colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (09/17/86)
I tried to mediate this argument by posting an explanation to net.philosophy, but that group seems to be on its deathbed. Here it is again: > > Well, appeal to emotions is considered a fallacy in logic. > > Logic has to do with the drawing of true conclusions from > true premisses, and the kind of inferences that license this. > A fallacy is the use of a non-valid inference (one that does > not guarantee the truth of a conclusion given the truth of > the premisses) to infer the truth of a conclusion from the > truth of some premisses. > Given this, can anyone explain what the above quoted sentence > is supposed to mean? You two were obviously trained differently. Mathematicians and formal logicians use "fallacy" in the above, restricted sense. "Classical" logic, as it was taught years ago in colleges (and perhaps is still taught in some of them) studied what might be called fallacies of argument, as distinguished from fallacies of reasoning. The argument _ad hominem_ is probably the best known example of a fallacy of argument. See any 1930's college text on philosophical logic for a list of other such fallacies. Now, I hope that neither of you will start to argue that your definition is the "right" one! Both definitions are useful, in their places. "My opponent is a 3 and a 6." --Lafferty -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@sunyabvc
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (09/23/86)
In article <940@sunybcs.UUCP>, colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: > I tried to mediate this argument by posting an explanation to net.philosophy, > but that group seems to be on its deathbed. Here it is again: Colonel, you really ought to republish the replies, too. a) There is no argument b) I don't think you have accurately thought out what a fallacy is, and when you do, you should end up agreeing with the definition I included. 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. And may I also suggest you not be condescending twice? Once was enough. Thanks. Peter Ladkin ladkin@kestrel.arpa
cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (09/25/86)
> 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
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (09/27/86)
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
cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (09/29/86)
> 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
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (10/02/86)
In article <746@ihlpf.UUCP>, cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) writes: > As for definition: it is just *incorrectness in reasoning*. I'm glad we agree on the definition. > 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. I can see that insolence is your forte. I am less convinced that you value either consistency or care in your postings. Peter Ladkin ladkin@kestrel.arpa