No True Scotsman Fallacy – Definition & Examples

In a world full of debates, certain fallacies often creep into our discussions, subtly undermining our arguments. One such fallacy is the no true Scotsman fallacy, where someone protects a general claim by redefining criteria to dismiss counterexamples. Did that pique your curiosity? If your answer is yes, and you’re interested in learning more about logical fallacies and how to respond to them, keep reading.

Definition: No true Scotsman fallacy

The no true Scotsman fallacy, also known as the “appeal to purity 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. Essentially, it’s like saying “All members of a group are/have X,” and then, when there is an example of a member who isn’t/ hasn’t X, stating that it cannot be a “true” member of that group. However, the flaw lies in the argument’s content rather than in its structure or form. The no true Scotsman fallacy involves redefining the criteria to exclude the counterexample, thereby protecting the original assertion from criticism.

How does it work?

There are specific conditions that must be met to commit the no true Scotsman fallacy, including the following:

• For this logical fallacy to occur, we first need a basic generalization of a group, for example, “All members of group X have or are Y.” An example of a basic generalization can be, for example: “Vegans never consume animal products.”
• Then, a counterexample is presented that aims to disprove the original generalization. In our example, it might be someone whom we know and who does not strictly adhere to the definition provided. A counterexample for this situation can be, for instance: “But what about Anne? She’s a vegan, and she occasionally drinks dairy milk.”
• Finally, instead of accepting the counterexample and revising the original statement or providing evidence, the person who made the claim redefines the category to exclude the counterexample and might answer: “Well, no true vegan would drink dairy milk.”

Logically, suppose someone provides evidence that speaks against the generalization you’ve made. In that case, you should either accept the fact and abandon your initial claim or adjust your claim to make it more accurate and inclusive of the new evidence.

However, this reasoning is not always fallacious. There are situations where redefining a group or category is valid, especially when dealing with clear-cut definitions or established standards. It is important to understand that the argument “no true X would do Y” is not always wrong. If there is a clear, widely accepted definition, these statements can be correct.

Origin

The “no true Scotsman” fallacy was coined by the philosopher Anthony Flew in his 1975 book “Thinking About Thinking.” In the book, Flew presents an illustrative example to describe how people often defend generalizations in the face of counterexamples by arbitrarily changing the definition to exclude the counterexample.

In Flew’s example, the conversation initially claims that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. When it’s pointed out that there is indeed a Scotsman who does put sugar on his porridge, the claim is then shifted to state that no “true” Scotsman would do such a thing. This example demonstrates how the criteria are modified on the fly to exclude inconvenient cases and thereby protect the original assertion from refutation. The name of the no true Scotsman fallacy comes from the example below, which captures the essence of modifying an argument’s premises to exclude a specific case without justification.

Examples of no true Scotsman fallacy

The no true Scotsman fallacy is not only relevant when it comes to whether adding sugar on your porridge is appropriate or not; it plays a crucial role in several fields, which will be explained below.

In this case, someone implies that people of Muslim belief would never lie and, if so, that they should not be considered “true” Muslims. This redefinition avoids addressing the complexity and variability within human behaviour and belief systems, ultimately undermining a nuanced understanding of the group in question.

The first sentence resembles a generalization about Polish people and implies, that no Pole would ever prefer sweet pierogi over savory ones. By doing so, it excludes Polish people who favour sweet fillings over savory ones and implies a uniform cultural trait.

In this example, the no true Scotsman fallacy is evident when Person A claims that no scientist rejects evolution. When Person B counters by mentioning Dr. Johnson, a scientist who does not believe in evolution, Person A responds by asserting that “no true scientist rejects evolution.”

Psychology behind the no true Scotsman fallacy

Behind every fallacy, there are underlying psychological mechanisms and biases that shape how we process information and defend our beliefs. The psychology behind the no true Scotsman fallacy involves several cognitive and emotional factors, and among these are:

Some people might experience discomfort when confronted with evidence that contradicts their strongly held beliefs, prompting them to dismiss counterexamples to reduce this discomfort.

In-group bias upholds an idealized image of the in-group, reinforcing a positive self-concept by excluding non-conforming members. This selective exclusion helps maintain the perceived purity and superiority of the group, often at the expense of acknowledging legitimate diversity within it.

This mechanism involves individuals defending beliefs that are closely tied to their personal or group identity to protect their sense of self and belonging and to exclude individuals who do not fit into this belief.

Individuals who apply the no true Scotsman fallacy selectively accept information that supports their pre-existing generalization and reject contradictory information. This helps to maintain their existing beliefs without critically evaluating new evidence.

How to counteract

Responding to these tautologies is sometimes not the easiest thing to do; in order to counteract, you have to recognise it when it occurs and respond in a way that addresses the logical flaw. Here is what you can do:

1. Clarify definitions
2. Point out the fallacy
3. Provide consistent counterexamples
4. Seek common ground
5. Encourage critical thinking

Similarities with other fallacies

The no true Scotsman fallacy shares notable similarities with other fallacies regarding terms of its structure and the way it manipulates arguments, and among these are: