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

For those following this thread who are interested:

# 13 "All Christians are... " http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.html

~ Janice

At 10:35 AM 7/31/2006, David Opderbeck wrote:

>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
><<mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>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
><<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>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 <<mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>
>igd.strachan@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>On 7/31/06, David Opderbeck <<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>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 11:51:04 2006