The no true scotsman fallacy.

[InDarkestNight]

Before I start, I would like to make some comments about that thread that inspired this. I must make it clear I still stand by what I said in that thread, though after doing some research in fallacies I do acknowledge that I didn't debate it very well. I have been questioning if I did make fallacies myself, which I don't really believe I did, but I'm still learning about this stuff so that may yet change. Also, contrary to that one user's comments I wasn't trying to claim that someone there made a fallacy. I do genuinely apoglize if I came across that way, though I have a hard time seeing how (also, as I said that guy was obviously trying to gaslight me). Really, the main reason I brought it up multiple times was because I simply found the idea fascinating. Point is, I wasn't trying to argue that someone there made a strawman fallacy, I simply was correcting their definition and then proceeded to lose focus. That was my bad regardless.

 

Also, regarding these posts I plan to only release them every 24 hours to avoid flooding this thread with them. Of course, given how few posts this place gets the front page is probably still going to get filled with my posts. Also, I sorta apologize for my last post. I didn't intend it to be that long. I believe part of the reason why it was so was because I ended up bringing up three fallacies rather than just one. I'll be avoiding doing that, and I also may make posts about the latter two later simply to expand on them further. In particular I've learned a bit more about the 'appeal to authority' argument I brought up. I also suspect I may have at least partially misunderstood it, so there's that too. I also accidentially referred to the 'ad hominem' fallacy as a genetic fallacy. I think it would constitute a type of genetic fallacy, though not all genetic fallacies are also ad hominem fallacies.

 

That said, I think I'll get to the topic now. In my eyes, the no true scotsman fallacy may be the most rampant and damaging fallacy in our society today. To put it simply, its feeding polarization.

 

Simply put, its a fallacy where one disregards counter-examples. Let's say Bob claims that no true scotsman drinks bear. Billy then retorts that he's a scotsman and he drinks beer. Bob then replies by saying that means he's not actually a true scotsman, thus his original claim still holds.

 

This I see as the most rampant and possibly damaging in the current era. Anyone who isn't hard left or hard right often gets accused of being part of the opposite faction. For instance, if you're anti-abortion, people will all assume you're right-wing and misogynistic. Of course, these don't coincide; there are left-wing anti-abortionists, in fact the democratic party was ousting them for a while. Basically, they were making the no true scotsman fallacy, basically claiming you're not actually a democrat if you oppose abortion. Republicans could be said to be doing the same thing in the past with the 'rhino' concept (short for Republicans In Name Only). Also, there are entire feminist organizations who are anti-abortion, and some date back to the 70s. Are those feminist organizations actually misogynists? That seems rather unlikely.

 

So, people assume you aren't actually a part of the party you identify with unless you believe all of x, y, z, etc... This is obviously a really serious problem for centrists. However, in reality most people are centrists to some degree. Its rare for everyone to believe with ALL of the tenets of their party. This means that most people could actually suffer the consequences of this fallacy if they speak their minds. Even if you can make an argument that opposing x IS compatible with your party, people probably won't believe you anyway since in their eyes you're not actually a part of the party anyway. As this example demonstrates, this also means the no true scotsman fallacy has encouraged self-censorship. People who hold contrasting views with the rest of their party must remain silent to avoid being ousted, or worse yet branded a member of the opposite party (that itself is part of another fallacy which I will also bring up in another post, just so we know).

 

So in summary, this fallacy is wide-spread, its feeding political polarization (though its obviously not the only factor, just so we're clear), and its discouraging debate by making people wary of expressing contrasting opinions within their own circles.

[ScytheBearer]

You seem to be confusing "party platform" with personal beliefs with tribalism.

We as human beings form our personal opinions based on our upbringing, our parents beliefs, what we learn in school, and what we experience in life. Ones openness to learning new ideas and unlearning old ideas determines how amenable these opinions are to change.

The "party platform" is based on what face one group feels they must portray in their efforts to get their candidates elected into the government. These platforms are developed in what has been described as the "smoke filled room", by party leaders, who think they know best what their constituents want/need to hear. These ideas are meant to serve as "guidelines" for the party, but are flexible enough to accommodate individual opinion.

 

The tribalist is adamant belief in the extreme. Their approach to any idea is "my way or the highway". Disagreement is not allowed nor tolerated. This is where the "no true Scotsman" argument most often rears its head.

