Reply #39: okay, so that's it ...

[Lisa]

I was only considering the syllogistic logic viewpoint (too much exposure to Logical Positivists?). And as you say, the problems with just relying on logic to get from premises to conclusions have become pretty evident. Both deduction and induction have problems, that's for sure.

I don't know enough (and am simply not smart enough) to frame many of these issues. Look at all the different meanings for "logic" we've seen in this subthread alone! It's a wonder humans can communicate at all.

I like the "empty claim" point you made, but maybe one reason why he considered all those appeals to emotion/fear/etc. in the first place might be the frequency with which they turn up! (Which in itself would be kind of an "ad populum" argument, if that's why he wanted to class them as actual fallacies.) But that's just my speculation. In any case I think he's referring to "informal logic", because I could actually read his work -- I tried the rigorously formal stuff some time back, and couldn't follow it at all!