from the editors 

In an effort to make maximum use of 
the pages avai lable to us, we've moved. 
Except on those occasions when we feel 
the need for greater space, this is whe-
re you'll find us from now on. 

Your editors have both been on the 
move in another sense, having travelled 
to Amsterdam last June for the First In 
ternational Conference on Argumenta-
tion. It was a magnificent experience. 
Some 400 scholars and researchers 
from all over the world gathered for 
four days of papers and discussion in 
fascinating surroundings. We were 
heartened to learn of the intense inte-
rest in informal logic in other countries. 
It became apparent to us that what we 
call informal logic shares much in com-
mon with what Europeans call Argu-
mentation-Theory. We left with the im-
pression that the future of informal lo-
gic is bright. Congratulations and 
thanks are due to Professor Frans van 
Eemeren and Dr. Rob Grootendorst for 
organizing this very successful interna-
tional event. 

Worth mentioning in the same con-
nection is the upcoming XVI 11th World 
Congress of Philosophy in Brighton, En-
gland, August 21-27, 1988. We already 
have learned that Professor Georg Bru-
tian, a member of the Department of 

Philosophy and Philology at Yarevan 
State University in the Armenian So-
viet Socialist Republic is organizing" A 
Round Table on Argumentation." It is 
our understanding that AILACT (The 
Association for Informal Logic and Cri-
tical Thinking) is also sponsoring a ses-
sion. We hope that many of our readers 
will make an effort to submit papers so 
that the area of informal logic will be 
well-represented on that occasion. 

In this issue we are happy to welcome 
the following contributors: Lenore 
Langsdorf, who brings the perspectives 
of phenomenology, critical theory and 
hermeneutics to bear on critical think-
ing in a thought-provoking way; Dilip 
Basu, our first contributor from India, 
with some new thoughts on an old falla-
cy--begging the question; John 
McMurtry, the eminent interpreter of 
Marx, who wishes to add a new fallacy 
to the roster; and John Hoaglund, no 
stranger to these pages, who has some 
thoughts about how class logic can be 
used in reasoning and problem solving. 
Andrew Lugg has a reply to Fogelin's 
position on deep disagreement, and 
Thomas Leddy argues that the fallacy of 
small sample is not necessary as a falla-
cy distinct from unrepresentative sam-
ple.