The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/don...
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
Become better at arguing! We dive into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and show you who to avoid it.
Watch the Logical Fallacy playlist:
bit.ly/1wpuCcU
Watch the whole playlist in one video:
bit.ly/1ymvrEH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSIC:
"Europe" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Level 5" by Room for the Homeless (bit.ly/10N0Ykm)
"Bouncy Castle" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
":P" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Number Cruncher" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Little Birthday Acid" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Topskore" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Anti Vanishing Spray" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Tarty Prash" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Carry on Carillon" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Uptown Tennis Club" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Dream Of Autumn" by Night Shift Master
/ 08-dream-of-autumn-nig...
"Insert Toy For Coin" by Eatme (eatme.pro/music/)
"Dizor" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Lets go back to the rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Something like this" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSLATE THINGS @ ideachannel.sub...
Hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)
Want some more Idea Channel?
Are Video Games About Their Mechanics?
• Are Videogames About T...
How To Create Responsible Social Criticism
• How To Create Responsi...
What Do Hot Sauce Labels Say About America?
• What Do Hot Sauce Labe...
Does Pop Culture Need To Be Popular?
• Does Pop Culture Need ...
No true Scotsman would ever use a logical fallacy :)
🖕🙂🖕
No true INTJ would ever use a logical fallacy :)
We make it a 'little lesson' and tell everyone else about it. :)
So what do you tell Willie when he commits a fallacy?
@@jamesdragonforce his irish 😎
This video is not a real "No True Scotsman" video.
Is it ironic that the opening speech "you have made a fallacy thus defeating your own claim" is in itself a fallacy, namely, the Fallacy fallacy?
***** You just committed the fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy!
***** he didnt say "you have", he said "you might have".
big difference.
+Tiago Seiler He got to that one.
"Claim" as in the one point, not the entire position.
Watching this series should be a legal requirement before anyone can post youtube comments.
Considering how often I've explained many of them to religious folks (Christian, Islam, Feminist etc., etc.) myself as have MANY others I doubt it would matter.
They don't or won't understand it.
I'd extend that to "access to Internet"
Tessa Bain Feminism is a religion apparently...Derp
😁😁
Exactly
I know people like this, whole 1.7 billion of them
No true person would do this
This is only a fallacy if (a) an actual Muslim (a real one, not just one who claims to be a Muslim) acts against his/her religious teachings AND (b) other Muslims claim that "no true Muslim" would do what he/she did. If a person who CLAIMS to be Muslim does something in the name of the religion that is against the religion's teachings, there's no fallacy to be applied; he/she truly is not a Muslim.
>argues in a comment under a no true scotsman video
>uses no true scotsman fallacy
y u do dis
both islam and christianity is full of condradictions, it's impossible to not be against some of the teaching. Lets say you have a gay/atheist neighbour, one part of the book says to kill him another says to love him, what you do is up to you, but saying one of them is not muslim or not christian is just stupid and makes you seem like an arrogant ass because you think the parts you choose to follow make you more of a muslim then someone who chooses scripture saying differently.
It's 1.8 B now... How rapidly they are breeding, inbreeding..
I just came here because I'm excited that these are getting addressed.
So, by that logic, Intractable DVD menus are now Video Games?
Video games must have those things, but not everything that has those things are video games. Most thing we consider "games" have clearly stated goals and win/lose conditions. That doesn't mean that jump rope is a video game.
Alexander Jones
It's a false equivalency fallacy in that video. Maybe Mike should watch that Idea channel video about False Equivalency...
The issue with your argument is that an interactive DVD menu doesn't have an actual goal (although in a very literal sense, I suppose it does, but who views such a thing that way? If clicking play is a goal, then so is breathing.), it isn't technically media (although by the broad definition of media being anything that transfers information then literally everything is a form of media), and you wouldn't say you win a DVD menu (unless of course you consider making selections on the screen as goals, then I suppose you would), the only thing an interactive DVD menu has with literally anything anyone has ever seriously called a video game is the fact that it's digital. Unless of course you use such broad definitions of the qualifications of a video game, but then you wouldn't be arguing against the idea and you'd view anything that exists (and therefore transfers information), is digital, and is able to be interacted with as a video game.
Gone Home is not a video game for a number of reasons. My main arguement for a video game is that there must be a goal and way to fail to achieve said goal while attempting to do so. This puts Gone Home into digital media, much like web comics or web animations or web games. Doesn't necessarily make it bad, just not a video game. This, by definition puts The Stanley Parable into the same category, which I like, unlike Gone Home. If someone makes you a cherry-flavored and cherry-shaped candy, it by definition is delicious, but not a cherry.
Lyoko1309 I'll be honest, I don't know shit about Gone Home, so my argument is more for The Indigo Prophecy, Heavy Rain, Beyond: Two Souls, The Walking Dead, etc. as being games than for it. Although if it is like the Stanely Parable, then ya, I wouldn't call it a game as so much as interactive media, which video games fall under. As opposed to a freaking DVD menu screen which isn't meant to be any more interactive than the DVD player itself.
You know what? This reminds me of when I hear Christians say to other Christians, especially to Catholics myself you're not a true Christian. That fallacy needs to stop. I really wish I could do something.
1. Just wanted to mention that this is a subset of "moving the goalposts"
2. IMO, the best way to counter this fallacy is to explicitly move the debate into a discussion of the definition of the category in question. This is easy if the category has a well-established, unambiguous definition, because then you can just state that and be done with it.
I actually question whether this is a valid fallacy or a failure to define terms. The problem is that nearly every case of the 'no true scotsman' involves words that murky or open to multiple definitions.
For example, wahts is a 'Scotsman?' Is it someone who lives in Scotland? Is it someone who has Scottish ancestry? Or is it somebody who lives their life in accordance with Scottish culture and beliefs? Which definition you go with will determine what characteristics a person in the category of 'Scotsman' will have. And if the person you are talking to has a different definition in mind, he might THINK that you said something fallacious, when in reality you did not(and this isnt even getting into the question of what defines Scottish culture)
To give a couple of 'serious' examples:
Someone who says 'no Christian commits murder' might have in mind a definition of 'Christian' that includes something along the lines of 'follows the teachings of Jesus Christ' which they understand to include a prohibition against murder. So anybody who does commit murder is by the definition he is using, not a Christian.
Or if some feminist says 'no feminist hates men' she might be one of those good feminists who defines feminism as equality. So by the definition she is using, women who hate men cant be feminists, because thats not equality.
This is why its always helpful to, as much as possible, define such 'nebulous' terms ahead of time. To clean up the confusion, and make it clear what you are actually trying to say.
That goes into the nature of language and culture, and it can often be difficult to predict when someone has a different definition of the term being used than the one you have in your head.
*****
I agree. People should not be jumping at the chance to accuse "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Redefining or clarifying an argument is not a fallacy.
"No True Scotsman" is an INFORMAL fallacy, meaning it's only SUBJECTIVELY bullshit. From wikipedia "informal fallacies are not necessarily incorrect, nor are they logical fallacies" however their conclusion might be unpersuasive or need more backing to become convincing.
In the case where you plainly claim it is your own private definition of a Scotsman that they don't put sugar on their porridge, that's not a fallacy, it might just not be a very useful or common definition.
Hey dude look at the comment I just posted lol we pretty much said the same thing, i should have read the comment section and just upped your comment rather than posting mine lol. i just thought it was funny that someone else saw exactly what I was seeing
Feminists who hate men, hate women too.
It's a real fallacy. It's certainly possible to accuse one of using it when they aren't, but that doesn't mean it's not a real logical fallacy. That said, it's not a fallacy to say "no true Scotsman" unless you are actually trying to make a statement about Scotsmen as a group.
Take, for example, arguments about sexy women in games and movies. Women have stood up and declared that they like hot female characters, maybe because they think they look good or perhaps as a sort of "power fantasy". Is it possible that some or even many of them have internalized bigoted concepts of what defines a woman's worth? Sure. But if you declare to those women that they're suffering from internalized misogyny just because they like hot female characters, you no longer have the right to talk about sexy characters and women. You've changed your definition of a woman into two categories, those that feel hurt or offended by sexy female characters and those that've been victimized to such an extent that they no longer feel the pain. You're making it so that simply arguing against something delegitimizes your argument, and that is very much a logical fallacy.
The main core of a no true scotsman argument seems to be semantical, and not ideological. So instead of debating ideas we debate identities/titles. That’s really where the problem lies.
I have been thinking about your example for the past two days, and I just can't get around an issue that seems to arise.
Basically, Strawmike is attempting to define the word "game". Mike notices that a certain thing he sees as falling under his original definition of "game" wouldn't fall under Strawmike's definition and mentions this. Strawmike replies that this means it does not fall under the definition.
I see the issues that arise using this kind of logic, but it also seems impossible to make any good definitions without it? For example:
"A shoe is footwear (...) and that isn't open at the top"
"But sandals are open on the top. Aren't those shoes also?"
"Well, no, because of this reason, sandals aren't shoes."
Now, I don't know if sandals technically fall under the definition of "shoe" or not, but if I hear someone say "sandals aren't truly shoes because they are open on the top!", I wouldn't be too concerned about the validity of the statement.
Is this only a fallacy when used in controversial topics then? Or otherwise, how do we get to any definitions at all? Do we just wait for a dictionary to look at what the majority thinks and take that?
A lot of fallacies seem to be the result of incomplete logic but not necessarily invalid. So in the same way that an appeal to authority leaves out the reasons that the authority took that position (which could have been stated without mentioning said authority) the no true scotsman fallacy can sometimes fail because there isnt an explicit definition in mind merely an intuitive response that something "doesnt count". It can also be a sign that both sides are using different definitions such as a member of a religion using "christian" to mean someone who practices the same religion in a similar manner to themself and the opponent using the more public definition of members of any denomination of christianity
Feminist love to use this.
