Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Factophobia
Message-ID: <7800718@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Nov-85 14:27:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800718
Posted: Sat Nov 23 14:27:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 22:07:45 EST
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #N:inmet:7800718:000:800
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 23 14:27:00 1985


One of my opponents has recently made a contribution to logic  by
inventing  a useful term: namely, "implied non-sequitur". This is
paradoxical: non-sequitur means a conclusion that does not follow
from premise. "Implied* means that it does.

It goes like this: you give him a bare fact,  no  conclusion.  He
draws  a  conclusion himself, and does not like it, because it is
politically incorrect. He decides the conclusion must be  a  non-
sequitur.  He  wants to blame you as the cause of it all, but you
didn't draw the conclusion !  Hence,  it  becomes  "implied  non-
sequitur".

This invention allows one to reject *facts*, not as being factu-
ally wrong, but as liable to lead weak brethren to bad conclusions.

This has always been done, to be sure, but now it has a name.

			Jan Wasilewsky