No True Scotsman
Version 1.0.0 · Updated 2026-07-30
CORE DEFINITION
When a universal claim is refuted by a counterexample, instead of abandoning the claim, one excludes the counterexample by modifying the definition of the subject (adding 'true'). (A: 'Scotsmen don't put sugar in their porridge.' B: 'My uncle is Scottish and he puts sugar in his porridge.' A: 'Then he's not a true Scotsman.').
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
Definition maintenance. Beware of sophistry that continuously narrows definitions. When the other party starts modifying definitions to maintain their position, point out that they are breaking the rules.
Anchor fast decisions
When the universal claim 'all members of group X do Y' is refuted by a counterexample 'some X does not do Y', the defender does not abandon the claim but expels the counterexample from the group ('he is not a true X')—by retrospectively narrowing the definition to preserve the conclusion. This is a fallacy of evading falsification through definition change.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/2Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsmanverified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS