from the editors 

As Informal Logic is behind in its 
publication we thought the best way to 
make up ground quickly I as well as to 
save some binding and mailing costs, 
would be to publish the remaining two 
numbers of Volume VII together as 
a double issue. That explains this 
package, which contains all the articles 
and other material that would have 
appeared in two separate issues. The 
only difference to readers: just one 
cover and table of contents. 

Volume VIII (1986) will be assembled 
and mailed out in the next six months-
it too is completely booked-and by 
Winter 1987 we hope to recommence 
our regular Winter/Spring/Fall pub-
lishing schedule. 

We are delighted to announce that 
Dr. Perry Weddle has agreed to join 
our Editorial Board. Professor Weddle, 
of the California State University at 
Sacramento, has been refereeing 
articles for this journal and advising 
the editors for many years. Many 
readers will know Professor Weddle as 
the founding editor of CT NEWS. His 
official listing on the Board corrects a 
long-standing oversight on our part. 

The lead article in this issue, "Edu-
cating Reason" by Harvey Siegel is 
a continuation of an article the first 
part of which was published last fall 
in the APA Newsletter on Teaching 
Critical Thinking. Because of the im-
portance of the issue he has raised-
the justification of critical thinking as 
an educational ideal-we thought that 
all of our readers would appreciate 
the chance to read Siegel's paper, even 
those who have not read the first half. 

In this combined issue, two themes 
receive special emphasis. First, there 
are three articles on the subject of 
missing premises-by David Hitch-
cock, J ames Gough and Christopher 
Tindale, and Michael Burke. Anyone 
who has experience teaching informal 

logic or critical thinking knows how 
thorny an issue identifying missing pre-
mises is. Here you will find three dif-
ferent views which should enrich the 
discussion. The other topic is the role of 
and the need for theory in informal 
logic, different views of which can be 
found in the articles by Doss and 
Weddle. We also welcome the timely 
article by Gibbs surveying the empirical 
research that has been done on testing 
critical thinking, and the article by 
J ames Freeman "Dialectical Situations 
and Argument Analysis." 

We continue in this issue with the 
publication of the papers delivered at 
the Second International Symposium 
on Informal Logic (J une, 1983). In this 
issue, the SISIL papers are: "Enthyme-
matic Arguments" by David Hitchcock. 
" 'Missing' or 'Hidden' Premises" by 
J ames Gough and Christopher Tindale, 
"Three Steps Toward a Theory of In-
formal Logic" by Seale Doss, and liOn 
Theory in Informal Logic" by Perry 
Weddle. For the record, it should be 
noted that the following articles pub-
lished in Volume VII, No.1 were also 
delivered at SISIL: "The Logic of Deep 
Disagreements" by Robert J. Fogelin, 
and "Background Logic, Critical 
Thinking and Irrational Language 
Games" by Richard Paul. 

"book review" policy 

We distinguish between the follow-
ing five types of treatment of text-
books, anthologies and monographs. 

1. list of Contents. Readers say it is 
helpful to have available the tables 
of contents of recent books as well as 
their titles. We will continue to publish 
these as space permits. 

2. Book Review. Short and succinct, 
the sort of book review we want to pub-
lish supplies complete and accurate 
information about the contents of the 
book in question. The reader will come 
away from it knowing what ground 



II 

the book covers (and, if it's pertinent, 
what is left out), having an inkling of 
the main arguments or approaches its 
author uses, and in general will receive 
enough information to decide whether 
the book is of interest. The reviewer 
may pass judgement, but should do 
so with an eye to serving the informa-
tional needs of the reader. 

3. Critical Notice. This is an article-
length critical evaluation of a recent 
work which has been judged by the 
editors to merit a thorough appraisal 
by someone particularly qualified to 
examine it. Critical notices will be by 
invitation only, although the editors 
are open to applications or nomina-
tions. 

4. Critical Review. The difference 
between a critical review and a critical 
notice is that critical review submis-
sions are welcome, and the standard 
refereeing policy of the journal will 
apply to them. Here too we look for an 
article-length critique, subjecting the 
main theses and arguments of the work 
to a balanced appraisal. 

5. Critical Discussion. Also a refer-
eed, article-length piece, a critical dis-
cussion differs from a critical review 
because its intent is not a complete, 
overall critique of the work. It might 
discuss only one aspect or section of a 
book; it might use a book as a reference 
point for wide-ranging cogitations; it 
might compare two or three (or more) 
related books; it might return to a book 
long-ago published. 

Yes, Ockham's razor should apply 
to classification schemes. Yet since 
interesting and important work in in-
formal logic is to be found in textbooks 
as well as in monographs, we want to 
encourage scholarly discussions of it 
all. We intend our classification of 
types of II review" to encourage such 
discussions. By assuring refereed 
treatment, we hope to assist those who 
want to do the serious scholarship 
such treatments of texts and treatises 
entails by giving their work credibility 

with Promotion and Tenure commit-
tees. 

While no book reviews appear in 
Volume VII, we intend to run book 
reviews, critical notices, critical re-
views, and critical discussions as 
regular features of future issues. As 
announced in Vol. VII, No. 1 in this 
column, Dr. Seale Doss of Ripon Col-
lege (Ripon, Wisconsin 54971, U.S.A.) 
has taken on the newly-created post of 
Associate Editor - Book Reviews. 
Please write or call Seale Doss if you 
have written a book review, critical 
review or critical discussion, or would 
like to do 50. Some have declared a 
reluctance to commit themselves to 
such essays for a journal that has been 
erratic in its publication schedule. We 
regret this consequence of our recent 
dilatory record, and hope those with 
critical reactions to texts and mono-
graphs in our field will submit their 
work as we resume a regular schedule. 

* * * 

Erratum 

In Volume VII, Number 1 (Winter 
1985), we inadvertantly published the 
prel iminary draft of Jonathan Adler's 
Open Forum piece, "Where are the 
limits to reconstruction?/I instead of the 
revised version. We apologize abjectly 
to Dr. Adler. While most of the changes 
were stylistic, anyone who would like 
to take issue with or build upon Dr. 
Adler's question should work from the 
revised version. Informal logic will 
supply gratis the revised version of 
Dr. Adler's paper to any and all who re-
quest it. 

We also apologize for a typographical 
error in Dr. Adler's article: on page 
61, in the paragraph in the right-hand 
column beginning, "SO the poem ... " 
the sixth sentence should end with the 
phrase, 1/ •• • truth of a proposition?/I