Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!seismo!gatech!akgua!akguf!akguc!codas!mtune!mtuxo!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpf!cher
From: cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Logic and Emotions
Message-ID: <711@ihlpf.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 14:13:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpf.711
Posted: Thu Sep 11 14:13:25 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Sep-86 05:25:11 EDT
References: <11700119@inmet> <11700343@inmet> <685@ihlpf.UUCP> <692@ihlpf.UUCP> <12154@kestrel.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 14

> Read my definition again. You're just repeating what was said before.
> You're right that this isn't a clarification.

I do not have your definition anymore, how about those: "fallacy is
a statement based on a false or invalid inference", and
"inference is a process of deriving a conclusion from facts or
premises". Pulled out of the American Heritage Dictionary.
Using these, I can not help but classify something like 
"this man is very repugnant, so his reasoning is bad" as a
fallacy.
Are you objecting against my use of word "logic" where "informal
reasoning" might have been more appropriate? Actually, I don't
think even the most pedantic view can totally invalidate that phrasing.
			Mike Cherepov