***** I sent this video to one just two seconds ago lol
Tom Portengen But those aren't _real_ feminists. kek.
KenikoGen
Hahahaha +1 for you sir!
Tom Portengen Ok, I'm trying to get this straight. Just to prefix for context - I'm anti-feminist.
So feminists do use this fallacy a lot. But is it really true that _all_ feminists are man haters (claim that prompts the feminist to use the No True Scotsman). Feminists will then turn around and make the same generalization about mra's, claiming they're misogynists.
Honestly, feminists always seem to be messed up, and I've never seen mra's do what feminists claim. Even if one person who says they're mra and acts misogynist, that doesn't mean generally all mra's are misogynists.
So my question is: if it's a fallacy to say "all of an identifying group isn't like that (No True Scotsman), then is it also a fallacy to make a generalization from one or a few examples that are outliers? What if the accusation that prompts the _No True Scotsman_ is a fallacy to start with?
Is the difference saying "**not all** _________ are like that, so it's wrong to make that generalization", rather than "**no true** _______ is like that"? I think think the difference is claiming absolutes.
Example
Person A: "Mr. Joe is an atheist and killed a bunch of people. Atheists are murderers."
Person B: "Not all atheists are murderers."
Person A: "That's a _No True Scotsman_."
Is this accurate? Would person B have to say: "No true atheist is a murderer" for it to actually be a fallacy?
Tom Portengen It because the people who actually fight for equality get pissed when people will sit there targeting men and being ignorant, while claiming to be a feminist. It ruins the cause
No True Scotsman, as a form of self-defense, is so annoyingly prevalent in UA-cam fights because it can be coupled with inherent internet anonymity to make much harder find a universally agreed upon claim to refute:
Anti-GG: "GG'ers advertently/inadvertently are supporters of online harassment"
Pro-GG: "The Gamergaters AREN'T defined by sexism and vitriolic behavior, or at least to my knowledge they aren't. Myself and the people I know want games journalism to be more trustworthy."
Anti-GG: "But what about Aurini, ThunderF00t, JOwen, Sargon?"
Pro-GG: "Who?"
That can go on, deflection ad infinitum, as there is no undeniably universally agreed upon claim to pin him down to; Thus... 200 reply long comments going nowhere.
Nathan DiYorio Yes. The point is that the Pro-GG can't refute the Strawman and the Anti-GG can't prove it isn't.
I'm not going to refute that statement. I'm personally pro-GG, but I see a lot of other Pro GG people use this argument sometimes to negate harassment.
"The majority of people in GG are good people" -AngryJoe. I believe that statement to be true, but we need to recognise that some of us aren't good people.
On a side note, I'm not really aware of any harassment/supporting of harassment Thunderf00t or Sargon of Akkad participated in, unless that was purely for the sake of example.
_I'm not really aware of any harassment/supporting of harassment Thunderf00t or Sargon of Akkad participated in_
They don't. But (my 2 cents) I believe they subliminally inspire it in their viewers. Their videos have a very aggressively emotive quality to it. Their intonations, wording and images used, e.g. Red background behind TFoots feminism vids, "X poisons EVERYTHING!" It's very overblown.
It creates a lynch mob effect in their audience, who don't practice critical thinking but are easily roused by their irrational emotions. Being a critical thinker, like being able meditate effectively, takes time and mental discipline and you must master yourself first, so you are not taken in by BS.
Nowhere have I found anything about this, and it is really bugging me.
*What happened at GamerGate?*
SuperHamsterhuey Bunch of women got harassed. Nothing else beneficial or noteworthy happened. Also gamergate is getting old news now, so it has lost momentum to people just not giving a fuck anymore..
This one is a favorite of politicians. They'll say something like, "All Canadians (Californians, Berliners-- insert your own locale) believe this action is wrong..." I've been displaced from my city, province and country so many times, I think I'll move to Antarctica.
Use of logical fallacies may not be effective at producing a purely logical argument, but their use is key to an effective argument. If you you use them sparingly and for greatest effect, you are more likely to win an argument - which is why most people engage one another in the first place. Just because someone uses these types of fallacies doesn't mean they have the weaker argument - in fact, I would prefer use a small percentage of sales/manipulative techniques and deliver the listener to the logically correct position. Spewing facts at a logic machine is effective - it isn't as effective when speaking to humans who are not logic machines.
Anyway, too often those who detect a logical fallacy take this to mean that the individual is making the incorrect overall argument when they have merely used a single incorrect or mildly deceptive logical chain. Politicians win elections and make change by using these techniques - not writing peer reviewed dissertations. Argue logically if you want to lose - logically come to the correct conclusion and use the most effective argumentative style to convince your audience if you want to win.
***** No, those are also good points. I try to modify my use of deception and manipulations based on the audience - if someone is highly attuned to them, that probably means that they are a logical thinker and thinly veiled fallacies need to be bolstered or dropped entirely. I do enjoy a logical debate, but they are difficult to find. Many people are concerned by politicians who seem to not have a good-faith overall relationship with the electorate. They like clever presentation, but not from a snake salesman huckster who would leave them worse off for his own aggrandizement....
Yes, but what's your point? The fact that many people fall for it doesn't make a wrong argument a correct one. Sometimes you are interested in finding out the truth and not just in convincing some ignorant humans.
Suiseiseki Desu you seem to be conflating "logical argument" with "argument" generally. Ones intentions are usually to persuade, not always to be the most logical.
Kombaiyashii you've bested me
I'd say it depends on the intelligence of your audience. Logical fallacies are great for swaying the unwashed masses (hence their use in politics) but are less useful against those with better critical thinking skills or is simply just really familiar with a subject. Maybe they might be effective short-term against a "smart person" who isn't familiar with common fallacies and doesn't know to watch out for them, but even then they should be able to unravel your arguments given sufficient time to stop and think about what you just said.
At the extreme end are the people who these videos seem to be made for: those who have memorized all the common fallacies by heart and actively wait for you to state one so they can bite your head off for it, possibly even at the expense of having a substantial argument of their own.
I puked a little bit when I saw Anita
Who didn't
"In the solar system, the planets are celestial planets that orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium, and has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit"
"Pluto has not done those things and it's a planet"
"Right, but pluto is not a true planet"
---
"A berry is a fruit that is formed from a single ovary, has a pulpy pericarp"
"Raspberries aren't like that and it is a berry"
"Right, but Raspberries are not true berries".
thank u for explaining the fallacy in rhetoric, i found your short videos informative and easy to retain, and most importantly a tool in self critic first and verbal justing second...
No true Scotsman will ever make a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
~ No true Scotsman
Plot twist: The idea of the No True Scotsman fallacy is in itself a No True Scotsman.
No true scotsman would ever do 9/11.
Should be renamed the "No true Muslim fallacy"
"No true Muslim would behead people for not accepting Islam" Yeah, explain the guys in isis doing that right now.
This is only a fallacy if (a) an actual Muslim (a real one, not just one who claims to be a Muslim) acts against his/her religious teachings *AND* (b) other Muslims claim that "no true Muslim" would do what he/she did. If a person who CLAIMS to be Muslim does something in the name of the religion that is against the religion's teachings, there's no fallacy to be applied; he/she truly is not a Muslim.
ZhangtheGreat the Muslim holy book says to kill non believers. Religions are subject to interpretation.
Big Sexy Of course, but the Qu'ran also says Allah prefers cooperation.
That is why when Obama tells you that the Muslim religion is peaceful you know OBAMA is lying to you!
This is one of the most misunderstood fallacies. For example, trying to disclaim what a catholic does makes them not a "true Christian" because you are protestant, that is fallacious as it assumes that protestant are the only true way. But when people say that Hitler was Christian I seriously have to doubt that claim. "Ah but thats the No True Scotsman fallacy!" Cries the Atheist. According to some, you can't ever doubt the validity of somebody's belief system because if they say they are, they must be,
If there was somebody who claims to be Christian, but never goes to church, commits a whole array of sins despite Christians telling him the error of his ways and offers him help but he refuses quoting the satanic principle of its okay if it doesn't hurt another person, and tries to summon a demon with a pentagram, I really have to doubt his claim of being a Christian, as I think its quite obvious that a Christian will inherently not do these things. Hence, when Hitler kills Jews when its against the entire Christian religion, I have to doubt his claim to be a Christian. That is not the fallacy at work.
max larsen I never said that Hitler was a satanist. And please provide links that Nazis were majority Christian, or at least claimed to be.
Killing isn't illegal in the bible - murder is forbidden. Killing innocent people is forbidden, and the times that God commands that people die, its a command to a specific group to kill another specific group because they are horrible sinners to be judged. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say to kill infidels or something. Even the Torah is a set of rules specifically for the specific group of Israelites heading to the promised land, so that is not applicable. I'd really like to see Hitler's justification of killing Jews according to the bible. As far as I'm aware, the claims that he was catholic - yes he was bought up a catholic but that doesn't mean he was catholic during his reign. In fact, there is evidence he renounced his faith even if he never did so publicly. There is also nowhere in the bible can he possibly justify his treatment of Jews. In fact, the entire premise of the New Testament is to not judge people or punish them if you think they are a sin, only to inform them of their sin and let God take care of it himself.
So, the claims that Hitler was a Christian - it appears to be founded upon rumours, and his acts are not consistent with the bible. You'd have to really doubt that he was truly a Christian (not that he ever claimed he was), that is not a No True Scotsman fallacy. Sure, he might have been a theist of some sort, but there is little evidence to suggest he was Christian, and evidence against that fact, so even if he claimed to be doing it in "God's name," who says its the Christian God? In summary:
>He is ignoring the bible's commands, in killing innocent people
>He never announced anything to do with the bible, nor citing it anywhere
>He appears to have left his catholic faith, although granted he never publicly confirmed it
What evidence is there that he is a Christian? I don't see it, I have to doubt it, that is not fallacious.
