Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!oliveb!glacier!kestrel!ladkin
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: what is a fallacy?
Message-ID: <12880@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 17:53:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: kestrel.12880
Posted: Fri Sep 26 17:53:01 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:52:49 EDT
References: <685@ihlpf.UUCP> <692@ihlpf.UUCP> <12466@kestrel.ARPA> <737@ihlpf.UUCP>
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 26

In article <737@ihlpf.UUCP>, cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) writes:
> > 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.

It's gone. If you don't remember what you said, why should I?
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.

Your posting now suggests that you have a different idea in mind.
Why not just use the definition I gave? 

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.

Peter Ladkin
ladkin@kestrel.arpa