ForumsWEPRThe continual annoying misuse of No True Scotsman

9 1340
09philj
offline
09philj
2,832 posts
Scribe

This is getting on my nerves. People seem to think any statement where any suggestion that a person literally does not represent a group is a No True Scotsman. Here let me explain:

Correct example:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This is an example of the fallacy at work, because the literal definition of Scotsman does not mention using sugar on porridge; it may be a stereotype and/or a general occurrence, but it's not a definite thing.

Incorrect example:
Person A: Feminists want men and women to have fair and equal rights.
Person B: <Insert nutcase of choice here> wants women to be dominant over men.
Person A: She's not a feminist.

This is not a fallacy as <nutcase of choice> does not fulfil the actual definition of the word feminist: "One who advocates social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." Therefore <nutcase of choice> is, de facto, not a feminist.

Any questions?

  • 9 Replies
Showing 31-30 of 9