Suppose A says, "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge." B replies, "But my uncle Angus puts sugar in his porridge." A responds, "Your Uncle Angus is no true Scotsman!"
The argument above illustrates something called the No True Scotsman fallacy. It has long interested me. I posted on it in 2005 at the Cadre Comments.
Is it a fallacy or not?
It is a form of circular reasoning that makes the underlying belief unfalsifiable.
The problem arises when one defines a term or a group by some specific trait or belief. When a counter-example is supplied to refute the definition, then the trap is set. Rather than withdrawing or revising the definition, the apologist dismisses the counter-example as a false counter-example. The effect is to make his position unfalsifiable. All counter-examples are explained away. However, the effect is to make the underlying belief look less and less credible and more of a tautology.
I am not convinced this is a new fallacy. I think it is just a clever title for describing an example of circular reasoning. Fallacy or not, it exposes a flaw that can be avoided.
We get into trouble when we overuse labels.
For example, the label "Christian" has become so broad that is becoming less and less meaningful.
Polls supposedly show that something like tw0-thirds to three-quarters of American claim to be Christian. But what exactly does the term Christian mean?
Are the Hutaree Militia truly Christian militia, for example?
It seems to me that the way to avoid this trap is to either to avoid labels, or carefully define them.
In the case of Christianity or Christians, I think it is wiser to talk in terms of the content of the teaching of the Bible rather than resort to descriptions or labels like "true" Christian or "authentic" Christianity.
Rather than saying "no true Christian" would think or do such and such, we should point out how beliefs or behavior is inconsistent with the teaching of Christ.
I know it is easier said than done. I realize it is difficult to avoid labels. Labels are shortcuts, and shortcuts make life easier.
I would be interested in hearing your ideas.
I may be wrong, but it would seem to me that the deductive logic of the argument is OK, but the premise on which it is based is fallacious, rendering the conclusion invalid. The premise is actual a content question separate from logic. Thus, you observations about definitions is totally valid since they address the truth of the premise and not the logic of the argument.
Posted by: The Interface | April 01, 2010 at 11:30
Oi! My English went out the door with my too rapid typing and punch on the post button. The last sentence should read:
"Thus, your observations about definitions are totally valid since...."
Posted by: The Interface | April 01, 2010 at 11:32
Isn't 'Christian' a label though? Regardless of any qualifiers that we may place on it, you label yourself or others by being a Christian (good or bad).
Posted by: Paul | April 01, 2010 at 15:31
Christian is a label but I believe it is a label which should refer to a belief system. This belief system should result in certain behavior but should does not necessarily mean will. I agree C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity that it is better to call a Christian who does not live up to Christian behavior a bad Christian rather than not a genuine Christian. Now there is a genuine Christian who is a Christian in God's sight (one who has genuine faith) but that needs to ultimately be left for God to determine.
Posted by: Mike the Mad Theologian | April 01, 2010 at 23:30
Mike the Mad:
I love your moniker! Where in M.C. does Lewis say that? I would like to reference it for a discussion in my class.
Would you say the Hutaree are bad Christians for wanting to assassinate policeman?
Paul:
re: "Isn't 'Christian' a label though?"
Absolutely. But what does it mean? Are the Hutaree Christians? How about the Branch Davidians? The Mormons? Jehovah Witnesses? Is a Christian anyone who circles Christian on a form that asks for their religion?
What say you?
Interface:
I think you are right. Here is a more culturally relevant expression of the NTS fallacy:
a) No scientist would question the theory of evolution.
b) But Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh questions the theory of evolution.
c) But Dr. Behe is not a true scientist. He is a creationist.
Your point is that the argument "no scientist would question the theory of evolution" is valid in form but the premise is simply wrong.
I think you are right.
Either we revise the definition of a scientist, or we drop the argument about trying to define a "true" scientist because the label is not all that helpful.
Just thinking this through a little bit further.
The NTS fallacy situations seems to come up when classification of something is really important. For example, I started to think about it again when I kept seeing the term "Christian militia" all over the news. Since I call myself a Christian, it bothered me. I thought, why is the press labeling these loons as Christians? I was offended by it. I felt like writing a letter to the editor saying "no true Christian would plot to kill innocent people to help out Jesus." The classification of this group was important to me.
Similarly, evolutionists like to trump the fact that "true" scientists don't mess with evolution because the label scientist is super important to them.
So, in those cases where labels are really important, the only option is to redefine the label in such a way as to accommodate the counter-example offered ... if it is a valid counter-example.
