No true Scotsman fallacy
m (Use singular link) |
Spaceboyjosh (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | '''"No true Scotsman"''' is story used to illustrate a very common [[Fallacy|fallacious]] argument, often used by [[Apologist|apologists]] to take advantage of the ambiguity of definitions of a certain key word (or words) in their argument. | |
| − | :"No Scotsman would ever put sugar on his porridge!" | + | The classic story goes something like this: |
| − | :"But what about Angus McMutton? He puts sugar on | + | |
| − | :"Och! I meant no | + | :'''Scotsman A:''' "No Scotsman would ever put sugar on his porridge!" |
| + | :'''Scotsman B:''' "But what about Angus McMutton? He puts sugar on ''his'' porridge." | ||
| + | :'''Scotsman A:''' "Och! What I meant was no ''true'' Scotsman would ever put sugar on his porridge." | ||
The implication is that since Angus puts sugar on his porridge, Angus is not a true Scotsman by definition, even though he (presumably) comes from Scotland. This is playing fast and loose with the definition of "Scotsman". | The implication is that since Angus puts sugar on his porridge, Angus is not a true Scotsman by definition, even though he (presumably) comes from Scotland. This is playing fast and loose with the definition of "Scotsman". | ||
Revision as of 12:27, 26 November 2007
"No true Scotsman" is story used to illustrate a very common fallacious argument, often used by apologists to take advantage of the ambiguity of definitions of a certain key word (or words) in their argument.
The classic story goes something like this:
- Scotsman A: "No Scotsman would ever put sugar on his porridge!"
- Scotsman B: "But what about Angus McMutton? He puts sugar on his porridge."
- Scotsman A: "Och! What I meant was no true Scotsman would ever put sugar on his porridge."
The implication is that since Angus puts sugar on his porridge, Angus is not a true Scotsman by definition, even though he (presumably) comes from Scotland. This is playing fast and loose with the definition of "Scotsman".
In a similar fashion, many apologists try to prove that all Christians are good people by categorically denying that anyone who does a bad thing is a "true Christian". Unlike the word "Scotsman," there is no generally accepted definition of the word "Christian," so you can pretty much define it however you want. A very inclusive definition might be "Anyone who claims to follow the religion of Christianity." A very exclusive definition might be "Only those people who precisely practice the sect of Christianity that I agree with."
Obviously there is a lot of wiggle room between those two extremes. Since the Scotsman fallacy relies on ambiguity in the definition of the word Christian, it is a form of equivocation.
