Time to put out another fallacy collection; my goal is to include all major fallacies in this upcoming book. Here is my write up of the Appeal to Purity Fallacy; also known as the No True Scotsman fallacy.
This fallacy occurs when there is an attempt to protect a generalization about a group from a counterexample by changing the definition of the group in an unprincipled way to exclude the counterexample. This is a fallacy because the tactic does not refute the counterexample, but merely it asserts does not apply. The fallacy is also known as the No True Scotsman fallacy thanks to the philosopher Anthony Flew. The fallacy has the following form:
Premise 1: Counterexample E has been made against Claim C about group G.
Premise 2: Counterexample E does not apply to any true member of group G.
Conclusion: C is true (and E is false).
Like many fallacies, it draws its persuasive power primarily from psychological factors. A member of the group in question or someone who has a favorable view of the group would have a psychological, but not logical, reason to reject the counterexample. Few are willing to believe negative things about groups they like or identify with. In Flew’s example, a Scotsman refuses to believe a story about the bad behavior of other Scotsmen on the grounds that no true Scotsman would do such things. People can also reject such a counterexample on pragmatic grounds, such as when doing so would provide a political advantage.
The fallacy can also be used in the opposite way—to reject positive counterexamples about negative claims. For example, if someone claims that all video games are senselessly violent and rejects counterexamples of non-violent video games, then they are committing this fallacy. This variation is also fueled by psychological factors, in this case negative ones: a person dislikes the group in question and hence is motivated to reject positive counterexamples against negative claims. This can also be done for pragmatic reasons; for example, a politician might refuse counterexamples that go against their negative rhetoric about a group they are trying to demonize.
The main defense against this fallacy is to consider whether a counterexample is being rejected on principled grounds or is being rejected without evidence, such as on psychological or pragmatic grounds. One way to try to overcome a psychological bias is to ask what evidence exists to reject the counterexample. If there is no such evidence, then all that would be left are psychological or pragmatic reasons—which have no logical weight.
Sorting out who or what belongs in a group can be a matter of substantial debate. For example, when members of religious groups do awful things the question often arises as to whether these people are true members of these religious groups. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for its slogan “God Hates Fags” and hate speech against a wide range of people. Some might contend that they are not true Christians because their beliefs seem counter to the claimed core values of Christianity, while others assert that they are Christians because they claim to be and back up their views with scripture. Debates over group membership need not be fallacious—if a person claims that true Christians do not hate LGBT people and rejects the counterexample of the Westboro Baptist Church by providing reasons why they do not meet the proper definition of “Christian”, then this fallacy has not been committed. This is because they have provided reasons to support their claim rather than simply rejecting the counterexample out of hand. Providing a guide to settling such disputes goes far beyond the scope of this work, but the above fallacy is not a tool that should be used in rational efforts to address such matters.
While it is an error to dismiss counterexamples out of hand, it is also an error to simply accept that what is claimed about some members of a group applies to all or most members of a group. For example, someone might note that a migrant committed a crime and then assert that most migrants are criminals. As another example, one might assert that most police officers are prone to excessive violence because some have been involved in high profile cases of police violence. These would be example of the Hasty Generalization fallacy—leaping to a conclusion too quickly from a sample that is too small to support it properly.
Example #1
Bill: “Islam is a religion of peace. No Muslim would harm another person.”
Sally: “What about the Muslims who are fighting in Syria and Yemen right now?”
Bill: “They are not true Muslims.”
Example #2
Bill: “Christianity is a religion of peace. No Christian would harm another person.”
Sally: “What about all the Christians that killed each other in the world wars and other conflicts?”
Bill: “They were not true Christians.”
Example #3
Mark: “Republicans are not racists and certainly not white supremacists.”
Hector: “What about those racists and white supremacists who support Republican politicians?”
Mark: “We don’t accept them in our party; we are not racists.”
Example #4
Mark: “Democrats are not sexists; we are all for equal rights and respect women!”
Hector: “So, what about those Democrats who got outed by #MeToo for assaulting women?”
Mark: “They are obviously not real Democrats; no real liberal would do such things!”
To me, this points up the weakness of any definition on the basis of group membership, since groups are usually not well defined in informal discussions – and too often, they can be ill-defined in formal ones as well.
