🧪 This platform is in early beta. Features may change and you might encounter bugs. We appreciate your patience!
no_true_scotsman
No True Scotsman is an ad hoc rescue of a universal claim by redefining the group in question to exclude counterexamples. When faced with evidence that contradicts a generalization, the arguer modifies the definition rather than accepting the falsification. It transforms an empirical claim into a tautology by making group membership contingent on the very property being asserted.
"No real programmer uses tabs for indentation." "But John uses tabs, and he's been coding for 20 years." "Well, no true programmer would do that -- he's just a hobbyist."
'No real conservative would ever support raising taxes.' 'But Senator Collins is a conservative and she voted for the tax increase.' 'Well, she's not a true conservative then — she's just a RINO.'
'No genuine fitness enthusiast skips leg day.' 'My friend Marcus is really into fitness and he focuses only on upper-body training.' 'Then he's obviously not a real fitness enthusiast — just a casual gym-goer.'
∀x(Scotsman(x) ⇒ P(x)); ¬P(a) ⇒ ¬TrueScotsman(a)
Binary (yes/no) questions an LLM must answer to identify this aspect:
Is a universal generalization made about a group?
Type: binaryWhen confronted with a counter-example, is the group definition altered to exclude it?
Type: binaryIs the redefinition ad hoc (created specifically to avoid falsification)?
Type: binaryNo True Scotsman is an ad hoc rescue of a universal claim by redefining the group in question to exclude counterexamples. When faced with evidence that contradicts a generalization, the arguer modifies the definition rather than accepting the falsification. It transforms an empirical claim into a tautology by making group membership contingent on the very property being asserted.
Redefining terms to preserve a claim feels like clarification rather than goalpost-moving. It exploits the vagueness of group boundaries and appeals to identity and in-group loyalty.
Pin down the definition before the argument begins. Point out that the definition is being changed after the fact specifically to avoid the counterexample.
Rampant in ideological gatekeeping: 'no real feminist/conservative/artist would...' Used in fan communities, political factions, and religious groups to maintain orthodoxy.
Drawing broad conclusions from limited, unrepresentative, or anecdotal evidence.
Reflex-like rejection of new evidence contradicting established norms.
The accident fallacy (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case whose circumstances make the rule inapplicable. The fallacy treats the general rule as absolute and exceptionless, ignoring the particular features of the case at hand that constitute a legitimate exception. It is the opposite of the converse accident (hasty generalisation), which moves from specific cases to general rules.
The overwhelming exception fallacy occurs when a generalisation is presented as meaningful or informative despite having so many exceptions that it is effectively vacuous. The rule may be technically true only in a narrow set of circumstances, yet it is invoked as though it captures a genuine regularity. This differs from the accident fallacy in that the problem is not misapplication to one case but the rule's fundamental inadequacy as a generalisation.
Use these tools to detect, analyze, or train this aspect.