Re: Re: Re: law & economics & everything else... II

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 4:29 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:21978] Re: Re: law & economics & everything else...
II


The syllogism would involve the fallacy of division. It certainly
does not
follow that he is in steep decline.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

==================

Of course it does--involve the fod. It's whether the rest of the
essay supports the contention as to whether his influence *should*
be in steep decline.....................so that that the syllogism
could also support the claim that Posner is engaging in a
self-defeating form of rhetoric..............When will logicians
embrace irony?

Ian



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 4:41 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:21973] Re: law & economics & everything else... II


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>
> To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 8:49 AM
> Subject: [PEN-L:21962] law & economics & everything else...
>
>
>
> Cornering the Market in Chutzpah
>
> PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS: A Study of Decline, By Richard A. Posner,
> Harvard
> University Press: 408 pp., $29.95
>
> ===================
>
> Posner gets pomo'd:
>
> Richard Posner Proves His Case
> He's a public intellectual. He says public intellectuals are in
> steep decline. Can you complete the syllogism?
> Carol Polsgrove
>
> < http://www.prospect.org/ >
>