Great video. I have no clue what Dr. McClellan was thinking. I even emailed a philosopher to ask if McClellan was right and he confirmed I was correct. He even said the 'vegan analogy' was on point.
@ramadadiver7810
3 ай бұрын
I.P. quick question . Has Dan ever responded to any video you have made that involves citing scholars. Or is it always your shorts that don't include scholarly citations .
@endygonewild2899
3 ай бұрын
But Dan McClellan told me that it’s just when someone says “true”!
@euanthompson
3 ай бұрын
Dan: No valid argument can follow the format of the No True Scotsman fallacy Everyone else: Yes it can, they do all the time. Dan: yes, but no truely valid argument can follow the format of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
😂
@ramadadiver7810
3 ай бұрын
This deserves way more likes, bravo. 👍
@vedinthorn
3 ай бұрын
I was watching the original exchange in real time and was absolutely amazed that McClellan kept arguing back. Like...how did someone with such weak powers of deduction manage to get a PhD in the first place?
@darkblade4340
3 ай бұрын
Maybe his dissertation could be the subject of a popcorn review
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
Biblical Studies is a discipline where logic, reasoning, and critical thinking are no longer esteemed. It has become an interactive discipline where all you do is engage the secondary literature that came before you, regardless of whether your arguments make any actual sense.
@vedinthorn
3 ай бұрын
@@ancientegyptandthebible That very sadly explains...so...so very much.
@bobbymiller7242
3 ай бұрын
@@darkblade4340 A dissertation would perhaps be the worst thing to put someone through lol
@MatthewChenault
3 ай бұрын
6:41 In other words, if the general statement is a fundamental tenant of a group (I.e. a defining characteristic), then using the term “true [X]” is a valid counter because the original statement is a defining characteristic of that group.
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
It can be.
@coulie27
3 ай бұрын
Yep, all comes down to relevance, i.e. falsely defining a category to exclude certain people who otherwise qualify.
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
Pretty much. But it doesn't necessarily strictly applies to people. It can include other objects, sets, and classifications also.
@Testimony_Of_JTF
3 ай бұрын
It's impressive how many people don't know the distinction between informal and formal fallacies
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
True.
@Jasonasked1233
3 ай бұрын
11:35 This is what happens when you have a complete misunderstanding of deconstruction and power structures. You end up with cariacatures who believe that anything can mean anything and at the same time there is no essense to discuss. The problem with Dan isn't that he is wrong, it's that he is not even wrong. He is trying to impose a framework that has nothing to do with logical fallacies and then gets upset when he gets called out for it. Obviously identity gets fickle and blurs accross many cases; the problem is that it has nothing to do with the true scotman fallacy
@stephengray1344
3 ай бұрын
There is in fact a word that was coined specifically to describe people who are inconsistent in following a vegetarian or vegan diet. It's flexitarian.
@vedinthorn
3 ай бұрын
Hypocrite also works, as they are effectively wearing the mask of being vegan while actually not holding to it in their behavior. This is exactly like how Mormon theologians know good and well their religion is nothing like historic Christianity, but they insist on pretending that it is. The laity are another story entirely.
@ramadadiver7810
3 ай бұрын
@vedinthorn This is why I like jordon petersons' definition of ' belief ' He defines it as 'that which you act out or . The way you behave . Because usually someone's behaviour will let you know what they truly believe . Not much different to jesus tbh . True belief brings about good works
@michelferreira9695
3 ай бұрын
Perfect pace, clear explanations, on point sentences. It's amazing to watch. Great video.
@mariemilycraig
3 ай бұрын
Excellent! ✨
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
Thank you. ☺
@Yan_Alkovic
3 ай бұрын
Thank you for this clear breakdown! Didn't expect you to cover a specific video, but something told me it was gonna be this one in particular when I saw the thumbnail and topic. So strange to me how he dug his heels in when rebutted by Michael.
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
It wasn't just strange that he dug his heels in, but how he did that which was so strange. The whole waffling over that fluid identity was just bizarre. And all of that to justify that Christians had no right to define their religion, but Mormons somehow had a right to claim to be Christian. If Christians have no special claim to define the label and Christian identity is fluid and "Christian" has no specific meaning, why then would Mormons even want to claim such a meaningless term for their own? It doesn't make one whit of sense, unless there is indeed something special about the label worth appropriating. It was so self-refuting.
@Yan_Alkovic
3 ай бұрын
@@ancientegyptandthebible Indeed, indeed, and then there was the whole bit about how “it should be everyone who gets to decide on the definition”, as if a group cannot set criteria for people being included in it, or as if a group cannot just reject others’ definition of itself
@roerich1848
3 ай бұрын
Honestly though when McClellan said that words don’t have to have meaning he really just lost all credibility at that point. At that point anything he says is just random gibberish because his words don’t have a coherent meaning.
