Talk:No true Scotsman

Redefinition fallacy

Gary Curtis ref defines no true S as a subfallacy of the redefinition fallacy. Does wikipedia have an equivalent thereof? (I was going to add this to the article but clearly not with the redlink) 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC) 99.73.36.110 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Not every "something fallacy" or "fallacy of whatever" term that some random writer comes up with gains sufficient currency and independent coverage to rise to encyclopedic notice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Proper or common noun

I had sentence-cased the "no true Scotsman fallacy" in the lead, consistent with the title. In the last little bit, one user recapitalized it, claiming it's a proper noun, and C.Fred reverted that edit, stating that it wasn't apparent that it's a proper noun. I see no reason why it would be a proper noun. I think it's likely that in running text one might put the "no true Scotsman" part in quotes to demarcate it as a phrase qualifying the word "fallacy":

His argument was an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

But it isn't a proper name. See List of fallacies: we aren't considering the terms for various fallacies to be proper names. One writes of begging the question, not Begging the Question, etc. Largoplazo (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree as well; I have never seen the names of fallacies capitalized as proper nouns. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen it occasionally, in the same kind of material that likes to capitalize "Murphy's Law" and "Method Acting" instead of writing Murphy's law and method acting. It's just a typical "capitalize everything that seems significant to me" bad habit, covered by MOS:SIGCAPS in general and MOS:DOCTCAPS more specifically. Just because an idea has one or more conventional names doesn't make them proper nouns, and Wikipedia doesn't capitalize something unless reliable sources near-uniformly capitalize it (like the word Scotsman).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Stravinsky

The great Igor Stravinsky said: "Instinct is infallible. If it leads us astray, it is no longer instinct." I have no idea if he was joking or "comitted" the fallacy. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:34F4:C4D7:E406:4142 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This would not be a good quote to add to the page. It's kinda-sorta similar to "no true Scotsman", but going much further. Stravinsky is not saying that instinct that leads us astray is not "true" instinct, trying to sweep a contradictory outlier under the rug by introducing a narrower (but subjective) variant term. Stravinsky was categorically denying that something you claim to be instinct which led you astray in any way can be instinct at all, which is more analogous to the skeptical Scotsman when confronted with a bad-acting fellow countryman denying that the other party could even be from Scotland and must be an immigrant posing as a Scotsman, or perhaps a devil in human disguise. Stravinsky's assertion is utterly nonsensical to begin with. Our instincts "lead us astray" probably more than anything else. Aside from just basic counter-factuality, Stavinsky was moving rhetorically toward an extreme version of fallacy of equivocation, redefining the entire concept of instinct to exclude a vast class of anything that does not produce positive results, which does not agree with anyone else's definition of the term. "No true Scotsman" (which tries to introduce a narrower sub-term and definition, not redefine the whole concept "Scotsman") is related to equivocation, but is a definition-narrowing ploy, not a defintion-replacement ploy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, perhaps, I agree that S seems to create more ontological havoc then in the typical example. He does say "no longer" though, suggesting he might not have agreed with your analysis.

Here is another fun example taken from Zen Buddhism which delights in this sort of game:

A monk asked Seijo: "I understand that a Buddha who lived before recorded history sat in meditation for ten cycles of existence and could not realize the highest truth, and so could not become fully emancipated. Why was this so?"

Seijo replied: "Your question is self-explanatory."

The monk asked: "Since the Buddha was meditating, why could he not fulfill Buddhahood?"

Seijo said: "He was not a Buddha." 2A01:CB0C:1704:9A00:95EF:75ED:76A8:D7EE (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Confusing lead

The lead section seemed unnecessarily confusing, especially the first two sentences. This is not a particularly complex concept, and there must be better and more simple ways to describe it, especially when first introducing the concept. I removed the incorrect use of "a posteriori" and "a priori" and tried to make a few edits, but it probably still needs work. – notwally (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)