The fallacy is in specific where somebody is a scotsman like every other scotsman but does one thing different that a "true scotsman would never do." That is the fallacy in action. Seeing a Japanese person in Scotland, has no accent and can barely speak whichever language (Gaelic, English etc) the scotsmen speak, doubting that he is true scotsman, that is not illogical. Do you see the difference?
Goabnb94 G3t R3kt N00b
Goabnb94 Right. If I claim to be a Muslim, but deny the authority of the Koran and the prophethood of Mohammed, nobody would take me seriously.
Nazism was heavily influenced by pre-Christian paganism
Hitler technically was a atheist what you could say he just used both engineered religion what knows as positive Christianity and neo-pagan Germanic belief and pseudoscience to justify his regime as propaganda.
Your video game argument is flawed, because by the definition (and many other people's definition) Gone Home isn't a video game, it's certainly an interactive experience but that needn't necessarily make it a game. This is a terrible example of no true scottsman because we could have a lively involved debate over whether or not Gone Home is a video game. Just you know, food for thought on that one.
Well, wouldn't this be an argument about semantics? Saying that something is not a video game would mean that there is a basis for what a video game is. But what defines that? You could strictly say that it's a form of entertainment that uses an interactive visual interface to challenge a player's ability to reach its ending, otherwise "beating" it. However, it is very common for a widely used term to transcend its own meaning. For example, before video games the term "gaming" was usually reserved to describe gambling, but with the immense popularity of games the phrase was adopted. Whether the word was taken from the gamblers or if gamers thought of it on their own, the word transcending its original intended meaning.
Also, I rarely heard of this subject being brought up with other open-ended games like Animal Crossing or The Sims. What sets them aside from Gone Home? Was it Gone Home's unintentional and controversial ad campaign that marked it as "a game but not a game"? Is it because Animal Crossing and The Sims have more interactive elements than Gone Home? Some elements that may require a player to build better skills to execute these actions better? Could I be more skilled, in speed and efficiency, at looking around for shit in Gone Home than another person?
I think Mike said it best when rather than debating whether or not Gone Home is a video game, we should propose what happens to the term "video games" when we include Gone Home in that category. Personally, I don't see why we shouldn't. In an open-ended game I can set my own goals, to me that isn't too different than someone else giving me one. Just you know, food for thought.
Actually no I don't think that. Because game, to me is a very well defined term. All games exist within the greater scope of play so when you ask 'isn't this just semantic?' I say 'Of course not.' What you're arguing would be similar to ask physicists to use physics specific words the way people more commonly use them in every day speech. So to get to the heart of the argument: I actually think we should do away with the term 'Video Games' and use the more accurate 'Interactive Experiences'
Actually, I am very willing to concede to the term "Interactive Experience" to describe the expansive and expanding field of what we consider "games" and "not games". I think "Interactive Media" would work too, to describe the substance of the subject. It's definitely a more accurate phrasing. However, on your first point, there are also plenty of people who will argue that Gone Home is a "Video Game" despite the parameters of a game being a win/lose condition and a definite goal. Part of this argument comes from what people use to define a "Video Game". Specifically which part of the phrase defines it: "Video", which describes the medium in which you experience the game, or "Game", describing the interactive function of the video. A very basic summation (very basic I must add, as there are a lot of discrepancies about the subject) of the Gone home argument is "I can't win it, so it's not a game" to which another replies "But I'm playing it on my computer". With this, people argue over what makes a video game a video game, or how we define the word. So it is literally an argument about semantics. There is more to it than that indeed, but that fact that you're looking for a new word means that the definition of words comes into play.
"This is a terrible example of no true scottsman because we could have a lively involved debate over whether or not Gone Home is a video game."
No true person named Donyoku would make such an argument.
I love that there are people arguing in the comments that the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" isn't a true fallacy. What a time to be alive.
lmao
Feminism: the ultimate "no true scotsman" fallacy
wat
LEAVE MA PEOPLE OOT YA IT
A TRUE SCOTSMAN WOULD PUT HIS FOOT UP THERE ARSE
But isn't feminism, by definition, an ideology that promotes the equality of the sexes?
I'm honestly trying to understand this.
nope feminism just woman rights,equality of the sexes is for equality of the sexes, why call it feminism if its for all?
leon Jackson
You can't extrapolate the meaning of words entirely from their etymology.
The meaning of words changes.
I don't completely agree with this being a fallacy. Sometimes the very definition of a set group entails that said group possesses a certain characteristic. Pointing out an "exception" is just proving that an entity is not an element of the group. Solving this problem is simple. Both parties should agree on a definition.
