I appreciate your making an exception in my case, thank you.

I engage in conversation to be productive is seeking and finding solutions to problems.

What made you deviate from that strategy and engage in a conversation in order to create a problem that did not hitherto exist, I wonder.

You and FlashDangerpants have, so it appears that you are the ones with the conundrum.

Indeed we are. Neither of us seems to be able to work out why you have grasped the wrong end of the stick so firmly regarding the no true Scotsman thing.

If you are saying that ANY conversation with you is a waste of time, and not just conversations about language-use and definitions, then thanks for the heads-up so that I won't be wasting my time in the future.

Going on what I've seen of your conversations so far, they seem to have a waste of time built into them.

Flash was trying to enlighten you, whereas I am quite content to leave you wallowing in your misunderstanding of the matter.

You have a strange concept of "enlighten". Again, we would need to iron out the definitions we are using as I don't see anything Flash has responded to me with as "enlightening". It's just been straw-men and ad-hominems - all from someone who claims to know what a fallacy is.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a very simple concept; even I understand it, but it is glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue.

[Trajk Logik]

What made you deviate from that strategy and engage in a conversation in order to create a problem that did not hitherto exist, I wonder.

Please quote the post(s) where I did that.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a very simple concept; even I understand it, but it is glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue.

Yet here you are committing the true Scotsman fallacy - assuming that you have a true understanding where I do not. What is an understanding of the true Scotsman fallacy? The fallacy is a disagreement of a proper definition for the term "Scotsman". Define "Scotsman" and you solve the problem.

Actually, for the true Scotsman to be a fallacy it has to assume that there is a proper definition of "Scotsman" that one person is not using. The fallacy is an example of talking past each other.

[Atla]

What made you deviate from that strategy and engage in a conversation in order to create a problem that did not hitherto exist, I wonder.

Please quote the post(s) where I did that.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a very simple concept; even I understand it, but it is glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue.

Yet here you are committing the true Scotsman fallacy - assuming that you have a true understanding where I do not. What is an understanding of the true Scotsman fallacy? The fallacy is a disagreement of a proper definition for the term "Scotsman". Define "Scotsman" and you solve the problem.

Actually, the for the true Scotsman to be a fallacy it has to assume that there is a proper definition of "Scotsman" that one person is not using. The fallacy is an example of talking past each other.

You may not understand the fallacy, but no true philosophy forum user would fail to understand it.

[Harbal]

What made you deviate from that strategy and engage in a conversation in order to create a problem that did not hitherto exist, I wonder.

Please quote the post(s) where I did that.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a very simple concept; even I understand it, but it is glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue.

Yet here you are committing the true Scotsman fallacy - assuming that you have a true understanding where I do not. What is an understanding of the true Scotsman fallacy? The fallacy is a disagreement of a proper definition for the term "Scotsman". Define "Scotsman" and you solve the problem.

Actually, the for the true Scotsman to be a fallacy it has to assume that there is a proper definition of "Scotsman" that one person is not using. The fallacy is an example of talking past each other.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is not a problem, it is a technique sometimes used in argument, but it is a type of invalid argument. It isn't something to be solved; it just needs recognising as invalid, and disqualifying as such.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not the one that spent 5 pages of a philosophy forum trying to iron out the structure of the fallacy. You and FlashDangerpants have, so it appears that you are the ones with the conundrum. I simply came along and provided a different way of looking at it to solve the conundrum you find yourselves in. Take it or leave it, but those are the facts.

The thread was started by a clinical narcissist who boasted that he could fix the NTS "problem". All we did was mock him. There aren't any pages of me and Harbal trying to iron out the structure of it, or to solve what is absolutely not a conundrum nor a thing to be solved.

All you are doing is competing with Advocate to be the bigger nutjob. Get out of that race you fucking idiot, the prize is a padded cell.

None of this, nor anything you have said to me up to this point, is an argument against anything I have said. All you have done is engage in attacking straw-men and when that didn't work, you attack me personally. Grow up.

