In a message dated 9/3/2004 1:06:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: This is not fallacious reasoning; it is, as far as I can see, an example of someone's changing his mind. And when people change their minds, their present views are surely different from their former views, by definition. There would be no inconsistency between believing at one time that Smith was guilty and then coming to believe that he wasn't; what would be inconsistent would be to believe that he was ceteris paribus guilty and not guilty. ----- I agree. Note that however mind-changing can provoke a lot of fallacious reasoning. e.g. Adam K: People who are dead are at peace. Geary intervenes: What are you talking about? Never heard the phrase. Adam K. qualifies ('changes' his mind) People who are dead are not really at peace. ----- The idea is that in a chain of reasoning, the same premises are held by the individual. So if B decides not to cut down the tree, and then concludes that he does cut down the tree, it _is_ slightly fallacious -- in the sense that B's first 'practical' reasoning _fail_ to give the desired consequence, and a second consequence (or conclusion) was adopted. Or consider "7 + 5 = 12" is analytic (Kant, Kr. R. V., II, section 45) But "12 = 7 + 5" is _not_ analytic (Kant, Kr. R. V., II, section 46 -- footnote to 2nd edition. ----------------------------------------------------- Therefore, "7 + 5" is analytic and it is not analytic. It's intersting that the idiom is "change the mind" while it should be a _partial_ change in the mind (one generally does not abandon _all_ ideas constituting the 'mind'). It's also redundant that people say, "I changed _my_ mind" -- while they use "the" in "the mind boggles"). I suppose the implicature is that they can always change other people's minds... Cheers, JL ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html