Mathematicians don’t really have a problem dealing with statements like “no true Euclidean triangle has interior angles that sum to 1.5 radians”, because the set of Euclidean triangles is well defined.
We humans have to think in rather vague generalisations much of the time because our brains are not capable of keeping track of many well-defined categories at one time. This leads us all to generalisation and definitional fallacies at least occasionally.
President Obama often used the phrase “that’s not who we are.”
Examples: https://youtu.be/gouAcayDwLM
Is this a good example of the fallacy? I think it is.
It’s the “No True Scotsman” fallacy by…just a sec…it appears….one Antony Flew. What’s the point of repackaging it and repeating it when it was done so well 40 odd years ago by Mr. Flew? It’s like Brittany Spears doing “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction”.
Example #3
Mark: “Republicans are not racists and certainly not white supremacists.”
Hector: “What about those racists and white supremacists who support Republican politicians?”
Mark: “We don’t accept them in our party; we are not racists.”
*********************
I’m afraid don’t see the fallacy here. Can someone explain it to me? Is Mike saying that Republicans should not make racists feel unwelcome in the GOP?
The example is of course flawed. Partly because it relies rather heavily on the prejudices of the author and fellow travelers. Which is why even a completely made-up example fails. You have to argue that “Republicans are not” meaning “No Republicans at all are”. Then you have to infer a good bit. Perhaps the flip side might be:
Leon: “Democrats are not socialists or marxists and certainly do not endorse baby killing.”
John: “What about AOC and Beto?”
Leon: “AOC is a Democratic Socialist and it’s not a baby until it takes it’s first breath”
Similarly:
“While I can only speak from my own experiences and my conversations with colleagues across the country, most of the crazy-news is clickbait. One can, of course, find clips and examples of wacky professors being wacky, but that is not typical. What you usually see is a professor trying to hold the interest of a class as they try to convey Boyle’s Law, validity, or the Pythagorean theorem to folks who would rather be chatting the snaps. I don’t know anyone who rants about trigger warnings, the greatness of Marxism or such things. Mostly we rant about budget cuts, committee meetings and grading.”
Guess who said that? Of course, just a sample. I’m sure with a little more research one could find a tighter fit.
I continue to question why, after all these years, you still take the things that Mike writes seriously. It doesn’t matter whether his example contains a fallacy or the example itself is fallacious. It simply is what he says it is and if it isn’t he can just toy with the meanings of the words. You have noticed over the years how Mike does not make definitive statements, yes? There’s always some wiggle room. I think he fancies himself a kind of Bill Clinton logician. Ah, perhaps this is a better example:
Bill: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…Ms. Lewinsky”
Forensics: “This blue dress has your spunk on it.”
Bill: “Oral sex isn’t really sex.”
See? It’s all good. If you stand on your head, close one eye, and squint real, real hard, words can mean whatever you feel like they should mean.
I’m afraid I am still confused. Felons clearly support the Democrats over the Republicans. Does this mean, according to Mike’s reasoning, that Democrats are therefore felons?
I’ll bet I can do his better than Mike…
It’s really not clear that felons support Democrats. Many white collar felons are Republicans. Many felons are apolitical and do not vote at all.
(note: at this point I stop responding to anything further that you have to say as I have moved on to another subject….though I think I still have a clown nose around here somewhere)
Ugh. Leave me out of this. I will occasionally remark to friends or family that I support (or even just refuse to dismiss) one of Trump’s initiatives, or I might mention that many of my political views tend toward the Conservative or Libertarian in one way or another –
And people who have known me for decades look at me with disbelief … “I had no idea you were a racist!”
None of us is at liberty to define or explain what we mean (well, Ilhan Omar is, for some odd reason), what we say or do is defined by others, and extended to the group.
Debra Katz, the lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford, recently came out and admitted that this entire debacle was politically motivated, that it was about Roe v. Wade, that they wanted to taint Bret Kavanaugh forever, so that any decision he was a part of had to necessarily be appended with an asterisk. The two of them, in a media spectacle, nearly ruined this poor man with allegations that were not, that could not, be proven – and even if they were legitimate accusations (and I’m not saying they weren’t) should have been addressed behind closed doors with at least a modicum of respect for the man’s privacy and our system of “innocent until proven guilty”.
