Funny Arguments
I found this while doing a google search on evidence for Christianity being false. The blog looks cool. Check out the comments. It reminds me of the stupid statement of, "There is not right or wrong." Why is it stupid? Ask youself if the statement is right or wrong and you'll see why.
~J
P.S. The blog is at http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2005/02/tactics-no-true-scotsman-fallacy.html
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Tactics: "No True Scotsman Fallacy" fallacy
Time to talk some X's and O's. Ever run into this kind of argument?
Skeptic: "I reject Christianity because of the evil things Christians have done in the name of God."
If you respond with something to the effect, "those were not true Christians who did that" ... be prepared to be accused of committing a logical fallacy. The ostensible fallacy is called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" (NTS). I have never personally had this term used on me ... but I have faced variations of the underlying argument. As far as I know, this is a contrived fallacy that does not exist in any logic textbooks ... it just floats around on the web. It gets its name from this formulation of the purported fallacy.
Claim:
"No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge".
Countered with:
"My friend Angus is a Scotsman and likes sugar with his porridge".
The following rejoinder to this exception is:
"Ah yes, but no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge".
In other words, the definition of a Scotsman is twisted to mean whatever you want it to. Likewise, the argument goes, we Christians are guilty of shifting the definition of Christian around to avoid the embarrassment of the crusades, inquisitions, and witch trials.
What is really going on here? Is this really a fallacy? How would you respond?
Sound off in the comments. I will add my $0.02 there.
~J
P.S. The blog is at http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2005/02/tactics-no-true-scotsman-fallacy.html
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Tactics: "No True Scotsman Fallacy" fallacy
Time to talk some X's and O's. Ever run into this kind of argument?
Skeptic: "I reject Christianity because of the evil things Christians have done in the name of God."
If you respond with something to the effect, "those were not true Christians who did that" ... be prepared to be accused of committing a logical fallacy. The ostensible fallacy is called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" (NTS). I have never personally had this term used on me ... but I have faced variations of the underlying argument. As far as I know, this is a contrived fallacy that does not exist in any logic textbooks ... it just floats around on the web. It gets its name from this formulation of the purported fallacy.
Claim:
"No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge".
Countered with:
"My friend Angus is a Scotsman and likes sugar with his porridge".
The following rejoinder to this exception is:
"Ah yes, but no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge".
In other words, the definition of a Scotsman is twisted to mean whatever you want it to. Likewise, the argument goes, we Christians are guilty of shifting the definition of Christian around to avoid the embarrassment of the crusades, inquisitions, and witch trials.
What is really going on here? Is this really a fallacy? How would you respond?
Sound off in the comments. I will add my $0.02 there.