Episode 41: Fallacy Watch: No True Scotsman, Argument from Repetition, and "I'm Entitled to My Opinion"

April confesses to being a "big ol' nerd" while discussing three sneaky fallacies that sidestep evidence and shut down discourse.

Episode 41 Show Notes:

It's a study guide about the No True Scotsman fallacy! Hey, they're good for adults too: https://studylatam.com/no-true-scotsman-fallacy-in-philosophy/

Another good article about No True Scotsman: https://practicalpie.com/no-true-scotsman/

Rational Wiki is always a good go-to for fallacies: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

What's cognitive ease? Here you go: learning-mind.com/cognitive-ease/

Great article on the illusory truth effect: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/illusory-truth-effect

Patrick Stokes' article in The Conversation on why he's so tough on his philosophy students: https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Stephen Rainey's blog that discusses the concept of our "entitlement" to opinions: https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2019/03/entitlement/

*I have begun using ChatGPT to organize and outline my episodes--it does a great job clarifying my ideas. I still do the writing, though, so I can't say it saves a lot of time!

Transcript

Hi there, and welcome to episode 41 of Think It Through. Yep, it’s another fallacy watch episode, apparently I just love to talk about fallacies, plus there’s an unending supply of bad arguments out there, so I kinda feel like it’s my civic duty to point out why those arguments suck and what we can do to make our own discourse clear, logical, valid and/or strong. Today, we’re unpacking three fallacies that show up all the time in our everyday conversations, whether they’re online or face to face, at dinner tables, in classrooms, and, um, even in our own heads.
We'll talk about:

• The No True Scotsman fallacy, which is when someone alters the definition of a group to exclude certain things or people,
• The argument from repetition, which is where someone claims that something is true because it’s been constantly repeated,
• And something that you might not have even known was a fallacy, the common claim that “I’m entitled to my opinion.”

Now, it seems like those three things are not connected to each other, they’re just random fallacies, but they are indeed related to each other in the following ways: they deflect challenges to claims rather than answer them; they avoid engaging with actual evidence; and they mimic argument without participating in it. They’re all ways people protect their beliefs without having to defend them. So the more we recognize these fallacies when they occur, the better thinkers and listeners we will become. 

Are you ready to get smarter? Let’s do it!

II. Segment One: The No True Scotsman Fallacy 

We’ll start with the No True Scotsman fallacy. What a great name for a fallacy, right? It sounds like it was discovered by some guy in a kilt up in the Scottish highlands, but actually it has been attributed to the philosopher Anthony Flew, first discussed in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. Here’s the iconic example of this fallacy:

Harold: “No Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge.”
Clara: “But my uncle Angus is Scottish, and he puts sugar on his porridge!”
Harold: “Well, no true Scotsman would”.

So apparently Uncle Angus, very likely born and raised in Scotland, does not qualify as Scottish for the sole reason that he puts sugar on his porridge, and “real Scotsmen” don’t do that. The website Practical Psychology defines this fallacy as one that occurs when someone alters the definition of a group or term to exclude counterexamples, often to protect or defend a cherished belief or to invalidate opposing views. According to RationalWiki, it happens when someone makes a generalization about a group, then when they’re confronted with a clearly different example that doesn’t fit their generalization, they dismiss that example as not a part of the group by their particular definition. Here’s another example: Maybe you are concerned about the environment and have decided to volunteer for an organization that cleans up parks and trails. You’re out there working with a cleanup crew, and the conversation turns to how cars affect the environment. Someone says: “No person who really cares about the environment would drive a car.” You say: “Well I’m here, volunteering. I absolutely am an advocate for climate policy; but I really had no choice but to drive my car here.” That person says: “Well, obviously you don’t give a crap about the environment.” And they turn their back on you and ignore you for the rest of the day. Insulting and dismissive? Absolutely. That person gave a definition of what it means to care about the environment. You obviously DO care, but you present a counterexample because you drive a car. Then that person uses their definition to decide that you aren’t a part of the group that includes people who care about the environment. Do they have any evidence to support their claim that a person who drives a car cannot possibly care about the environment? No. They are conveniently protecting their claim from criticism and shutting down any further discussion.