Instead, the entire Republican party has been redefined. Forget “We are not abusers of women. We are not stalkers. We do not support that kind of behavior as part of our “brand””.
If you support Immigration reform, if you support the 2nd amendment, if you are even cautious about abortion, and if you support free-market capitalism and low taxes, then you are a White Supremacist, a racist, a misogynist, and some kind of “Old White Guy” who just gets his jollies trying to control a woman’s uterus,
Fallacy or not, this is the country in which we live.
I’m curious what you guys think of this:
https://paulosophicalvimplications.org/2019/08/19/women-and-gender-studies-at-the-university-of-lethbridge/
Fair enough. But does it also include the skill to critique that critique?
Yeah, as Bill Maher (not so) famously said, you’re supposed to question authority but not question those who question authority. As I’ve said many, many times here the basic problem with much of modern philosophy is (and God I hate the term but coin-of-the-realm) an astounding lack of self-awareness.
But my worry is that the social justice warrior, who’s bereft of any real critical thinking skills, is going to be defeated in battle.
But of course, they think they themselves are self-aware (again, hate that term). They just need to teach others about their (the others’) flaws. Mote, beam, some disassembly required.
He thinks a grounding in analytic philosophy will be a suitable immunisation against unmoored conclusions?
I think a stronger vaccine is needed. I’m sure I could find lots of individual cases, but the Tuvel-Hypatia incident will suffice for now. I’m sure many of those signatories, and the original advisory board, had a grounding in analytic philosophy.
You can give people tools, but it does no good unless they’re willing to take them up and use them.
When I was young, I had a great admiration for philosophy. Now, I believe that people can convince themselves of any wrong idea, any erroneous conclusion, the necessity of any destructive system, as long as they keep using words. Words are, in the end, inadequate to the burden of discerning truth – a play-doh wrench, or a chocolate teapot.
Thanks for reminding me of the Tuvel-Hypatia incident, CT. The impulse to shut down the speech of those that disagree with me is one I’ll never understand.
There is a good reason that the number of humanities majors is in free fall.
I think WTP may have written this:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/blame_academia_for_the_insanity_at_thursdays_dem_debate.html
Well not the front half because:
there’s no way in bloody hell I’d subject myself to hours and hours of that nonsense. But…
It’s nice to see that, after all these years, some people on the right are starting to see what became bloody obvious to me in my early 30’s. Though, TBF (to me) I kinda thought most of this stuff even back in college…even back in high school…but was ashamed to say it out loud. Now I’m ashamed to say that I was ever ashamed. But again, in my defense, whenever I did muster up the courage to point out the emperors were not wearing clothes, the complete and utter lack of support from (so-called) rational conservatives, sometimes even ridicule from them, was quite a discouraging thing. I eventually learned to shut up about such bloody obvious stuff just to get along in life (kinda where DH says he is in his academic phase of his career). After September 11, and with the advent of the internet and thus the ease of verifying fake news (which has been around a much, much longer time than DJT), I realized that while one should definitely NOT take the bait on every political piece of BS, one has a responsibility to speak up on occasions, when appropriate, especially when the subject matter has been raised by leftists in a casual oh-don’t-we-all-agree manner.
This leads to something that I personally, introspectively, find fascinating. For the earlier years of the popularity of the real estate magnate known as Donald J. Trump, I wrote him off as one of those who would defend the status quo for the most part. I never took him or his political statements very seriously and when I did, while I wouldn’t describe him as a true leftist, his 1990’s until 2015 or so cozy relationship with the Clintons being a prime example, I never would have expected his position in politics to be where it is today. Especially where it is most broadly perceived by the left and #NeverTrump right to be today. But in the GOP debates, when I still didn’t care for the man (and did not vote for him in the primary), I admired his taking control by asking the un-PC questions and taking the mainstream GOP leaders to the woodshed on their failures to deliver anything. On their failures to, in spite of much posturing, in the real world to stand for anything. Well, anything “conservative”, so-called, anyway. And yet it has been this not-very-conservative guy who has broken through the BS and exposed the media, and by inevitable extension academia, for the frauds that they for the most part are. Which of course also applies to most of the GOPe.
BTW, and I generally don’t buy into rumors but ooooh, if this one is true…Did you see where apparently China is fixing to cave on pork and soybeans parts of the trade fight? That could be interesting.