the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[Atla]

Pretty weak philosophical argument. There is also a real and pretended Scotsman, which is the point.


Where did I ever claim that it was solved? You're getting faulty information from Flash and he's making you look stupid. You and Flash can only straw-man my arguments because you can't find anything fallacious with what I have said, but I'm happy to keep going at this you calling me a troll, and me continually posting links that show support my proposition, like this:
https://www.shortform.com/blog/formal-a ... fallacies/


In other words, you don't even need to get to the conclusion to know that a mistake has been made. The initial premise is a category mistake. Maybe you find the NTS fallacy useful because you only engage with people of a lower intelligence than you (and I'm surprised that is even possible for you), because in a debate with me, you would never even get to the conclusion of, and therefore never commit, a NTS fallacy, as I would be calling you out well before that.

The NTS is only for low-class philosophers to learn to be able to spot because they simply can't hang with the upper-class that would tease out the definition of the terms used before the fallacy could even be committed.


Agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Certainly you see this as well as many others on this forum. Just look at all the fallacies just in this thread alone mostly committed by Harbal, Flash and Atla while at the same time claiming that only they are the authority of logical fallacies.

If there are only fake Scotsman and no actual Scotsman (I try to avoid qualifying anything as "true"), then "Scotsman" is really a meaningless string of scribbles. Besides there has to be an actual Scotsman for you to even assert that there are fake ones, kind of like you have to already know the facts to be able to tell an intentional lie.

Philosophers don't use language like we do in everyday conversations. They like to play games with their words. The meaning of "Scotsman" is how it is used in everyday conversation. If someone was to mention that their cousin is a Scotsman, listeners would understand that they are saying that their cousin was born in, or is native to Scotland, not that their hair is red or that they eat porridge with or without sugar.

Everyday language is used for communicating. Philosophy is a critique of language use, namely it's own. Most philosophical problems, not everyday problems, arise from the improper use of language in some proposition that is made in a philosophical context. As such, there aren't many legitimate problems in philosophy. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by simply determining the definitions of the terms you are using beforehand, and those terms in which there isn't a clear definition of can be cast out as useless terms. Terms like "God" and "Perfection" are some of those terms that are meaningless, yet people still use them in everyday use because it has become a habit. But when you actually investigate their meanings you find that there is nothing there. Instead we find other useful terms to refer to what it is we are actually talking about, and we can always adjust our definitions with new information. But some terms are attached to human-made concepts, like Scotland. Would it make any sense to talk about Scotsmen if there wasn't something called Scotland, and is Scotland something that exists independent of our minds, like planets and stars?

Glanced over maybe half of it and skipped the rest. This has got to be some of the most inept trolling I've ever seen. Keep it short geez.

If keeping it short is being a troll, then look in the mirror.

Besides, my posts aren't for you since I already know you aren't reading them. They are for the rational people that are reading this thread, and not necessarily participating in it.

Here's another link that describes the effect of making fallacious arguments, like you and your troop of dumb-dumb stupid-dumbs continually make:
https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Ci ... aking_Them

Whether a fallacy is an error or a trick, whether it is formal or informal, its use undercuts the validity and soundness of any argument. For example, if someone defines a key term in her argument in an ambiguous, vague, or circular way, her argument will appear very weak to a critical audience.

In addition, when listeners or readers spot questionable reasoning or unfair attempts at audience manipulation, more than the author’s argument (logos) may be compromised. Their evaluation of the credibility of the speaker/writer (ethos), and perhaps their ability to connect with that speaker on the level of shared values (pathos), also may be compromised. At the very least, the presence of fallacies will suggest to an audience that the speaker or writer lacks argumentative skill.

So, at the very least, you have shown the audience that you lack argumentative skills. You can't even define "troll" in a way that isn't ambiguous, vague, or circular. You have your primary troll in this thread that meets your initial definition, but would rather ignore that and redefine it to be the opposite just so you can call me a troll, troll.

But I'm willing to gracious and give you the tldr here: I won, you lost.

All very nice but the NTS is still just an intentional dick move, not a formal fallacy. You already "lost" in this topic before my first comment.

[FlashDangerpants]

Skip to the end. That's where he lays down the terms of an amazing alliance he is forming with the narcissist who thinks he is the greatest philosopher of all time, and the delusional nazi who thinks God uses him as a conduit to complain about some global Jewish homosexuality conspiracy.

Promising stuff. We need to introduce him to Eggnog7 for the full effect though.

Jewish neuroticism in all its glory folks... White peoples' brains must be so perplexing to you.

What do you imagine it's like to be a white American or European? Imagine for a moment.

