No True Scotsman Informal Fallacy

The no true Scotsman fallacy is an informal fallacy. A fallacy is an example of bad reasoning. Formal fallacies deal with the structure and form of an argument. Arguments that use informal fallacies may have logically valid structure, but they still represent bad habits for thinking.

The no true Scotsman fallacy takes its name from an example like the following:

1. No true Scotsman would put sugar in his tea.

2. Peter puts sugar in his tea.

3. Therefore, Peter is not a true Scotsman.

Again, notice how this argument follows a logically valid form (modus tollens)

1. If someone is a true Scotsman, then he does not put sugar in his tea (If P, then ~Q)

2. Peter puts sugar in his tea (Q)

3. Therefore, Petere is no true Scotsman (~P)

So what is problematic, or fallacious about this argument? The argument relies on a very narrow definition of what a ‘true Scotsman’ is. To show the problem, imagine the following exchange:

Bob: All Californians love Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Jay: But I hate Arnold and I am a Californian!

Bob: Well, you’re not a true Californian, then!

In the above exchange, Bob has not given reasons to support his claim (All Californians love the Schwarz). Rather, Bob attempts to argue just by narrowing the definition of the subject about which he is talking. He's not giving reasons to support his claims; he's just trying to make his claim more narrow to make it sound legitimate.   

This informal fallacy is relevant because we should ask if this is all that Frankfurt is doing when he responds that Van Inwagen isn't talking about 'real' free will.

Vocab from Van Inwagen

Free Will Thesis: Some human beings have free will. In other words, at least some humans have the power to (are able to) act otherwise than they do act.

Hard Determinism is the view that our actions are determined by external factors and that the truth of determinism is incompatible with free will. The hard determinist denies that there is any free will.

Soft Determinism is the view that our actions are determined by external factors but that the truth of determinism is compatible with free will. In other words, determinism and free will are compatible.

Libertarianism is the view that we do have free will and that free will in incompatible with determinism. In other words, the libertarian denies that determinism is true.

To say that a state of affairs obtains just means that some event or state happened. A state of affairs is a fact, or a situation that exists in the world. The phrase is just another way of saying that something happened.

Determinism and Music

Simon and Garfunkel's "Patterns" is a song that considers the possibility that our lives are controlled by structures and patterns that we cannot control.  Incompatiablism is the view that such a situation would be incompatible with moral responsibility.  In other words, if your life is controlled by factors beyond your own control, you cannot be morally responsible for anything.

PAP vs. PPP

Frankfurt's goal was to argue that determinism and moral responsibility are compatible.  He attempted to prove this by showing that PAP is false.  PAP is the principle that you are morally responsible for your actions only if you could have done otherwise.  PAP is a classic way of stating that incompatibalist thesis.  In other words, PAP means that moral responsibility and determinism are mutually exclusive.  By using thought experiments (Jones and Black) to show that PAP is false, Frankfurt attempted to defend the thesis of compatibalism: determinism and moral responsibility are compatible.

Van Inwagen thinks that Frankfurt has not successfully argued for the compatibalist thesis.  Van Inwagen thinks that PAP can be replaced with a better principle: PPP.  The Principle of Possible Prevention states that you are morally responsible for a state of affairs only if you could have prevented it from obtaining.  In other words, you are morally responsible for something only when you could have prevented that thing from happening.  PPP has the benefit that it cannot be proven false by thought experiments such as Jones and Black.

Unconscious Bias: Possibly Preventable?

Today in class, the question came up whether we are responsible for the biases we hold and the stereotypes we have about people.  In many cases, these things are unconscious or subconscious.  This might seem to create a problem for whether we can prevent these attitudes. 

Here is a link to the Harvard Implicit Association Tests.  These tests are meant to measure what you unconscious, or implicit, biases are.  By definition, an implicit bias is a bias you have that you are not even aware of.  We might think that acknowledging our own biases is necessary in order to prevent those biases.  Test yourself and see what biases you haven't prevented yourself from acquiring!

Free Life?

In Dan Wilson's "Free Life", he notes that 'we got these lives for free'. He also asks, "What you gonna spend your free life on?" Is he simply making a play on words or does he take it for granted that we are free? Also, as we read the Van Inwagen, it is further clarified that "free will" (according to the Free Will Thesis) simply means the ability to have acted other than you did act. What other definitions for "free will" are there?

Determinism: A Tralfamadorian Perspective

In Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse Five there is a race of aliens called the Tralfamadorians. Tralfamadorians do not experience time in a linear way (like we do). Tralfamadorians have access to each moment at all times. In this short youtube clip, Vonnegut explains the Tralfamadorian perspective on terrible things like war. I post this as a connection to other material. In this novel, there is a deterministic portrayal of the universe, and this does seem to absolve moral responsibility in certain ways.