I believe the authority fallacy leaves out a second aspect of the fallacy: Wrongly applying authority. For instance, using a successful business person's opinions to defend a political position that is unrelated to their business success or expertise.
I'm not sure if the no true scotsmen fallacy is as much a fallacy as it is a person terribly mis-wording what their own actual claim is.
Often times, people mistake what you're saying for a no true scotsman solely because they can't be arsed to imagine the possible context in which you might be right. Sometimes words and facts alone don't do justice and require a tiny degree of open minded imagination on behalf of the "opposing" side.
The guy who says "he's not a true scotsman" actually intends to say "He's unlike most scotsmen, who don't believe in that" in which case he simply needs to provide evidence that most scotsmen believe that. Often times someone who says that doesn't actually believe all people born in Scotland are perfect, they simply are refering to a cultural norm.
It's very easy for us to pick flaws with others, but it becomes a problem when we use it to justify our own ignorance, and this is often the case.
no, when he says that he most often means that, like only real men do X, it requires you to deliberately change their words in order to say it isn't a no-true scotsman, or else the persons "manliness" is being attacked, it is best to point it out, and see if they respond with any defence of how they use the terms, sometimes people don't notice that they used a fallacy.
oh, and NOT picking up the flaws in someones argument leads to you accepting ideas that are false, it is only a means to justify your own ignorance if you do not let your opponent in a debate to point out when you are makeing a fallacy.
I would rather not make a no-true-scotsman and have someone incorrectly point it out(so I could explain why it isn't one) then to actually make the fallacy and have nobody point it out.
no-true scotsman is often complete when a person assumes that just because you aren't a TRUE scotsman, you aren't a scotsman, in most cases it is implied.
doombybbr Someone makes the statement, "Buddhists do not condone killing". In which you rebuttal, "Last month a local Buddhist monk murdered someone", but what if the monk were insane and had some different perspective of the belief, what would that make of the first statement?
David Gardner
that makes the monk just an INSANE buddist monk who belonged as part of a non-denominational sect of buddism.... still a buddist, the same way there are are many different sects of christianity.
This is something both sides of a lot of issues use but it's only a problem to them when the other side uses it.
No true Scotsman: No true creationist is a scientist.
But then it's also a fallacy to accuse an entire thing/entity of being exactly like one hand picked example. It's the same thing, but reversed.
Thank you! Very well explained 👍
These videos are great. Thank you for providing a non confrontational method to illuminate someone's use of a fallacy. Keep em coming!
Me, who searched this video: Oh, I committed the fallacy. That's why I decided to go watch it.
NO TRUE VIEWER!
every real musician argument ever
I'm and confused and annoyed to why there are a bunch of videos with boring thumbnails in my sub box?
Why do you give a shit?
Tigranes II He's obviously not a true PBS idea channel fan because no true idea channel fan would care about the thumbnail.
BWinDCI The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios :P
***** darn you caught me :P
No true Scotsman would be confused and annoyed at anything!
Gone home is a game engine that tests out the interaction function of certain objects. If it is a game, it is bare bones since it has very little game mechanics(aside from the ones in the engine).
I agree with everything else.
The counterargument to that is when someone subjectively adds something to a category that doesn't belong. A video game example would be visual novels - with less interactivity than DVD player menus they cannot be considered video games only because then CYOA books (which have more interactivity) would then fall into the category.
"That's not a TRUE feminist!"
Oh, Gone Home is a videogame, no doubt.
Just like how ET for Atari, Ride to Hell Retribution, Daikatana, Big Rigs or No Luca No are videogames as well.
+Shadoboy I liked it
scratch that I loved it
+Shadoboy
They are all video games.
Just not ever good ones.
If anything, if you can interact with the video, then it's a _video game._
The only issue I have is the word 'gamer' as it can be said about literally anyone at this point --- my Dad who doesn't like games played Tetris and says he likes it, he is now a 'gamer' --- It's irritating because you don't call a person who reads books a *Booker* or someone who likes sports a *Sporter*, and people who love watching movies a *Movier*?
I don't know, it just sucks live in the same world as someone (annoying girl for example) is playing a game on their casual iPhone or what have you, and they call themselves geeky and "such a gamer". Meanwhile I'm playing Frozen Synapse in my dark room listening to Blade Runner putting countless hours into the game, or when I am playing Smash Bros. at a competitive level. I don't care and I don't interact with these people as I don't want to get into dumb arguments because it's pointless to, but god damn are there annoying kids and girls who lick controllers or talk about how much of a 'gamer' they are --- YOU CAN'T SAY WHAT YOU ARE, SIMPLE AS THAT.
Thanks for this. And importantly providing a way to continue the argument by asking "what happens to the category" question.
