ï»żHey, whatâs up guys!
Letâs start with a quick review from the podcast. And by the way, you know why I read these reviews each week? Itâs b/c i hope that it makes you want to leave a review, too! Lol! Seriously! Thatâs why I do it. SoâŠleave a review for the podcast? *wink wink*
This review is super short, and itâs from one of my friends from Crossfit (and yes, I do crossfit, even though I donât look like it!) Their review says this: âGreat speaking voice.â And thatâs it! Thanks! Honestly, I hear this a lot - people have commented that they like my podcasting voice and Iâm surprised every time. I had been told by someone a long time ago that they thought my voice was annoying and I talk too fast, and I guess that criticism has stuck with me. When I started this podcast I was a little nervous specifically that people wouldnât like the sound of my voice, so Iâm always so pleasantly surprised when people comment that they like it! So anyways, thanks!
Ok, letâs dive into todayâs new fallacy, which is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. It goes like this: âScotsmen donât put cream in their teaâ âWell, Iâm a Scotsman and I like cream in my teaâ âWell, then youâre not a TRUE Scotsmanâ. So the No True Scotsman fallacy is kind of like an appeal to purity. Itâs saying that if you do or donât do THIS then you must not REALLY be a part of a certain group or you must not REALLY be genuine.
In this fallacy, âScotsmanâ can be replaced with any other group.
Hereâs an example of what this fallacy sounds like, and Iâm purposely making it a little absurd so you can easily recognize it: âA real woman would never let her husband cook.â âWell, my husband cooks all the timeâ âThen youâre clearly not a real woman.â Ridiculous, right?
Another example could be this: âAll scientists know that evolution is true.â âActually, there is a whole group of scientists who donât believe it to be true.â âWell, theyâre not REAL scientists if they donât believe in evolution; theyâre religious nutcases pretending to be scientists.â Do you see the fallacy there? Rather than admitting that scientists can hold more than one viewpoint on the theory of evolution, they instead claim that theyâre not ârealâ scientists.
The problem behind this fallacy is that the person making it refuses to go back and assess the flaws in their original belief when confronted with new evidence. Typically the original belief is based on an unrealistic âuniversal claimâ that everyone who belongs in a particular group shares a certain characteristic. When they are confronted with new evidence that goes against their âuniversal claimâ, they just find a way to deny the new evidence by saying itâs not âpure enoughâ. In my example, rather than changing their definition of what a âscientistâ is when faced with some who donât fit the definition, they disparage those scientists and claim theyâre not legitimate.
I actually had a friend tell me they were on the receiving end of this fallacy b/c of their political beliefs. My friend, who is an african-american was told, âyouâre not really black thenâ b/c they held a conservative viewpoint on a particular issue. Clearly, the person who told them this believed that in order to really âbe blackâ, you have to hold certain political viewpoints. And when my friend held a different viewpoint, rather than re-assessing their belief, they said that my friend must not âreally be blackâ. Thatâs just another example of what the No True Scotsman fallacy can look like.
The question to ask yourself if you think youâre facing a No True Scotsman fallacy is this: âAre they changing the definition to avoid having to acknowledge new evidence just b/c they donât like the new evidence?â ⊠*repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: âIs that really true?â
