Which fallacy involves dismissing a contradiction on the basis that it is not considered true?

Which fallacy involves dismissing a contradiction on the basis that it is not considered true?

• A. No true Scotsman Fallacy
• B. Straw man fallacy
• C. Anecdotal Evidence
• D. Tu quoque

Answer: (A)

The No True Scotsman fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a counterexample to a general claim by redefining the criteria of the group or category in question to exclude the counterexample. This fallacy is characterized by the refusal to acknowledge evidence that contradicts a broad claim by asserting that the evidence does not represent the true members of that group. For example, if someone claims that “no Scotsman would commit a crime,” and when presented with evidence of a Scotsman who has committed a crime, they respond by saying, “Well, no true Scotsman would do such a thing,” they are effectively dismissing the contradiction without addressing the validity of the counterexample. This shifts the goalposts rather than engaging with the evidence presented, leading to a flawed argument. Understanding this fallacy highlights the importance of maintaining consistent definitions and engaging with evidence rather than altering the criteria to suit one’s claims.

The No True Scotsman fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a counterexample to a general claim by redefining the criteria of the group or category in question to exclude the counterexample. This fallacy is characterized by the refusal to acknowledge evidence that contradicts a broad claim by asserting that the evidence does not represent the true members of that group.

For example, if someone claims that “no Scotsman would commit a crime,” and when presented with evidence of a Scotsman who has committed a crime, they respond by saying, “Well, no true Scotsman would do such a thing,” they are effectively dismissing the contradiction without addressing the validity of the counterexample. This shifts the goalposts rather than engaging with the evidence presented, leading to a flawed argument.

Understanding this fallacy highlights the importance of maintaining consistent definitions and engaging with evidence rather than altering the criteria to suit one’s claims.