Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!unisoft!dual!ptsfa!qantel!ihnp4!ihlpf!cher
From: cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: what is a fallacy?
Message-ID: <737@ihlpf.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 22:22:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpf.737
Posted: Wed Sep 24 22:22:03 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:42:58 EDT
References: <685@ihlpf.UUCP> <692@ihlpf.UUCP> <12466@kestrel.ARPA> <940@sunybcs.UUCP> <12687@kestrel.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 16

> c) Cherepov gave a definition of `fallacy' in a later article
> from which it was trivial to prove that any statement whatever
> is a fallacy. He's thus clearly wrong.

Our machine was not getting any of this good stuff past few days.
I would like to see which definition you have in mind, as well
as your trivial proof.
This definition of fallacy is pulled out of the American
Heritage dictionary. It goes like this:
 fallacy - ...; incorrectness of reasoning or belief;...
Use of, say, ad hominem, can be called incorrectness in reasoning, NO???

I would like to know whether Peter Ladkin is opposed to the AH
dictionary's definitions, or to my usage thereof heretofore thusly
and suchly??
	Mike Cherepov