Another term for this is the purity fallacy. It says that any counterexamples aren’t good enough, aren’t pure enough, to qualify for inclusion in the group, so they can be excluded. This fallacy tends to rear its unattractive head in a lot of online groups, especially those centered on fandoms or subcultures. Have you heard the term “Gatekeeping?” That’s totally the No True Scotsman fallacy in action. For instance:

Maybe you follow a Taylor Swift subreddit, but someone says you can’t possibly be a Swiftie if you haven’t listened to her country albums, and a lot of people agree and pile on to anyone who hasn’t listened to them. Or maybe you’re a runner who does it for fun and health reasons but are called out on a Facebook running page as “not a real runner” when you post your not-very-fast pace. And as a big ol’ nerd who loves all things Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, etc., I’m very aware of this tendency on fandom pages, and it really makes it difficult to have any online interaction that doesn’t devolve into crazy town. These pages are full of statements like “No real Star Wars fan likes the sequels” or “If you watch anything past Next Generation, don’t talk to me about Star Trek” or “Matt Smith was the last good Doctor Who and if you don’t think so, don’t post here.” 

Whether it’s politics, religion, or fandom, this fallacy is very much about purity, saying who is the “real” member of a group, but in reality it’s boundary-policing disguised as actual argument. Gatekeeping might pretend to protect the ideal “QUALITY” of a group, but frankly it’s more about protecting the egos of the people in that group.

Here’s the thing--Humans are not perfect. We often do not fit perfectly into a category. Instead of engaging with the nuances of life, the No True Scotsman fallacy tries to protect the identity or purity of a group. But real life is messy, and human behavior isn’t usually ideal. When you recognize that this is happening, that someone is being excluded because they are a counterexample that doesn’t fit a particular definition of a group, call it out. Ask for a definition of the group’s goals, as well as clear and consistent criteria for inclusion. Don’t stand for shifting, shifty definitions of who can and who can’t be included. We can be Scottish and put sugar on our porridge; we can care about the environment and still drive a car; we can be a Swiftie without listening to all her albums; we can run really slow and still be a runner; we can like everything Star Wars, including all the Disney stuff, we can love Star Trek: Discovery or Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor Who and still have a deep and abiding love for those franchises.

III. Segment Two: The Argument from Repetition 

 Next up is the argument from repetition, also called argumentum ad nauseam. That’s also a great name for a fallacy; hearing the same thing over and over again can make you a little queasy.

To put it simply, this fallacy revolves around the idea that if you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it’s true — regardless of whether it is or not. And guess what? People DO tend to believe things they’ve heard repeatedly, even if no evidence is ever presented to back it up. No evidence. Just repetition. And it works. Why? Because of cognitive ease. According to an article about this topic on the Learning Mind Website, it has to do with the ease with which our minds process information. — the more we hear something, the more familiar it feels. And the more familiar it feels, the easier it is for us to believe. This leads to something called the illusory truth effect. The Decision Lab’s article “Why do we believe misinformation more easily when it’s repeated many times?” says that this effect is often so powerful that we can end up believing something that isn’t true even if we initially recognized it as false. So eventually, even if we know better, we equate frequency with correctness. Now, to be clear, repetition in and of itself isn’t necessarily a fallacy, in fact it’s the way we learn lots of things. It becomes a fallacy when there’s no evidence given, and simply the fact that you hear a claim repeatedly becomes the evidence that the claim is true. So you might end up making a bad financial decision because you believed inaccurate, but often repeated, financial advice. Or even though you didn’t start out thinking that face serums will make your wrinkles disappear, repeated watching of your favorite YouTube beauty influencers finally convinces you to spend 150 bucks on a half-ounce of something that promises eternal youth. This fallacy is consistently used in advertisement because it works, think about how often you see and hear the same message for a product or service. This is where the ad nauseum name is very apropos, because you can get pretty sick of hearing the same commercials repeated all day. But even though it is annoying, it’s still effective. It’s why you can repeat lots of different slogans from many familiar products and sing jingles from commercials that you remember from way back when you were a kid. And political propaganda, which I’ve discussed before, also relies heavily on the repetition of slogans that are catchy and easy to remember. Propagandists also make negative or outrageous claims about the opposition that don’t really have any legitimate evidence to back them up, and say them over and over again until everyone just takes for granted that the claim is true. And those messages are often amplified on social media platforms, thus gaining traction simply because users share and repost them online without checking to see if they are true, and creating a cycle of acceptance with absolutely no critical evaluation.
There are a couple of ways to avoid falling victim to this fallacy. Ask yourself: Have I seen evidence for this claim, or have I just heard it a lot and assume it to be the case? It’s ok to question the validity of a claim, especially if someone just drops it into the discussion like it’s a fact that everyone already agrees with. Ask for evidence. Seek out information from various reputable sources. And utilize fact-check sites like Snopes and FactCheck.org. This can go a long way to mitigate the effect of social media echo-chambers, especially if YOU don’t continue the cycle of sharing and reposting.

