Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!ihlpf!cher
From: cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: what is a fallacy?
Message-ID: <746@ihlpf.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 14:37:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpf.746
Posted: Mon Sep 29 14:37:08 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 20:05:23 EDT
References: <685@ihlpf.UUCP> <692@ihlpf.UUCP> <12466@kestrel.ARPA> <737@ihlpf.UUCP> <12880@kestrel.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 19

> However, let me try: You mentioned that that a fallacy was
> a *statement that is a consequence of incorrect reasoning*,
> or some such. I pointed out that, for any statement P,
> *not P, therefore P* was invalid reasoning, hence P is a 
> fallacy according to your definition. I also noted that the
> definition you gave was not in my copy of AH.

My initial statement amounted to something like "'ad hominem' 
and suchlike are fallacies". You protested...
As for definition: it is just *incorrectness in reasoning*.

> Let's drop it. Most logic books have a definition of fallacious
> reasoning, and if you don't like those definitions, that's up to
> you.

OK. I just used a meaning of a word as it is listed in rather popular
dictionary (AH, 1982, Dell paperback), you chose to nitpick and
raise a big stink - I don't mind as long as I am not the target.
		Mike Cherepov