You should spend your valuable time with Advocate, you two are well suited to each other.

[FlashDangerpants]

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a very simple concept; even I understand it, but it is glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue.

Yet here you are committing the true Scotsman fallacy - assuming that you have a true understanding where I do not.

You just randomly accused him of a fallacy that you don't understand and which he wasn't committing, somewhat proving him right.

[Sculptor]

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Wrong on all counts
It's exactly like you do not understand the problem

How does this actually address what Advocate said? Is there such a thing as a false Scotsman and such a thing as a true Scotsman, or not? If so, what is a Scotsman? What is the definition?

Well Indeed. He has all his work ahead of him to demonstrate the value of that construction "Scotsman".
This is pretty much the essence of the problem.
DO you understand the problem BTW?

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

You have not got the answer because you are not a true philosopher. And no true philosopher would say such a thing

Define "philosopher" and why Advocate would need to be one to get the right answer. How do we know that you are a philosopher and that you are right?

All you have shown is that the terms "Scotsman" and "philosopher" are meaningless.

Gosh. You nearly have the essance of the problem. Push a little harder and you will be there.

[Trajk Logik]

The no true Scotsman fallacy is not a problem, it is a technique sometimes used in argument, but it is a type of invalid argument. It isn't something to be solved; it just needs recognising as invalid, and disqualifying as such.

Right. What makes it an invalid argument? What are you recognizing, and isn't disqualifying it the solution? Making invalid arguments is a problem with one's argument.

[Harbal]

The no true Scotsman fallacy is not a problem, it is a technique sometimes used in argument, but it is a type of invalid argument. It isn't something to be solved; it just needs recognising as invalid, and disqualifying as such.

Right. What makes it an invalid argument? What are you recognizing, and isn't disqualifying it the solution? Making invalid arguments is a problem with one's argument.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to pass something off as the case when it has not been established to be the case. The person committing the fallacy is assuming the authority to prescribe what being a Scotsman is when he is not entitled to do so.

An example.

Person 1: Christianity has been a force for good throughout history.
Person 2: What about the Crusaders? They killed a lot of innocent people.

Person 1: True, but Crusaders were not living up to Christian ideals, so they weren’t true Christians.

Since the Crusades were by definition a series of religious wars carried out by Christian Europeans and supported by the Church, the argument is fallacious and the speaker tries to “shift the goalposts” to defend their claim.

[Iwannaplato]

The no true Scotsman fallacy is not a problem, it is a technique sometimes used in argument, but it is a type of invalid argument. It isn't something to be solved; it just needs recognising as invalid, and disqualifying as such.

Right. What makes it an invalid argument? What are you recognizing, and isn't disqualifying it the solution? Making invalid arguments is a problem with one's argument.

It's an informal fallacy. This means it is not a rule. Yes, there can be times when one, on valid term, excludes a group or individual from the category. That CAN be valid.

When one excludes members of the category without good justification, then it is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Advocate, who started the thread did not understand this.

The bone of contention then is around if these exclusions are merely evasive and denial based - getting rid of inconvenient members - or are they valid exclusions.

So, it is not an invalid argument it's an evaluation. It certainly can be presented as a formal fallacy and thus be fallacious itself. You just excluded a member, this must be a false move, as described by the No True Scotsman Rule.

It's a concept that can be used poorly or correctly. It gives us a way to get at what someone may be doing. You still need to justify the evaluation, because it's not formal. It doesn't have to be the case that exclusions are fallacious.

I've certainly met a few. Some Christians have this habit. If Christians do something bad, well they aren't really Christians...it all boils down to. Which might possibly be fine, but anyone claiming to be a Muslim is a Muslim period. For example. They exclude what is inconvenient but dont' allow similar exclusions for others. This hypocrisy need not be present for the NTS fallacy to be active, but it becomes very obvious in those cases what is going on.

[Trajk Logik]

The no true Scotsman fallacy is not a problem, it is a technique sometimes used in argument, but it is a type of invalid argument. It isn't something to be solved; it just needs recognising as invalid, and disqualifying as such.

Right. What makes it an invalid argument? What are you recognizing, and isn't disqualifying it the solution? Making invalid arguments is a problem with one's argument.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to pass something off as the case when it has not been established to be the case. The person committing the fallacy is assuming the authority to prescribe what being a Scotsman is when he is not entitled to do so.

An example.

Person 1: Christianity has been a force for good throughout history.
Person 2: What about the Crusaders? They killed a lot of innocent people.

Person 1: True, but Crusaders were not living up to Christian ideals, so they weren’t true Christians.

Since the Crusades were by definition a series of religious wars carried out by Christian Europeans and supported by the Church, the argument is fallacious and the speaker tries to “shift the goalposts” to defend their claim.

Excellent.

So how do we determine who has "the authority to prescribe what being a Scotsman/Christian is"?

Going back to my first post:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This is simply a category error. A Scotsman is not defined by what they eat. They are defined by where they were born, or who their parents are. Just as women are not defined by what they wear. They are defined by what is between their legs and their chromosome type.

It's simple. Define a Scotsman and I'm sure that the reasonable and intellectually honest types will come to some sort of agreement.

Here I am not disagreeing with anything you said above. I am showing that Person A is exhibiting a lack of authority in prescribing what it is to be a Scotsman, and went on to imply that the authority would be a dictionary. You seem to agree by pointing out that "Crusades" and "Christians" have definitions that render the argument fallacious, or problematic.

So it appears that we have been in agreement all along and you and Flash simply wanted to argue for the sake of arguing.

The bone of contention then is around if these exclusions are merely evasive and denial based - getting rid of inconvenient members - or are they valid exclusions.

Excellent point. Does Person A not know the definition of "Scotsman", or are they purposely "moving the goal posts" as Harbal put it?


And going back to my earlier points regarding improper language use, logical statements and propositions are manifestations of language use so if one makes a fallacious argument then they have essentially misused language. I never implied that the fallacy itself (the interaction between Person A and B) was a misuse of language rather that Person A, and only Person A, misused language by not referencing the authority for prescribing what it is to be a Scotsman - a dictionary.

[Harbal]

Right. What makes it an invalid argument? What are you recognizing, and isn't disqualifying it the solution? Making invalid arguments is a problem with one's argument.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to pass something off as the case when it has not been established to be the case. The person committing the fallacy is assuming the authority to prescribe what being a Scotsman is when he is not entitled to do so.

An example.

Person 1: Christianity has been a force for good throughout history.
Person 2: What about the Crusaders? They killed a lot of innocent people.

Person 1: True, but Crusaders were not living up to Christian ideals, so they weren’t true Christians.

Since the Crusades were by definition a series of religious wars carried out by Christian Europeans and supported by the Church, the argument is fallacious and the speaker tries to “shift the goalposts” to defend their claim.

Excellent.

So how do we determine who has "the authority to prescribe what being a Scotsman/Christian is"?

That is a separate issue. I suppose for it to actually be a fallacy the matter of what constitutes a Scotsman/Christian must be undetermined. If, say, it were a core tenet of Christianity that you must never kill another person under any circumstances, then I suppose my above example would not qualify as a fallacy.

Here I am not disagreeing with anything you said above. I am showing that Person A is exhibiting a lack of authority in prescribing what it is to be a Scotsman, and went on to imply that the authority would be a dictionary. You seem to agree by pointing out that "Crusades" and "Christians" have definitions that render the argument fallacious, or problematic.

So it appears that we have been in agreement all along and you and Flash simply wanted to argue for the sake of arguing.

I don't think so. You have been overcomplicating the matter by trying to go beyond what the NTS refers to, or so it seems to me. I am no authority on philosophy and its fallacies, so what I have said might not be 100% accurate, but Flash usually knows what he's talking about.

Does Person A not know the definition of "Scotsman", or are they purposely "moving the goal posts" as Harbal put it?

The example I posted and the description underneath it were not mine, btw, I copied and pasted them.