## the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:49 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:22 pm
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:32 pm The argument is complete and perfect anyway.
But you did composed this thread to take the piss, not as an attempt at philosophy as such, right?
It might not be philosophical in the way some would like but it's a full and settled answer to the problem. No piss-taking intended.
I don't know what to make of this information. It blows my mind that somebody would even try to "fix" the non-problem of the no true scotsman thing at all. It is even weirder that you would try to do so by proving that the Scottish exist. But what really weirds me out, is the shitness even of your attempt to do that.

If the below is true (not a problem because the inferential step in the first premise is invalid)

If false Scotsmen can exist, true Scotsman must exist.
False Scotsmen do exist.
∴ True Scotsmen exist.

Then this is true too

If false MIRACLES can exist, true MIRACLES must exist.
False MIRACLES do exist.
∴ True MIRACLES exist.

But I also now have the power to create real unicorns. All I have to do is stick an ice cream cone to a donkey's head and lie to a small child that it is a unicorn. And now that false unicorns exist, so by definition must true unicorns.
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9111
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

Harbal wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:46 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:09 am
Hey, Harbal! You're back! Welcome back to the circus.
Hello, IC, I like to drop in now and again to see if there have been any philosophical break throughs.
You've missed a lot, actually. We've all discovered levitation. It will take awhile to catch up.
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:41 pm We've all discovered levitation.
There always were those here who had trouble keeping their feet on the ground.
Posts: 1031
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:55 am
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:49 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:22 pm
But you did composed this thread to take the piss, not as an attempt at philosophy as such, right?
It might not be philosophical in the way some would like but it's a full and settled answer to the problem. No piss-taking intended.
I don't know what to make of this information. It blows my mind that somebody would even try to "fix" the non-problem of the no true scotsman thing at all. It is even weirder that you would try to do so by proving that the Scottish exist. But what really weirds me out, is the shitness even of your attempt to do that.

If the below is true (not a problem because the inferential step in the first premise is invalid)

If false Scotsmen can exist, true Scotsman must exist.
False Scotsmen do exist.
∴ True Scotsmen exist.

Then this is true too

If false MIRACLES can exist, true MIRACLES must exist.
False MIRACLES do exist.
∴ True MIRACLES exist.

But I also now have the power to create real unicorns. All I have to do is stick an ice cream cone to a donkey's head and lie to a small child that it is a unicorn. And now that false unicorns exist, so by definition must true unicorns.
Miracles are not an existing thing so you can't logic about them. I'm sorry that's not obvious. If you want to make up facts you can come up with any conclusion you want. I admit that the dissolution of the fallacy requires knowing that Scotsmen actually exist, maybe that's too much for some. Let me rephrase it again to take out that problem.

IF X exists there can be both true and false versions of it.

You cannot just make up any random concept and pretend to apply logic to it. All imaginary things only exist in false versions. I'm surprised that isn't also obvious. It's the very meaning of the words themselves. These are concepts ordinary elementary school students would have no problem with. Only a false philosopher who's really just a true skeptic would try so hard to dismiss something so obviously valid. Likewise dismissing any argument that doesn't include all its premises in the initial contention. I'm not an academic and this is a good reason why. My argument is no less valid if i don't spell it completely out for morons.

You seem to want that every argument be complete in-and-of-itself, which is an impossible (and therefore meaningless) requirement.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:11 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:55 am
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:49 am

It might not be philosophical in the way some would like but it's a full and settled answer to the problem. No piss-taking intended.
I don't know what to make of this information. It blows my mind that somebody would even try to "fix" the non-problem of the no true scotsman thing at all. It is even weirder that you would try to do so by proving that the Scottish exist. But what really weirds me out, is the shitness even of your attempt to do that.

If the below is true (not a problem because the inferential step in the first premise is invalid)

If false Scotsmen can exist, true Scotsman must exist.
False Scotsmen do exist.
∴ True Scotsmen exist.

Then this is true too

If false MIRACLES can exist, true MIRACLES must exist.
False MIRACLES do exist.
∴ True MIRACLES exist.

But I also now have the power to create real unicorns. All I have to do is stick an ice cream cone to a donkey's head and lie to a small child that it is a unicorn. And now that false unicorns exist, so by definition must true unicorns.
Miracles are not an existing thing so you can't logic about them. I'm sorry that's not obvious. If you want to make up facts you can come up with any conclusion you want. I admit that the dissolution of the fallacy requires knowing that Scotsmen actually exist, maybe that's too much for some. Let me rephrase it again to take out that problem.

IF X exists there can be both true and false versions of it.

You cannot just make up any random concept and pretend to apply logic to it. All imaginary things only exist in false versions. I'm surprised that isn't also obvious. It's the very meaning of the words themselves. These are concepts ordinary elementary school students would have no problem with. Only a false philosopher who's really just a true skeptic would try so hard to dismiss something so obviously valid. Likewise dismissing any argument that doesn't include all its premises in the initial contention. I'm not an academic and this is a good reason why. My argument is no less valid if i don't spell it completely out for morons.
.... this is long and stupid. Your argument requires an invalid inference that a fake can only exist if the real also exists. But there is nothing at all to prevent me faking a miracle, and there is no valid inference from that fake miracle that there is therefore such a thing as a real miracle. The existence or othwiese of real miracles has nothing to do with whether I can fake them.

I don't think you need to start any more threads about how you are going to be the man to solve all of philosophy.

And aside from this stupid fucking diversion THE NO-TRUE-SCOTSMAN THING IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS AT ALL.
Posts: 1031
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:19 pm
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:11 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:55 am

I don't know what to make of this information. It blows my mind that somebody would even try to "fix" the non-problem of the no true scotsman thing at all. It is even weirder that you would try to do so by proving that the Scottish exist. But what really weirds me out, is the shitness even of your attempt to do that.

If the below is true (not a problem because the inferential step in the first premise is invalid)

If false Scotsmen can exist, true Scotsman must exist.
False Scotsmen do exist.
∴ True Scotsmen exist.

Then this is true too

If false MIRACLES can exist, true MIRACLES must exist.
False MIRACLES do exist.
∴ True MIRACLES exist.

But I also now have the power to create real unicorns. All I have to do is stick an ice cream cone to a donkey's head and lie to a small child that it is a unicorn. And now that false unicorns exist, so by definition must true unicorns.
Miracles are not an existing thing so you can't logic about them. I'm sorry that's not obvious. If you want to make up facts you can come up with any conclusion you want. I admit that the dissolution of the fallacy requires knowing that Scotsmen actually exist, maybe that's too much for some. Let me rephrase it again to take out that problem.

IF X exists there can be both true and false versions of it.

You cannot just make up any random concept and pretend to apply logic to it. All imaginary things only exist in false versions. I'm surprised that isn't also obvious. It's the very meaning of the words themselves. These are concepts ordinary elementary school students would have no problem with. Only a false philosopher who's really just a true skeptic would try so hard to dismiss something so obviously valid. Likewise dismissing any argument that doesn't include all its premises in the initial contention. I'm not an academic and this is a good reason why. My argument is no less valid if i don't spell it completely out for morons.
.... this is long and stupid. Your argument requires an invalid inference that a fake can only exist if the real also exists. But there is nothing at all to prevent me faking a miracle, and there is no valid inference from that fake miracle that there is therefore such a thing as a real miracle. The existence or othwiese of real miracles has nothing to do with whether I can fake them.

I don't think you need to start any more threads about how you are going to be the man to solve all of philosophy.

And aside from this stupid fucking diversion THE NO-TRUE-SCOTSMAN THING IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS AT ALL.
This isn't about me but i already have. Sadly most people (and most philosophers are people) don't have the ability to understand the most important and meaningful story never told. Most of those with the ability don't have the time. Most of those with the time and ability are already deep in their own thing and won't examine anyone else's thing, and we needn't even bother mentioning academics. That's why i've tried to start the discussion about what attributes the best world view would have.. repeatedly, but like all discussions on the internet, it went nowhere.

Unrelated personal attack: People like you seem to think that by dismissing everything, only the brightest light will shine through. That's not how it works. Your way of approaching philosophy guarantees you'll never accept any answer that doesn't just feel good, never do anything meaningful in philosophy, and will cause a great deal of unnecessary consternation for others in the process. You're positively counter-productive, or what i would call "evil".
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:47 pm Unrelated personal attack: People like you seem to think that by dismissing everything, only the brightest light will shine through. That's not how it works. Your way of approaching philosophy guarantees you'll never accept any answer that doesn't just feel good, never do anything meaningful in philosophy, and will cause a great deal of unnecessary consternation for others in the process. You're positively counter-productive, or what i would call "evil".
Your argument has logical flaws that render it worthless, as is true of a couple of your other arguments that I have looked at. In this case they are so bad that I didn't initially actually believe you intended that as an argument at all, assuming instead that your post was satirical. Self-pity is no solution, calling me "evil" won't get you anywhere. Your smart move here would be to google what the no true scotsman thing actually means and then realise that it simply is not an argument against the existence of scotsmen. Then just accept that you overreached on the basis of a misunderstanding and move on like a sane person.

If your pride is hurt by this sort of thing, then there are other lessons to learn if you have the capacity, but there is good reason right now not to expect much from that process.
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:12 pm Your smart move here would be to google what the no true scotsman thing actually means and then realise that it simply is not an argument against the existence of scotsmen.
Posts: 1031
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

Miracles do not exist. The concept of a miracle exists but it cannot be represented in reality because miracles cannot exist in reality. You can call an apple a pear but that doesn't make it a fake pear if it shares no attributes of pear-ness that everyone agrees upon. It is a-pear-like, not anti-pear-like. A "true" version of something is that which Actually has the agreed attributes. A "false" version of something is that which Seems to have the agreed attributes but does not. No miracle ever seems real to anyone who understands reality. Those who believe anything could even potentially be a "real" miracle are not suited to judge either.

False thing = not real
False false thing = not real

Real thing = real
False real thing - not real

All false things exist as concepts and not as reality. All real things have a false counterpoint.

I really don't know how many other ways there are to explain something so basic. It's not even logic, it's just understanding how Words work, ffs.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

This thread is fucking amazing. I can't believe you ever began trying to prove that scotsmen exist as an answer to the no true scotsmen fallacy, but your willingness to follow a stupid path to its bitterest possible conclusion is spectacular. But jst so we are clear here - your entire argument is pointless just because you are ignorant of what that fallacy means.

Anyways....
Fake Moon Landings
Mock Turtle soup
A counterfeit painting in the style of Da Vinci but with an alien eating a hotdog in the background
Yeti footage
And of course this fake skeleton of a fictional homiid ancestor to man
Are all examples of fake stuff that can exist whether the origianl ever existed or not.
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:40 pm All false things exist as concepts and not as reality. All real things have a false counterpoint.
Tell that to your grannie's teeth.
Posts: 1031
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:18 pm This thread is fucking amazing. I can't believe you ever began trying to prove that scotsmen exist as an answer to the no true scotsmen fallacy, but your willingness to follow a stupid path to its bitterest possible conclusion is spectacular. But jst so we are clear here - your entire argument is pointless just because you are ignorant of what that fallacy means.

Anyways....
Fake Moon Landings
Mock Turtle soup
A counterfeit painting in the style of Da Vinci but with an alien eating a hotdog in the background
Yeti footage
And of course this fake skeleton of a fictional homiid ancestor to man
Are all examples of fake stuff that can exist whether the origianl ever existed or not.
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:40 pm All false things exist as concepts and not as reality. All real things have a false counterpoint.
Tell that to your grannie's teeth.
The idea that someone Could land on the moon can't be reversed into a fake moon landing. If the moon landing didn't exist in reality, All versions are fake. If it did, the opposition is false.

Real teeth exist, therefore false teeth can exist. False teeth cannot exist least there be real teeth to contrast them with. If there are no real teeth, all teeth are false. If there are no real moon landings, all moon landings are false. The entire idea of falseness in this context requires a reality as a counterpoint.

Fake MEANS not the real thing.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

This is amazing.

Please confirm though, that you actually think proving there are scotsmen actually has anything to do with the no true scotsman fallacy?
Harbal
Posts: 4359
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:37 pm Please confirm though, that you actually think proving there are scotsmen actually has anything to do with the no true scotsman fallacy?
I hope he confirms it; that would be almost too good to be true.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

Harbal wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:46 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:37 pm Please confirm though, that you actually think proving there are scotsmen actually has anything to do with the no true scotsman fallacy?
I hope he confirms it; that would be almost too good to be true.
I'm looking forward to it too. When the penny drops I think we're going to see something extravagantly insane where he tries to show how this is all relevant. We may be about to witness actual genius at work.