3 ms·

Maybe that's what religion is to you. Will you honestly claim that's the focus for the majority of, say, the 65% of US adults that are religious? I guess huge c

Maybe that's what religion is to you. Will you honestly claim that's the focus for the majority of, say, the 65% of US adults that are religious? I guess huge congregations of religious believers that live their lives around heaven/hell, scripture, and infallible divine authorities aren't serious? "any serious practicing believer" is so plainly a No True Scotsman qualifier.

nickff 5y ago
The parent did not make the 'no true scotsman' informal fallacy, as they restricted their definition (in their first post). You might have a good argument that this definition is unrealistic, but it is not plainly fallacious. Not every argument which you disagree with contains a logical fallacy.
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  I wasn't accusing them of a logical fallacy, I said they used a "No True Scotsman qualifier". Inventing a vague No True Scotsman qualifier is pretty rich if you're accusing the article of being naive and lecturing about what religion is apparently truly about.
  - nickff 5y ago
    "No True Scotsman" refers to a informal fallacy [1]; using an absurdly narrow qualifier may be unreasonable, but is a totally different matter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    - themacguffinman 5y ago
      I wouldn't know if "serious practitioner" is an absurdly narrow qualifier because it's vague and slippery. "What's that, your church doesn't do any of that? Well, that's because they're not serious practitioners". Granted, the GP didn't actually respond with that (AFAICT they haven't responded at all) which is why I agree that it's not quite the "No True Scotsman fallacy", but that is precisely the weasel wording that sets one up. Hence, a No True Scotsman qualifier, a qualifier that preempts any counterexample to this elaborate description of what religion is really about. Restricting a definition doesn't eliminate a No True Scotsman, that has nothing to do with it. The foundation of No True Scotsman is a vague and slippery definition. Just like no true Scotsman can disagree with my theoretical description of what Scots do, no serious practitioner can disagree with GP's description of religion. It's about falsifiability.
      - nickff 5y ago
        "No True Scotsman" is usually (as in Wikipedia) defined as initially providing a very broad statement, then qualifying it narrowly when the statement is demonstrated to be false. The top-level commenter (TLC) did nothing of the sort. The TLC didn't use "weasel wording" either, which are vague and unverifiable statements. On the contrary, the TLC was very specific, perhaps unreasonably so.
        themacguffinman 5y ago
        "serious practitioner" is not specific or verifiable in the slightest. I suppose there's not much more to be said if we can't agree on that.

nickff 5y ago

The parent did not make the 'no true scotsman' informal fallacy, as they restricted their definition (in their first post). You might have a good argument that this definition is unrealistic, but it is not plainly fallacious. Not every argument which you disagree with contains a logical fallacy.

themacguffinman 5y ago
I wasn't accusing them of a logical fallacy, I said they used a "No True Scotsman qualifier". Inventing a vague No True Scotsman qualifier is pretty rich if you're accusing the article of being naive and lecturing about what religion is apparently truly about.
- nickff 5y ago
  "No True Scotsman" refers to a informal fallacy [1]; using an absurdly narrow qualifier may be unreasonable, but is a totally different matter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    I wouldn't know if "serious practitioner" is an absurdly narrow qualifier because it's vague and slippery. "What's that, your church doesn't do any of that? Well, that's because they're not serious practitioners". Granted, the GP didn't actually respond with that (AFAICT they haven't responded at all) which is why I agree that it's not quite the "No True Scotsman fallacy", but that is precisely the weasel wording that sets one up. Hence, a No True Scotsman qualifier, a qualifier that preempts any counterexample to this elaborate description of what religion is really about. Restricting a definition doesn't eliminate a No True Scotsman, that has nothing to do with it. The foundation of No True Scotsman is a vague and slippery definition. Just like no true Scotsman can disagree with my theoretical description of what Scots do, no serious practitioner can disagree with GP's description of religion. It's about falsifiability.
    - nickff 5y ago
      "No True Scotsman" is usually (as in Wikipedia) defined as initially providing a very broad statement, then qualifying it narrowly when the statement is demonstrated to be false. The top-level commenter (TLC) did nothing of the sort. The TLC didn't use "weasel wording" either, which are vague and unverifiable statements. On the contrary, the TLC was very specific, perhaps unreasonably so.
      - themacguffinman 5y ago
        "serious practitioner" is not specific or verifiable in the slightest. I suppose there's not much more to be said if we can't agree on that.