Some quick notes on "no true Scotsman"
Jun. 14th, 2014 12:00 amIt seems to me that the common meaning of the phrase "no true Scotsman [fallacy]" has shifted quite a bit from the original meaning as I understand it.
Let's take Antony Flew's original example, which I've copied over from Wikipedia:
The honest thing to do when presented with a counterexample (that you agree with) is to openly fall back to a weaker position. Hamish is doing that, in a sense -- restricting his claim to true Scotsmen rather than all Scotsmen -- but not in any useful way. The notion of "true" Scotsman is completely opaque; it's not a useful coherent position at all, just a way to make it look like he was essentially right all along. (See also: Moving the goalposts.) If you can question Hamish and perhaps get him to nail down just what he means by a "true" Scotsman, then perhaps the argument can continue in a productive fashion -- though you should really use a term other than "true Scotsman", as that's obviously loaded. But as long as it remains opaque it remains mutable.
(Note, of course, that if you have to retreat to a weaker position sufficiently often, you do have to consider the possibility that your original position really was just totally wrong and you are making a mistake in trying to incrementally salvage it.)
But the way I see people using the phrase these days is something entirely different. Rather, it seems that to most people, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is when you say someone isn't part of group X when they say they're a member of X.
Not only is this not the "no true Scotsman" mistake (in the original sense), it isn't even necessarily wrong. Some groups are essentially defined by self-identification, but not all are.
Now it's worth noting here that many groups are defined as empirical clusters -- they're defined extensionally, not intensionally. Suppose that I claim "No member of group X does Y", and someone else replies "I'm a member of group X and I do Y." And let's say I also happen to know this person, and I know that they have very little in common with the people usually denoted by X. Then I think my best reply would be, "I'm sorry, but you seem to have very little in common with the people usually denoted by X. I don't think most peole, when they would use the word X, are referring to a group that includes you. Seeing as X is a category that is defined extensionally, by empirical clusters of similarity, I don't really think it can be said that you are an X, at least, not if the word X is used in the standard way. In particular, you differ regarding Y, Z, and W, all of which would generally be considered essential. Hence, I hope you don't mind if I continue to use the word X in this way -- meaning, people who can be described as some combination of Y, Z, and W, typical examples of which are A, B, and C -- rather than in a way that includes you. If you really object, I will say X' rather than X to denote the cluster that I am talking about, and say X'' to denote the cluster that you aren talking about, but I hope you realize that, in my opinion, outsiders will probably read X as meaning X' rather than X''."
What I've done there now really does look a lot like No True Scotsman (in the original sense)! I've insisted on using a particular definition of a word, in a way that's not totally transparent. But, unlike the original "no true Scotsman" example:
1. I'm making entirely clear what I am doing.
2. I am doing so in a way that is in concordance with standard usage, rather than going against it and trying to sneak in connotations.
3. While my definition isn't totally transparent, I have tried to make it as clear as I can with some combination of defining features and typical examples. It's not totally transparent, but neither is it totally opaque and mutable.
4. I am ultimately offering unambiguous terminology, rather than getting into an argument over definitions. Remember, if an argument didn't start out about being about definitions, don't let it become about definitions! (And if you did start an argument about definitions, hopefully it's only because you know what you're doing and had a good reason for doing so.)
By the way -- let's note here that the above examples dealt in universal claims and counterexamples. But in arguments about the real world, universal claims are rarely appropriate. That was the original form, though, so I've left it that way -- and using more realistic claims would have made the examples more complicated.
Point is, claiming that someone is not an X when they claim to be an X is not necessarily incorrect, and bears little relation to the original meaning of the term "no true Scotsman", though they may often coincide.
-Harry
Let's take Antony Flew's original example, which I've copied over from Wikipedia:
So what is actually wrong with what Hamish is doing here? Let's assume that this is part of some larger argument.
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton [(England)] Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen [(Scotland)] man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".
The honest thing to do when presented with a counterexample (that you agree with) is to openly fall back to a weaker position. Hamish is doing that, in a sense -- restricting his claim to true Scotsmen rather than all Scotsmen -- but not in any useful way. The notion of "true" Scotsman is completely opaque; it's not a useful coherent position at all, just a way to make it look like he was essentially right all along. (See also: Moving the goalposts.) If you can question Hamish and perhaps get him to nail down just what he means by a "true" Scotsman, then perhaps the argument can continue in a productive fashion -- though you should really use a term other than "true Scotsman", as that's obviously loaded. But as long as it remains opaque it remains mutable.
(Note, of course, that if you have to retreat to a weaker position sufficiently often, you do have to consider the possibility that your original position really was just totally wrong and you are making a mistake in trying to incrementally salvage it.)
But the way I see people using the phrase these days is something entirely different. Rather, it seems that to most people, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is when you say someone isn't part of group X when they say they're a member of X.
Not only is this not the "no true Scotsman" mistake (in the original sense), it isn't even necessarily wrong. Some groups are essentially defined by self-identification, but not all are.
Now it's worth noting here that many groups are defined as empirical clusters -- they're defined extensionally, not intensionally. Suppose that I claim "No member of group X does Y", and someone else replies "I'm a member of group X and I do Y." And let's say I also happen to know this person, and I know that they have very little in common with the people usually denoted by X. Then I think my best reply would be, "I'm sorry, but you seem to have very little in common with the people usually denoted by X. I don't think most peole, when they would use the word X, are referring to a group that includes you. Seeing as X is a category that is defined extensionally, by empirical clusters of similarity, I don't really think it can be said that you are an X, at least, not if the word X is used in the standard way. In particular, you differ regarding Y, Z, and W, all of which would generally be considered essential. Hence, I hope you don't mind if I continue to use the word X in this way -- meaning, people who can be described as some combination of Y, Z, and W, typical examples of which are A, B, and C -- rather than in a way that includes you. If you really object, I will say X' rather than X to denote the cluster that I am talking about, and say X'' to denote the cluster that you aren talking about, but I hope you realize that, in my opinion, outsiders will probably read X as meaning X' rather than X''."
What I've done there now really does look a lot like No True Scotsman (in the original sense)! I've insisted on using a particular definition of a word, in a way that's not totally transparent. But, unlike the original "no true Scotsman" example:
1. I'm making entirely clear what I am doing.
2. I am doing so in a way that is in concordance with standard usage, rather than going against it and trying to sneak in connotations.
3. While my definition isn't totally transparent, I have tried to make it as clear as I can with some combination of defining features and typical examples. It's not totally transparent, but neither is it totally opaque and mutable.
4. I am ultimately offering unambiguous terminology, rather than getting into an argument over definitions. Remember, if an argument didn't start out about being about definitions, don't let it become about definitions! (And if you did start an argument about definitions, hopefully it's only because you know what you're doing and had a good reason for doing so.)
By the way -- let's note here that the above examples dealt in universal claims and counterexamples. But in arguments about the real world, universal claims are rarely appropriate. That was the original form, though, so I've left it that way -- and using more realistic claims would have made the examples more complicated.
Point is, claiming that someone is not an X when they claim to be an X is not necessarily incorrect, and bears little relation to the original meaning of the term "no true Scotsman", though they may often coincide.
-Harry