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
Yup. It's really just postmodern claptrap.
@darkblade4340
3 ай бұрын
Ya, in that response to IP, McClellan went as far as to explicitly deny that words have to have a coherent meaning. With his kind of illogic, one could probably claim that stating fundamental scientific or mathematical facts like “Eagles are not mammals” or “adding together two positive numbers results in a third number bigger than either of the initial two” is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Btw, is that pronunciation of the E in “vegan” standard in your area?
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
Vancouver has a unique accent all of its own.
@RaysTooBasic
3 ай бұрын
Oh man, this was good! Excellent video and explanation Dr. Falk
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
Thank you. 😊
@jameswitt108
3 ай бұрын
Thanks for the explanation.👍
@christiangadfly24
3 ай бұрын
If there are any other true scotsmen out there, give this comment a like!
@ramadadiver7810
3 ай бұрын
Im irish so the next best thing . Hello fellow celt
@christiangadfly24
3 ай бұрын
@@ramadadiver7810 Close enough! (My family is more from northern Ireland, but its ten miles from Scotland. My family name is Scottish.)
@ramadadiver7810
3 ай бұрын
@@christiangadfly24 Well I'm originally from Northern Ireland but have lived in the Republic most of my life
@ramadadiver7810
3 ай бұрын
@@christiangadfly24 My last name. Diver originates from the irish word dubh . Black or lacking colour lol . I have dark features and I'm very pale lol
@MichelleTurnz
3 ай бұрын
Have been enjoying this series
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
Thank you. We might do a logic month again next year. 😁
@sethcaro
3 ай бұрын
Mr. Mclellan presupposes that there's no actual boundaries to being a Christian; that it was man made by some to exclude the people that don't think the same as the they arbitrarily say a Christian is. (We Christian saying mormons are not Christians). Maybe I'm a medical doctor, specifically a surgeon, and no one can say I'm not, even if I cannot perform not even an appendectomy.
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
But that raises the question, if there are no actual boundaries to being a Christian (ergo being a "Christian" is meaningless), why would Mormons even want to claim a label that is meaningless? It's because Mormons want the respect and normality that comes with being Christian without the doctrinal distinctions that go with it. I too want the respect of being a "billionaire," even though my bank account would make a panhandler blush with embarrassment.
@exegeticalapologetics4970
3 ай бұрын
They weren't TRUE vegans in the garden of Eden! Awesome video. Thanks again! 😂
@euanthompson
3 ай бұрын
But Dan said words don't have to have meanings, so none of this means anything and he wins 😂
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
🤡
@ramadadiver7810
3 ай бұрын
Has anyone noticed Dan doesnt respond to I.P.s videos where scholars are cited for his arguments . Nor does he repond to someone like Dr Falk who is a scholar . The differmce between I.P. and Dan . I.p punches up and is willing to go toe to toe with a biblical scholar while dan punches down at least in his eyes against those who arent scholars . Probably the reason why Dan never made an argument against Michael heiser until after he passed away .
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
Why engage an argument when thinking is so hard and slander is so easy?
@ramadadiver7810
3 ай бұрын
@@ancientegyptandthebible It tends to be a tenant of his woke ideology . I'm happy you are giving him his just desserts after his failed character assassination attempt on you
@Makaneek5060
3 ай бұрын
John should have called out Bob's bad arguments more directly, they're really out of control.
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
That's because Bob did his degree in Biblical Studies instead of a more rigorous discipline. 😂
@ramadadiver7810
3 ай бұрын
Dan is sitting taking notes lol
@jaredgilmore3102
3 ай бұрын
I think the problem with this fallacy is that people who are already likely to use this fallacy couldn't possibly have the presence of mind to understand what it means to arbitrarily redefine a definition. Also arbitrarily is somewhat of a judgment call, i know there are times when its obvious something is arbitrary but most of the time arguments about this fallacy boil down to explaining to people who don't understand the definition of a word what the word is and why that definition isn't arbitrary because they themselves don't see why it matters, for example with atheists who don't actually care about what Christian means and don't understand why its not arbitrary to exclude from that definition those who don't believe in the trinity (which they also don't understand).
@tylerx099
3 ай бұрын
Dan’s philosophy video on IP’s no true Scotsman fallacy is a bunch of words and thoughts salads
@gaiusoctavius5935
3 ай бұрын
Why do you pronounce vegan that way?😂
@ancientegyptandthebible
3 ай бұрын
Because I am a Canadian from Vancouver. 😂
@endygonewild2899
3 ай бұрын
But Dan McClellan told me that it’s just when someone says “true”!
Пікірлер: 58