So, someone that sent me this think's I'm suffering from this. In that case, screw you, UA-cam Subscriptions, I don't need this from a website! *flips table
No true Scotsman have never been in Scotland
I appreciate your point here. But what if someone makes a compelling claim that Gone Home is indeed not a video game but an entirely new form of media? What if "interactive fiction" takes off in the next 10 years as a recognized new category? Surely we can't dismiss this category based on something silly a Scottish person once said?
Gone Home is a video-game, but it is not a game. If you don't have a person or a program actively working against you than it is called a challenge.
The breakdown goes like this:
No adversary or goal - Toy
No adversary but there is a goal - Challange
There is an adversary and a goal - Game
This playlist is a history teacher's dream. Merry Christmas to me!
these are excellent, please make more.
thank you,
The Internet.
Perfect explanation. Good work
How does No True Scotsman apply to anyone who plays a game?
"Scotsman" is a definite term, referring to people from Scotland.
"Gamer" is what? People who say they play games?
You had a great video until you SJWed out.
Anita isn't a gamer, she's a complainer.
she admitted she wasn't a fan of video games
I mean it's 8 years too late but the "gone home" is a bad example because it's about a definition. It can only be count as a fallacy when both parties agree to the definition of something, otherwise it's just an argument. Like the Scotsman example, both parties would agree that a Scotsman is a person born and raised in Scotland, so then later in the conversation, when cornered one will use the not a true Scotsman as a fallacy.
The gone home example it's an argument about the definition of "game", much like the argument of "Is cereal a soup?"
Good video, and FYI, Gone Home isn't a video game :)
"damn scotts, they ruined Scotland!"
They’re not real scots
We are human. An amazing species. We invented, or rather discovered the ability to speak and write. We made things we call now WORDS. Words are tricky. When we write them down, in a book, on the internet, in a speech, we have millions to choose from. When we debate and argue, we are usually fighting over the definitions, the translations, the context, the interpretation, the impact, these words have.
For example, "thou shalt not kill" pretty simple right? Well it's a little too simple for humans. We create ways loopholes to get around laws or beliefs. "Well you shouldn't kill unless your life is threatened in a way where killing would be the only way out."
Nah, you're just an idiot
Why should everyone agree with the motto "thou shalt not kill" to begin with?
Nobody in Scotland uses the 'no true Scotsman' phrase, me included. That's because no true Scotsman would use the no true Scotsman phrase.
Muslims and feminists do this ALL THE TIME
Hmm I'm trying to figure out if that's....true.
So take feminism, it would make sense that its a fallacy, because feminism doesn't come with a moral code. You can't just exclude people who you give your label a bad rep, just because you feel like it.
BUT....
Muslims are different. Islam does come with a moral code, and ethics. So it doesn't seem wrong to me to exclude those from the group, that violate those rules. Right?
I am a feminists and I have never do that
"Everybody poops"
"But my poop smells like roses!"
"No True Scotsman fallacy. you still poop!"
Amazing explanation 👉🏾✨
"No true communist" is getting a fair workout Soviet Russia , China , North Korea have had this applied to them when someone points out their failures.
"ALL COD GAMES TODAY HAVE 60FPS."
"The 7th gen port of Black Ops 3 doesn't and neither do the handheld ports."
"W-well, I consider those unfinished!"
I love the utility of being able to link this to someone using the fallacy! +1
Excellent .. excellent ..
Great video, I don't know why I was having so much trouble digesting this one into my brain but I think I've got it now.
I did see the phrase "'no true scotsman' fallacy" in a youtube comment, but it was not a link to this video, nor was it a response to a comment I made. :)
I got linked to this video because UA-cam refuses to show me videos about nonprofit organization and the fallacy of it being more ethical than a corporation. Bet you didn't see that coming huh
I found this while searching. I wasn't sent a link to it. Why not just start with a description of the fallacy?
. . . But Gone Home isn't a video game.
Every group in the world love to use this.
This one is probably just behind Strawman for how common it is.
My Grandmother believed in equal rights and had close black friends. She was also racist. Not the mean kind, just the kind that didn't think white people and black people should get married, who thought of them as totally separate groups that could coexist but not intermix. This was actually rather common at the time among both black and white folk; there was an inherent feeling of separation. At first, many black revolutionaries just wanted their facilities to be "separate but TRULY equal" instead of separate but not equal, which is what they had become. I imagine both parties thought themselves to be almost different species; likely they did not understand the idea that they were all human. This was obviously much more pronounced with white folk and still is in many southern towns.
Great explanation. I love the Bowie album cover in the backdrop. ⚡⚡⚡
I'm really glad that you made these videos, as I'm really interested in communication and its problems. Though I did not understand everything right from the start, it was very helpful and gave me some (at least I hope so) terms to use when discussing things like this in the future.
The example of that fallacy is the term pseudoskeptic.
He's really throwing his feminist brethren to the (incredibly sexy) dogs with this video.
No movement have a paragon. Anyone saying "they're not true X" forgets that those "not true X" can say the same about them.
