Re: [asa] True Scotsman fallacy - was Of m....

I agree that refining an argument isn't the exclusive province of science,
but ...

No scotsman would .... changing to No TRUE scotsman would

is not refining an argument - it's arbitrarily shifting the original
premise, and in an ill-defined way. What is a "True" Scotsman?

No Christian would support Apartheid.
The Duch Reformed Church supports Apartheid.
Then they're not true Christians.

What is a "True" Christian? We're all sinners, and the smallest sin is
imperfection in God's eyes. So if you judge someone for what they do, the
finger is going to point straight back at you. Clearly I'm not a true
Christian because I allow myself to get angry at the impolite things that
are said on this list. No True Christian would do that because anger is a
fruit of the sinful nature.

flawed Iain.

On 7/31/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *One can start with a scientific theory and then refine it as more
> knowledge comes in.*
>
> And why is the same method of reasoning precluded in other areas?
> Refining an argument isn't the exclusive province of science.
>
> On 7/31/06, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 7/31/06, David Opderbeck < dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > *The fallacy being that in the face of contrary evidence, you make an
> > > arbitrary adjustment to your original premise.*
> > >
> > > I kind of hate the "fallacy" game -- the "fallacy fallacy" if you
> > > will. It's too easy, every time your adversary makes some adjustment or
> > > nuances a point, to cry "fallacy." Who defines why something like this is a
> > > "fallacy" and not a proper refinement of an argument? And, back to the mote
> > > and beam, hasn't evolutionary science done exactly the same thing? Natural
> > > selection doesn't quite do it? Ok, add genetic drift. Abiogensis doesn't
> > > do it? Ok, try panspermia. No real explanation? Ok, assert "time and
> > > chance of the gaps." What's the difference?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't think that's the same thing at all.
> >
> > One can start with a scientific theory and then refine it as more
> > knowledge comes in. E.g. Newton's second law becoming subject to
> > relativistic correction clearly isn't an arbitrary adjustment. Perhaps the
> > equivalent "No true .." to this would be if you said "No experiment
> > measuring an accelerating body violates F=MA". Then you get measurements
> > that show the Relativistic correction. "Ah, you say, no TRUE experiment
> > violates F=MA, therefore yours can't be a proper experiment".
> >
> > Yes I've seen a page by a Christian on the "The No True Scotsman Fallacy
> > Fallacy" and a rejoinder by an atheist called "The No True Scotsman Fallacy
> > Fallacy Fallacy" etc.
> >
> >
> > Iain Strachan (despite the name, not in any way a "true" Scotsman, in
> > fact an Englishman who likes sugar on his porridge!)
> >
> >
>
>

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.