>I assume you put marketing, persuasion and trust in the "fraud" category.
Not if they are reasonable.
>> [4] By "fraud" I'm including fallacious arguments.
>
>Do you consider hypotheticals to be a form of "fraud"?
I don't know what you mean.
>What if the inconsistencies only occur under 12,000 lbs of atmospheric
>pressure? Or in a vacuum? Or at a sub-atomic or macro-cosmic level?
Logic isn't dependent on physical conditions. It holds for this and
all possible universes (in fact, that is what defines a possible universe).
>Just because water boils at 33 degrees in a vacuum doesn't mean it will in
>my kitchen. All such arguments on the list so far have this fatal
>flaw--they assume just because something is possible it will be prevalent.
>An un-glamorous error at best.
Either that or we're not talking about the same thing.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/