the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673546 time=1697494008 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=469705 time=1599493851 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=469704 time=1599493548 user_id=11800]
Were you expecting to be taken seriously in this thread? You weren't actually attempting to address the Scotsman fallacy with that garbage were you?
[/quote]

It's a full, complete, perfect, logical, necessary, actionable answer.
[/quote]The false scotsman is not a question nor is it a problem. So, what is it you are answering?
[/quote]

The fallacy is not one. We can reasonably disregard it's typical use. Though True x had debatable criteria, whoever's using the term obviously has some which they believe apply. Having irrelevant or simply wrong criteria may apply, but that's a different issue.

[FlashDangerpants]

The narcissist cannot ever recognise he has erred without suffering terrible congitive dissonance.

[Iwannaplato]

The fallacy is not one. We can reasonably disregard it's typical use.

Then you might want to disregard it's typical name. Obviously sometimes one can, on good grounds, say that a counterexample is not actually a counterexample.

Though True x had debatable criteria, whoever's using the term obviously has some which they believe apply.

That they posit apply when they have a problem. When it is pointed out that their assertions are incorrect and given examples. Part of the reason that it is called an informal fallacy is that it is not necessarily false to rule out examples based on criteria. If someone was saying it is a formal, necessary in all cases, fallacy, that would be a different case.

Regardless the person who uses this informal fallacy may have all sorts of motives and awareness. And they may well not be being honest with themselves, for example. They may or may not believe they apply. They may just want them to. They may be refusing to admit something.

It can be a valid critique of how someone is arguing.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673559 time=1697497588 user_id=11800]
The narcissist cannot ever recognise he has erred without suffering terrible congitive dissonance.
[/quote]

What error?

[mickthinks]

I missed this when Advocate launched it in 2020. Hilarious!

[FlashDangerpants]

The narcissist cannot ever recognise he has erred without suffering terrible congitive dissonance.

What error?

Just admit that back then you guessed what the NTS was about and got it wrong. You could just learn from a mistake any time you choose to do that.

Doubling down when you are in the hole just makes you look weird and mad, and then people lose respect for you if they previously had some. You could ask Immanuel Can how that went for him when he tried to make his own version of Frege-Geach.

[Iwannaplato]

The narcissist cannot ever recognise he has erred without suffering terrible congitive dissonance.

What error?

You didn't understand what NTS was. You treated it like it was a paradox to be solved. Or perhaps as a formal fallacy. As you said you 'solved' it or 'answered' it. But it was not something to be answered or solved. You had a confused sense of the category the NTS is. Which is fine, people make mistakes. Even the best philosopher would make them and such a person would definitely admit they made mistakes when they did.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673606 time=1697531028 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673582 time=1697516706 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673559 time=1697497588 user_id=11800]
The narcissist cannot ever recognise he has erred without suffering terrible congitive dissonance.
[/quote]

What error?
[/quote]
Just admit that back then you guessed what the NTS was about and got it wrong. You could just learn from a mistake any time you choose to do that.

Doubling down when you are in the hole just makes you look weird and mad, and then people lose respect for you if they previously had some. You could ask Immanuel Can how that went for him when he tried to make his own version of Frege-Geach.
[/quote]

You keep saying i'm wrong without justification and you're wrong that i'm wrong. The fact remains, the No True Scottsdale fallacy is wrong because people can be divided into fake and true Scotsman, or whatever else. And it's not the only so-called fallacy that isn't necessarily. It's just one instance. I have made Literally no mistake here. Shove off.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673634 time=1697548029 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673582 time=1697516706 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673559 time=1697497588 user_id=11800]
The narcissist cannot ever recognise he has erred without suffering terrible congitive dissonance.
[/quote]

What error?
[/quote]You didn't understand what NTS was. You treated it like it was a paradox to be solved. Or perhaps as a formal fallacy. As you said you 'solved' it or 'answered' it. But it was not something to be answered or solved. You had a confused sense of the category the NTS is. Which is fine, people make mistakes. Even the best philosopher would make them and such a person would definitely admit they made mistakes when they did.
[/quote]

Questions get answers, problems get solutions. NTS is answered by OP because an answer is a framework of understanding, which is exactly what OP is. NTS is a problem in that people believe it's a fallacy when it's not necessarily or usually, and the problem is solved by having an adequate framework of understanding.

[FlashDangerpants]

What error?

Just admit that back then you guessed what the NTS was about and got it wrong. You could just learn from a mistake any time you choose to do that.

Doubling down when you are in the hole just makes you look weird and mad, and then people lose respect for you if they previously had some. You could ask Immanuel Can how that went for him when he tried to make his own version of Frege-Geach.

You keep saying i'm wrong without justification and you're wrong that i'm wrong. The fact remains, the No True Scottsdale fallacy is wrong because people can be divided into fake and true Scotsman, or whatever else. And it's not the only so-called fallacy that isn't necessarily. It's just one instance. I have made Literally no mistake here. Shove off.

But that's not what the NTS is about. Not even close.


You can't really cope with not being perfect can you?

[FlashDangerpants]

I missed this when Advocate launched it in 2020. Hilarious!

Quite impressed that he can maintain this level of delusion uninterrupted for multiple years.

[Iwannaplato]

You keep saying i'm wrong without justification and you're wrong that i'm wrong. The fact remains, the No True Scottsdale fallacy is wrong because people can be divided into fake and true Scotsman, or whatever else. And it's not the only so-called fallacy that isn't necessarily. It's just one instance. I have made Literally no mistake here. Shove off.

It's an informal fallacy. No one is saying that you cannot argue that a certain counterexample is not an example of the category. No one.

It is not a formal fallacy. You are confusing it with a formal fallacy where in all cases where someone argues with that particular pattern it is fallacious.

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.

So, what you've done is come and said that one can exclude counter examples PROPERLY. Well, that is why it is an informal fallacy. It doesn't hold in all cases. It depends on what the person is doing.

Some people exclude on poor grounds, because if they didn't exclude, they'd have to admit their generalization was false. Some people exclude on good grounds.

This is built into the idea of the NTS.

I bolded Improperly because that condition makes it clear that your 'answer/solution' is confused.

When people claim that someone else is doing a NTS move, there needs to be justification and a discussion can ensue.

The idea is that some people when dismissing counterexamples do this for psychological/competitive/irrational grounds to defend generalizations that were not correct and they can't admit it.

What you are doing here is a related phenomenon.

You have corrected something that didn't need the correction and which does not mean what you assumed it meant.

[commonsense]

I skipped a lot of this thread. I hope someone told Advocate that if the No true Scotsman conditional proof is logically sound, then all conditional sentences are true. There in lies the paradox because there are many possible conditional statements that are false. QED.

[Trajk Logik]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This is simply a category error. A Scotsman is not defined by what they eat. They are defined by where they were born, or who their parents are. Just as women are not defined by what they wear. They are defined by what is between their legs and their chromosome type.

It's simple. Define a Scotsman and I'm sure that the reasonable and intellectually honest types will come to some sort of agreement.

[commonsense]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This is simply a category error. A Scotsman is not defined by what they eat. They are defined by where they were born, or who their parents are. Just as women are not defined by what they wear. They are defined by what is between their legs and their chromosome type.

It's simple. Define a Scotsman and I'm sure that the reasonable and intellectually honest types will come to some sort of agreement.

No person born in Scotland or born of Scottish parents puts sugar on his porridge.

Uncle Angus was born in Scotland of Scottish parents and he puts sugar on his porridge.

Uncle Angus may be a Scotsman but he is not a true Scotsman.