![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
No True Scottsman
Aug. 10th, 2014 05:16 pmBecause I wrote a play about it, I'm somewhat associated with the fallacy "correlation is not causation." However, if I could choose to eliminate one bit of muddy thinking from the world that's not what I'd pick. (I mean, at a certain point, you haven't proved anything, but eventually there's a preponderance of evidence. See also: climate change.) I'd get rid of "no true Scottsman."
If you're not familiar, the no true Scottsman fallacy is a way to ignore a counterexample by redefining the in-group. For instance, I could say "no Scottsman spells whisky with an e," and a Scottsman could say "well, I do, though," and I could switch and say "I mean no true Scottsman."
In essence, no true Scottsman is a way to claim you speak for all people similar to you. And it's wonderful if you're using it for humor or hyperbole, but it's less wonderful if you seriously believe it, and use it to stake a claim to a greater principle - to say not only "I think I'm right," but "it's impossible to disagree with me, and if you do, you're not just wrong: in some fundamental sense, you don't exist." The "no atheists in foxholes" problem that ignores all the atheists who have been in foxholes by saying they secretly believe in God and just don't realize it.
You may yourself have come across people on the opposite end of the political spectrum who don't feel they have to compromise with you because you're not "really" American, despite being an American. If you're a churchgoer in the South you're guaranteed to have been told at some point you're not a "real" Christian, even if you're the minister. I have lately seen a few of my friends claim all jews think one thing or another, and any jews who don't think that thing must be brainwashed and/or made up by propagandists.
It drives me up a wall. It is one of the surest ways to get me to stop listening to you, even if I would otherwise be on your side. I mean, I dislike Phyllis Schlafly profoundly, but that doesn't change the fact that she's a woman. I can say I don't think Phyllis Schlafly is in the majority. I can tell you a personal narrative about the ways being a woman shapes my thoughts, but I can't assume being a woman affects everyone in the same way. It evidently doesn't. Look at Phyllis Schlafly, for instance. She exists. I can't speak for all women.
There was a longstanding running joke between me and Chad that I had a superpower known as "The Romie Exception," which was a shortcut to avoid my having to say "well, except me" to everything that came up. This always works, except if you're Romie. This always fails, except if you're Romie. Everybody likes this, except Romie. Even though most of the time I agree with you, I probably have a different reason for thinking you're right than you do.
I can point at the harm done by no true Scottsman, which is easy to do because it's really poisonous. But even in cases where it's harmless, I'm still mad about it. It bothers me that muddy thinking bothers me as much as it does. But it really does.
I think that despite myself I have some kind of entrenched religious belief that holds, for no reason other than that it does, that the main goal of life (or a main goal of life) is to perceive reality clearly. Which is a terribly difficult struggle and likely a pointless one. Yet why else are we here, if not to be here? I say this with a great love of imagination and escapism, but only because I know (or try to know) when I'm doing them.
It is therefore deeply, deeply offensive when I see someone else deliberately denying a reality which would not require them to change anything. You can spell whisky without an e! You can think it looks stupid and wrong to spell it with an e! But you can't tell me no Scottsman does it. Some of them do.
If you're not familiar, the no true Scottsman fallacy is a way to ignore a counterexample by redefining the in-group. For instance, I could say "no Scottsman spells whisky with an e," and a Scottsman could say "well, I do, though," and I could switch and say "I mean no true Scottsman."
In essence, no true Scottsman is a way to claim you speak for all people similar to you. And it's wonderful if you're using it for humor or hyperbole, but it's less wonderful if you seriously believe it, and use it to stake a claim to a greater principle - to say not only "I think I'm right," but "it's impossible to disagree with me, and if you do, you're not just wrong: in some fundamental sense, you don't exist." The "no atheists in foxholes" problem that ignores all the atheists who have been in foxholes by saying they secretly believe in God and just don't realize it.
You may yourself have come across people on the opposite end of the political spectrum who don't feel they have to compromise with you because you're not "really" American, despite being an American. If you're a churchgoer in the South you're guaranteed to have been told at some point you're not a "real" Christian, even if you're the minister. I have lately seen a few of my friends claim all jews think one thing or another, and any jews who don't think that thing must be brainwashed and/or made up by propagandists.
It drives me up a wall. It is one of the surest ways to get me to stop listening to you, even if I would otherwise be on your side. I mean, I dislike Phyllis Schlafly profoundly, but that doesn't change the fact that she's a woman. I can say I don't think Phyllis Schlafly is in the majority. I can tell you a personal narrative about the ways being a woman shapes my thoughts, but I can't assume being a woman affects everyone in the same way. It evidently doesn't. Look at Phyllis Schlafly, for instance. She exists. I can't speak for all women.
There was a longstanding running joke between me and Chad that I had a superpower known as "The Romie Exception," which was a shortcut to avoid my having to say "well, except me" to everything that came up. This always works, except if you're Romie. This always fails, except if you're Romie. Everybody likes this, except Romie. Even though most of the time I agree with you, I probably have a different reason for thinking you're right than you do.
I can point at the harm done by no true Scottsman, which is easy to do because it's really poisonous. But even in cases where it's harmless, I'm still mad about it. It bothers me that muddy thinking bothers me as much as it does. But it really does.
I think that despite myself I have some kind of entrenched religious belief that holds, for no reason other than that it does, that the main goal of life (or a main goal of life) is to perceive reality clearly. Which is a terribly difficult struggle and likely a pointless one. Yet why else are we here, if not to be here? I say this with a great love of imagination and escapism, but only because I know (or try to know) when I'm doing them.
It is therefore deeply, deeply offensive when I see someone else deliberately denying a reality which would not require them to change anything. You can spell whisky without an e! You can think it looks stupid and wrong to spell it with an e! But you can't tell me no Scottsman does it. Some of them do.
