You've probably encountered arguments that just don't seem right, even if you can't put your finger on why. It could be a friend insisting that a "real" fan of a certain band would never listen to anything else, or maybe a political figure claiming that anyone who disagrees with them isn't a "true patriot." These statements and claims can be both confusing and frustrating, but there's a name for this type of reasoning: the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
A No True Scotsman Fallacy occurs when someone alters the definition of a group or term to exclude counterexamples, often to protect or defend a cherished belief or to invalidate opposing views.
Now, you're about to learn not just what this fallacy is, but also where it came from, why it happens, and how it shows up in various aspects of life. We'll explore real-world examples and even offer tips on how to counter such faulty logic.
What is a No True Scotsman Fallacy?
Let's break down the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Imagine you're part of a group that loves chocolate ice cream. You say, "Anyone who loves ice cream loves chocolate ice cream." Then, someone pipes up and says, "Well, I love ice cream, but not chocolate." To save face, you quickly respond, "Well, anyone who truly loves ice cream loves chocolate."
Boom! You've just committed a No True Scotsman Fallacy. You changed the terms to exclude an example that doesn't fit your claim. You've also created a narrow definition of someone who likes ice cream.
Here, you're doing something called "shifting the goalposts." This means you're changing the rules or conditions of an argument to suit your needs. It's a way to dodge evidence that could disprove your point. It’s a slippery move that might go unnoticed, but it weakens your argument.
This is a type of logical fallacy. Fallacies are logical errors, usually in arguments, that people make which lead to inconsistent reasoning.
Why does this matter? Well, this fallacy can make conversations and debates unfair. It shuts down dialogue and keeps us from getting to the truth. Recognizing when a No True Scotsman Fallacy is in play can help you navigate tricky discussions and make better arguments yourself.
Other Names for This Fallacy
- True Scotsman Fallacy
- No True Freeman Fallacy
- Appeal to Purity
Similar Logical Fallacies
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the person instead of their argument.
- Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
- Slippery Slope: Arguing that a specific action will trigger a chain of events leading to a negative outcome, without proof.
- Circular Reasoning: Supporting a statement by merely repeating it in different terms.
The term "No True Scotsman" was coined by philosopher Antony Flew in 1975. It got its name from an imaginary conversation where one person argues that "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." When shown an example of a Scotsman who does, the first person changes the criteria by saying, "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." This highlights how the fallacy works by changing definitions to exclude counterexamples.
29 Examples
1) Real Fans
"Only real fans have been following the band since their first album."
Here, the argument tries to redefine what a "real fan" is to exclude those who became fans later on.
2) True Patriot
"If you were a true patriot, you wouldn't question the government."
This argument seeks to invalidate criticism by redefining the meaning of patriotism to only include unquestioning loyalty. This can be extended to "true liberal", "true republican", or any other political group.
3) Real Feminist
"A real feminist wouldn't wear makeup."
The statement changes the definition of feminism to exclude those who wear makeup, sidestepping the complexity of the ideology.
4) Authentic Cuisine
"No true Italian pizza has pineapple."
This argument alters the definition of "Italian pizza" to exclude pizzas with pineapple, making it a subjective statement.
5) True Gamer
"True gamers play on PC, not consoles."
Here, "true gamer" is being redefined to exclude console players, even though gaming is the core commonality.
6) Diet Pills
"These diet pills didn't work for you because you're not a true health enthusiast; true health enthusiasts would find them effective."
In this example, the criteria for being a "true health enthusiast" are changed to exclude those for whom the diet pills did not work.
7) Devoted Spouse
"A devoted spouse would never ask for time alone."
This argument changes the criteria for devotion to exclude the need for personal space, which is unrealistic.
8) True Artist
"No true artist uses digital mediums; they only use traditional methods."
This statement attempts to redefine what constitutes a "true artist," excluding those who use digital tools.
9) Real Man
"A real man doesn't cry."
This argument narrows down the definition of a "real man" to a stereotypical, emotionally restricted version.
10) Proper Education
"A proper education can only be attained at Ivy League schools."
This statement tries to redefine what constitutes a "proper education," unfairly excluding other credible institutions.
11) Genuine Friend
"A genuine friend would loan you money without questions."
Here, "genuine friend" is redefined to include only those who loan money without conditions, which is a problematic expectation.
12) True Christian
"A true Christian would never attempt to question the Bible."
The argument alters the definition of a "true Christian" to exclude those who might have questions or doubts. This can be extended to any religious group - "real Muslims", "real Christians", etc.
13) Real Scientist
"Real scientists don't believe in climate change."
This argument narrows the definition of a "real scientist" to only those who reject the broad scientific consensus on climate change.
14) True Love
"True love means never having to say you're sorry."
