--- Ken Hanly <khanly at mb.sympatico.ca> wrote: > Well what it shows is that
Habermas apparently has not studied logical
> fallacies such as poisoning the wells. Any evidence against his theory is
> rejected in advance since according to his theory it would exemplify the
> very conditions his theory proclaims as necessary.
This doesn't appear to be true on the face of it; any *argument* against his theory would be a performative contradiction, but there's much more to the world than arguments. In any case, I question that this "fallacy" of "poisoning the wells" is a fallacy; this weapon could easily be aimed at Marx, Kant and Hilary Putnam, all of whom have over time come up with arguments suggesting that this or that is a precondition of rational discourse.
Actually, look at it this way; how would I go about arguing that "poisoning the wells" is not a fallacy? My evidence above (the existence of Marx, Kant and Putnam) is poisoned because these three examples are all invalid due to their poisoning the wells! Which suggests that there must be something wrong with this objection.
dd
===== ... in countries which do not enjoy Mediterranean sunshine idleness is more difficult, and a great public propaganda will be required to inaugurate it. -- Bertrand Russell
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie