Much of what you say here isn't in the OP.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:04 pm Not based on what you just said above. In a way the OP is right in that "Both sides justify their positions as well as they can" to reach a solution to what a Scotsman is and thereby determining which one committed the fallacy, if one was even committed. If both parties start off in same position of not having the authority to determine who is wrong in their description of a Scotsman and have to justify their descriptions then there is no fallacy until it is actually determined what a Scotsman is to say who was wrong in in their description.
I don't think this is correct. It's as if the NTS is not a useful idea. I think it is. I think it is a real phenomena that some people when arguing try to eliminate problematic counterexamples, for example. Given that that is a real phenomenon - and let me know if you think this does not happen - it can be useful to have a name for that. And it can be a fallacious approach to arguing: to eliminate problematic examples that don't fit your position. And yes, the accusation can be false or problematic.a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end
Sure. I don't think I've said something else.So it seems to me, based on what you have said, we need to solve the problem of defining Scotsman to even determine if a fallacy was even committed and who committed it.
Let's look at his second post:
He refers to his OP as an argument. It's not an argument. It is three assertions with no justification for any of them.In what sense is the argument not technically accurate? In what sense does it not accurately represent reality? How is it wrong? and Nuh-UH!
His third post starts to make an argument.
But he considers his 'argument' to be a solution to 'the problem'. He thinks he has solved the NTS. But he doesn't understand that it is not a formal fallacy. IOW when someone says 'Oh, but those are not true Scotsmen' that person must necessarily be incorrect. It means that there is a potential fallacious pattern happening.
He thinks he put the NTS to bed. That it was wrong. That we don't need it. That he has shown that it is not a (n informal) fallacy. He is confused about what it is supposed to be.
Which I pointed out in my first post in the thread.
He is treating it as if anyone arguing that someone else using the NTS accusation is incorrect because there can be false Scotsmen in the mind of those using the NTS. Which means he does not understand the difference between formal and informal fallacies, nor the NTS itself.
And I was worried that I came off as just wanting a fight....
You are defending the OP which the OP writer considers an argument that shows that the NTS 'problem' is solved - title of the thread. It's not a problem. He doesn't know what he is interacting with.
It's an amazingly dense package of confusions. He's certainly concise.
It's a useful idea and one that focuses on a real pattern that is fallacious, but obviously is not present in all cases of exclusion. Exclusion can be sound. Exclusion can also be used fallaciously. When it is, that's an NTS situation.
It's good if people have this concept, I think. If he and or you think it is useless, well don't use it.