You're really just making my point for me. Now tell Trajik your thoughts about skin colour an IQ.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=682586 time=1701547604 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=682572 time=1701540490 user_id=15238]
That problem is people believing NTS is a logical false while it's not. People merely have different ideas of what TS is.
[/quote]No, that's wrong on two counts. First, it is not logically false because it describes a real phenomenon where some people exclude members of a category disingenuously. Sure, that group may continue to act like they are excluding on good grounds, but in fact they are excluding what is inconvenient. IOW, it's not that the two people actually disagree about the definition, but one person is excluding merely as a defensive maneuver.
Yes, in other situations there may be a genuine disagreement about what should be included.

That's why it is an informal fallacy, not a formal one. It depends on the situation.

So, the two problems are 1) you are assuming that people exclude in good faith. 2) you are treating it as a formal fallacy.

Rational people can decide that when a person invents criteria they never mentioned before in order to exclude troublesome examples, and if there is a pattern of doing this, they are engaging in an NTS fallacious arguing.

Sometimes one can catch such people contradicting themselves. One points out that the criteria they use to exclude group X would also exclude examples they include and depend on, for example.

There are other ways the pattern can be seen.

This in no way means that genuine disagreements about inclusion/exclusion can't happen. That can happen ALSO.

But that doesn't exclude the real phenomenon that you can't seem to imagine doesn't exist.

Yes, the NTS can be misused. But it is nevertheless a useful concept because, it can be correctly applied.

Hell, people sometimes admit it when it is pointed out to them. Though incredibly rarely in online philosophy forums.
[/quote]

Being disingenuous is distinct from any specific fallacy bc literally anything can be messed up with intentional falsehood.

My point is simply that if a there are definitely false versions of a thing then there must actually be real ones too, the so called fallacy may be an example of raisity but is not an example of logically unsound.

[Atla]

Being disingenuous is distinct from any specific fallacy

Whenever you see say a strawman, red herring or ad hom (which are usually deliberately disingenuous), you don't see the disingenuousness as part of the fallacy?

[FlashDangerpants]

My point is simply that if a there are definitely false versions of a thing then there must actually be real ones too

You read it here first folks... the existence of Mall Santas proves there is a real Santa.

Even if the existence of fakes were proof that the real thing existed, which is truly a stupid argument, even then, that would have no bearing on the NTS.

[commonsense]

Obsession means that your brain is focused on an object or person.

Neurosis means obsession in addition to paranoia, usually leading to irrational thoughts.

A person can be obsessed and remain rational. A person cannot be neurotic and remain rational.

No, obsession itself is not considered rational.

[Iwannaplato]

Being disingenuous is distinct from any specific fallacy bc literally anything can be messed up with intentional falsehood.

It's a pattern of specious, self-serving exclusion of members of a set. This happens. In those instances it is fallacious.

The NTS is NOT saying that all exclusion is false.

My point is simply that if a there are definitely false versions of a thing then there must actually be real ones too,

Sure, that's pretty much built into the idea.

the so called fallacy may be an example of raisity but is not an example of logically unsound.

I don't know what a raisity is.

The NTS is a useful summation of a fallacious pattern of (usually defensive) excluding that is unsound. It arises, generally, to defend a prior assertion and the person doing this, makes up stuff. How aware they are of what they are doing varies?

It's not like a formal fallacy where it covers all instances.

Saying you solved it is confused.

People can even realize they were doing it themselves.

There is no reason to solve this concept. It's useful.

If you're not paying attention to the pattern in the other person, but rather in refuting each specific exclusion, you may end up wasting more time or not noticing that their arguments shift and may well contradict each other over time. It can also explain when they excluse in ways that make little sense.

Of course it may well turn out that they are excluding on good grounds. And if they are being disingenuous (consciously or merely unconsciously but conviently,) they may never admit it.

But it can be helpful to have the idea so you recognize the pattern.

You said that really they have different definitions. That could be the case when this kind of issue arises, but in others no. They even had the same definition earlier, but changed it to deal with a problem.

There was nothing to solve.

[FlashDangerpants]

My point is simply that if a there are definitely false versions of a thing then there must actually be real ones too,

Sure, that's pretty much built into the idea.

But it's not true. If it were I could create for myself a million true dollars by first creating for myself a million false dollars. If I dress as the King of France for a halloween party, there is now a True King of France, is that also me?

