No true Scotsman?

Richard Aberdeen writes:

As far as the Scots, they have a varied history of moving from Ireland to Scotland, while the Irish have a similar history of moving the other way.  Along the way, there was likely considerable sexual inter-relations between the two, so it would be about as difficult to determine a true "Scotsman" as it would be to determine a true "American".  

As far as I understand in regards to Christianity, Jesus is neither the founder of Christianity or anything remotely like Christianity.  Christianity arose at least a century after Jesus was crucified.

I have written about the historical reality here, if anyone cares to check it out:
http://freedomtracks.com/revolution.html 

Bryan writes:

[To Richard Aberdeen]

What does this have to do with the question?

And btw I'm a Scotsman and your irrelevant prattling has no bearing on that fact, and isn't appreciated.

bruce writes:

[To Bryan]

I think that's just what he does here, having read just a few threads myself. You'd think he'd know that the True Scotsman's Fallacy isn't really about the history of Scotland or the Scottish people in any way. I suppose someone with the name Aberdeen could be forgiven for such a misunderstanding.

Aryan writes:
[To Bryan]

By "No True Scotsman" he means the type of fallacy, not the question. Also, your second statement was a fallacy because by saying "isn't appreciated" you are assuming that everyone else agrees with you, which they don't (not a fallacy because I personally don't agree).

bruce writes:
[To Aryan]

Pretty sure Bryan was responding to Richard Aberdeen's post which had nothing to do with No True Scotsman as a type of fallacy. The original post is about that but not RA's blathering about the history of Scotland, etc.

Jack writes:

@Bo

What if we imagine and accept the premise that the Democratic Party is Anti-Christian. Isn't it then logically valid to assume that a Devoted true Christian wouldn't join? Although technically fallacious? 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Jack]

Christians can join for other reasons that are more important to them. 

Bryan writes:
[To Jack]

How about just accept what they say rather than trying to rationalise why they aren't?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

In a strict sense, you are correct. This fallacy often takes place in a dialog and as a direct refutation. There are times when statements have an implied dialog. This is one of those times. More important, the statement has the key elements of the fallacy: 1) direct universal claim that "no" Christians can be democrats 2) the clear (implied) refutation given the fact there are are many Christian democrats 3) a refusal to concede that point 4) while the claim is not altered, it does attempt to differentiate Christians from those who are "truly" Christian, 5) and failing to give any objective criteria for the specificity (i.e., what exactly is anti-Christian about the platform?)

This is my take at least. I don't think it is unreasonable to say this is not an example of the fallacy; I just take the position that it is more like the fallacy than not for the reasons stated above.

Richard Aberdeen writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Several responses here assume that 1) There is such a thing as a "true" Scotsman, which any historian can easily debunk and 2) That Christianity favors the Republican agenda over the Democrat agenda. 

Regarding the first assumption, there was a time in history when people living in what is now Ireland immigrated to what is now Scotland in significant numbers and, there were also times when people living in what is now Scotland immigrated in significant numbers to what is now Ireland.  As such, there is no such thing as a "true" Scotsman, anymore than their is a "true" American.

Regarding the second assumption, the words and deeds of Jesus are much more aligned with the Bernie Sanders agenda than they are with the current Catholic or Protestant agenda in general, while the words and deeds of Jesus are clearly at odds with the current evangelical and other conservative Christian agenda. 

As such, this is an analogy doomed to failure before it gets off the ground.

Bryan writes:
[To Richard Aberdeen]

The NTS has nothing whatsoever to do with lineage. It is to do with things like:

No true Scotsman would put on underwear beneath their kilt. A true Scotsman goes commando.

No true Scotsman would put sugar on their porridge, they would put salt on it.

There are examples of Scotsmen doing both of these things, which makes the claim fallacious.

Both of these are actually rhetorical devices used to say what people  should do, rather than literally claiming that it never happens. Whoever came up with the fallacy seems to have missed this distinction, however, the fallacy isn't actually about Scotsmen, it's an analogy in which it doesn't matter whether it's literal or figurative. 

Perhaps if you spent more time on this site paying attention to the fallacies which were pointed out you wouldn't need such a simple thing explained.

