the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[Advocate]

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

[FlashDangerpants]

There's little future for you as a philosopher, but you might do well in the greetings card industry.

[Advocate]

There's little future for you as a philosopher, but you might do well in the greetings card industry.

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!

[FlashDangerpants]

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?

[Advocate]

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?

It's a full, complete, perfect, logical, necessary, actionable answer. Do you have a better one somehow?

Do you need a more technical formulation?

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

Are you saying there are no false Scotsmen? You won't get very far with that refutation.

[Skepdick]

It's a full, complete, perfect, logical, necessary, actionable answer. Do you have a better one somehow?

Do you need a more technical formulation?

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

Are you saying there are no false Scotsmen? You won't get very far with that refutation.

I don't need to "go" anywhere. There's nothing to refute until you make a point. You are appealing to classical logic. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%27s_paradox

[FlashDangerpants]

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?

It's a full, complete, perfect, logical, necessary, actionable answer. Do you have a better one somehow?

Do you need a more technical formulation?

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

Are you saying there are no false Scotsmen? You won't get very far with that refutation.

Erm, okay. What exactly is your understanding of the no-true-scotsman fallacy? You know, like the erroneous reasoning that it is about, rather than the existence or othewise of fraudulent kilty bastards?

[Advocate]

It's a full, complete, perfect, logical, necessary, actionable answer. Do you have a better one somehow?

Do you need a more technical formulation?

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

Are you saying there are no false Scotsmen? You won't get very far with that refutation.

I don't need to "go" anywhere. There's nothing to refute until you make a point. You are appealing to classical logic. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%27s_paradox

There is no paradox in reality. I haven't heard of this one before so let me go see what it is so i can clear it up for you. The argument is complete and perfect anyway. There's nothing arbitrary about the actual existence of false Scotsman or the logical necessity of true Scotsman thereby. I don't see how that "paradox" even applies.

[FlashDangerpants]

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?

[Harbal]

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Not quite the end; you forgot the Flying Scotsman.

[Immanuel Can]

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Not quite the end; you forgot the Flying Scotsman.

Hey, Harbal! You're back! Welcome back to the circus.

Forget the Flying Walendas...we've got Scotsmen.

[Skepdick]

There is no paradox in reality.

Precisely. The paradox is in logic itself.

P1. if this sentence is true, then Advocate is an idiot.
P2. This sentence is true.
C1 Advocate is an idiot.

[Advocate]

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.

[uwot]

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.

It's only an informal fallacy. So while the sentence 'No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge' is refuted by any Scotsman who happens to put sugar on his porridge, some sentences with the same form, for example 'No true philosopher writes the sort of bollocks that Advocate writes' are true.

[Harbal]

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.