Steelman
No true Scotsman
Also called appeal to purity, ad hoc rescue.
Dismissing a counterexample by redefining the group: “no TRUE member would do that”.
What it is
Protecting a generalization from a counterexample by changing the definition of the group, typically by adding “true”, “real” or “genuine”, so the counterexample is ruled out by definition instead of being addressed.
The pattern
All X are Y. Here is an X that isn’t Y. Then it’s not a true X.
An example
A: “No gamer would ever cheat.”
B: “A pro player was banned for cheating last week.” A: “Well, no real gamer would cheat.”
“Real gamer” was invented on the spot to exclude the counterexample. The claim now can’t be tested.
Why it fails
The original claim was about real-world Xs and could be checked. The rescued claim (“all true Xs are Y”) is true by definition, so it no longer says anything that could turn out false.
When it’s not a fallacy
Most lists skip this part. Calling a fair point a fallacy is a mistake too.
It can be fair when
- There’s a clear, prior, non-arbitrary definition that the case genuinely fails. “No true vegetarian eats beef” is fine: eating beef is exactly what the word excludes.
Try one
A question from the app. The wrong answers are its usual look-alikes.
Book club. Erin: “Anyone who’s actually read the book likes it more than the movie. Every time.” Luis: “My mom has read Jaws three times and still says the movie’s better.” Erin: “Then she skimmed it three times. Anyone who sits with that book sees everything the movie threw away.” Luis: “I’m telling her you said that at Thanksgiving.” Erin: “Go ahead. She can bring the book. I’ll bring pie.”
What’s the flaw?
Luis’s mom is a clear counterexample to “anyone who’s read the book.” Erin doesn’t adjust her claim; she decides his mom can’t have read it properly, which makes the claim impossible to test.
A fair reply
“She’s read it three times, so maybe the claim is that most readers prefer the book.”
Often confused with
- Moving the goalposts
Moving the goalposts raises the standard of evidence. No True Scotsman redefines the group itself.
- Special pleading
Special pleading exempts a favored case from a rule. No True Scotsman removes an unfavorable case from a group.
Where the name comes from
The name comes from Antony Flew’s example: a Scotsman reads about a shocking crime and says no Scot would do such a thing. Then he reads about a Scot who did worse, and instead of changing his mind, he adds a word: “No true Scotsman would.” “Appeal to purity” points at that added word. “Ad hoc” is Latin for “for this”: a rescue made up for this one case.
Named by the philosopher Antony Flew. He described the move in God & Philosophy (1966) and told the story of the Scotsman who insists “no true Scotsman would do such a thing” in Thinking About Thinking (1975).
Sources
- No true Scotsman, Wikipedia
- Fallacies, Bradley Dowden, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In the app
Practice spotting it on arguments that sound real.
Steelman has more examples of no true Scotsman, how to answer it in a real conversation, and practice rounds that mix it with its look-alikes, so you learn the difference, not just the name. Coming soon to iPhone and Android.
You’re on the list.
We’ll email you the day Steelman is out.
Thanks for offering to test. We’ll write before the beta with how to join.