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 *

But it is refining the argument, because it's asking a foundational
definitional question. The original premise begs the question of "what is a
scotsman." If the answer to that question is "a scotsman is anyone who was
born in Scotland," then perhaps the conclusion doesn't follow and the
critique is valid. But if the definition of a "scotsman" includes "someone
who never puts sugar on his porridge," then the definitional clarification
is valid, as is the assertion "Hamish isn't a 'Scotsman' because he puts
sugar on his porridge." The real fallacy is the assumption that the
questioner's implied definition of "Scotsman" -- anyone born in Scotland --
has to be accepted.

Atheists play the same game when they say "Christianity is bad because
Christians have engaged in practices like Apartheid." The implication is
that the only reasonable position is to accept their definition that anyone
who uses the name "Christian" is in fact a "Christian" and that every
"Christian" always acts like Christ. But those are fundamentally
unreasonable assumptions, since the Bible and historic Christianity have
always maintained that true Christians are marked at least in some way by
the love of Jesus, and that at the same time even true Christians sometimes
depart from the ways of the true faith because of sin.

On 7/31/06, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Received on Mon Jul 31 10:36:03 2006