a cut and paste definition from wikipedia and a few snips followed by > my comment....
In reasoning to argue a claim, a fallacy is reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect and that vitiates the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound. Regardless of their unsoundness, all registers and manners of speech can demonstrate fallacies.

I do not find that to be true.  On the contrary, I find posts by some on
this List who do not prescribe to logical discourse to be very difficult to
follow--and thus I generally skip over them unless they cite my name.

>Imho... then you are certainly missing a lot nuggets of evidence and sometime Forest Gump style wisdom. Certainly if you rely on logic to make decisions then you have ignored  a great majority of the evidence.  I was pointed away from this particular way of thinking long long ago by a VP of Ford Motor Co who I worked first for and a bit later with.  I think Peter's prior snip of the Einstein quote pretty much encapsulates my old bosses thinking.  Personally I will take a good idea from anyone.  

For example, in this case.  Gene here used a "straw man" fallacy that it
order to write logically, that one's writing would be so boring that it
would never be read other than by an academician.

>That is not what I said at all and I am not certain my comments would even fall into this particular classification?  Perhaps more clearly said if logic is your only route to persuasion (written or verbal) then your argument is likely to be pretty flat and of course you ignored  emotion and ethics as proper classic forms of RHETORIC.  Anyone that cuts two legs from a three legged stool is likely to fall on their face pretty quickly. I would also suggest in comparing the three logic is the weakest of the three form of classic persuasion.   

In fact, I go out of my way to write logically, and my articles are read by
many.  Thus, the evidence at hand does not support Gene's claim.

>In your mind I would guess so... but just because we ALL think we do that doesn't make the presumption true.  This I would think falls into the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance (nothing in the above statement can be actually show to be true).  And thus is full circle mode to the top of this and the definition from Wikipedia.

Gene in Central Texas.... 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html