 

These distinctions are subtle, but pretty much every argument one put forward is based in one of these "thought patterns". Since it is well known that I am a left winger, I will pick on my own "tribe" and I will use abortion as the defining issue (there being plenty of others I could choose).

 

Individually, I believe that, being male and unable to become pregnant, my opinion on the right/wrong of abortion is mute. Given that belief, I have to decide the issue based on other criteria. Therefore, I base my opinion of the most freedom for the most people. On that basis alone, I have decided that abortion should be legal.

 

The party line is that abortion is a decision to be made between a woman and her 0B/GYN. The government has no business meddling in medical questions which are better left to the medical professional and the patient. The government should not place restrictions on abortion availability.

The tribalists believe that anyone who doesn't support a woman's "right to choose" is wrong. No shadings or nuance, just "you disagree, you're wrong". Door closed, discussion ends. "All freedom loving American support abortion".

 

The challenge we all face is making these distinctions and recognizing not only where our arguments spring, but where the arguments of others originate. Is an argument based in personal beliefs/findings, or the party line, or extreme tribal beliefs.

 

And to end, good luck with all that. In the heat of the moment, as the fingers bang the keys, thoughts about the arguments we see, or the arguments we use vanishes like "a fart in the wind". We retreat into our comfort zone and are willing to die to defend it.

[JediMasterTallyn]

There is no way this ends well.

[InDarkestNight]

Honestly, I was just using that as an example. The post is mainly talking about a common fallacy. I've looked up fallacy stuff in the past (thus why I immediately recognized that other's user's definition of the 'strawman fallacy' was incorrect). However, I've always been annoyed with how these videos never really give real-world examples of such. So that's what I'm trying to do here.

 

Also, I did say the 'no true scotsman' fallacy isn't the only cause of political polarization. Tribalism itself btw is a somewhat different thing I think. Tribablism is when people are blindly supportive of all their party does and regards anything the other party does as inherently wrong. This isn't technically a no true scotsman fallacy in its own right, I would say its a combination of the false dichotomy (aka black and white thinking) and the genetic fallacy (where one claims that a proposition's veracity is based on its source).

 

Honestly, fallacies are a rather interesting concept. They tend to overlap and feed into each other, and when you really think about its not all that clear at times when a fallacy has been committed.

 

Either way, I wasn't trying to argue about polarization or abortion (I avoided bringing up my own opinions on the matter), I was simply looking to explain a common fallacy. I only used that example to support my claim that its ultra common in the real world. Honestly, I've been thinking that maybe we should teach this stuff in schools, so that everybody knows it. Of course, I don't believe it would fully prevent the issues we have now (misinformation is another problem that debating can't really solve). At some point I was thinking of making posts about the merits and limitations of debating, and maybe a post about misinformation, even though I imagine that one may result in a bit of a backlash. I admit, its hard to remain neutral when you're trying to use politics and current trends as examples of bad arguments. I was actually thinking of doing the false dichotomy thing next, but honestly perhaps I should instead make a post about how simply making a fallacy doesn't prove one wrong; it just means on is bad at debating, its irrelevant to the argument being made. I've actually seen this jokingly called the 'fallacy fallacy'. Anyway, that's for another post. Hopefully I've cleared up any misunderstanding. Sorry if I came across as trying to start a debate about things that I was not. I do appreciate your post though going into some of the other things feeding into polarization. I could perhaps make a post about that, but I've seen people make videos discussing this that go on for HOURS, so maybe a brief post wouldn't be sufficient to discuss this topic. Besides, I'm more interested in the more esoteric stuff about debating.

[JediMasterTallyn]

I have no doubt you have researched this quite extensively.

I am just saying

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

 

And my friend you did not just poke said sleeping dragon you tried to ride that sumbitch.

[InDarkestNight]

Actually, I was replying to scythebearer. On a side note, I've heard they're planning on updating the forums. Perhaps they could add some way to make it more apparent who you're replying to? Or maybe I should just quote them when I'm replying to them. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[JediMasterTallyn]

 

redacted for space.

 

You can always quote their post and if is it a big response to what you said you can do as I did in my quoting of your post and "redact for space"

 

Did not realize I am ignoring that particular troll as well as a couple of other so I can not see their post.