No True Scotsman

The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy that involves defending a generalization by arbitrarily excluding counterexamples. It occurs when someone makes a universal claim about a group or category, and upon encountering evidence that contradicts this claim, they redefine the group in a way that excludes the counterexample.

1 Definition

The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is an informal logical fallacy where someone dismisses a counterexample to a generalized claim by asserting that the counterexample does not represent a “true” member of the group being discussed.

2 Description

This fallacy involves redefining the terms of an argument in order to make it valid. It is used to protect a sweeping generalization from counterexamples, and to exclude individuals or instances that do not fit the desired ideal.

3 Origin

The name “No True Scotsman” comes from a classic example of this fallacy:

• “Person 1: ‘No Scotsman adds sugar to his porridge.’
• Person 2: ‘But my uncle is a Scotsman, and he adds sugar to his porridge.’”
• In response, Person 1 says, “Ah, but your uncle is not a true Scotsman”.

4 Historical Examples:

In the early 20th century, some white supremacists in the United States argued that African Americans were not truly American citizens because they were not descended from European settlers. When confronted with evidence of African American patriotism and contributions to society, these individuals might have responded by redefining what it means to be a “true” American .

In Nazi Germany, the fascist regime used this fallacy to justify its persecution of Jews and other minority groups. For example, they might argue that Jewish Germans were not truly German because they did not share the same cultural or racial heritage as non-Jewish Germans.

5 Modern Examples:

• In Politics: During the 2016 US presidential campaign, some supporters of Donald Trump argued that his critics were not “true” conservatives or patriots. When confronted with evidence of Trump’s own departures from conservative orthodoxy, these supporters might have responded by redefining what it means to be a “true” conservative.
• In Media: In the debate over climate change, some skeptics argue that scientists who accept human-caused warming are not “true” scientists because they allegedly prioritize politics over scientific inquiry. When confronted with evidence of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, these skeptics might respond by redefining what it means to be a “true” scientist.
• In Schools: In some educational settings, teachers or administrators might argue that students who do not conform to certain behavioral or academic expectations are not “truly” invested in their education. When confronted with evidence of these students’ genuine efforts and motivations, these educators might respond by redefining what it means to be a “true” student.
• In Domestic Environments: In some families or social circles, individuals might argue that those who do not share certain cultural or lifestyle practices are not “truly” part of the group. For example, someone might say, “You’re not really Irish if you don’t drink whiskey on St. Patrick’s Day.” When confronted with evidence of diverse cultural practices within the group, these individuals might respond by redefining what it means to be a “true” member of the group.

In each of these examples, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is used to exclude counterexamples and protect a generalization from criticism. By recognizing this fallacy, we can better evaluate arguments and avoid falling prey to its misleading logic.