Quick n Dirty: Intro to Propositional Logic

[_Simon Belmont]

That isn't No True Scotsman Simon. If you were to say, "But look at this LDS. We can both agree he is neither lying, delusional, or lacking in curiosity," and Dr. W were to reply, "Then he really isn't faithful LDS" that would probably be No True Scotsman. I think he'd disagree by not agreeing with you on the lying, etc. part.

The archetypical case of No True Scotsman is a popular religious argument that goes like this:

Belief in my faith makes people better. Isn't it amazing that members of my faith are such wonderful people?

But, what about all the awful things people in your faith do? Surely that is evidence against your claim.

Oh, that just goes to show they really weren't true believers.

The fallacy is really a combination of an equivocation and begging the question. Dr. W wasn't doing that. He was just making an assertion that may or may not be wrong.

But here is where I believe it is the No True Scotsman:

Dr.W.: Anyone who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.
SB: I truly believe in the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church.
Dr.W.: Well, any rational, educated individual who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.

[_EAllusion]

But here is where I believe it is the No True Scotsman:

Dr.W.: Anyone who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.
SB: I truly believe in the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church.
Dr.W.: Well, any rational, educated individual who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.

Well, he could No True Scotsman it up with the term "rational," but I haven't seen him do that, and you can't infer it based on a hypothetical conversation. You have to wait for him to commit the fallacy before accusing him of the fallacy. Further, simply saying you aren't rational isn't No True Scotsman unless you have reason to believe that "rational" is being defined in a question begging way*. It probably would be in that case, so I'd spot you that if it actually happened.

*Think about my example above. The problem is that a "true believer" is defined as someone who wouldn't do bad things. So it is necessarily the case that a believer in the faith would be good, rendering the claim trivial. The other part of the fallacy is that believer in the mundane sense of "professed believer" is being equivocated with this question begging "only good people" sense.

So if Dr. W said, "No rational person believes in Mormonism."

And you said, "But what about so and so? He's clearly rational."

And Dr. W. said, "Well, he believes in Mormonism, so obviously not."

Then there you'd have No True Scotsman. Rational is being defined in a way that precludes believing in Mormonism and is being equivocated with its ordinary sense of being of sound mind and having typical critical thinking skills.

[_Simon Belmont]

I see your point, and the quote is out of context. What if we examine the entire conversation (located here):

DrW: Faithful LDS have no idea, none whatsoever, as to how silly their truth claims sound when they are recounted to rational, critical thinking individuals.

SB: Because there's no such thing as a rational, critical thinking member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, right DrW?

DrW: Such a person cannot realistically claim to be a critical thinker in the sense that they understand or have skills in the application of basic logic, probability, or the proper use of evidence in evaluating truth claims.

[_EAllusion]

Yeah, that's No True Scotsman Simon. You win.

[_Simon Belmont]

Yeah, that's No True Scotsman Simon. You win.

I'm not trying to "win"... EA. I am trying to better my logic-detection skills.

Thanks for your help, sincerely.

[_EAllusion]

I'm not trying to "win"... EA. I am trying to better my logic-detection skills.

I was being cheeky. You are right, though. You should incorporate that exchange into your quote.

[_Simon Belmont]

I'm not trying to "win"... EA. I am trying to better my logic-detection skills.

I was being cheeky. You are right, though. You should incorporate that exchange into your quote.

There. I had to be creative in shortening it to meet the 313 character limit, but I think the audience will get the idea.

[_wenglund]

I think it is great that Stak is putting a thread on this board to constructive use--something that occurs here far too infrequently. I trust we can all benefit from sharpening our critical thinking skills. Certainly, it is a more progressive enterprise than snarling at and slamming each other.

However, as this discussion proceeds, I think it wise to offer at least two points of caution that I have learned over the years.

First, not to equate critical thinking strategies (logical soundness and validity) with persuasiveness. I have often observed that some of the most persuasive arguments are those that are, to some degree, fallacious--particularly those that appeal to emotion and authority. I have also found some very sound and valid arguments to be be quite unconvincing--in part because they can, at times, be mind-numbingly tedious, esoteric, and unappealing.

Second, not to view critical thinking in fundamentalist/absolutist/dogmatic ways, but recognize instead its limitations (as Kant suggests) in terms of pragmatism and productivity as well as in establishing "truth" (as Stak pointed out earlier). Critical thinking is a powerful and useful tool of thought, though when taken too far, can result in epistemic paralysis and impractical abandonment of common sense (like Ivory tower-ism, etc.).

Besides, not all instances of perceived fallacies are fallacious. Some ad hominems, appeals to authority and emotion, etc. are quite reasonable. This is particularly the case with inductive arguments and matters of faith rather than matters of fact. For example, in the adversarial mode of U.S. jurisprudence it makes sense for opponents to test the credibility of the other party's witnesses via ad hominems and appeals to authority.

Also, when the mind is untempered by the heart, it can become injuriously cold and calculating and even immoral (as with the utilitarian argument in favor of slavery). Besides, as Pascal wisely noted, "the heart has reasons that reason cannot know."

With this having been said, I look forward to Stak's lessons on logic and his promised critique of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_MrStakhanovite]

Thanks for that demonstration Simon, I think that shows the difference between a formal logical fallacy, and the more rhetoric based informal ones.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hi Wade,

I agree with most of what you said, and if it's one thing I'd love to pound home is that logic is just a tool, not a truth maker. Also, I'm not really going to critique the Book of Mormon, just going to deconstrcut one possible way to understand a few passages. My hermenutical skills are weak.