AN EYE FOR FALLACIES

New Zealand Listener, Volume 31, Issue 786, 13 August 1954, Page 5

AN EYE FOR FALLACIES

Sir,-Mr. O’Leary’s bag of "fallacies" Teminded me of an amusing cartoon that appeared some weeks ago in a Wellington paper. The cartoon depicted a suburban sportsman standing proudly before the fire on a dogskin mat, while the walls of the room were adorned with trophies labelled "panther," "chino," "elephant." "moose" and "bison," but all easily identifiable as the heads or skins of domestic animals. ethaps, as "a competent philosopher" (thanks, Mr. O’Leary!), I may be allowed to continue my educative work, this time as a ranger in the intellectual domain, and explain why Mr. O’Leary’s "fallacies" are harmless victims in a case of mistaken identity. First, I did not quote Jean Guitton as an authority in support of a dog-

matic statement, but only because he expressed my own ideas better than I could have done. Secondly, in newspaper correspondence it is not fallacious to make a dogmatic statement without adding an argument in support, for space is limited. Thirdly, it is not fallacious to criticise a book one has not read, when the substance of that book has been set down by a reliable reviewer. It often takes several weeks to obtain a book such as The Facts of Life, and one of the golden rules of newspaper correspondence is: "Strike while the iron is hot." Finally, I deny that I have anywhere "attempted to tell poets what they should write." But if, when they write of love, their poetry embodies an erroneous philosophy of love, I see no reason why, as "a competent philosopher," I should not tell them so. I have not read much of Mr. O’Leary’s verse, and did not give it a thought when I was commenting on some New Zealand poets but from the tone of his letter it rather looks as if he has tried on the cap and found that it fits uncomfortably well.

G.H.

D.

(Palmerston North).