What about sub-categories with specific definitions? Like if someone tried to say that a Ford Expedition is a pick-up truck because it's built off of the same frame as an F-150 but you say it can't be a pick-up because it wasn't made with an open bed like a pick-up would be? Or if someone tried to say that a tricycle is a type of bicycle and you tried to refute them by saying a bicycle by definition has two wheels where as a tricycle by definition has three wheels?
This video is TRULY freaking awesome!
Gone Home isn't a video game though, it's interactive media. So good job with that example.
Defining "video games" is pretty tricky. Case in point: reaction-time tests. If you take John Bain's definition, those are video games. There should be more intelligent conversation about this!
These are brilliant... I plan to link them often
I miss this guys vids so much
I hope there are more videos to come
Good video but did you just call the Starkids bad actors at 0:52? * cracks knuckles *
Stfu shit
If I earned $1 every time a Communist said "USSR/China/Romania/Hungary/Poland/Cambodia were not true Communist states", then I would be a millionaire
This is great information, except correct me if I’m wrong but I never really heard what makes this a fallacious argument beyond being opinion.
So this is the famous "not all" argument?
It's basically
That's not a real feminists feminists are for equality
Anyways not all men are monsters
That's usually used as a straw man. Like if I said "Islam wants to kill non-believers" and someone replied "not all Muslims"...
Not a good example for this fallacy. Your example goes into what should be considered a debate of semantics and definitions, not an assignment of arbitrary traits to a group of things unrelated to the things themselves. One person believes that Gone Home is a video game and the other doesn't because they define the term "video game" differently, that's different to someone attempting to assign Scotsmen a trait like "no Scotsman would murder anybody" when the agreed upon definition of a "Scotsman" is someone who comes from Scotland and has nothing to do with murder. This is more like someone claiming that someone isn't a "True Scotsman" because their only tie to Scotland is that their great-grandfather was a Scot while the rest of their family has been, say, Indian.
best explanation -
1 - all sugar is brown
2- what about white sugar
1-that isn't true sugar
2- why not?
1- because it isn't brown
his proof is his conclusion.
christians mastered the art of this fallacy
+Sykopath BnG Socialists and Libertarians also. "The USSR wasn't TRUE socialism" whilst Libertarians say "The USA isn't TRUE free market capitalism"
+Duck Man Libertarians say "The USA isn't TRUE free market capitalism"
Free market capitalism- A system of economics that minimizes government intervention and maximized the role of the market.
I think one could argue that quite well since the USA is full of regulations on the market place, subsidized goods to make them more favorable and generally has their hand in every facet of the market.
The issue if there is no such thing as a free market.
+A Whether Moments Poet If Islam states that killing an innocent is like killing all of mankind, then you do so, it's not Islam's fault in anyway.
And yes, innocent is defined in Islam, you can only kill a person that is clearly holding a weapon and attacking you, or a murderer in the case of a court ordering an execution.
Kitty BooBoo yes, i'm claiming nobody is the authority on who is OR isn't a Christian....by definition all that's required to be a christian is the belief that jesus died for your sins....THAT"S IT!!!
anything else is just rhetoric being spewed by other Christians trying to disown one of their own by using this very fallacy
So if someone says, for example, "I'm a republican but I think [this]" when the [this] is a non-republican idea, would they be not a republican by definition? If they incorrectly claim to be in the same category as, but different to, the 'true republican', then is the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy valid for definitional matters when the first person is objectively wrong?
This fallacy would not exist if people defined (or asked for clarification of) the terms used in a debate. This is philosophy-101-level stuff.
Used this very video to many PBS's youtube video arguments.
And that spectrum fallacy i mentioned about in the last video apples also.
No true Scotsman would put pistachio on icecream
I would argue that for a game to be a game, there has to be something to do, some kind of choice to be made. Otherwise it's winds up being machinima.
For instance, Gone Home might fall under the videogame umbrella, but that doesn't make it any good.
Mate 2 rules for explaining anything - 1) talk slow and 2) do not put distracting videos for audience to watch them rather than listen to you.....fair?
Ouch, bit of a stab there at Totalbiscuit. Although I do very much agree with the notion.
The definition of a game is arbitrary and subjective. We cannot have this argument about whether or not certain "games" are indeed games because we cannot agree upon a single definition for what a game is; and doing so would constitute a No True Scotsman fallacy because we would be saying no true game defies this definition. I could say a game is any action that one does, therefore, everything you do is a game. My argument may be sound (if everything I claimed were to be true, my argument would be undeniably true), but it is not valid (if everything I said is in fact true and absolute, then my argument is absolutely true) because not everything one does is a game, for example, breathing.
It might not be technically correct but In some sense there is a truth to it. When someone does something shameful, untypical, foreign to the culture or traitorous you could argue that person disqualified and doesn't _deserve_ to call themself a 'True Scotsman'. Others don't want to be associated with it. That's also the whole idea behind it. Pride and patriotism.
You used Anita sarkeesian as a video gamer example. I find that highly funny.