No True Scotsman Fallacy – “You Call That a True Scotsman?”

🧠 What Is the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy?

The No True Scotsman Fallacy is a type of circular reasoning where someone tries to protect a universal claim by changing the definition of a group to exclude counterexamples—instead of accepting that their claim might be wrong.

🎩 Where the Name Comes From

The name comes from a classic example:

Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person B: “But my uncle Angus is Scottish and he puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person A: “Well, no true Scotsman does that.”

Here, instead of revising the original statement, Person A redefines what it means to be a "true" Scotsman to avoid contradiction.

🧪 Real-Life Example

Claim: “No real scientist doubts climate change.”
Response: “But Dr. X is a scientist and he’s skeptical.”
Rebuttal: “Well, no true scientist would doubt it.”

Rather than acknowledging the counterexample, the person moves the goalposts by redefining what counts as a “real” scientist.

🚨 Why It’s Misleading

This fallacy is dangerous because it protects beliefs from criticism by making them unfalsifiable. If you can redefine terms every time you're challenged, you're no longer engaging in honest debate—you're just defending a belief at all costs.

✅ How to Avoid It

• Be open to counterexamples that challenge your generalizations.
  
• Avoid redefining a category just to protect your argument.
  
• Focus on evidence and reasoning, not identity labels like “true,” “real,” or “authentic.”