This phrase seeks to redefine "true love" in a way that excludes the necessity for apologies and accountability.
15) Authentic Journalism
"Authentic journalism doesn't include opinion pieces."
The statement alters what qualifies as "authentic journalism," arbitrarily excluding opinion pieces.
16) True Vegetarian
"A true vegetarian would never wear leather."
This redefines "vegetarian" to also include lifestyle choices beyond diet.
17) Real Musician
"Real musicians can read sheet music."
The definition of a "real musician" is altered here to exclude those who play by ear or use other methods.
18) Genuine Believer
"A genuine believer attends church every Sunday."
Here, "genuine believer" in religion is defined in a way that excludes those who may have different ways of practicing their faith.
19) Real Professional
"A real professional would never leave a job without another one lined up."
This redefines what it means to be a "real professional," excluding those who may leave jobs for valid reasons without immediate backup plans.
20) True Scholar
"True scholars only read the original texts, not translations."
Here, the word "true scholar" is defined to exclude those who rely on translations.
21) Authentic Mexican Food
"Authentic Mexican food doesn't use cheddar cheese."
This argument alters the definition of "authentic Mexican food" based on a specific ingredient.
22) Real Athlete
"A real athlete wouldn't play esports."
This redefinition excludes esports players from the category of "real athletes."
23) True Environmentalist
"A true environmentalist would never drive a car."
This narrows down the definition of a "true environmentalist" to a nearly impossible standard.
24) Real Parent
"A real parent homeschools their children."
Here, the definition of a "real parent" is being skewed to fit a specific viewpoint on education.
25) True Chef
"A true chef never uses pre-made sauces."
This argument changes the criteria for being a "true chef," excluding those who might use pre-made ingredients for practical reasons.
26) Genuine Leader
"A genuine leader never shows weakness."
This redefines what it means to be a "genuine leader," promoting an unrealistic standard of constant strength.
27) Real Student
"A real student never uses online resources for research."
Here, "real student" is defined to exclude those who make use of online databases or resources.
28) True Believer in Justice
"A true believer in justice would never plea bargain."
This statement redefines a "true believer in justice" to exclude the common legal practice of plea bargaining.
29) Authentic New Yorker
"An authentic New Yorker would never eat at a chain restaurant."
This narrows the definition of an "authentic New Yorker," creating an arbitrary and exclusionary rule.
The Psychological Mechanisms Behind It
Understanding the No True Scotsman Fallacy starts with diving into the human mind. One key concept is "cognitive dissonance," which is the mental discomfort you feel when you hold conflicting beliefs or attitudes.
People often use the No True Scotsman Fallacy as a mental shortcut to resolve this discomfort. By changing the conditions or criteria, they can maintain their original belief without having to face the contradiction.
Another psychological mechanism at play is the "ingroup-outgroup bias." This is the tendency to favor those who belong to your group while excluding or devaluing others. When you say, "A real fan supports the team no matter what," you're making an emotional appeal that solidifies your ingroup ("real fans") while putting others in the outgroup.
These psychological factors often work together, making the fallacy a seductive trap for your reasoning.
The Impact of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
The impact of the No True Scotsman Fallacy can be substantial, both in personal conversations and broader societal dialogues.
On a personal level, using this fallacy can weaken your arguments and make you less persuasive. It's a form of intellectual dishonesty, and if others catch you using it, you could lose credibility. Not to mention it's a sweeping generalization about group membership that doesn't actually describe members in the first place.
Moreover, this fallacy can stifle constructive discussion. Instead of exploring an issue deeply, people might get stuck on defining who belongs to a particular group or what qualifies as a "true" example of something.
In a broader context, the No True Scotsman Fallacy can contribute to polarization and divisiveness. Because it reinforces ingroup-outgroup dynamics, it can create echo chambers where only certain views are allowed. This exclusionary thinking is detrimental to a society's ability to adapt, learn, and grow.
How to Identify and Counter It
So how do you spot the No True Scotsman Fallacy in action? The first clue is a shift in the criteria or conditions for a claim. If you notice that the rules are changing in the middle of a discussion, that's a red flag. Another indicator is when the new criteria are subjective or vaguely defined, making it easier for the person to move the goalposts later on.
Countering this faulty reasoning requires a tactical approach. First, call it out by naming it; this can make the other person aware of their flawed logic.
Second, ask them to clarify their terms. If they say, "A real musician writes their own songs," ask what specifically makes someone a "real" musician. By forcing them to define their criteria, you can expose the fallacy's weak foundation and show it proves nothing.
Finally, offer a counter example that challenges their new criteria. This can be an effective way to show that their argument isn't as strong as they think it is. You can deny it, ignore it, or try to prove it wrong.