Must Immanuel Can now surrender his argument about evolution because having argued that all the skeletons for missing links are false, he inadvertently demonstrated that there is a true skeleton of the missing evolutionary link? I will enjoy watching somebody patiently explain that to him. Luckily all that false humility he wields actually shows he has plenty of true humility, so it should go perfectly well.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=682733 time=1701623164 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=682732 time=1701621774 user_id=15238]
Being disingenuous is distinct from any specific fallacy
[/quote]
Whenever you see say a strawman, red herring or ad hom (which are usually deliberately disingenuous), you don't see the disingenuousness as part of the fallacy?
[/quote]

Not inherently so, no. Each of those could be a legitimate mistake, even if ad hom is presumably, typically, otherwise.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=682734 time=1701624130 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=682732 time=1701621774 user_id=15238]
My point is simply that if a there are definitely false versions of a thing then there must actually be real ones too
[/quote]
You read it here first folks... the existence of Mall Santas proves there is a real Santa.

Even if the existence of fakes were proof that the real thing existed, which is truly a stupid argument, even then, that would have no bearing on the NTS.
[/quote]

There is definitely a false version of Santa, the myth. Therefore, anyone who otherwise meets the attributes of Santa but is not merely mythical is a true Santa. If you want to define something that doesn't exist as the "real" version, that's your problem. Mythical ideas prove nothing about anything and cannot be true or false except in relation to real ones.

But none of that matters. Call "real" Santa anything you want. The fact remains that if there's a fake one, there most first be a real one for it to be not the same as. If a fake exists, the real must first exist as a prerequisite.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=682778 time=1701637206 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=682732 time=1701621774 user_id=15238]
Being disingenuous is distinct from any specific fallacy bc literally anything can be messed up with intentional falsehood.[/quote]It's a pattern of specious, self-serving exclusion of members of a set. This happens. In those instances it is fallacious.

The NTS is NOT saying that all exclusion is false.
[quote]
My point is simply that if a there are definitely false versions of a thing then there must actually be real ones too,[/quote]Sure, that's pretty much built into the idea.

[quote] the so called fallacy may be an example of raisity but is not an example of logically unsound.[/quote]I don't know what a raisity is.

The NTS is a useful summation of a fallacious pattern of (usually defensive) excluding that is unsound. It arises, generally, to defend a prior assertion and the person doing this, makes up stuff. How aware they are of what they are doing varies?

It's not like a formal fallacy where it covers all instances.

Saying you solved it is confused.

People can even realize they were doing it themselves.

There is no reason to solve this concept. It's useful.

If you're not paying attention to the pattern in the other person, but rather in refuting each specific exclusion, you may end up wasting more time or not noticing that their arguments shift and may well contradict each other over time. It can also explain when they excluse in ways that make little sense.

Of course it may well turn out that they are excluding on good grounds. And if they are being disingenuous (consciously or merely unconsciously but conviently,) they may never admit it.

But it can be helpful to have the idea so you recognize the pattern.

You said that really they have different definitions. That could be the case when this kind of issue arises, but in others no. They even had the same definition earlier, but changed it to deal with a problem.

There was nothing to solve.
[/quote]

Rarity.

[Atla]

Being disingenuous is distinct from any specific fallacy

Whenever you see say a strawman, red herring or ad hom (which are usually deliberately disingenuous), you don't see the disingenuousness as part of the fallacy?

Not inherently so, no. Each of those could be a legitimate mistake, even if ad hom is presumably, typically, otherwise.

Well the point of the NTS is the disingenuous move itself, not differences in definition. So they can't be seperated.

[FlashDangerpants]

My point is simply that if a there are definitely false versions of a thing then there must actually be real ones too

You read it here first folks... the existence of Mall Santas proves there is a real Santa.

Even if the existence of fakes were proof that the real thing existed, which is truly a stupid argument, even then, that would have no bearing on the NTS.

There is definitely a false version of Santa, the myth. Therefore, anyone who otherwise meets the attributes of Santa but is not merely mythical is a true Santa. If you want to define something that doesn't exist as the "real" version, that's your problem. Mythical ideas prove nothing about anything and cannot be true or false except in relation to real ones.

But none of that matters. Call "real" Santa anything you want. The fact remains that if there's a fake one, there most first be a real one for it to be not the same as. If a fake exists, the real must first exist as a prerequisite.

What are you on about with that absurd bullshit? The mere fact of a false version of something obviously doesn't prove there is a real version of same. It's complete nonsense.

And it still has absolutely nothing to do with the No True Scotsman fallacy either way. You are completely barking mad.

[Iwannaplato]

Rarity.

OK; fine, but that was one tiny part of my response.

[Wizard22]

No, obsession itself is not considered rational.

Tell that to Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, and pretty much any Mathematician...