| Revision as of 03:10, 29 July 2011 editGriswaldo (talk | contribs)8,499 edits Undid revision 441978531 by Jbates537 (talk) please stop edit warring .. respect WP:BRD and use the talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:48, 29 July 2011 edit undoAbsconded Northerner (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers1,526 edits Undid revision 441978667 by Griswaldo (talk) This looks like a perfect example to meNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ==Examples and related issues== | ==Examples and related issues== | ||
| An example of a political application of the fallacy could be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.<ref>]. , '']'', Jan 31, 2006</ref> At issue is whether or not something labeled as an "emerging democracy" is actually a democracy or something in a different conceptual category, the same way that "merging lanes" between two streets are different from a single street. | An example of a political application of the fallacy could be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them.<ref>]. , '']'', Jan 31, 2006</ref> At issue is whether or not something labeled as an "emerging democracy" is actually a democracy or something in a different conceptual category, the same way that "merging lanes" between two streets are different from a single street. | ||
| In July 2011, when ], a Norwegian right-wing Christian, detonated a bomb in Oslo and went on to massacre young people gathered on Utøya, ] on his show '']'' said: <ref>{{cite web|title=Bill O'Reilly: Media Labeling Norway Killer Breivik 'Christian' Because 'They Don't Like Christians'|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/bill-oreilly-media-breivik-christian_n_909498.html|publisher=Huffington Post}}</ref> | |||
| :''"Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder, the man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith...we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way."'' | |||
| Thereby he implied that if Breivik were a "true Christian" he wouldn't have committed such a crime. | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 03:48, 29 July 2011
For the practice of wearing a kilt without undergarments, see True Scotsman.No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.
Origins
The term was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?.
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald 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 Glasgow Morning Herald 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."
— Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking
A simpler rendition would be:
- Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
- Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
- Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".
Examples and related issues
An example of a political application of the fallacy could be in asserting that "no democracy starts a war", then distinguishing between mature or "true" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them. At issue is whether or not something labeled as an "emerging democracy" is actually a democracy or something in a different conceptual category, the same way that "merging lanes" between two streets are different from a single street.
In July 2011, when Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian right-wing Christian, detonated a bomb in Oslo and went on to massacre young people gathered on Utøya, Bill O'Reilly on his show The O'Reilly Factor said:
- "Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder, the man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith...we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way."
Thereby he implied that if Breivik were a "true Christian" he wouldn't have committed such a crime.
See also
- Cognitive dissonance
- Equivocation
- Euphemism
- Loaded language
- Persuasive definition
- Reification (fallacy)
References
- No True Scotsman, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Flew, Antony (1975), Thinking About Thinking: Do I sincerely want to be right?, London: Collins Fontana, ISBN 978-0006335801
- Spengler. "No true Scotsman starts a war", Asia Times Online, Jan 31, 2006
- "Bill O'Reilly: Media Labeling Norway Killer Breivik 'Christian' Because 'They Don't Like Christians'". Huffington Post.
| Common fallacies (list) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Informal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
