:he ~ar , " mr- )tions l c/o ;on, ,ter Ie ,ter, pose: I con- :er- I, and :nge lasic Ictices Iture .ude: :en- .ntel- :ive rill lfor- ms bi- , s- cy als, as n nted d e- under- ent ceive, etch r ute ISSN 0226-1448 1 infornial logic neweletter neweletter neweletter neweletter vol. ii, no. 3 eds., J. Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson June, 1980 [contents from the ARTICLE d-t Ignoratio Elenchi: The -...::~ __ .... -~":'"':'~, lars Red Herring Fallacy Douglas N. Walton •••••••.••••• University of Y4indSOl RESPONSES nore on Deductive and Inductive Arguments Trudy Govier •..••••••••••••• • • • • • • 7 AUG 8 1980 Deductive and Inductive: Types of Validity, Not Types of Argument David Hitchcock •••.••••••••• 9 Library PUZZLE, ILN i.2: A solution Jan Narveson •••.•...•••...••••••••• 11 TEACHING INFORMAL LOGIC Reading Comprehension Test •..••••••••• 11 The BASK program ••••.•••••.••••••••.•• 16 Exercise in Argument Construction •••.• 18 How To Get CBS Material .•••••••••••••• 18 Logic Survey Results ••.•.••••.••..•••• 19 CONFERENCE NOTICE •••.••.•..•...•••••.•••• 20 BOOKS RECEIVED ....•.•...•••••.••••••.•••• 20 Subscriptions: $4 to individuals, $8 to institutions, annually, payable to: Informal Logic Newsletter. All subscriptions begin with the early Fall number; late subscribers receive the year's back issues. Otherwise, back issues are $1.50 each, $5 per complete volume to individuals; and $2.50 each, $9 per complete volume to institutions. published a minimum of three times a year, normally in early Fall, early Winter and Spring, with supplementary issues appearing from time to time. Published by the editors. Address: Subscription and advertising communications to: Professor Peter F. Wilkinson, Managing Editor-- Manuscripts and other editorial communications to: The Editors--Informal Logic Newsletter, Department of Philosophy, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P 4. Ie king back, ahead With the mailing of this combined issue (ii. 3/Suppl.), The Informal uklgi\ Newsletter COl pletes its second year of p ~ca ion. In- deed, it was just two years ago that the symposium on Informal Logic, which provided the impetus for the Newsletter, was held at the University of Windsor. Our readers will, we trust, be pleased to learn that the pro- ceedings of that symposium have just been published under the title: Informal Loaic: The First International Symposium (for etails, see insidel. As we look back on these first two years, the editors are pleased with the growth of ILN and the support it has enjoyed. The NeWsletter is solvent (no small achievement in these days of rising costs} and has been generally well-received. OUr list of sub- scribers has grown to some 200 individuals and institutions scattered throughout Canada, the united States, Europe, and even Asia (we had a letter of inquiry from someone in the people's Republic of China). The format has undergone several changes, all designed to make ILN more attractive visually. To judge by readers' reactions, we think we've suc- ceeded in that respect. Publication dates have been somewhat irregular, we must con- fess, causing some subscribers to wonder whether they'd been forgottenl They hadn't been; we were just a bit slow getting down to cases. This year also witnessed the intro- duction of two new features: articles and critical reviews. The response, particularly to the articles, has been excellent (~re on that below), and we hope to continue to ex- pand these features in the years to come. On the whole, then, we believe that the News- letter has helped to promote the development of informal logic as an important and worthy enterprise and to that extent begun to real- ize the goal we had in mind when we began publication. As we look to the future, we hope to be able to continue publication of challenging articles on topics of interest to our readers and to follow the dialectic wherever it may lead. We plan more critical reviews of the burgeoning number of texts in this area and hope that we can count on our readers to sub- mit such reviews for publication. Next year, we plan to publish an updated list of people doing research in this area, as well as an update of the bibliography we did for the Windsor Symposium. As well, we will continue to circulate information about conferences, related areas of inquiry, and matters of interest to our subscribers., One final point. If the growth of informal logic is to continue, if informal logic is to become an ever more vital area of inquiry and research, then it is crucial that those in- volved in this enterprise address themselves to important conceptual· and theoretical is- sues. On this point, we can not do better than to quote the words which the author of a recent text wrote to us: "Like more and more people nowadays, I've come to regard informal logic as a research field, not just a body of received or trivial doctrine to be taught to undergraduates. " Others have seconded that thought. It is our hope that the Newsletter will be a prominent forum for the pUbiication of such research and the development of new ideas. this issue with the publication of Perry Weddle's article, "Inductive, Deductive," CILN, ii.l}, we apparently struck a nerve. In the last is sue Ci1. 2) Sam Fobr presented his arguments on behalf of retaining the distinction. In this issue, Trudy Govier responds to Fobr's piece, while David Hitchcock presents his own arguments for preserving the distinction. It seems clear that this is a topic about which a number of our readers have strong views. Although we do not intend to prolong the de- bate unduly, neither do we intend to cut it off before it has reached fruition. Indeed, when one thin~;s of the cardinal role that the inductive-deductive distinction has played in the development of contemporary logic, and the ramifications of that prominence, it seems clear that the time has come for measured and sustained reflection. That, at any rate, has been our aim in publishing Weddle's article and the responses. In addition to the other material in this issue, we have added an Example Supplement, so that our readers may have this material in hand as they plan their courses for next year. 2 acknowledgements Even so modest an enterprise as this News- letter depends upon the behind-the-scenes help of several people. These people have hitherto been unacknowledged, and it is a pleasure now to correct this oversight. Mrs. Violet Smith finds herself inundated with Newsletter manuscripts, conference re- ports, books-received lists, and a dozen other odds and ends--out of the blue, a week or two before the Newsletter is scheduled in the arbitrary minds of the editors, to' appear. We ask her to set everything else aside to type and retype material las we change ~ur minds about itl, to stand ready to type last- minute insertions. We do this with the "hurry up and rush" impatience of procrastinators who have sud~enly made a belated decision to act. In the face of this sort of unreason- able pressure, Vi Smith responds with un- failing courtesy, unbelievable patience, and unmatchable accuracy. To her we owe the greatest debt of gratitude. To our Managing Editor, our colleague Prof. Peter Wilkinson, we owe great thanks for-- taking on the tedious but crucial task of keeping in touch with subscriptions, corres- ponding with subscribers, watching expenses, overseeing distribution, and as Head of our Department, directing the resources of the staff to our support. We thank Mrs. Irene Antara, our Department Secretary, for pitching ~n to help with ad- dress labels and envelope stuffing, as well as numerous miscellaneous tasks we ask her to do in connection with the Newsletter through- out the year. And finally, though far from least, we thank our wives--June and Maggie--for tolerating and in the end forgiving us for the time and patience we take from our families, especial- ly during the fortnight or so during which the Newsletter is assembled and pasted up thrice or more each year. To the extent that our readers welcome the Newsletter, these debts of gratitude fall upon you as well. On your behalf as well as our own, therefore, we thank all these good people who share in its production. s~ecial thanks for assistance in the produc- t~on and distribution of this issue of ILN to: Violet Smith, Irene Antaya, Peter F. WiIKrn- son, Robert C. Pinto. II E 1= F tJ: rna of ac iiU at: wi aF aJ en aJ: di Hl' he pI tc tt ac hi fe pI i~ aJ fi pI tE ql oj PE fe cc at cj sr YE tj aI CJ e\ ae Si e, se oj tl Ul