# What is the "no true Scotsman" argument"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 1, 2005, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-no-true-scotsman-argument/328895 "2005-11-01T13:05:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-no-true-scotsman-argument/328895/1 "2005-11-01T13:05:05Z")
I seen this ‘no true Scotsman’ argument/inference/metaphor referenced several times in GD lately, and it’s not overtly obvious (to me) what the nature of this argument is. Please 'splain me. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-no-true-scotsman-argument/328895/2 "2005-11-01T13:12:10Z")
Person A says that Scotsmen never eat sugar on their porridge Person B argues that he knows a man called Angus, who is Scottish and eats his porridge with sugar. Person A now argues that Angus is not really a Scotsman because No _true_ Scotsman would eat his porridge with sugar. In other words, the category described by person A (i.e. ‘Scotsmen’) is redefined at his whim, specifically to exclude data points that are inconvenient to his argument. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-no-true-scotsman-argument/328895/3 "2005-11-01T13:16:22Z")
(I think it is a particular case of [Fallacy of Exclusion](http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm) ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-no-true-scotsman-argument/328895/4 "2005-11-01T13:51:39Z")
Mangetout gave the precise definition. Now I’ll try to provide the context in which the phrase “No true Scotsman” is likely to be used. No matter what groups we belong to or what ideologies we believe in, it’s an unfortunate fact of life that SOME of the people on our side are going to be horrible, repulsive people. People we don’t WANT to be associated with. We Catholics like to believe we stand for goodness, kindness, virtue and mercy. Hence, we don’t like to be reminded of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition. Atheists like to believe they’re cool, dispassionate, objective rationalists, and are driven by nothing but logic and reason. Hence, they’re embarrassed by shrill shrewish harpies like Madalyn Murray O’Hair (who was anything but rational) or Troffim Lysenko, who falfified scientific facts to suit his bosses’ ideology. Communists like to believe they stand for a better future, one in which all working men and women will live together in peace and harmony. Hence, they really hate being reminded of thetens of millions of innocent people murdered by Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung We Republicans like to believe we stand for fiscal responsibility, so we don’t like being reminded of the huge deficits the current President and Congress have built up. And so on and so on and so on. We ALL have people in our groups who embarras us, and hence, it’s VERY trempting to say, “Well, he’s not REALLY one of us!” Catholics will try to say, “Torquemada wasn’t a REAL Christian.” Communists will try to say, “Well, Chairman Mao wasn’t a PURE Marxist.” Get the idea? When we don’t like someone who clearly belongs to our group, we often try to re-write the definitions of our groups to exclude the people we disapprove of. So… suppose a poster in the SDMB says, “Women are more peace-loving than men. Women are nurturers. If women were the leaders of the world, there’d be no more wars.” At that point, some cynic might say, “What about Golda Meir? What about Margaret Thatcher? What about Indira Gandhi? They all took their countries to war?” The OP might very well reply (as I’ve heard other feminists do- eriously!), “Well, THEY came to power in male-dominated systems, so they weren’t REALLY women.” At that point the cynic will smirk, and say “No true Scotsman…” ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-no-true-scotsman-argument/328895/5 "2005-11-01T14:58:30Z")
Perhaps the actual argument was “No [Trews](http://www.tartanweb.com/trews.php) Scotsman,” meaning that no real Scot would wear trousers? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-no-true-scotsman-argument/328895/6 "2005-11-01T15:03:56Z")
No true Doper would ever use a “No true Scotsman” argument! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-no-true-scotsman-argument/328895/7 "2005-11-01T15:17:35Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > No true Doper would ever use a “No true Scotsman” argument! 😉 But **Polycarp/** is a Doper, and he… 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-no-true-scotsman-argument/328895/8 "2005-11-01T15:19:17Z")
…can code, for a start :smack: