Burgess on relevance: A fallacy indeed (Q1061113)

This paper attempts to refute the attack of \textit{J. P. Burgess} [ibid. 22, 97-104 (1981; Zbl 0438.03008)] on the contention of Anderson and Belnap that ''no mathematician or layman ever uses those features of classical logic which distinguish it from relevant logic''. By the nature of the case, it contains arguments that are philosophical in character, depending as they do on the interpretation of ordinary language.