Posted by: Mr. D | April 02, 2010 at 09:45
Mr. D, therein is one of the strategies of the liberal left: redefinition of labels and categories to either demonize their opponent and/or lionize themselves and their allies. As a scientist myself who also happens to be a Christian, I am personally very familiar with how evolutionists like to redefine scientist as "one who believes [interesting choice of words, that] in evolution and does not question its truth, only its mechanism."
Posted by: The Interface | April 02, 2010 at 11:30
Mr D: I think Christian as a label has to be self-defining; if a person or group claims to be Christian, then they are. That's because there's no accessible authority that defines what it is to be a Christian. We could certainly rule out some groups based on logic - if you don't recognize the literal or conceptual existence of a thing called Jesus Christ you can't, logically, be a Christian (I think!) But that leaves a pretty large set of candidates that we can't make determinations on
Note that this doesn't exclude narrower definitions; it is pretty straightforward to identify who is a Catholic Christian, for example, even if the practicalites of asking the Pope might be convoluted!
TI: I wouldn't deny that the liberal left acts as you describe, but by describing it so you suggest that it's *just* a leftist tactic. In fact just about any group that tends to the edge of a spectrum does the same, which is why Obama is a Nazi, Socialist, Muslim Terrorist. For balance, my understanding is that Bush was also a Nazi :)
Posted by: Paul | April 02, 2010 at 14:06
Paul:
re: "That's because there's no accessible authority that defines what it is to be a Christian."
There is this, though, that seems to be God's definition of a Christian:
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=rom+10%3A9-10&sourceid=mozilla-search
And scripture records the first use of the term "Christian" in history, btw
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Acts+11%3A26
Regarding calling yourself a Christian, there is this clear warning in scripture about some who think they are Christians, but God begs to differ :
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=matt+7%3A21-23&sourceid=mozilla-search
Like I said, for the most part, I don't waste too much time or energy on labels. Occasionally, however, it gets confusing.
E.g. Christian militia :(
another example is the label Muslim...
Some would dispute that the terrorists are truly Muslim and practicing true Islam.
It can get confusing.
Posted by: Mr. D | April 02, 2010 at 14:58
What constitutes the correct Christian belief system is arguable but that does not mean it is not determinable. Part of the argument is whether there is a authority that determines what Christianity is, what the Bible teaches (my option) or church tradition or some other possibility. But if we try to define Christian as whoever calls themselves that it becomes meaningless. It is when you try to make statements that have no direct relation to what the thing is (for example no Christian would ever steal office supplies) that you run into the fallacy.
Posted by: Mike the Mad Theologian | April 02, 2010 at 19:13
I agree that it's wrong to hold the actions of a few extremists like the Hutaree militia against the whole of Christendom.
Now if only we as a people were willing to extend the same courtesy to, say, Islam....
Posted by: tgirsch | April 02, 2010 at 19:31
MrD: Don't we have to love one another as well?
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+John+3%3A23
Or is that not a necessary condition for Christianity? From the way it's put across it certainly sounds like something that is expected, but I'm not clear if it's an absolute - i.e. failure to comply bars you from Christianity - or if it's just encouraged behavior. Though in that case I wonder how many times you can transgress that suggestion before it becomes a disqualifying event...
And so we get back to the desirability of an accessible authority.
Posted by: Paul | April 06, 2010 at 06:36
Paul,
Yes, we are to love one another ... but you stepped over and missed the greatest commandment, the one that Christ said was the greatest commandment.
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=matt+22%3A34-40&sourceid=mozilla-search
Sadly,none of us loves God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength ... nor do we love each other as much as we love ourselves.
We fall woefully short on a daily basis.
Therein lies the beauty of the gospel ... forgiveness for our transgressions, not based on anything we have done, but based on what Christ has done for us.
If being a Christian was something that we could be disqualified for based on our performance or behavior, then it would be a very small group indeed ... in fact, a party of one. For only Christ succeeded in fulfilling the demands perfectly. The rest of us flunked the test.
That is why Romans 10:9-10 is so vital http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=rom+10%3A9-10&sourceid=mozilla-search. The "believe in your heart" part means to actively trust in Christ that his act of fulfilling the requirements becomes credited to us, though we certainly don't deserve it.
Posted by: Mr. D | April 06, 2010 at 09:44
re: "Now if only we as a people were willing to extend the same courtesy to, say, Islam...."
... or extend that courtesy, to say, scientists, who challenge deeply cherished theories.
Since you bring up Islam, do you think the 9-11 terrorists were acting consistently with the principles of the religion of Islam? In other words, were their acts on 11-Sep-2001 consistent with the orthodox teaching of Islam?
Posted by: Mr. D | April 06, 2010 at 09:52