cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (09/11/86)
> 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
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (09/16/86)
In article <711@ihlpf.UUCP>, cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) writes: > 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. This definition is incorrect, since any statement whatever can be the conclusion of an invalid inference: take an arbitrary statement P. Then *not P, therefore P* is an invalid inference. Hence the statement P is a fallacy according to the definition. BTW, my edition of the AHD has no such definition. Peter Ladkin ladkin@kestrel.arpa