Robert writes:

Hi Bo,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Here are a couple of things I have discovered from my research.
First up my attitude to fallacies is first to apply the Principle of Charity to try and see a person's claim or argument non-fallaciously, otherwise we can fall too easily into strawman.
I distinguish between form and content. I cannot judge on the content as I am not American and don't understand the politics.
First:  Yes the form  of "No Christian would.... bla bla bla"  appears to be a Universal Negative or an E proposition in the logical square of opposition sense. Now,  if it is fallacious solely on this account of being an E proposition in the form of  'No S is P', then all E propositions would be no true scotsman fallacies, which can't be right.
Second: It depends on what rules we use to judge a NTS. According to the creator -Antony Flew,  the main ingredient in NTS is a Persuasive Definition.   So, the example, No Christian would... could be a PD, which are not always fallacious. They are everywhere.
Third: Being Scottish, American, Christian, etc are Social Kinds which are not easily definable in universally acceptable necessary and sufficient conditions, as natural kinds are (like water =H20).  They are essentially contestable and controversial and are as much expressions of value as descriptive facts. So I ask, why isn't the speaker correct or has warrant in thinking that a Christian is one who would not do such a thing? Who is to say what a Christian should or should not do? 
Fourth: I think there is something significant in your prose here, ""No true Christian would ever do X,"  as the copula you use is a soft-modal  'would' and not a verb in the indicative mood. Hence it is not really a declarative sentence and does not have a truth-value.  It is more  normative and prescriptive from the speaker's point of view.    If it is significant that alleged NTS fallacies contain normative claims than descriptive claims then I don't know how normative claims can be falsified by counter-evidence.

Here is an example:   "No American burns the flag- its un-American."
  Counter claim:  "I know someone who does".
 New claim: "No true American would burn the flag." or "He is not a true American"

Consider a prototype theory of classes where there are degrees of good prototypes and bad prototypes. What I am saying is that there are Americans, and true-Americans according to Speaker's definitions.  Ironically, you have to be American already to be called 'un-American'!!!  If you call a British person un-American that is trivial.  What the speaker here means in this example is that this American is not acting or behaving properly- he is not behaving the way an American _should_ ( another modal).
So too, whatever is said about Christians in that democrat context.  

Finally, I think, if you want to say in a 'strict sense' it is not a NTS fallacy, but in another way it is- this seems to allow for two kinds of classes or degrees of fit to an ideal prototype, :-).

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Robert]

First up my attitude to fallacies is first to apply the Principle of Charity 

I am so with you on this one.

I distinguish between form and content. 

Great distinction to make. Many fallacies can easily be identified by form, others require understanding context (content). This is why the principle of charity is important; we can't know what the person intended. Sometimes we have a good idea based on history of comments, rhetoric, etc.

First:  Yes the form  of "No Christian would.... bla bla bla" 

It is not just "No Christian would..." it is "No true Christian would..." We can substitute "true" with words and phrases that are synonymous such as "No one who is truly a Christian would..."

Second: It depends on what rules we use to judge a NTS. According to the creator...

As I have written, informal fallacies are arguments in themselves, where each side presents their case as to why something is fallacious or not. Informal fallacies also use names as a convenience, yet are more fluid in that there are no strict rules for something to be fallacious, but one can argue that there are strict rules for something to meet the definition of fallacy X. This is why I can see the argument that this is not a strict "no true Scotsman" but for all the previous mentioned reasons, I believe it is fallacious and I think it is close enough in definition to use the term.

So I ask, why isn't the speaker correct or has warrant in thinking that a Christian is one who would not do such a thing?

This is where I see the major issue. Unless the Christian making the statement is the Pope (and we change "Christian" to "Catholic," no Christian has the authority to dictate which political party other Christians should or should not join. The implied conclusion, spoken or not, is "Well, they are not real/true/good, etc Christian."

Hence it is not really a declarative sentence and does not have a truth-value.

Informal fallacies are not bound to truth-values like deductive logic, so this really is irrelevant... unless I am missing your point here.

Like I said, there is room for good arguments for many alleged informal fallacies, this being one of them. I did not make the statement nor do I feel this is one I would passionately argue to be fallacious. So I will leave it here. That is what is great about this site... people can come to this site to read answers and comments and make up their mind where they stand. I think you and I have given them some good points to consider :)

Richard Aberdeen writes:

There is a significant failure among the several responses here to challenge whether or not the words and deeds of Jesus even remotely represent what is called "Christianity".  A consistent problem I find among both liberal atheists and conservative Christians is, that few if any have actually read the New Testament openly mindedly without any pre-conceived bias.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Richard Aberdeen]

Richard, you need to stop with the proselytizing here. You still don't get what this site is about. This post is not about if Christians are more like democrats or Republicans; it is about the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Bryan writes:
[To Richard Aberdeen]

The reason for that is that other people are capable of answering the actual questions instead of intentionally railroading it to an irrelevant soapboxing session to promote your irrational views. At least you didn't advertise your ignorant book again.