IV. Segment Three: “I’m Entitled to My Opinion” 

 Finally, let’s talk about one of the most common — and disarming — fallacies:
 “I’m entitled to my opinion.”

Of course, you are. And so am I. And having an opinion is not necessarily the problem.
 The problem comes when the phrase is used to shut down discussion. It confuses the right to hold an opinion with the right to have that opinion go unchallenged. Patrick Stokes, senior lecturer in Philosophy at Deakin University and author of the article “No you’re not entitled to your opinion”, says, “The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful.”

As in this example—let’s use Harold and Clara again:

Harold: “Vaccines cause autism.”
Clara: “That’s been debunked by extensive research.”
Harold: “Well, I’m entitled to my opinion.”

Yeah, Harold pretty much shut down that discussion by basically saying “Well I think my claim is true, and you can’t do anything about it.” He’s stating his opinion as if it is a fact. I mean, what are opinions anyway? They’re not facts—facts are statements that have been verified through observation and the use of evidence as being objectively true, and are largely accepted by most people because of those qualities. Opinions, on the other hand, have a degree of subjectivity or uncertainty to them; we can have opinions that range from personal tastes or preferences (like chocolate is the best ice cream flavor or country music is the best kind of music) all the way to opinions on issues of more concern like science, politics or social issues. And Patrick Stokes says that most of us recognize it would be silly to argue about ice cream flavors and musical genres (and we should probably just let other people have their opinions about those things because, do you really care what they think about them?). Unfortunately, this leads to a tendency to implicitly believe that opinions about more important things are equally unarguable.  This is where it gets tricky. Yes, you can believe what you want about important topics. But when those beliefs affect others — as they often do — you also have a responsibility to justify them with evidence and reasoning. Stephen Rainey, research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics, says, “If you are entitled to your opinion in some matter, it ought to be because you’re consistently committed to a rational story about that matter. Where you can’t produce the story, or if you produce a rationally iffy one, you may not be entitled to the opinion after all.” So an opinion on an important subject that is worth having is one that is grounded in rational thinking. Patrick Stokes says that being “entitled to an opinion” does not mean “entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth.” He tells his philosophy students that, once they walk into his classroom, they are no longer entitled to their opinions; they are only entitled to what they can argue for. He then spends the semester teaching them to construct and defend an argument, and, as he says, “to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.” 

While Clara can’t stop Harold from saying that vaccines cause autism, she certainly can ask that he provide good, solid evidence and reasoning to support that claim. Clara might say something like “Look, I’m open to hearing your reasons for seeing it differently. What kind of evidence do you have?” She’s not letting Harold shut down the conversation, but she’s also not being adversarial. If he does engage and offer some evidence and reasoning, then she can judge the quality of those things and offer counterarguments; but if he comes back with some further deflection, hopefully she’ll recognize that he’s not arguing in good faith.

V. Closing Thoughts 

 These three fallacies — No True Scotsman, argument from repetition, and “I’m entitled to my opinion” — are easy to fall victim to. Depending on the circumstances, they can actually sound reasonable. But when we slow down and examine them as I’ve done here, we can see they don’t hold up to scrutiny. They’re used to deflect and disengage, and they rely on sidestepping evidence to protect the arguer from having to defend their claims. And recognizing them is one more step toward clearer thinking. Asking for clarity, consistency, evidence, and reasoning from people during your discussions, as well as being clear, consistent, and providing good evidence and reasoning yourself, is a great way to avoid these fallacies in our everyday lives.

And that’s it for this episode. Don’t forget to check out the show notes. If you found today’s episode helpful, share it with someone you care about — and I hope you use the information here to help you think it through.