PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

ROEHAMPTON

:

PRINTED BY JOHN GRIFFIN

^PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC
By

GEORGE HAYWARD
M.A., ORIEL COLLEGE,

JOYCE,
S

S.J.

OXFORD
HALL,

PROFESSOR OF LOGIC,

ST.

MARY

STONYHURST

*.r
LONGMANS, GREEN
39,

&

CO

PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON

NEW

YORK. BOMBAY,
1908

AND CALCUTTA

INTRODUCTION
THIS work is an attempt at a presentment quently termed the Traditional Logic, and
those
of
is

what

is fre

intended for

making acquaintance with philosophical for the first time. Yet it is impossible, even in a questions text-book such as this, to deal with logical questions save
are
in

who

connexion with definite metaphysical and epistemolo-

gical

Logic, as the theory of the mind s principles. rational processes in regard of their validity, must neces Indeed sarily be part of a larger philosophical system.

when

technical rules, possessed of

becomes a mere collection of little importance and of less interest. The point of view adopted in this book is that of the Scholastic philosophy and as far as is compatible with the size and purpose of the work, some attempt has been made to vindicate the fundamental principles on which that philosophy is based.
this is

not the case,

it

;

From one point of view, this position should prove a source of strength. The thinkers who elaborated our sys tem of Logic, were Scholastics. With the principles of
that philosophy, its doctrines and its rules are in full accord. In the light of Scholasticism, the system is a connected whole and the subjects, traditionally treated
;

in

it,

have each

of

them

its

legitimate place.
it is

a writer adopts some other standpoint, evitable that his Logic must be remodelled, if it
his philosophical principles. of the traditional parts ^cience, there will be in his scheme. And though these subjects
in

When

in

harmony with

is to be For some no place

may

find

treatment in his work, yet
v

it

will

be manifest that

Nor was the philosophy of the Scholastics one of . It is not that they are weighed and found wanting. leap over the middle ages (der Sprung uber das Mittelalter} From Plotinus to Bacon has been 1 regarded as a blank in the history of philosophy. the universities. The prac German writers have termed the . At our ancient seats of learning. and his Summa contra Gentiles has been made an optional subject in the school of Littera httmantores. They had with pleasure we notice that at Oxford the Summa Theologica of St. it From another point tic principles it might seem that Scholas of weakness. The names of Albert the Great. J 1 It is Thomas is . must be a source Have not. now recommended to candidates for theological honours. of St. Yet by common consent the period thus ignored was one of intense philosophic activity. if he fails to grasp the bearing of the question at of view. must be frankly admitted. a zeal. Thomas Aquinas. These men had inherited the two streams of Greek and Arabian thought. which arise when the mind of man is called to grapple for the first time with the great problems of the universe. an acumen since unknown and some of the greatest intellects the world has ever seen were nurtured in the schools of the day. those immature systems. It is assumed them worth knowing. has been universal. there has been a complete neglect of the great mediaeval philosophers. But this welcome change only testifies to the complete neglect which has so long prevailed. that there tice of is nothing in certain what They are ignored. Metaphysical pro blems were discussed with an interest. all. one and discarded Scholasticism ? will long since That this is true of all those universities which have submitted to secular influences. a young student may well be of deference to excused. of Duns Scotus are never mentioned. In such a case. be asked.vi INTRODUCTION they are present as unwelcome guests. only tolerated out custom and the exigencies of a popular demand. the repre sentatives of that once famous school. issue.

de Wulf. significant that nearly every thinker. Die Selbstfeeling nor learnt to view things from an objective standpoint. Professor Huxley writes as follows The Scholastic philosophy is a wonderful monument of the patience and ingenuity with which the human mind toiled to build up a logically consistent And that philosophy is by no means dead and theory of the Universe. of Averroes. numbers of men of no mean learning and accomplishment and sometimes of rare power and subtlety of thought. hold by it as the best theory of things which has yet been stated. but further is It Stoicism. involves his subjection to this law. the Neo-Scholastics of to-day avail themselves of the results attained in that epoch. 41.INTRODUCTION set vii themselves to master and to develop the conclusions of Plato.&quot. Lect. Scholasticism Old and New. 52. who has devoted enough time and attention to understand the matter. of Avicenna. Universities. by P. On the contrary. and Trois Letlres a M. p. The nature of man. tersetzung des Christenthums. Augustinianism. torn. &quot. Ubi in re morali consentiunt De Jure Belli et Pads. of Aristotle. 49. 372. p. no wise man will consider that this is likely to impair the value of their conclusions. It would not be difficult to multiply such testimonies from the great minds of every century.&quot. (Euvres. They are but claiming their share in the great inheritance of the past. 1 Cf.&quot. Lettre III. of which none Scholasticism as can think lightly save those who have not yet overcome the bias of party: &quot. buried as many vainly suppose. has expressed his admiration for the great synthesis effected by the Scholastic philosophers. . 3 When. p. also [Scholastici] vix est ut errent. Science and Culture. ad Thomasium. may well provide matter for progress. Picavet. For continuity is the law of human Advance must ever be won by building on the foundations laid by our predecessors. 2. therefore. Thus Hugo Grotius writes. They 1 were influenced not by the Peripatetic school alone. The deliberate ignoring of so famous a period. J The opinions of two authors neither of whom can be accused of sympathy with Scholasticism may be of interest. Coffey. Leibniz. And what is still more remarkable. and one so fruitful for the civilization of Europe. On the other hand the atheist Diderot says of Scholasticism. nevertheless think the thoughts of the Schoolmen. Epist. . : xix.de Montnwrt. men who speak the language of modern philo sophy. even of those by occupying a hostile position. as essentially social. Proleg Cf. 75. p. . trans. reflection. Somewhat similarly von Hartmann speaks of a wonderful and close-knit system of thought. Cette philosophic a 6t6 une des plus grandes plaies del esprit humain. Neo-platonism. 45. . Esquisse d une histoire des philosophies midiivales.

Preface to the treatise Du Vide. simplify the problem by the omission of some es sential element. has system. to dispense with what siste former generations have accomplished. a fundamental law of initiated our nature. Meditation I. It was Descartes who first framed a new synthesis. differ idealist. This characteristic seems inseparable from any system which severs itself from that which has They been aptly termed the main stream of European thought. 2 Since the days of Descartes. has a right to be regarded as the father of modern philosophy. Of that great revolt against the past. which in some measure filled the place once held by the Scholastic system. been These systems widely ture differentiates among themselves.&quot. He. has ever ended in failure. 1 The attempt to break with the past. in regard to the Christian civilization of the They put aside as valueless the hardly-won results of five centuries of strenuous effort. more than any other man. to pull down what they have laboriously built and to make a fresh beginning. No forward step has ever been taken in that way for so to act is to violate . 1 a Descartes. sensationalist offered as a solution of the world s riddles. But one common fea them all alike from Scholasticism. that it was the work not of a single mind but of many minds. Yet this is what the men of the Renaissance strove to do middle ages. And it is not without its lesson to note that he assigns as his reason for holding the philosophy of the School to be worthless.viii INTRODUCTION &quot. C est grace a la tradition que toute la suite des homines pendant le cours de tant de sicles doit etre consideree comme un meme homme. the repudiation of the traditional philosophy was an integral part. Movements thus have been retrograde. qui sub- tou jours et qui apprend continuellement. . Pascal has well said. not progressive. many another philosophical and materialist.

est a nos yeux. are three God. or it may be with continually less velocity. is set aside. subversive des principes fondamentaux de la scolastique. 222. In others. It is creationist. sometimes one of the three factors. as in dispense that Neo-Hegelianism which finds the only conscious times another. God . kept. p. la migration des ames. some is omitted and thus the solution remains and unsatisfactory inadequate. but as surely as it it is biassed it by a single preju will dice withholding from any truth. Materialism. In others again. The Scholastic philosophy faced the problem in its completeness it shirked no element of it. the world is eliminated God and the soul alone remain. soul alone and the of systems is but the natural not long rest satisfied with any scheme which does not account for all the facts. and the human soul. enseigne &quot.&quot.g. with more. with if which philosophy must deal. and the soul and the world as Contingent Being on the other.INTRODUCTION The factors. as e. as in the philosophy of Berkeley. life of the Divine in the human is consciousness. move in succession to all Of the multiplicity of modern philosophies. Some. change the curve it traces. ou de la distinction essentielle entre Dieu et la creature. 1 atbeisme ou le pantheisme. not one can claim to be 1 Cf. and in relation to the blem of knowledge. intellect is is objectivist. it is spiritualist. teaching that pro the capable of valid cognition in regard of that external order with which it is brought into contact by the senses. and points of the compass. which offer themselves to our acceptance. . not materialist it . both with God and the soul. . thus distin : guishing between God as Absolute and Unconditioned Being on the one hand. The rise fall The rapid and result of this. Histoire de la PhilosophieMldiivale. de Wulf. Voila pourquoi nous n hesitons pas a ranger parmi les adversaires de la scolastique quiconque le materialisme. As regards the soul. Tonte theorie negatrice de la spiritualite de 1 ame ou de la personality humaine. Men will pendulum of thought swings. 1 In the novel philosophies proposed as substitutes for Scholasticism. the world.

he writes. Philosophy Just as in is a science natural highest line of the sciences. that many now look on philosophy as a body of doctrines purely relative to a particular age. As it is not given to any science from man its to reconstruct the whole of physical first foundations. so it is in philo sophy. It is not one of the least evils that have arisen from this state of things. &quot. the principles which animated the Scholasticism of the thir- among teenth. Neoin its Scholasticism utters the of protest. investigators gradually pushes long forward the frontiers of human knowledge. an admission that philosophy cannot from epoch to epoch that the truth completely change that out and of seven hundred years ago. was too great for their powers. the controversies of the twentieth century. so at the present age they do well to adopt the thought-forms of other systems. and interpret it accordance with the doctrines of Kant or of Hegel. Philosophical systems. and age by age increases the number of those truths which are the the sciences.x INTRODUCTION more than the shibboleth of a school. the great ability of the thinkers who propounded them. But the task. must come and go like the fashions of our dress. The point has been well put The endeavour. of by Professor de Wulf. We should not regard them as more than a convenient mode of representing facts. Neo-Scholasticism to re-establish and plant down deeply &quot. Wherever a real advance has been made. which they set themselves. the permanent conquests of the human mind. there is ever to be met with a philosophia perennis a sort of atmosphere of truth . Against the corrosive scepticism of such a view. so it is not given to any to reconstruct philosophy.&quot. they hold. is true to-day that down an error out relativism is through all the is in itself : : : oscillations of historical systems. that advance is true for all time. We may recognize and honour to the full. As men at one period interpreted the universe on a basis of Aristotelianism.

is acknowledged 2 In England. El Averroisme To these we must add the tcologico de S. 1904. new difficulties been suggested. Farges. . cannot have proved entirely worthless &quot. It is x not of course to be supposed that the Neo-Scholas- ticism of to-day is in all points identical with the Scholas ticism of the middle ages.INTRODUCTION *i pure and undiluted whose bright clear rays have lighted up the centuries even through the shadows of the darkest and gloomiest clouds deceptive aspiration . But Neo-Scholasticism to twentieth the century. and acquired in their pioneer labours. Siger de Brabant et VAverroisme latin au xiiie Sitclt. For if reason be aught but a after the absolutely inaccessible. Mandonnet. for obvious by all competent judges. Munster. Ozauam s Dante et la philosophic . Mercier. . The importance of the philosophical works of men such as Mercier. Die TheoI tgie dfs Johannes Duns Scotits. It has seemed advisable to make this brief apology for the standpoint adopted in this book. Thomas de Aquino. de Verges. The adversaries of to-day are not the adversaries against whom the mediaeval doctors were called to contend. p. trans. Etudes Philosophiques. . since in England com paratively little is known of the reaction towards Scholas ticism which has taken place in recent years. Paris 1886 de Wulf. Leipzig 1900: Asin y Palacios. Nys. Avicennc. employs the weapons of a new age. most valuable work Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittelalters edited by A. Domet de De Wulf. Louvaiu 1 * . Cours de Philosophic. new discoveries have been made. whatever our ancestors have unearthed. Seeberg. Moreover new questions have arisen. . Abroad and it its strength is better understood. Gaxali. Farges. we do not discard the principles of the Scholastics. Metaphysique des Causes. Abrege de Metaphysique. y Palacios. not to the thirteenth belongs . Paris 1906 Carra 1892-1907 de Vaux. Histoire de la Philosophic Medievale. to posterity. by Coffey. Louvain 1897-1903 de Regnon. Paris Domet de Verges. Saragoza 1904. 1900. von Hertling. Scholasticism Old and New. Asin Mandonnet. The astronomical physics of the mediaeval doctors were theoretically erroneous. Nys. 161. Carra de Vaux. de Regnon. Fribourg-en-Suisse 1809 Seeberg. . Baumker and G. . Louvain 1900. Cosmologie. surely whatever has been brought to light. In adapt ing our methods to the needs of the day. Paris 1900. Wulf.

* My sincerest thanks are due to the alike for Rev. writes Les catholiques. Origints de la Psych. now from Kant. : However visible civilized this may be. nnis par 1 as follows in the Revue Philosophique for 1896 : Thomisme. Maher and the Rev. T. Paris 1855.&quot. 8. as a book appealing to a wider circle of readers than the others we have named. the power of the movement is enough from the spread of Thomism over the world.xii INTRODUCTION movement has been less felt. Hitchcock many valuable criticisms and suggestions. result will be in au xiii* siecle. c. : : cited by Mercier. Caird. S. it Professor Case writes as follows in his article on Metaphysics in the Encyclopedia Britannica One cannot but feel regret at seeing the : trine. mfime en Hollande et en Suisse. may also be mentioned. and now from Lotze or at home from Green. now from Hegel. sont catJwlique &quot. G. oontemp. ther gratefully acknowledge my obligations to the Rev. Reformed Churches blown about by every wind of docand catching at straws.&quot. with: out ever having considered the basis of their faith while the Roman Catholics are making every effort to ground a Universal Church on a sane system of metaphysics. Rigby. If my work prove of service to those for whose use it has been written. devenus les maitres de le Belgique on compte avec cux en Amerique et en Allemagne leur influence grandit en France. Pica vet. quils completent avec une ample information scientifique. the at its least of those significance. professor at Sorbonne. and I must fur for his kindness in reading the proof-sheets. M. Balfour and Ward in succession. no friend of the movement. reasons. . Martineau. But some who have noticed it have not underrated In regard to &quot. 1 M. the no small measure due to the generous assistance accorded me by these and other friends.

2. 7.CONTENTS PART I THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT CHAPTER I THE NATURE AND AIM OF LOGIC i. 19 20 21 . .. .. . 8. ... THE TERM .. 5. CATEGOREMATIC AND SYNCATEGOREMATIC WORDS . : THE NAME .... DEFINITION OF LOGIC DIVISIONS OF LOGIC THE PLACE OF LOGIC IN PHILOSOPHY SCOPE OF LOGIC HISTORY OF LOGIC^ DIFFERENT VIEWS AS TO THE SCOPE OF LOGIC Note. . 10. . * : . TERMS SINGULAR. 12.. 13. 5. . 6. 4. . CHAPTER II : THE CONCEPT i. ii. . . 23 . 3.. . 14. 2.. GENERAL AND COLLECTIVE TERMS ABSTRACT AND CONCRETE TERMS CONNOTATIVE AND NON-CONNOTATIVE TERMS POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE TERMS ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TERMS TERMS OF FIRST AND SECOND INTENTION UNIVOCAL.. 34 35 36 37 ariii . . 3. .. . 15 18 18 4. THE CONCEPT REPUGNANT CONCEPTS THE NAME AND THE TERM DIVISIONS OF . EQUIVOCAL AND ANALOGOUS TERMS OPPOSITION OF TERMS THE SUPPOSITIO OF THE TERM . 9. . 25 31 32 . .

. . 10. . 8. 7. ii. 12... 82 84 88 7..... .. . 5.. 5.. . . THE LAWS OF THOUGHT ... 61 63 65 CHAPTER IV THE LAWS OF THOUGHT i. 6. - . : . THE LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE OTHER VIEWS AS TO THE SOURCE OF THE LAWS OF VV THOUGHT . 67 69 71 73 75 .. .. 3. THE OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS OPPOSITION AS A MEANS OF INFERENCE CONTRADICTORY OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE FOUR EULER S ... . . ....... 89 OUTSIDE THE FOURFOLD 90 . DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF PROPOSITIONS 2..... . ^ . . 4. . . .. 5. 39 42 4. PAGE i. . 3. .. i CIRCLES DISTRIBUTION OF TERMS IN A PROPOSITION OTHER METHODS OF DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTA TION . . ... THE LAW OF CONTRADICTION THE LAW OF IDENTITY . .. . 3... 77 81 . . 6.. FOLD SCHEME CONTRARY OPPOSITION SCHEME .... 46 46 50 51 55 ... . 2. ... .... 4..xiv CONTENTS CHAPTER III THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION &quot. . 56 58 9. . . . THE PROPOSITION ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT QUALITY OF PROPOSITIONS QUANTITY OF PROPOSITIONS THE FOURFOLD SCHEME OF PROPOSITIONS ANALYTIC AND SYNTHETIC PROPOSITIONS COMPLEX PROPOSITIONS COMPOUND CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS MODAL PROPOSITIONS REDUCTION OF PROPOSITIONS TO LOGICAL FORM HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITIONS DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITIONS 2... . CHAPTER V DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF PROPOSI TIONS OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS : i..

7. 102 102 CHAPTER i.. 8. .&amp. .lt. 121 129 131 PREDICABLES THE CONTROVERSY ON UNIVERSALS THE UNIVERSAL IN MODERN LOGIC 132 135 CHAPTER IX THE CATEGORIES i. 3. 3. 137 142 SCIENCES 4... . THE CATEGORIES IN THEIR METAPHYSICAL ASPECT THE CATEGORIES IN THEIR LOGICAL ASPECT THE CATEGORIES IN THEIR RELATION TO THE .. . 4. 7. 5.. . ..... 105 106 109 4........CONTENTS xv CHAPTER VI IMMEDIATE INFERENCE PAGE i. 6.. 4. 2.. 3. . no Il6 117 119 IMPORT OF THE HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITION . VII THE IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS : 2. 2. 5. 6. 2. MILL S SCHEME OF CATEGORIES THE CATEGORIES OF KANT 147 148 . . . 3. 144 THE CATEGORIES CATES AS A CLASSIFICATION OF PREDI 145 5. 5. THE COMPARTMENTAL VlEW MR. THE CLASS-INCLUSION VIEW THE ATTRIBUTIVE VIEW IMPLICATION OF EXISTENCE . IMMEDIATE INFERENCE CONVERSION ARISTOTLE S PROOF OF CONVERSION EQUIPOLLENCE OR OBVERSION CONTRAPOSITION INVERSION TABLE OF RESULTS OTHER VARIETIES OF IMMEDIATE INFERENCE 92 93 97 98 99 101 .. PREDICATIVE VIEW .. . . THE PREDICABLES THE TREE OF PORPHYRY ARISTOTLE S .. . BRADLEY ON THE PROPOSITION . .. . 6. . . CHAPTER VIII THE PREDICABLES i.

.. .. 3. ^7... .. .. . VARIOUS KINDS OF DEFINITION LIMITS OF DEFINITION RULES OF DEFINITION :.. 193 194 195 .? .. 8. . ... 169 172 172 2.. .. 182 186 CHAPTER XII i.xvi CONTENTS CHAPTER X DEFINITION AND DIVISION PAGE i. . 166 168 CHAPTER XI THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM i. . . . . THE MNEMONIC LINES REDUCTION SUPERIORITY OF FIG. 177 179 181 6. U . MIXED HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS nv-JREDUCTION OF HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS . . . 6. i . 4.. DEFINITION 2.. . . . THE FOURTH FIGURE r . i. 3... . 8. . . SPECIAL RULES OF THE FOUR FIGURES . . .: . 2. . (II) 187 :. EXPRESSION IN SYLLOGISTIC FORM PROGRESSIVE AND REGRESSIVE SYLLOGISMS VALIDITY OF THE SYLLOGISM MATHEMATICAL REASONING INFERENCES OTHER THAN SYLLOGISTIC MR. .. . LOGICAL DIVISION RULES OF DIVISION . . . . DIVISION BY DICHOTOMY VARIOUS KINDS OF DIVISION . .. (I) THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM RELATION OF PREMISSES TO CONCLUSION IN REGARD TO TRUTH GENERAL RULES OF THE SYLLOGISM FIGURES AND MOODS OF THE SYLLOGISM. . 6. - THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM CANON OF SYLLOGISTIC REASONING 2. . . 150 152 159 159 161 165 . J5.. . BRADLEY S THEORY OF INFERENCE . .. 7. 5. 3. .. ... . . 5. 199 200 201 CHAPTER XIII HYPOTHETICAL AND DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS .. . 4. . . ... 5. 191 4. 203 206 ... 7. . . . . .

215 219 222 4. ..CONTENTS THE DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM THE DILEMMA ANSWERING THE DILEMMA xvii 3. . . 6.. THE TREATMENT OF FALLACIES IN LOGIC . EQUIVOCATION 264 265 267 268 5. RECOGNITION OF THE CAUSAL RELATION .. MILL ON THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE CESSANTE CAUSA. 207 209 212 CHAPTER XIV INDUCTION i. 4. 4. .. . WHAT ERRORS ARE RECKONED ARISTOTLE S AS FALLACIES . AMPHIBOLOGY . . 3.223 228 231 THE INDUCTIVE SYLLOGISM PERFECT AND IMPERFECT INDUCTION CHAPTER XV THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE i. . ..lt. ANALOGY 256 257 259 CHAPTER XVII FALLACIES i. . .-.. ... 6. COMPOSITION AND DIVISION ACCENT 269 270 272 . ..lt.&amp. THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE J. ENTHYMEME THE ARISTOTELIAN ENTHYMEME CHAINS OF REASONING EPICHIREMA SORITES . . - . &quot. PAGE . . . . . . . 6... .&amp.... 246 248 CHAPTER XVI ENTHYMEME SORITES ANALOGY : : i. LIST OF FALLACIES . . . THE NATURE OF INDUCTION CAUSE AND CONDITION THE AIM OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY .. . 2. 7. . . 2.. 2.. . 252 253 255 5. .. 3. . ....- . 5. . . . .. 235 241 2. 4. 3. () * . . .. . ... &quot.. CESSAT EFFECTUS UNITY OF NATURE S. 4. . 5. 3. .. .. .

16. . H .gt. 3. . . OR THE METHOD OF SCIENCE CHAPTER XVIII APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT i. 2. . 289 293 298 300 304 306 CHAPTER XIX OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT i.. 5. 281 282 PART II APPLIED LOGIC. IGNORATIO ELENCHI PETITIO PRINCIPII 13.. . 9. 5. . 10. . FIGURE OF SPEECH ACCIDENT CONFUSION OF ABSOLUTE AND QUALIFIED STATE 272 274 275 276 278 MENT ii. MANY QUESTIONS MILL S . BACON MILL 6.. . . . . . .u.. 12. SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THE SUBDIVISIONS OF PHILOSOPHY LOGIC AND METAPHYSICS THE BREACH WITH THE PAST .-*. 3. .xviii CONTENTS PAGE 8. 4. THE FUNCTION OF OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT. IN WHAT OBSERVATION CONSISTS CONDITIONS OF OBSERVATION 310 311 313 4. 15.. . | FALLACY OF THE CONSEQUENT FALSE CAUSE 279 280 ?. 14.- .. EXPERIMENT NATURAL EXPERIMENTS RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF OBSERVATION AND EX PERIMENT 315 317 317 . . .. 6.&amp. 2. i (-VIA/: CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES .

. . 337 339 341 343 344 349 . . . 2. 363 367 369 372 373 CHAPTER XXIV CLASSIFICATION i. THE FOUR EXPERIMENTAL METHODS . HYPOTHESIS ORIGIN OF HYPOTHESIS CONDITIONS OF A LEGITIMATE HYPOTHESIS VARIOUS KINDS OF HYPOTHESES . 3. . CRITICISM OF MILL S CANONS . . CLASSIFICATION 380 .. . . 3. . 6.CONTENTS xix CHAPTER XX METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY PAGE i. 3. .. 320 FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE METHODS 325 THE FUNCTION OF THE METHODS IN PROVING A LAW OF NATURE / 330 . . 5. . . . 2. 4.. 4. 2. . 4. .. . 5. 354 357 359 361 CHAPTER XXIII QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION: ELIMINATION OF CHANCE i. CHAPTER XXII HYPOTHESIS i. . 333 CHAPTER XXI EXPLANATION i.. . EXPLANATION EXPLANATION BY REGRESSIVE REASONING EXPLANATION BY HYPOTHETICAL DEDUCTION HYPOTHETICAL DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION EXPLANATION AS EMPLOYED BY NEWTON NEWTON S RULES OF PHILOSOPHIZING . 2. . .. MEASUREMENT METHODS OF APPROXIMATION CHANCE ELIMINATION OF CHANCE PROBABILITY . . 4. 3. .

.&amp. .. . 395 398 4. . .xx CONTENTS PAGE ARTIFICIAL CLASSIFICATION THE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL SPECIES NATURAL CLASSIFICATION . PHILOSOPHIC TERMINOLOGY DESCARTES RULES OF METHOD LEIBNIZ S VIEWS ON METHOD . .. 404 . 3. 2. .gt. . 400 . . . 3 82 5.. THE METHODIC PURSUIT OF TRUTH . . . . 3. . . . .. 384 389 393 CHAPTER XXV METHOD i. 4. SCIENTIFIC METHOD . . . 4 2 . . CLASSIFICATION BY SERIES . fv. . . 2. 5.

our thoughts which are properly said to be true or errone For present purposes.gic maybe defined as the science which directs the ope/ztions of the mind in the attainment of truth. which is in conformity with reality. CHAPTER I. because with the thing about which I thought corresponds white/ my judgment my am judging.B. Definition of Logic. Now there are certain definite ways in which. is said to be true. If I 1 B . THE NATURE AND AIM OF i.PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC PART: i THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT N. and in which alone. Thus if I see a white horse. our thinking faculty must proceed if it is to achieve of all The aim true judgments. LOGIC. therefore. my object is to arrive in the end at a judgment. The student is recommended to reserve the passages marked with an asterisk (*) for a second reading of the work. What do we mean by truth ? An assertion is said to be true when it corresponds to the reality of which the But the verbal statement is merely assertion is made. and judge That horse is ous. &amp. It is the outward expression of the thought within.gt. we may define truth as the conformity of the intellect with its object. our mental operations is to attain endeavour to establish a geometri cal proposition.

The work of Logic therefore is not to teach us some way of discovering new facts. Greece in ancient that they could make the worse Sophists appear to be the better cause. if their conclusions are to be true. and hence we are able to know and common types of mental action. such as we have described. understood. They effected this end by skilfully violating the rules which men must observe. the rules. . Another definition may be given of Logic. and have a body of conclusions derived from these. in other words. which must be observed whatever be the subject which occupies us. from these Mere facts not tute a science. for. but to error. the attainment of truth. which has for its subjectmatter things as they are represented in our thought. Logic. it is very easy to argue in a way that will bring It was a boast of the us. Where we have lished principles and a systematic body of securely estab of conclusions legitimately drawn Thus in principles. which we must needs observe in reasoning. if we are to arrive at a true result. This belongs to the It assists us in special sciences. the science of Astronomy we start from certain general laws. We shall find as we proceed that the science can scarcely be in the first instance. because it treats of the way in which the mind represents things. Logic is science which treats of the conceptual representation of the real order . as experience shows us. to catalogue these In this way we learn the science the The difference between this definition is and that which we that this definition expresses gave the subject-matter of Logic. unless both these aspects are kept in view. each in its own sphere. the former its aim. as pies brought under general laws do not consti We are rightly said to have a science of we shall see. For. Reflec tion enables us to observe the operations of the mind its . there we have a science. it consists of a body of princiand legitimate conclusions.2 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC task of faithfully representing the feal order. in which is considered in a different aspect. not to truth. and thus shows us what are those general conditions of right thinking.

with out however making any judgment about. We can at least analyse the judgment into simple appre hensions for every judgment requires two concepts. Thus in the example given above. the act by which from certain truths already known. This is denned as. A judgment however gives the mind a complex (or object : for it attribute. : cept. the mind passes to another truth distinct from these. Logic therefore must take account of the con . . Simple apprehension is the act by which the mind without judging. in which it can attain truth 2. it. That which is affirmed (or denied) of the other is called an attribute that to which it is said to belong : not to belong) is called a subject. I must have a concept of horse. I should be said to have formed a simple apprehension of a tri The words true or false cannot be applied to angle. Some philoso phers indeed deny that the mind ever forms a simple apprehension they hold that in every case some judg ment is made. namely Reason ing or Inference. Thus if I say : (All roses wither in the autumn . Simple Apprehension. Thus if I should conceive the notion of a triangle. are the elements which go to constitute the complex act of judgment. and they can be considered in isolation from it. Hence we may define a judgment as the act by which the mind affirms or denies an attribute of a subject. 3 The simplest act of the mind is the judgment the act by which the mind affirms or denies something of something else. [This flower is a rose .THE NATURE AND AIM OF LOGIC Divisions fJf Logic. forms a concept of something. We involves these two parts subject and must therefore take account of o more : elementary act of the mind than judgment. We need not enter into this question. viz. in order to say The horse is white. and one of These whiteness. just as we cannot say that the words in a dictionary are true or false. There is a third process of the mind. simple apprehensions. and the other in which it expresses the attribute. one in which the mind expresses the subject.

An I am said in each case to infer the third truth. the simplest object of which Logic takes account is the Concept.lt. account to some extent of language sion of necessarily takes thought. col. Grammar with all the moods equally. Boethius. L. vol. Ch. in it each of the nine parts of speech is treated indepen On dently. the otter hand. the Indicative. (Migne P. the verbal expres It does so however from quite a different point of is view to that of Grammar. the verbal expression of the Concept. and the Proposition. : The world is due to an intelligent Therefore cause .Cat. Grammar concerned with words as such.: the Name. Introduct. ad Syll. I. The two truths given known as the premisses. it does not deal with any of those parts of speech. The world displays the harmonious ordering of : many many &amp. It is the art by which the words employed in significant speech are combined according Hence to the conventional rules of a language. These and De Cf. 766. the verbal expression of the Judg ment. Cat. between Logic and Grammar is to be found in the fact that Logic is concerned with but one mood See below. which taken by themselves are incapable of giving us an independent concept. and rules are given for their respective use. therefore. lib. In its consideration of words. 3. viz. Since Logic deals with thought. i. parts . 64. A). mind that Logic treats correspondingly into three main the Logic (i) of the Concept. but with two forms only of significant utter ance. or if I argue Whatever displays the harmonious ordering of parts is due to an intelligent cause . D). Another important difference Syll. inference of the form which we have employed in these examples.4 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Therefore : This flower will wither in the autumn . col. It is conversant not with nine. are It is of these three acts of the The truth derived from : and the science divisions. them is the conclusion. (ibid. 1 1 The proposition consists of three parts. . (3) of Inference. (2) of the Judg falls it ment. is called a syllogism. 766.

sicut est ordo rerum naturalium. puta cum ordinat conceptus suos ad invicem et signa conceptuum quae sunt voces significativae. philosophic : end. x Thus sciences exist. viz. sciences. the philosopher pursues knowledge with a view to the realization of some practical the regulative lative sciences. . Ordo Sapientis est ordinare. Ttrtius autem est ordo quern ratio considerando facit in operationibus voluntatis. The is object Aquin. predicated predicate : 3.THE NATURE AND AIM OF LOGIC are. but that we may know. i. Thomas of This order may be such as we find but it may be such as we seek to bring into being ourselves. The science which deals with the due ordering of the acts of the will. Est enim quidam ordo quam ratio non facit sed solum considerat. says St. Thus we study Mathematics. Thomas in Ethic. fall into The Place of Logic in Philosophy.: the speculative and (or normative] sciences. sicut in area et domo. order. autem quadrupHciter ad rationem comparatur. I. The question has often been raised. Alius . already existing of philosophy. lect. that which deals with order in the acts of the intellect of our will is Logic. . . on the other hand. In the specu thought deals with those things which we find proposed to our intelligence in the such sciences have no other immediate end universe than the contemplation of the truth. which have as their object the realization of order in the acts both and of our intellect. The Subject and the Predicate are called the Terms (from the Latin and the terminus a boundary) of the proposition of is said to be the subject. (i) the Subject (2) 5 that of which the assertion that which is is made : the Predicate : affirmed or denied of the and (3) the Copula the verb is or are which Subject connects the Subject and the Predicate. The mediaeval philosophers regarded the notion of an art as signifying a body of rules by which man . 1 St. quarum ipsa est causa. Quartus autem est ordo quern ratio considerando facit in exterioribus rebus. whether Logic is The answer to this will depend a science or an art. is Ethics. not primarily with a view to commercial In the normative success. entirely on the precise meaning which we give to the word art. The sciences two broad divisions. autem est ordo quern ratio considerando facit in proprio actu.

. whether material or spiritual. Hence they held Logic to be the art of reasoning. since its not limited to some special sphere. all rest. The object of Psychology is the human soul and all its activities. i. Its conclusions do not relate to things. of precepts for the production of some external and hence is not applicable to the normative sciences. such as e. but with things. the science which deals with beauty and proportion in the objects of the external senses. according to which the term art/ is reserved to mean a directs his actions to the body result. I. Nihil enim aliud ars esse videtur.. but embraces it is Hence which the mind represents things. as a normative science. It investigates the meaning of certain notions which all the special sciences presuppose.. and was reckoned part of Meta physics. It may be well to indicate briefly the distinction be tween Logic and two other sciences. with thoughts. as does Logic. In this latter sense Metaphysics deals not with thoughts. as well as the science of the reasoning process. Action. Cause. The term Metaphysics some times stands for philosophy in general sometimes with a more restricted meaning it stands for that part of philosophy known as Ontology. Logic and Psychology. such : It deals as Substance. Post.6 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC 1 performance of some work. Logic and Metaphysics. By the mediaeval writers it was treated theoretically rather than practically. quani certa ordinatio rationis qua per determinata media ad debitum finem actus humani perveniunt. lect. to which it bears some affinity. not with the conceptual order but with the real order. but to the way called the science of Being. but on which they a cause. Effect. with principles which the special sciences do not prove. It investigates in 1 St. is now reckoned with Ethics and Logic.g. Every event must have object is that is. Perhaps a more satisfactory terminology is that at present in vogue. Thomas in An. Aesthetics. Accident. Logic on the other hand deals with the conceptual order.

(1) The first of these views verbal transformations. In this sense Hamilton says Logic is conversant with the form of thought. according as they hold that the science is concerned (i) with names only. I. What as a matter of is the nature of the mind s activity ? : 4. seeks to prescribe rules as to how we ought to think. examines the way in which this mental act expresses the objective truth with which it deals and if necessary. (2) The theory that Logic thought. such as e. as a regulative science. 7 imagination. asks whether it follows legiti from the grounds on which it is based. And even in its object is far regard to the intellect. 15).. mately . p. With this Psychology fact has nothing to do it only asks. Thus is which wider than that of Logic. ever identical with that deals only with the forms of to reality.g. (2) with the form of thought alone. has found but few defenders. Logic on the other hand. who held that the process of reasoning con sists solely in tative of reality. concerned with the intellect alone. but only with their consistency. the two sciences consider it under different aspects. By these logicians a distinction is . Moreover. The Scope of Logic. (3) with thought as represen that Logic is concerned It with names only. is however taught by the French philosopher Condillac (1715-1780). The three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles/ Psychology considers it. The meaning of the conclusion he thought. to the exclusion of the matter&quot. Thus if we take a judg ment. sense. was of the original proposition. : irrespective of their relation (Lectures. Logic. merely in so far as it is a form of mental activity. will.THE NATURE AND AIM OF LOGIC the nature and operations of intellect. Logicians are frequently divided into three classes. Psychology considers thought merely as an act of the soul. taught among others by Hamilton (1788-1856) and Mansel Both of these held that Logic is no way (1820-1871). is. concerned with the truth of our thoughts.

p. and term them Formal Logicians. 388).. of Hamilton. view Mill well observes the notion of the true and false will force its way even into Formal Logic. Logic deals with &quot. &quot. using the terms in their novel meaning. conformity with the object and it is said that Logic deals with formal truth alone. of Hamilton. self -consistency and material truth. may stand as a representative of this view. and how completely the view taken of Logic by the Scholastics differs from that of the Formal Logicians. B. for the now Conceptualist. 399). In their eyes. &quot. Conceptualist and Realist. (3) According to the third theory. Nominalist. (Exam.) ing It was Aristotle History of Logic. and practically to arrive at truth.C. ate : Logicians are three classes. or whether one proposition can if others are true (Exam. It will soon appear on what a mis conception this opinion rests. whether one proposition must be true if be true the others are true.&quot. and Realist frequently employed to denote these 5. Mill. (384-322 laid the foundations of the science by treat logical questions separately from other parts of who . but the this : On . thought as the means by which we attain truth. not of thinking. p. but of correct thinking &quot. &quot. whom we have just quoted.e. validity of reasoning is always a question of conditional truth. have for centuries been employed to distinguish three famous schools of philosophy. . the aim of the science was most assuredly not to secure self-consist ency. divided from each other on a question which has nothing to do with the scope of In this work we shall as far as possible avoid Logic. . thought. To which class of logicians should Aristotle and his Scholastic followers be assigned ? Many modern writers rank them in the second of these groups. We may abstract from actual truth. . is the theory of valid Logic.e. but theoretically to know how the mind represents its object. The terms Nominalist. he says.. This terminology is singularly unfortun names. i.8 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC drawn between formal truth/ i.

Topics. : 9 Six of his treatises are concerned with the they cover almost the whole ground.. that he used to exclaim A Logiea A ugustini. be employed in philosophical questions.e. a treatise on the method of reasoning to 6. 2. Augustine were also recognized authorities St.) constitutes a landmark in the for it was through the medium of his history of Logic : translation of the Organon. Geometry. Through this period some knowledge of Logic was widely possessed.THE NATURE AND AIM OF LOGIC philosophy. reasonings. libera me Domine. that the works of Aristotle and Porphyry were available for educational purposes Western Europe from the sixth to the thirteenth 1 century. a treatise on the ten primary classes The Categories. and his commentaries on the Categories and the Isagoge. This group of treatises was afterwards known as the Organon. the fathers. It should. Prior Analytics. Enduring import ance however attaches to a small treatise by the Neoplatonist Porphyry (233-304 A. In a certain sense the name of Boethius (B. Posterior Analytics. . and it seems doubtful whether he viewed it as a single science.D. Augustine s interest in the science was not shared by all We are told of St.D. The successors of Aristotle added but little of perman ent value to his great achievement. 5. Rhetoric. into which our concepts of things are divided. a treatise on inference. attributed to St. Ambrose. The name Logic was introduced byZeno the Stoic (about 300 B. Logic. Dialectic i.C. as it was one of the seven liberal arts Grammar.) entitled the Isagoge or Introduction to the Categories of Aristotle.). De Interpretation. 4. when demonstrative proof is not obtainable. Aristotle himself had no single word to signify the whole of Logic. be noticed that they are separate works. in 1 Two works at this period. however. 3. a treatise on terms and pro positions. an account of fallacious Sophistical Refutations. subject 1. Severinus Boethius 470-525 A. a treatise on the logical analysis of science.

Since the time of Bacon the whole question of Induc tion has been very fully discussed by writers on Logic.) and Averroes (Ibn Roshd 1126-1189 A. It was indeed natural that a strictly do not For. whose treatment of the subject long held rank as the classical work on Induction. and Music of which higher education was held to consist. It may perhaps be said that their greater Aristotle s treatment lay in the accuracy with which they discriminated the respective spheres of Logic and Metaphysics. but also with a very different subject. and in 1620 an attack was made on the very foundations of the Aristotelian Logic by Francis Bacon in his Novum Organum. The I5th and i6th centuries witnessed the decadence of Scholasticism. The most eminent of these among English thinkers was John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). however. since he believed that the pur pose of Logic was to provide men with a means towards making discoveries regarding the laws and phenomena main advance on Yet it was of service in calling fresh atten tion to the theory of Induction. of nature. and the works of his Arabian commentators Avicenna (Ibn Sina 980-1037 A. Many of the points. themselves of these works. At the beginning of the thirteenth century the numer ous other treatises of Aristotle. Astronomy. and gave an immense impetus to The mediaeval Scholastics availed philosophic study. namely the general theory of scientific investigation. raised by these writers speaking belong to the province of Logic. by Bacon.io PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Arithmetic. Much of his criticism was ill-founded.) were translated into Latin. to build up a thoroughly sys tematic science of Logic. they have dealt not merely with Induction as a process of thought. a part of Logic to which too little attention had been given by the later Scholastics.D. influenced keen interest should be felt in this question. The rapid growth and multiplication of the physical sciences dur ing the last three centuries could not but lead to the codi- .D. and in their more precise arrangement of the various parts of Logic itself.

the tradi tional part of the science receiving by the name of Formal or Deductive Logic. viz. We have explained above that the (i) Scholastic Logic. finds respectively. though they have little enough in common with either of these. Symbolic Logic. formal. Logic misleading. its place in the first of these two divisions. Scholastic or Traditional Logic holds the subject-matter of the . yet they all regarded it as falling within We have therefore preferred to scope. work would render a more detailed As far as possible we have availed ourselves of citations from authors representative of the various views. way of distinction These names are as we have seen The traditional was. In this note we give an explanation of the special designations division referred to. The difference of opinion as to the true scope of Logic is far wider than would appear from the triple division given in 4. the two portions of this volume The Logic of designate and Applied Logic or the Method of Science Thought their Induction as a process of thought. open to the further objection that it compels us to group the Scholastic logicians either with the school of Mansel or with that of Mill. Logic of the Pure Idea. desirable to enter somewhat more into detail on the subject. NOTE TO CHAPTER * I. by many of the mediaeval writers was inadequate. as we have noticed. DIFFERENT VIEWS AS TO THE SCOPE OF LOGIC. Scholastic Logic. Modern Logic. : The purpose of the present account of the systems out of place. Formal^ Logic.THE NATURE AND AIM OF LOGIC fication of their rules in other n evidence. properly so called. Inductive Logic. It seems. in order to elucidate the meaning of the dif ferent terms. ere the dawned. therefore. ages. And the treatment of not ( though 4). : is. The notice in each case is necessarily very brief. Transcendental Logic. words to the formation of a philosophy of Such a science was impossible in the middle great era of physical investigation had At the present day the treatment of this By many subject forms a part of every work on Logic. writers it is termed Material or Inductive Logic. purely Induction. which is that usually recognized in logical text-books and special names are now employed by logicians to indicate the point of Moreover the threefold view from which the science is treated. and to reflection on their methods.

and hence universal in its applicaThese are Metaphysics and Logic. real attributes. The object of bility.) Though the subject has engaged the attention of several able men. in other words the Real as such. Symbolic Logic is a further development of Formal Logic. . It is thus denned in Baldwin s Diet. &quot.The observance of the laws which Formal says in its regard Logic investigates. . says Dean &quot. but &quot. judgments and reasonings. but considered as an object of thought endowed with attributes of the conceptual order 23 [ed. will not do more than secure freedom from : and inconsistency i). that they do not in ultimate analysis destroy themselves &quot. Logica. it cannot possibly contribute in any way whatever to our knowledge of the reasoning process. are represented by symbols. Symbolic logic is that form of logic in which the combinations and relations of terms and of propositions. . all such concepts. showing them as particular cases of wider problems dealing with relation (Sym bolic Logic. &quot. a. that it generalizes the processes of the ordinary Logic. Keynes abstains from deciding (Proleg. Logic. whether Formal Logic constitutes the whole of the science. (Formal Logic. sider the mental processes in entire abstraction from the relation which the concept bears to the real order. Introd. xxi.&quot. &quot. pp. . Mill terms it a general theory of the sufficiency of a philosophy of Evidence and of the InvestiEvidence.-xxiii. p. Cardinal Mercier says There are two sciences whose object is &quot. Almost every investigator has adopted his own system of symbolic notation. The object of Metaphysics is the thing considered as a real substance en. claims for it the great advantages. Logic also has Being for its object. (4) Inductive. of Philosophy. as do not directly or indirectly imply contradictions pronouncing them thus far to be legitimate as thoughts. that many thinkers believe that although it affords scope for much ingenuity. Empirical. its ablest exponent actively conscious reasoning. dowed with Mansel. it has no claim yet to be considered a science. in such a way that the rules of a calculus may be substituted for Mr.nd self-contradiction (3) &quot. It should further be mentioned. .12 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC science to be the conceptual representation of the real order. : &quot. (Logique. It must not however be thought that Logic and Metaphysics consider Being from the same point of view. in this country. . . The object of Logic is likewise the thing.&quot. : in the highest degree abstract. not as they are in themselves. 1 accepts as valid. Material or Applied Logic is a science developed on the basis of the views set forth in Bacon s Novum Organum. The characteristic of this school is to con (2) Formal Logic. 3]). but as they are in thought. . This may be otherwise expressed by saying that it deals with things. Venn. . Metaphysics is Being considered in abstraction from all in- dividual determinations and material properties. 265). . Mr.

he says. (5) Transcendental Logic is the name given by Kant to the most fundamental portion of his Critical Philosophy. : &quot. He further assumed that the material of all our knowledge can be nought but successive pulses of sensation without unity of any kind.&quot. work. sequences. does not admit of any rules. p. vi.THE NATURE AND AIM OF LOGIC gation of Nature &quot. Kant started with the assumption that all our knowledge. is an &quot. knows that the questions of evidence presented are such as to tax the very highest . viii. H. (Exam. This philosophy of evidence deals. he urges. &quot. differs essentially from Logic. They are the regular lines imposed by the intellect. 9 below. Kant. to Logic. In the Transcendental the work in which he treats of sensible perception Aesthetic he endeavours to shew that space and time are the forms of our sensitive faculty. a term employed in a very different sense by Aristotle and his followers. that the study of Nature. Spencer with more consistency than Mill refuses altogether the name of Logic to the traditional science of that name. not merely in the physical sciences as . Transcendental Dialectic fall outside the scope of the present . that we have no immediate knowledge of the external world. Mill here describes. 70). and prefers to term it the Theory of Reason ing (Psychology. capacities of the calls to task those set before human intellect and he severely (ibid. is internal to the mind. and led the way towards resolving.) who hold that the problem which Bacon himself. not with thought. as heretofore it had been understood. who has obtained any knowledge of the physical sciences from really scientific study. identities The problems raised in the (Wallace. . .). p. In the Transcendental Logic he deals with the forms will be noticed in Ch. &quot. If these purely subjective feelings undergo such a transmuta tion within us as to present to our experience an orderly world of matter and motion. 400). The intellectual cendental Dialectic) and of reasoning (Trans forms &quot. but with things as they are in the real order and its function is to prescribe the due methods of enquiry in each several science. orders. He gave them the name of Categories. This is the name given by Hegel . . Every one. &quot. (6) Logic of tht Pure Idea.. while the pulses of sensation constitute its matter. whether sensitive or intellectual. of intellect (Transcendental Analytic). to what science does it belong ? It is manifest that the science (ibid. pt. Granted that for there be such a science it must belong. think and reason. if the consideration of it does not belong to Logic. 402). this passage might suggest. 13 &quot. c. the search for impossible one objective truth. on which sensations settle down with unities. p. . this must be in virtue of an a priori element-^-an internal mechanism providing certain forms according to which we perceive. . of Hamilton.

3). which they view the same subject matter. p.&quot. had hitherto been regarded as representative of the The principal exponents of Modern Logic in England their work. p. by which The task of is intellectually constituted. instead of attempting to summarize its value and import apart The opera from the details of its evolution (Logic I. . evolution of knowledge in the light of its value and import. Thought becomes things. and these thoughts are a Divine in the process of the Universe. and he says. : with verse has The Uni Metaphysics&quot. 38). Hegelianism is in fact a form of Pantheism. were bound to institute a new enquiry into the nature of those mental this its origin name owes acts. (7) Mind evolving Modern Logic. with which we are only concerned because of its bearing on Modern Logic. is are Mr.I4 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC It will be sufficient for us to advert in the briefest to his system. : &quot.. (Wallace. and the order of thought within. Logic of Hegel. tions of the mind judgment and reasoning are according to the totality we this view regarded as vital functions. and realizes itself as the universe which we know. According to Mr. is to be found in Logic in our sense coincides Logic the science of thought &quot. in tracing the differs if at all simply in mode of treatment. call the real world Logic is to analyse the process of constitution (ibid. Bosanquet very largely based on that of the eminent German logicians Lotze and Sigwart. its origin in the inner necessity of the categories of thought. manner to this philosophy. Hegel would not admit the existence of two orders an order of thought and an order of reality. which real order. Bosanquet the only dif ference between Logic and Metaphysics lies in the aspect under I make no doubt. 248). It is plain that thinkers who deny the distinction between the order of things external to us. Bradley and Mr. The treatment of logical problems known by to the Hegelian philosophy. according to him. In it things are itself thoughts. But thought in its fullest development the thought of the Whole or the Absolute Idea passes over into reality. that in content Logic is one with Metaphysics. Hence the science of the real Metaphysics. constitutes reality. Thought. Its salient feature is the identification of Logic and Metaphysics. however. &quot. &quot.

&quot. the image of the mere word virtue my purpose but some image is requisite.gt. Thus in De Anima. i. which in the middle ages had passed into a proverb What is at the &quot. c. rt&amp.lt. THE NAME : THE TERM. swells to huge proportions at the close.gt. we are forced to con(&amp.CHAPTER THE CONCEPT : II. Some times. apxy luicpbv is fv rrj fine. And in every science it is of vital importance that the primary notions should be accurately grasped.j&amp. I think of an object.gt.di&amp. 5. 1 In the first place it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the Concept or intellectual idea properly so Whenever called. I. TeXevrrj s. . that Fishes are vertebrate. in isolation. true and false. such as virtue. the concept is not an Concept. III. indeed. But concepts are the material of which our mental acts. or of the sun. ei&amp.a) Aristotle &quot. or that The sun is round. ylverai Parvus error in principio - fit magnus in terra tells c. consist. phantasm us that when we contemplate anything. nor does the intellect ever operate save in connexion with a phantasm. : beginning but a small error.gt. We have already explained what which the on are Logic takes cognizance of the grounds. There is truth in that saying of Aristotle s. I cannot do so without imagining to myself a sensible representation of a fish. Considered which the mind attains truth.Taff/j. 8. Every judgment of necessity contains two concepts. 2 will serve : 1 De The he Caelo. It can neither be act by termed true nor false. The Concept. and the Phantasm or mental picture. I simultaneously form a sensible If for instance I judge picture of it in my imagination. Hence the treatment of the concept is fundamental in the science of Logic. as when I think of some abstract subject.

my phan of particular of the circle tasm must necessarily represent a figure In other words the concept dimensions. its oblong shape. concept is When however I form the phantasm universal applicable to every circle that ever was drawn. is form a concept of template &amp. The mind s power of thus separating in thought things which in the real order are one. the merely The figure I see is of a definite size. a higher faculty than that of the imagination. I have in thought separated the attribute transparency This power of separation requires from the thing glass. universality. It can a only picture the single object separation. e.1 6 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC This mental picture is however very different from the concept.lt. of a circle. of severing its roundness from the sun. But my mind by an act of abstraction omits these individual characteristics. my concept &quot. and is in a particular which I place. and he proceeds to distinguish carefully between the (vdnj^a).d man. the paper I am using. Thus I can look at a single object. is known as its power of abstraction. It is the intellect alone that has this wonderful power of distinguishing two things which in nature are inseparably conjoined. if we notice that to judge The sun is round. I must in thought have separated the attribute of roundness from the thing I No sensible image can effect such a term the sun.. and consider separately its whiteness. phantasm and the concept . is : the phantasm is singular. namely the faculty of thought or intelligence. If again I say. its transparency from the glass. etc. the concept its A form of that geometrical figure will express not individual circle before me. but all circles.g. if I applicable to all it in conjunction TI Otupelv) : with a phantasm (8ra. The characteristic feature is by which the Concept differs from the Phantasm.fidvrafffj. round sun. Similarly. Concept is of all of the same character.v re Beup-fj. This will be easily understood. and forms the concept of a This circle as it is enunciated in Euclid s definition. This glass is transparent. its smoothness. its opacity. objects equally representative Thus if I see a circle drawn on a black-board.

77 5 atffffijffis roO Kara 8. and sense-perception with what is particular (6 fdv yap \6yos rov Ka06\ov. faculty which enables distinct us to conceive the individual Socrates as a as a vertebrate. C. Psychology (6th ed. ad. Rodier. 1 must not be thought that the intellect has no means knowing individuals. III. c. also De Veritate. de Anima. 1 The doctrine of this section is insisted on by Aristotle. I. etc. &quot. with hair of a definite colour. 4. Physics. Every one of these concepts is universal. Q. 1. &quot.). as dusty. Cf. cold and so on. De Anima. 2 But the work o: the intellect. so many isolated units in the mind. Thomas. yu^pos). 8. as iron. For the intelligence deals with what is universal. But that composite concept is a universal. The concept equally applicable to the ponderous machine with which the county-council repairs that of cylindrical expresses perfectly the highways of roller : the shape of the candle on my mantel-piece while the cold is appropriate to the water in the concept of : These various concepts are not. consideration of the point. Thomas of the passaged Anima. 3 Vide St. lect. as cylindrical. III. and thus applicable to any other thing which resembles the roller in that one attribute. glancing out of the window. see Maher. The interpretation here given by St. My mind conceives it as a roller.&quot.e. man. c. Cf. 8. They unite to form a single composite concept. The phantasm is as the perceptions of sense. and would express all similar neighbouring fountain. 6. is to express the individual of object sense-perception in a series oi universal con Thus it is the intellectual cepts. 235-238.THE CONCEPT: THE NAME: THE TERM men. have this universal char acter. is not only in full accord with Aristotle s general doctrine. with certain features. III. or or as a father. We have only to consider any object to see that all the concepts which we can form of it. 4. ft knows the individual by advertence to the phantasm from which the universal idea is abstracted. Traite de I dme. Art. 17 But a phantasm of a man must represent him as possessed of a certain height. Thus. as It of from that of sense. 5. the individual to sense-perception. but is substantially the same as that pro posed by Themistius and by Simplicius.&quot. 7. II. no matter how much it may is differ from it in others. save C . I see a gardenroller. rollers. The universal nature is evident to the intelligence. of course. that it is without material embodiment (ret yap tpavraa^ara oxnrep For a further alffOrinaTd fffri jr\7]v avev CXrjj).

impossible. as mutually exclusive. which nevertheless contain no repugnance the blind from birth. our concept represents the one. it cannot represent the other. stone. they cannot be united in one composite concept. so in If the order of thought such a thing is inconceivable. not all concepts which can be brought together form a composite concept such as those described in the last section. We have intimated (Ch. at possible to imagine a thinking least. the verbal expression of thought. that cannot be represented in our imagina as for tion. On the colour to other instance. some are and hence hand. i. is the concept of . which it immediately expresses. There are many things. things quite inconceivable.1 8 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC 2. Thus it is impossible to form the concept of a thinking It is to stone : for the concept of a stone thinking expresses lifeless matter. expresses living union of these two elements would be a concept containing at one and the same time the characteristics of and not-living. . so that the one necessarily postulates the exclusion of the other. Hence. seems to have thought so. it is 3. concept. we must say some Name is a word or group of words thing of the Name. Concepts are said to be repugnant. when. and the concept intelligence. after the consideration of the Concept. and only mediately of the thing it is the name of the thing in question. Perhaps. Repugnant Concepts. It is of importance to observe that the name is immediately significative of the that is to say. of which I can form some kind of sensible difference is The image. because the con cept. 2) that Logic takes account not only of thought. These are known as repugnant concepts. The Name and the Term. A between what is inconceivable and what unimaginable should be carefully noted. There are some which are incompatible. but of language. and the object of that concept. A which by convention signifies the concept of the speaker. Just as in living the real order a thing cannot both live and not live. Locke.

in the concept. but they are the names of the thing. A Name is a word taken at pleasure to serve for a mark which may raise in our mind a thought like to some thought we had before. Similarly. Substantives. Hence. which can be used as that it is not word. as it has be come classical in English works on Logic. well. For one and Peter. which can be used as a term without being accompanied by any other word. conceive the same objects as and as vertebrates. The for distinction immediately following constitutes an exception reasons that will appear.THE CONCEPT THE NAME : : THE TERM 19 that thing. and which being pronounced to others. e. plain. can same the different we because names. speak of them as distinctions of terms. nie. Adjectives and Participles . in.lt. is The Name the expression of our thought. may be to them a sign of what thought the speaker had before in his mind (Computation or &quot. A Syncategorematic word is one. because the same universal concept expresses them all. object by express We represent it is by different concepts. It Categoreiuatic and Syncategorematic Words. is a term. Many can only be so used in conjunction with other words. Since Logic con siders names merely in so far as they are actual or possible terms. particular characteristics contained which they express.g. every 4. Thus. are truly repre sented by the same Names signify the concept. that can only enter into a term in conj unction with other words.. Logic. c. may be easily seen. I The lions lion a vertebrate. Pronouns. which the concept represents to us. &quot. in virtue of similar characteristics. when I say. and hence am able to designate them by both names. These expressions are derived from the Greek words opeiv to predicate. considered out of all relation to its position in a proposition. I can give the same name to many different individuals. in dealing with the distinctions which we are about to enumerate. Plato. we shall. A and &amp.rw together with. 2). all. Paul are each of them termed man. Socrates. but. Hobbes s definition of a Name should be noted. That this is so. we at once distinguish words into two classes : Categorematic word is one.

that adjectives and participles can only be predicates : they cannot stand as the subject of a sentence. Prepositions. The unjust men. mere vocal sound. if we say. shall perish. of terms. various divisions of terms. since the various divisions are based on different principles. (3) (4) (5) (6) Connotative and Non-connotative Terms. composed is of categorematic and syncate spoken of as a many-worded term. Positive and Negative Terms. and Interjections are syncategorematic. The student should be on his guard syncategorematic syncategorematic. (2) Concrete and Abstract Terms. letters. . If we say. except where there is ellipsis of the substantive. It should be observed that every term may receive a place in each of the divisions. When is an adverb of time. are expressed by referring it to its due position under each head. it of being a term. or the written A term which is gorematic words. Equivocal and Analogous Terms.20 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC It will be noticed. is If a word against speaking is said to be thereby affirmed to be incapable We enumerate here the Divisions of Terms. can it is true employ them as the subjects of those propositions in which we speak of the mere words themselves as for instance. What are called the logical characteristics of a term. When is a word of four We . Terms consisting of a single categorematic word are known as single-worded terms. are categorematic words. however. Absolute and Relative Terms. (7) Universal. But in this case we use them in a different sense. 5. Terms of First Intention and Terms of Second Intention. Conjunctions. namely as signifying the characters. unjust stands for unjust Adverbs. All the divisions are of considerable logical importance. (1) General and Singular Terms.

It suffices. 21 Singular. and restricting them to designate but one of the many individuals to which they might be applied. A Proper Name is a word whose sole purpose Other Singular terms is to denote an individual thing. which are not proper names. Such.THE CONCEPT: THE NAME: THE TERM 6. plurality of objects. They are formed by using General terms. Singular term is one which can be used in the same sense of only one individual thing. since they tell us something about the object. to : of each of the objects to which they are applied. white. The GreatEastern but there was nothing in the nature of things to prevent the existence of an indefinite number of sixmasted steam-ships. I limit the sense A frequent way in which of the term to one of the class. Thus man. to serve as a distinguishing mark. one purpose is Many proper names indeed once had a meaning. the particular reference of the term king A proper name on the other hand is thus indicated. black. Its of identification. A soldier. But in so far as they are used as proper names. General and Collective Terms. that it should be capable of such application. are called significant Singular terms. which for very many years was applicable to one ship only. the present king of Spain. Thus king is a term but applicable to a number of individuals in history : say the present King of Spain. It is not requisite that there should actually . is by mentioning the time if I and place to which reference is made. . are affirmed be a which the name is applied. Italy. A term is said to be used distributively when it can be applied to each of the objects taken separately. In the instance just employed. Thus six-masted steam-ship is a term. terms are thus restricted. Englishman. the meaning they had is dis regarded. for instance. in the General or Universal term is one which can be used same sense distributively of many things. the capital city of are A To this class belong all proper Walter Scott. and they are employed solely for the purpose tells us nothing about the object. names.

or some may object. simply other qualities besides this. The term which is absolutely peculiar to itself. certain animals shows us instance. Since the time of . else. black may indeed be said to include implicitly all the other qualities. when in it. we term characteristics thus expressed in a : it a horse. moreover. and the word signifying it is a General term. its taste. The same concept expresses a Universal concept. for it does not exclude the supposition that the subject which is black. they are black. The common concept are styled the Intension or Comprehension of the General the individuals to which the term is applicable term are said to constitute its Extension. we could not say. and as such must have something in may as liquid state. which considering is. The ink is black The term black neither excludes. Then follows another step. and wherever we see an animal e.22 &amp. and abstracting from consider it its many it. The ink ness/ black/ just as we cannot say.lt. I observe that my concept of black is equally representative of all other black objects.. nor explicitly expresses the other attributes. that of a horse : We possessed of these features. Mentally there is nothing to distinguish the representations of an indefinite number of black things. etc. black. The ink has and is possessed my concept and the term by nothing which manifests the concept do not express.g. But all this.. It is. bottle. is in so far as all. experience possessing It is peculiar characteristics common to all alike. possesses also many If the word other attributes. precisely similar to features : and it abstracts from all other present in other objects Thus I may look at the ink in my features save this.T PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC It will which these be well to give careful attention to the way in General terms are formed. black/ like the word blackness/ involved the exclusion of everything save the attribute of blackness alone. The mind. For It is thus that all our General terms arise. group the more marked of these characteristics into a concept. an individual thing. attends to some feature be.

for it is applicable to singly. are sometimes spoken of as Substantial terms. When they are used to signify all the water or gold that When exists. Thus the term army is collective. used in a different sense from that in which Hitherto we have been speaking of the sub . or a General term. 1 A 1 Concrete term is a name which expresses a nature e. The Alps is a Collective term. is a Collective term signifying the pictures taken lery together as a group. English writers have more usually employed the words Connotation and Denotation to signify respectively Intension and Extension. the subject of predication. which is a proper name. is Subject in these definitions hitherto we have employed it. substance. The National Portrait Gal many different armies.g. the definition requires that there should be similar objects. they are employed to signify different portions of the become General terms. though differing in many points. are alike as sharers in one home. lead. whiteness. ebullient. A Collective term the is similar objects. objects taken singly.. Abstract and Concrete Terms. and not It is also a General term. height. or attribute as inherent in a subject. ebullition. high. An Abstract term is the name of a nature or attribute considered in separation from the subject in which it inheres. as it is termed by logicians ject of a proposition But real things are also termed the subjects of the qualities which inhere in them they are subjects of inhesion. For this reason. It is also a significant Singular term. they may be ranked as Singular terms. : . they 7.THE CONCEPT: THE NAME: THE TERM 23 Mill. of view common to all. It is requisite to a Collective term that the objects should be capable of being considered from some point Thus the members of a family. It is in this sense that the word is here used. humanity.g. gold. white. e. man. or a significant Singular term. one that is applied to a group of term not being applicable to the A Collective term may be either a proper name. The names of substances. since it is predicable of the soldiers taken as a group.. such as water.

The basis for this way of conceiving them. whiteness. In the Abstract concept we represent Accidents as though they were isolated from the subject in which We man. as something which the animal has. prudence. same individual as Hence the mind is naturally led to conceive the quality as an independent entity.. A Substance is a thing which can possess independent existence. We can say tion. if we notice the distinction between a Sub stance and an Accident. as e. Peter. But it is not Accidents alone which are expressed by Abstract terms. implicitly includes the whole object. dealt with the abstractive lion.g.24 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC have already when speaking of the Concept ( i) power of the mind. e. as if it existed independently and in isola they possess a logical characteristic to which atten in the last section. The horse is white for the concrete term white/ though it expresses but one attribute. Paul. and to form such concepts as that of whiteness/ Light will be thrown on this mental operation.. in virtue of which it is able to sever an attribute from the subject in which it inheres. The horse is whiteness/ for the abstract term positively excludes the subject in which it inheres. Since these terms represent a single feature of the whole entity. transparency. Thus we form the concept of humanity.g. and by which it is determined and qualified. is found in the fact that the Accident which inheres in a Substance is not identical with the Substance. a they inhere. The colour of the animal might alter. By an act of the mind the substantial nature itself can be represented in this abstract form. The whiteness of is not the animal itself. yet We cannot say. We can say. viz. that they cannot be predicated of the subject to which they belong. An Accident can only exist as inhering in Substance. as though it were an accidental determination. and yet the animal would be the the animal before. tion was called : : . though there is no real distinction between the individual Peter and his human nature.

as Mill restricted by traditional usage to such are con sidered in the present paragraph. I. etc. But we cannot say his humanity for the abstract form of the word shows that the characteristics. a practice. and on the other hand much has been written on the distinction in its novel sense. But these latter dence/ temperance. This is one of the traditional divisions of terms. in which it inheres. &quot. The plurality that a quality may have in the real order. of applyAbstract name to all names. Where plural forms are used. Q. Its signification in recent English Logic is. the words has fallen almost altogether into oblivion among English writers. The quality It abstract. fortitude. Its application to General terms is a mistake. which Socrates has in common with other men.THE CONCEPT Socrates is : : THE NAME : THE TERM Socrates is 25 man. however. in virtue of which he is called man. We shall therefore deal in the first place with the terms . and consequently name as is. On the two kinds of abstraction see St. Summa Theol. the only Abstract terms which are general. Thus virtue is a general Abstract term including pru justice. as when we speak of we merely mean the enthusiasms or as ineptitudes. Abstract terms have no plural. in capable multiplication. The change is due to Mill. 3. 40. distinction Connotative and Non-Connotative Terms. Art. follows from this that names are all singular. The term Abstract notices. are alone to be considered. to all general names. which if not introduced by Locke. who imposed a new mean The former sense of ing on the old terminology. Thomas. altogether different from that which it used to bear. it acquires in virtue Hence of the concrete individuals.&quot. to the exclusion of those which are proper to himself. in various instances which the is quality was of realized. when we conceive it in isolation. which are ing the expression Mill finds fault with the result of abstraction or generalization. we have no means of conceiving it multiplied. are those which embrace a whole group of qualities. has gained currency chiefly from his example. 8.

but with cloven feet. and they are given to these objects. Thus horse. The English language. They are applicable to individual objects. no one dreamed of refusing the name swan to the newlydiscovered black variety. it should not be termed a horse. and subsequently add an account of their traditional meaning. Yet it will usually be found that among the of cat to educated. This is of course an ideal not altogether realized. the Czar/ courageous. though before the discovery of Australia all swans of which the civilized world had experience were white. otherwise like the horse in appearance. Not all the characteristics possessed by the individuals in The question enter into the connotation of the name. man. characteristics which constitute the connotation are those only. Nor do we deny the name Manx cats because they lack a tail. perhaps even more than others. because of which the name is given. But the absence of a single essential attribute would deprive the object of its right to the class-name. to the characteristics signified by a name mean the individual objects : which it is applicable. are Connotative terms. A Non-connotative Term is one which denotes a subject only. is lacking in this scientific pre cision.26 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC in their recent acceptation. . in default of which it is not applied It is true that this connotation may to an individual. We have already mentioned (i) Connotative Terms. and in the absence of any of which it would be refused. there are definite and assignable characteristics implied by a name. Were an animal discovered. or an attribute only. The definitions given by is Mill are as follows : A Connotative Term one which denotes a subject and implies an attribute. Every term which possesses both these features is termed Connotative. because certain definite char acteristics signified by the name are present in them. Thus. The explanation just given assumes that words possess a fixed and precise meaning. 6) that the word Connotation is understood by logi ( cians to to mean the word Denotation.

But many of these attributes are quite unimportant. Hence it is manifestly inaccurate to speak of them as the meaning of the term. when it has found some more fundamental characteristic. . though neither of them is defensible. to the discovery of what the name ought to mean. and their absence would never cause us to refuse the name to an object. tion. as to are sure that we possess the ultimate connota In the case of mathematical figures. which determine the application of the term. a connotation is susceptible of change. mammal. The mean ing of the term is what the thought represents to us. &quot.&quot.THE CONCEPT: THE NAME: THE TERM 27 vary. those hitherto reckoned as vative. Our knowledge as to the real nature of things increases and thus we insensibly alter the significa tion of a name. which we have learnt that the whale is not a fish but a There are comparatively few things. writers have held that all the attributes possessed the object of the name. It is plain that if the term primarily represents the concept. We connotation are merely deri of knowledge is ever tending to greater fixity of connotation. Mediaeval writers would have under stood the term whale as connoting a special kind of . constitute of Prof. fish. Some by unknown. Others have held that it should be taken to signify tation) has for its all that we know about the thing at the present time. Science only calls on us to alter the connotation of a term. these changes are not arbitrary. for the law determining the construction of a geome But even when trical figure is within our mental grasp. in relation to which. we know it. which a thing possesses. This is the view Jevons : A term taken in its intent (i.e. The only satisfactory account of connotation is that which takes it to signify the fundamental characteristics. Two other views as to the connotation of a term call its Thus the advance for mention. its connotation must concern the thing as it is known. conno- meaning the whole infinite series of qualities and circumstances. whether they are known or its connotation. not the thing in its objective reality.

denotation : : : tion is least. There is no mathematical relation between the two. A man cannot claim a proper name because he possesses certain qualities. not This group consists solely of The by first kind of Nonwhich Mill are those . These are merely distinguishing marks of the individuals. The connotation of vertebrate is greater than that of the denotation is less. rule Except where we are dealing with such classes. Thus I may increase the connota tion by adding some attribute. and secondarily the individual object to which they are applied. which is found in every of the class. thus in inverse ratio. As connotation decreases and as denotation This however must increases. because it pos sesses the quality. The rule is only true when we are dealing with a number of classes arranged in hier archical subordination. Again the denotation of a term is increased by the birth of new individuals but this makes no change in the connotation. as e. and are not held conditionally on their retaining certain definite Connotative names on the other hand are qualities.28 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC It is frequently given as a rule that. the man we once changed when the quality changes called thin/ we afterwards call stout/ For Connota tive names primarily signify the characteristic or quality.g. member Here no change takes place. Animals vertebrates mammals felidae lions. the is not verified. inaccurate to state the rule in mathematical Connotation and denotation vary language. zebra : &quot. connotation decreases. we have such a series. proper names. : tame (2) zebra. connotative terms mentioned denote a subject only. However zealous a : Non-connotative Terms. Proper names have no meaning in this sense. connoting any attribute. It is entitled to the name. Thus in the series. be rightly understood. as for instance crow black crow.&quot. It is. One alteration in connotation may make an immense change in denotation. moreover. The animal connotation of lion is the greatest of all its denota increases.

Now there is nothing in In the real order corresponding to the Abstract term. then every male Teuton a right to term himself John Smith ? And is not John Smith in all probability It can scarcely the proper name of not a few negroes ? be urged that this name is really significative of attributes. expressed by the concepts. he will not thereby lose his title to his name. They hold that there terms denote an Abstract object. Such a use indicates that the word has ceased to be a proper name. So far are they his qualities by association. be drawn from the fact that Nor can any argument it terms as is possible to use such a Don Quixote as connotative.g. namely the quality which they connote that their denotation and conno A consideration of what the denota tation coincide. . and that the name of a friend recalls his It is true that it may recall them. it is true that families the meaning they once had. The denotation consists of the real objects . This point has been contested by Mr. will shew that this view cannot be admitted. e. on the ground that names grow to acquire a connotation. These signify an attribute only. Again. qualities to my mind. The question has been raised whether these terms are rightly reckoned Several logicians maintain that as non-connotative. The other kind of Non-connotative terms are Abstract names. : THE TERM call 29 may he cannot ask us to him Lord Shaftesbury. from forming its connotation that though the individual may lose them. Norfolk. But they do not therefore constitute the connotation The proper name designating an individual of the name. Bradley and others. Southampton. Thus John Has Smith is said to signify man and Teuton.. without is no term denotation. It has been further urged that many proper names do in fact signify definite attributes.THE CONCEPT philanthropist he : THE NAME be. recalls many proper names of places and the possession of certain indicated originally attributes. tion of a term truly is. But these have long lost all connexion with Grosvenor. Edinburgh.

signifies courageous the attribute of courage as determining subject.. c. the power of the intellect enables it to conceive things otherwise than as they actually exist. it repre it in a way in which no attribute can exist in the real order. On the attribute of the other hand all substantives. fundamental difference in our mental con and the logic of the concept would be incomplete without it. The logical value of the distinction depends on the difference that there is in the real order between Substances and Accidents. as prudence Prudent similarly signifies 1 qualifying a person.30 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC that term our concept represents the attribute as though were an independent entity. as we have already had occasion to notice. it sents * The meaning attached to this division of terms by the Scholastic logicians was altogether different from that which we have just discussed. Mill. They distinguish them as follows A Connotative term is one which expresses an attribute as qualify : ing a subject. It can conceive the accident as 2 When it does so it em though it were an independent entity. . 27). sig conceived as independent and not as father. 2 The abstract term does not represent the accident as a substance. That is to say. paternity. some some All adjectives are connotative terms for each adjective signifies Thus special attribute as qualifying some person or thing. and that term is a substantive and is ploys non-connotative. sent substance. c. and from which they are etymologically derived. 5. A Non-connotative term bute as is one which expresses a nature or : attri an independent entity. Substances are expressed by nouns-substantive. i. were called Denominatives (irapdivvp. rejected the between substance and accident. 8. There was there- These Connotative terms when considered in relation to the character the presence of which they signify. the abstract term. Yet. Categ. some entity that is the qualification of a subject. as nify man. but a mere qualification of a sub stance.a. : : humanity. Only concrete terms can repre istic. Accidents on the other hand are expressed by adjectives for an accident is not an independent entity. These terms therefore have no denotation. as distinction 1 an adherent of the Empiricist school. The abstract attribute was termed the Denominant. The Scholastic distinction is therefore philosophically justified. Hence a distinction between them is necessary in the and this distinc conceptual representation of the real order tion is expressed by the Non-connotative and the Connotative term. It corresponds to a ceptions. but simply as an independent determination.

the ad. Keynes says. Thomas. is A of Negative signifies some Thus attribute. impatient. careless. but not as for the term blind implies the absence of sight where it is normally to be found. one class of Negative terms to which no possible positive signification can adhere. Proper names arc not significant of any concept at all they simply denominate individual objects of sensein his logic for a division of no place recognition. living. not-man. It would be correct to speak of some animalblind culae as or sightless eyeless. and transferred them en bloc to the class of connotative names. however. by putting all general terms signifying substances on a par with adjectives. i. Art. They denote everything which does not 1 possess 4. . 1 It should be noted that very many Negative terms. 33. Positive and Negative Terms. nonentity. : as. as for instance blind. opposite to those designated by the corresponding Positive terms. is A of Positive Term Term one which one which signifies the presence the absence some attribute. as examples of Positive terms. e. A might have been expected to exist. inhospitable/ are under stood to imply the presence of positive qualities. we may take and as examples of Nega present. He : : perception. equal . 9. such it dumb. unequal. SummaTheol.THE CONCEPT: THE NAME: THE TERM fore 31 its terms which involved solved the difficulty that thus presented itself. this should indicate that all these terms are conceived in a similar manner. Q.. 2. On Privative terms see St. special class of Negative terms what are called Privative Terms. This is certainly not the case in regard to Mill s Non-connotative terms. The resulting division is devoid of philo sophical value. There is. a thorough-going negative character/ These are terms of the form not-man/ not-white. is con These stituted by express the absence of the attribute in an object in which lifeless/ tive terms absent.g. Proper names and Abstract names have conceptually nothing in common. and which have as Mr. A division of terms in the science of Logic must and when express different ways of conceiving the real order a class of terms is designated by a common name.

The name was given them do not is Aristotle. It is quite true that we cannot hold together things which have nothing in common. The pro it. They their : are wholly indeterminate term griffin not-man is is signification equally applicable to what is real in the and to the unreal. is An Absolute term Relative term is a name. we should have no thought It is true we cannot corresponding to the word nothing.32 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC positive quality to which the negation is attached. A horse is not-man. not-man. Excludit quaedam. A 1 one.&quot. and A Certain recent logicians have denied that it lies within our power to form a concept of not-man. Absolute and Relative Terms. : conceive negations as though they were real things we give them conceptual realization. over and above the Quia tamen [nomen infinitum] significat per modum nominis quod potest subjici et praedicari. of a sentence is to : 10. 4. If. which. oi/o/xa aopia-Tov). They are called Infinite (i. lect. The very fact that these terms can stand as the subject or predicate We a proof that there is a thought cor 1 them.e. that it witnesses to our power to conceive the absence of some quality as though it were a positive reality. because they purpose of the name. Thomas in Periherm. which by fulfil the natural minate character or some to designate some deter definite individual. . but we can conceive imagine nothing was once Created nothing gives an Being position form we can sense. The logical significance of the Negative term lies in this very fact. by means of a positive concept. I can say not-man. We can however do so by a negative concept. sione. concepts of Similarly intelligible not-white. requiritur ad minus suppositum in apprehen St. Indeterminate) terms (nomen infinitum. They assert that we cannot hold together in a single thought things which have nothing in common. which in its meaning implies no reference to anything else. Were it not for this power of responding conceiving by negations.

If the name signifies the related object. we have the con : { : father. equal/ etc. it is abstract.. A Relative term may be concrete or abstract. paternity/ Abstract relatives have their correlative terms. subject/ husband. child. Now I can conceive Peter. If equal. master. there must also be a servant. express Peter precisely under the aspect of his connexion with Andrew it must be the term brother (Categ. the relation in separation from the object to which it dominion/ belongs. without thinking of him as a brother his brotherhood may be altogether outside mind s field of vision. familiar with certain names which are so that if an object exists. servant.g. But if I think of him as my brother. e. to which one given in pairs of the two may be applied. and my thought is a relative concept. It should be carefully observed that the mere fact of a relation between two objects. it must be such as to express a concept in which the relation is the object of thought. it can be truly affirmed of any one that he is a parent. The Relative term for the case in must be one that signifies such a relative con question It must cept. does not make their names Relative names. e. etc. then in my thought I necessarily refer him to the person whose brother he is. Such terms are known as Relative terms and each is said to be the correlative of the other. king. Such parent. For a name to be Relative.. When a term does not involve a correlative. though the two men be brothers. wife. If we express master/ relative.g. Thus crete paternity corresponds to filiation/ dominion D to . we know that there must be an object to which the other are may be applied.THE CONCEPT object : THE NAME : THE TERM 33 it denotes. If there is a master. 7. implies in its signification another object also receiving a name from the same fact which is the ground of the first name. then there is also some one of whom the term child is predicated.. Peter and Andrew are not Relative names. We also are all . c. 8). it is known as Absolute.

Of the terms which may be predicated of an object as signifying its attributes. 12. there must be two things. with itself viewed under another aspect. it can fashion relations. The oak is the subject of my it is The oak . but as the condition of any understanding of the Scholastic Philosophy. St. We are here dealing with a special way in which the mind can represent the real order. 210.is 4 8 Cf. term of Second Intention is one which to the object.&quot. he there says. vol. represented in the mind. will find his labour in the study of Logic ii. p. is A A term of First Intention one which is applicable applicable 2 to the object. : This of First and Second Intention.34 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC the friendship of the subjection. the one friend to the equality which is pre is predicated The logical significance of this division of terms will not have escaped notice. of the highest import English logicians. Thus it can conceive a thing. Thomas. even when they do not exist in the real order. Review. to that which of the other. as distinguished identity. &quot. 39.&quot. and the student who has thoroughly grasped its ance significance. as it exists in the real order. The oak is deciduous but I may go on to say. of the other. necessary to be known. which is viewed under one aspect. not one only. only as it is exists in the conceptual order. 1 See however an accurate account by Sir William Hamilton in Edinburgh The distinction. not only on its own account as a highly philosophical determination. Some belong to it only in so far as say. Thus I may not only is a forest-tree. Terms distinction . has been omitted by many of the recent 1 It is. 57. much lightened. friendship dicated of one of two equals. c. however. from a merely conceptual relation. . not all belong to it as it is in the real order. as identical Yet in the real order there can be no such thing as a relation of To have a real. Opusc. Further. De Natura Generis. It is capable on the one hand of representing its object in isolation and on the other it can represent it in the light of the connexion by which it is related to something else. &quot.

i. de Universalibus. Thomas. Thus St. These two orders of predicates. order as such. Univocal. Goudin (1640-1695) says. etc. 3. Here. large belongs subsequent chapters. Quaest. Prae. salia Porphyrii. This distinction first appears works of the Arabian commentators on Aristotle. oak is a universal concept. is A Univocal Term one which is always employed with . wholly concerned with the consideration of things as they are in the con ceptual order. 12. as it is To this class of terms realized in the logical order. Opusc. Super Univerpaliter est de secundis intentionibus. One mode it is of existence sort belongs to the object in its own natural the other belongs to it in so far as represented conceptually. which with we shall have to a number. and it was not without cerned with Second Intentions cause that the mediaeval logicians defined it simply is : that Logic as the Science of Second Intentions. and hence as they are subjects. Boethius. when it is remembered that intentio is a word used by the mediaeval logicians to signify an The first act of the mind is that by act of the mind. predicates. Q. deal in differentia. are called respectively terms of First Intention and terms of Second Intention. in so far that is. with things as they are mentally repre sented. Omnes Thomistae assignant ens rationis seu secundas intentiones pro objecto formali Logicae. and the like. species. The terminology will be understood. which he attributes to It is however said not to occur in that author s works. which the mind conceives and knows the thing as it is the second act of the mind is that by in the real order which it knows the thing as it is in the conceptual order. quotes the saying that Logic deals with Second Intentions as applied to First. c. Logica princiScotus. but with the manner in which the mind Hence Logic is wholly con represents that real order. 2. Art. : The reason why we claim that the is distinction is of primary importance. such as genus. Equivocal and Analogous Terms.THE CONCEPT judgment/ as is : THE NAME : THE TERM 35 The I manifest. have two totally different orders of pre : dicates. It is not concerned with the real universal terms. in the Logica Maj.

it means that the hand. for our purpose. because there exists between characteristic signified we can them a instance likeness of proportion we say that God is the that the sculptor is the cause is analogous.36 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC same is An Equivocal term. each other in the following ways : (i) Contradictory Opposition is the opposition between . and of the statue. meanings Equivocal term. that the Yet present in different grades. The word healthy may serve as an example. on the other intension. but that it is calculated to produce health in man. cause When for (hvaXoyia). is As applied to food. tween the two cases. (2) The other class of Analogous terms must be These terms do not. is satisfactory.g. An Analogous Term is one which is employed to express meanings partly. of the world. as e. one which can be used to express two entirely different meanings. We say that a man is a thing. his physical condition it signifies. Properly speak ing an equivocal term is not one but two terms. The two are as distinct as those of an here. part signify Equi vocal terms are of no logical importance. the word cause God causes the world in a differ ent sense from that in which the sculptor causes the Yet owing to the proportional resemblance be statue. As applied to a man. These terms are of two kinds. and employ an Analogous term. convey precisely the same meaning wherever they are employed. we can form an Analogous concept. the word bit is used to or of either a morsel a horse s harness. physically sound. both forms of the characteristic in express ques tion by a single concept. When an Analogous term is applied to objects between which the analogy exists. like carefully noticed. it is true. . Opposition of Terms. but not wholly. (i) One class do not. and that but a man and a thought are a thought is a thing not things in the same sense. the same. differ from Equivocal terms. its meaning in the two cases is is in so far different. not that the food Univocal terms. Terms can be opposed to 13. Similarly the word thing is analogous.

not-man. Everything. The * we . cepts pious impious. e. Many . Hence the fact that red other. pious. 14. is white and is between which a opposition realty thing ( The opposition which between red a thing which is not-white. The mind recognizes Contrary opposition between the con and white and black. formal. which are furthest removed from each other among those which belong to the instance. precisely in the same manner as it recognizes the Contra dictory opposition between A and not-A.THE CONCEPT a term and not-white.g. The reason they exclude each Contradictory Opposition. 5 : THE NAME : THE TERM * 37 its white. no room for this distinction. there is cesses Even where of the Term. but they are exhaustive of all possible things. whether real or unreal. negation. exists between Repugnant terms and white. same genus. because we are unable to say whether two terms are con traries. impious. (2) Contrary Opposition is the opposition between two classes. Such are. black. the extremes are known as contraries. signify. The mental pro which can be symbolically represented. This opposition arises because our concepts of certain series of qualities represent them : as passing by gradation from one extreme to the other there is no abrupt tran sition such as is found to exist between contradictories. do not differ in any essential from those which cannot. cruel. because : logicians speak of Contradictory opposition as as it can be symbolically represented A not-A Contrary opposition they term material. unless we know the actual things which they On the view of Logic which we are defending.g. for kind. no matter what it be. man. is a special case of 2). Where this gradation of qualities is found. there are various ways in which it may be construed. spirit. e. is either it be matter or white or not white. It is characteristic of this opposition that the two terms are not merely mutually exclusive. white. lies in the is not-white. Suppositio are dealing with one and the same univocal term.

This distinction depends (2) Real and Logical use. (1) Collective and Distributive use.&quot. Suppositio materialis. the use is real (suppositio &quot. &quot.38 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC The same term may stand for something different. or as it is is King of England The in his concept. Although a little repetition may be it will to stand involved. The former is known as the distributive use (suppositio disthe latter as the collective use tributiva) of the term . Run isa word of three letters. if I say at Windsor. &quot. . the predicate may apply either to the individuals. When anything is affirmed or denied of a plural subject. be well to distinguish here the principal among the different ways in which a term may be used. Thus. and The citizens voted in the election/ will sufficiently illustrate the two cases. The citizens (suppositio collective^}. it is said to be used in its suppositio materialis. who constitute the subject. (from supponere.g. or to them taken as a group.&quot.&quot. realis). &quot. When is taken to signify simply the spoken sound. These various uses of the term were termed by the Latin logicians its suppositiones.&quot. the logical (suppositio logica). taken separately. To run is a verb. The propositions. or the written symbol. The King use is of England a word is the sub ject of (3) my sentence. e. on whether the speaker refers to the object as it is in the real order. raised a monument to the dead statesman. for ). If I say.

given certain conditions. In the indicative alone we affirm (or deny) the attribute of the subject. is also sometimes defined as a verbal expression for it enunciating a truth or falsity (de Inter p. The lion is vertebrate/ Caesar is not alive. i).g. is only when the attribute is ! affirmed of the subject that the mind reaches truth or For truth is attained when the mind assigns to falsity. In the other grammatical moods. 6. e. A proposition of the kind we have described. The messen to be noted : ger is speaking.CHAPTER III. it belongs to it. or gives an injunction that it should be so. Thus we have. i) It : is characteristic of every proposition that it must be either true or false. the following points are (i) It is always in the indicative mood. the subject an attribute which belongs to it in the real order. THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION. The expression expression As the Term is the external Proposition. to distinguish it In these we do not assert : the attribute of the subject absolutely we merely affirm In regard that. c. to the Categorical proposition. of the Concept. the mind does not judge that the attribute belongs to the subject. so the Proposition is the of the Judgment. as the Categorical Proposition. (2) The logical proposition is always stated in . The Proposition may be denned as a verbal expression in which we affirm or deny an attribute of a subject (de Inter p. is commonly known from Conditional propositions. The form of the proposition is is (or is not) 5 P. I. but expresses a wish that it may be so. ! May it messenger So too the messenger speak Speak. c.

them in one word. whatever its grammatical form. Hamilton stated this in what is sometimes termed Hamilton s Postulate. Our three mutilated expres sions may be respectively resolved into. (3) The logical predicate is always separated from the In the language of common life. I may say. shall be so analysed and expressed. will be . The bird is flying. Hence has seemed best to avoid introducing the complexities which the employment of past and future would introduce. arises immedi1 The question of the Implication more fully dealt with in Ch. The octopus is vertebrate. The lion is verte brate/ because the term vertebrate is rightly applied to the same object as the term I cannot say lion. This relation between the may say A chiliagon is though no chiliagon has ever : : subject and predicate of the proposition. In Logic we must say. as to represent as closely as possible the intellectual act. if We which we speak took place. as for instance. at which the event of we put are in the best position to achieve this ourselves at the precise point of time ! ! Sir W. the copula is not signifies the objective diversity of the terms the predicate is not applicable to the object denoted by the subject. The copula in affirmative sentences denotes the objective identity of the subject and predicate they are expressions repre In negative sentences senting one and the same object. as we have seen. it ! object.40 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is the present tense. we frequently copula. A wolf is near/ A fire is burning. 1 a geometrical figure/ even existed. Logic postulates to be allowed to state explicitly in language. to study the mode in which the mind represents the real order. such as Wolf Rain Fire For Logic demands that every sentence. This same process must be performed whenever we get mutilated expressions. Rain is falling. We must carefully distinguish between the is of the : and the same word when it means to The copula does not signify that the subject copula. Our purpose in Logic. I exist. viz. whatever is implicitly contained in thought. of Existence in the copula. exists. 7. The bird express flies.

abstracting the attribute of round forms two concepts.&quot. ^&quot. Formal Logic should take no account of the content of the subject and predicate. II.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION 41 ately from the nature of the mental act which the pro In every affirmative the judgment. III. e. Traite de I dme. if we consider the case of a judgment made about some object immediately presented by sense.g.&quot.gt. which are characteristic of the conceptual order. Scholastic Logic any judgments in which the concepts do not repre sent the same objective reality.gt. ^ &amp. The octopus is vertebrate. To it every judgment is simply S is P. ?&amp. Cows are lions. Similarly Themistius.f&amp. &quot. The intellect. 471. : object. object which I conceive as octopus. it is a . Hence the judgment.avr6. says 17 ntv y&p rbv f3a5iovTa Zuw/odnji fv 6 vovs 5t diatpft x u pl* T r The sense-faculty 2. 2.g.. &quot. while the sun is a material body and it holds the sun and its roundness in separation. In these the two notions are repugnant the one to the other. Men are circles. The sun is round. the sun. the other of and judges. position represents judgment the two terms are different mental expressions of the same object. The testimony of sense-perception presents to us. is impossible. It will appear how the mind realizes its possession of rejects truth in a judgment. commenting on Arist De Anitna. 31. faithful representation of the reality and the intellect conscious that the mental act is in perfect conformity with the fact. vi. The same object is expressed in one But the concept as lion/ in another as vertebrate. l Now this intellectual act of judgment is in one sense unlike the visible sun. Here we see how totally Scholastic Logic differs from Formal Logic. 10 cited in Rodier. for it is a spiritual act. I cannot conceive also as vertebrate. Strictly. The judgment is untrue. et peuvent faire fonction de predicat dans les propositions. e. and separates Socrates on the one hand from ts walking on the other. while in the real order they constitute one ness.gt.s 1 f^&quot. : . Them. one of the sun.^trai . 1 C est done grace & 1 abstraction intellectuelle que les choses sont affirmables les unes des autres.lt. of which through sense it has direct know is ledge. cl&amp. round. Mercier. 302. But though it has these points of dissimilitude. x w P s /3a5ffet the intellect gives us the phantasm of Socrates walking as a single whole abstracts.

Here the predicate in each case is the attribute not indeed the attribute considered in separation from its object. as we have seen. For the sake of emphasis. brittle thing will be termed coal and the judgment will take predicates : of a less primary character. but considered as qualifying the thing. positione affirmativa vera oportet quod praedicatum et subjectum significant idem secundum rem aliquo modo. it must not be forgotten that it is the subject which directly expresses the thing. black. It judges.e. our mind immediately commences to abstract the attributes from the object of thought. The sun is not square/ my in tellect recognizes that its representation of the an object in which the attribute of squareness sun as is not found.e. . is the predicate. I. The predicate expresses the thing as qualified 1 a Whenever we fix our atten by particular attribute. 13. Thomas. whether it comes first or last. It is easy to see how such judgments develop into more complex ones. hardness. The term which quali fies or defines the other. Although.42 if PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Similarly I judge.. Analysis of the Judgment. : . etc. appear if we examine what is meant by In qualibet proSumma Theol. We We must now enquire why to be. that to which attributes belong. etc. . tion on a thing. i. Q. and affirm them one by one of it. it is Thus in the words. et diversum secundum rationem. etc. 2. . the predicate may precede it. Art. Intellectus id quod ponit ex parte subject! trahit ad partem suppositi quod vero ponit ex parte praedicati trahit ad naturam formae in supposito existentis. have stated in the previous section that the copula expresses the objective identity of the subject and predi cate. The hard. 12. The thing is hard is black is brittle. Blessed are the meek/ the meek who form the logical subject. is a faithful representation. which tells us which is the subject and which the predicate. i. blackness. will this identity is expressed by The reason 1 the verb Cf. St. the subject and the predicate of the judg ment are different concepts of the same thing. It is the meaning of the proposition. not the arrangement of the words. Grammatically the subject does not always take the first place.

and when we speak of things. colour. namely in which it means the nature of the This will thing. Our words are the mani festation of our thoughts. The at once distinguish two senses of the term. say of Socrates. Thus for instance we say of Socrates that he is a man For or : of Bucephalus. that in virtue of which the thing is or it may signify (2) being we can : the nature of the thing that in virtue of which it is what it is. etc. Indeed so little has the is of the copula to do with existence. but with its representation in the mind. 1 the horse a quadruped would be But here we must importance. etc.. that he is a horse. but simply say Socrates is. whether he existed or not. the concept. we do not employ the subject-copula-predicate sentence at all. Size. all go to constitute the complete entity. whether the thing exists. man besides the essential nature we speak of them as they are mentally represented. we are how ever not concerned directly with the real order. characteristics than these it is plain that horse/ numerous other qualities go to make an indi vidual object what it is. object. would be the same in all its determinations. . the function of the copula is to declare that some is. If it were possible to have Singular concepts.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION the 43 of an object. but the second sense of that being. that when we desire to affirm the fact of existence. In considering the to be of the copula. appear still more plainly if we reflect that not the we can make a that series of true judgments about an exists or not. If we speak of the real order. Now when our mind forms a judgment concerning an ob ject. The nature is complete in all its characteristics apart from the actuality which existence confers. Hence our concept of the nature is complete without respect to the question. attribute belongs to that object. to tell us what the object In other words the to be of the copula represents being of existence. And many other may be affirmed of each of them. call attention to It will a point of very great be remembered that when discuss- 1 It should be noticed that existence adds no new note or determination to the nature of a finite being. true even were the last member of the species equus ex tinct. irrespective of whether is it Our judgment. e. being of an object may signify (i) its existence.g.

4. c. real subject but a purely negative result is conceived as a positive action. 2.&quot. Sometimes for both subject and predicate are of this character : instance. i). Not merely was the distinction carefully noted here. I.44 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC ing Negative terms (Ch. it to which rose from this narrow spot diffused itself at an early period over the whole surface of Metaphysics &quot. ov y&p To be something is not the same as to be. Blindness deprives men of much happiness. de Interp. 1 ( Thus in Soph. has not the same signification as when it means to be some specified thing. ) raiirbv elvai rt n KO. c. 10. As : we have already said. as all to be a man that Aristotle and the ancients believed used. And thus we find that in many of our judgments. c. Cf. the predicate is not a quality or determination in the real order. 9) we saw that we are able to conceive as though they were real entities. in the proposition. It expresses that the subject is conceived as determined in some way.g. (Logic. Mill gravely informs us that his father was the first among philosophers to notice that to be in the sense of to exist. The horse is riderless. &quot. things which are in fact simply the negations of entities. elvai d?rXwj 9. It is a mere negation. he says. fog. Here not merely is a privation conceived as if it were a . as e. From this it will easily appear that we cannot strictly speaking say that the is of the copula expresses that the for the predicate subject is determined in some way may not be a real determination at all.The common meaning wherever and adds have a he adds. which in the conceptual order I conceive as though it were a positive characteristic. Elenchi. l but the various senses of Being was by Aristotle one of the points most canvassed in the writings of the : criticizing followers. .I n. 5. Bk. To be riderless is no positive characteristic of the horse. when was but imperfectly is more astray than Nowhere he perhaps acquainted. with whose writings he the Mill frequently falls into error philosophy of Aristotle and his Scholastics. it expresses the objective identity of subject and predicate. .

as referring to the nature of the object as conceived. Comment. sicut dicitur quod : &quot. a synthesis of concepts as though they were but one ti&amp. St. in positio mentalis. et negationes per affirmationes. Certain points which remain to be considered in regard to the Scholastic theory of the judgment. and a separation in which we judge that such a relation is absent. He calls it (avvOfffls rtj vovjfi._7. Art. 41. i. But it is in negation the separation of two manifest that a synthesis. 6. i. s well in De Ente et The same view 1 &quot. III. Sent. de Anima. in which recognize a relation of identity. 10. . i. i. distinction On the unity of the act of judgment Aristotle is explicit. c. . : : natam. . Q. non-praesentia gubernatoris quae extra animam anima fit ens per hoc quod intellectus fecit ipsam propositionis Essentia. 5. ad. dist. implied in Aristotle known &quot.gt. sed non esse guber: &quot. Ch. Thomas and his great commentator Cajetan Sciendum est quod Esse dicitur tripliciter. 9. copula seem to be implied. definitio est oratio significans quid est esse defmitio enim quidditatem rei significat. is that held by St.ruv). Ch. Thomas in I. Uno modo dicitur Esse ipsa quidditas vel natura rei.gt. Acquirunt autem esse privationes et negationes ex hoc quod intellectus intelligens privationes per habitus. i. Such a view might when it is said that in affirmation we have the conjunction. must be dealt with later. secundum quod est dicitur copula et secundum hoc est in intellectu componente et dividente. terminum is aliquem. 2 * The following two citations will shew that the view we have taken of the being expressed by the copula. . 33. and says considerante absentia tamen gubernatoris nullum esse substantiale aut accidentale ponit in navi. format in se ipso rei carentis aliquo modo idolum quoddam. corresponding respectively to subject.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION It 45 of the mind.&quot.&quot.dTuv ibffirfp * 6i&amp. Unde navem esse sine gubernatore. Cajetan takes as an example the proposition Navis est sine Navis caret gubernatore nullo intellectu gubernatore. concepts. Verbi gratia cum intellectus format in se idolum quoddam navis gubernatore carentis. Alio modo dicitur Esse ipse actus essen: tiae. Tertio modo dicitur Esse. quod est ipsa pronil ponit. Ch. quod significat veritatem compositionis in propositionibus. and predicate. 4. c. See below. remains to be noticed that a judgment is a single act No mistake could be greater than to repre it sent as three separate acts. are alike we 1 single acts. extra animam non est aliquod.

His motive in assigning the In finite judgment to a separate class. Met. S is not-P. good The is wise/ be a Socrates term. A triple division in its other portions. i.g. highest Alps alternatives lead to the division of propositions according to mark whether : to quantity. taken in its whole extension and distributively. it is endeavoured to reduce all propositions to the affirmative form by writing 5 is not-P. 3. 14) that when a subis A We . But they differ the one from the other of S. 4. three forms. 5 not P.g. have already explained (Ch.g. V. e. 2. ultimate. in the real order. In any affirmation or negation. But the difference cannot be thus bridged. mortal or (3) there may be no sign Some men are negroes 4.g. may singular e. Affirmative. instead of reckoning them with the Affirmatives to which they rightly belong. 5 is not P we deny the positive concept P 5 is not-P we affirm the negative concept The negative and affirmative forms remain radically distinct. c. either affirmed or denied of 5. Some logicians have. . Universal proposition is one. in which the predicate affirmed (or denied) of a subject. which signifies must be be In every proposition P Quality of Propositions. seems to have been the desire that his scheme of Categories should pre Kant admits P. This alternative determines the Quality of the proposition. (i) of all the objects denoted by the subject-term. of course. : the predicate refers to some only or to or (4) the subject is not a Pleasure all. and a triple division for the Quality of judgments. which must or either This affirmative. various These of the has been scaled. e. P may be affirmed or denied. 5 is not-P is. equivalent to S is not P. is S is sent an harmonious appearance. truth.46 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC and being between being. : since in in and not-P of 5. All men are or (2) of only some of these objects. is division true. e. was required must perforce be found Quantity of Propositions. (i) (2) negative. Infinite. Negative.

All sparrows are winged. man. of the plural in a universal proposition. roof. The subject of the judgment is the universal nature adjective All does not multiply the concept. negroes. of course. Some soldiers are brave. the predicate is affirmed of every individual denoted by the subject. we are under- . of when we speak. Thus the proposition. some men. e. but No S is P. which it is here used. exclude the attribute from every member of the class. we mean that every indi vidual sparrow is possessed of wings. The sense. The form All S is not P does not exclude P from each and every individual 5. however. men are not generous. not a number of individuals. are mortal.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION 47 ject is employed distributively. whenever the word All (and not Every) is employed to qualify the subject. but signifies that to whatever entity the nature man belongs. . e. A proposition in which the subject is understood collectively is not uni versal. All the slates covered the not a universal proposition. that though the Affirmative Universal is of the form All S is P. When we say. may possibly mislead the student into supposing that in the subject the intellect conceives a number This is. is more truly represented by the Latin form Omnis homo est All The employment men 1 mortalis. the Negative Universal will not be AUS is not P.g. differs in certain respects In ordinary ordinarily employed. Hence. The predicate is not affirmable of each individual denoted by the subject.g. A The form (or are not) Some rich of the Particular proposition is Some S are for instance. in which P the word some in is from that use. as All soldiers are not at once appears in the proposition it It is plain generals. I say. to that entity the attribute mortal also belongs. but of the individuals as forming one group. The mental act of individuals. I No Englishmen are If. care must be taken to observe whether is be understood collectively or distributively. The Particular proposition is one in which the predicate is affirmed (or denied) of a part only of the extension of the subject. impossible.

I refer not merely to an incalculable number of past instances. it is really equivalent form.. one affirmative. the some stood to may be used even where the of all be affirmed and it may be predicate might truly used also even if there be but one individual to whom it could be applied. And here it is well to call attention to the fact. 1 The reason for this is easy to see. The majority of them cannot be attained by mere enu meration of instances. The aim and object of scientific enquiry is to establish such universal truths. that Universals deal with the whole class. are of minor moment. some only. . Enumeration will not serve me in regard to such propositions as. In Logic. later part of Logic. the universal truth. B. How is it that we can affirm a predicate of individuals. that Some indeed can arrive at All the apostles were Jews. All laws of nature known to science are proposi tions of this character. one negative. that universal propositions are of two sorts. It is only in its indeterminate reference that it is an independent and elementary thought&quot. we shall consider how we reach this When the word has the significance to two propositions. Particulars with an indeterminate portion of the class. All men are mortal/ All birds are oviparous/ Here. Some means several but not all. Some leaves the to which reference is made wholly indeter between Universal and minate* The essential distinction then Particular propositions lies in this. it is equivalent to so many singular judgments. A.&quot.48 mean more than one. by a can. I But propositions of this character process of counting. and also to exclude the supposition that what we say may be true of all men. that in these propositions we know the predicate to be invariably connected with the In a universal class-notion employed in the subject. but also to the future. which have not come within our experience ? The ex planation lies in the fact. Some birds have wings/ even though it be the case that all birds possess of a particular proposition. Thus I may say. C. When it is used in reference to certain definite individuals. : them : and fact there extension Some men are eight feet high. though in be but one such man.

universal. they possess the attribute of mortality. one whose either a significant Singular term or a proper name. On the other. but from our previous acquaintance with the matter under consideration. as in the example already given. In some cases indeed the Indesignate is used to signify that the predicate is con nected necessarily with the subject. it does not appear. hence is logically a particular. Indesignate propositions are such as have no sign of As far as form is concerned. the individual object is a member of a were appears incongruous to treat it as though it a class. it should be observed that we do not know their universal character from the logical form. In virtue of their cate mortal being men. For these judgments in which the Indesignate form stands not for individuals. they may be quantity. Old If I say.g. the predi is applicable also. for the predi cate is affirmed of the subject in its whole extension. the extension in this case being restricted to a single indi class. but for the class-nature. Hence indesigspeaking nate propositions have no place in Logic. These propositions present some anomalies. or of some only. e. Here the proposition is of course equivalent to a universal. Old men are A moral universal admits exceptions. it and itself vidual. some authors But employ the convenient term Generic judgments. The universality of these propositions rests not on enumera tion.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION 49 knowledge. . of old all men. but on our knowledge of the constant connexion between the concepts of the subject and predicate. and melancholy. Very often the Indesignate is used for what are termed moral universals. whether I am are melancholy. until a sign of men quantity is affixed to them. It remains to consider Indesignate and Singular pro positions. Man is mortal. or they may be particular. On the one hand. It is sufficient here to observe that to what ever individuals the notion man is applicable. the definition of a Universal proposition is applicable to them. The Singular subject is proposition is. as we have said.

i). such a proposition as. 1 course. is from another hand. Propositions whose subject is Singular propositions. All the apples filled to this group of apples I refer considered as a single object. and assign it neither to the Universal nor to the The This was. gives us the fourfold scheme. we do not know this to be the case. and arrangement. All men are mortal. (This Opusculum. Thomas. is a philosopher. we use the This distinction.) . The Fourfold Scheme of Propositions. the Universal proposition. de Interf). Summa Totius Logicae. These letters are the vowels of the two Latin words. and Socrates Particular. 6. 1 Cf.E. For the assertion made is either can be expressed.5o PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC have resolved to treat it will Modern logicians as a Universal. combined with that based Particular. If it is known to hold good. the bowl/ it is clear that Thus if I a Collective term are say. The last : These are respectively indi tive.I. known to hold good of the subject in its whole extension. have explained above (Ch. though found among the works of St. this proposition be convenient to adhere to that older logicians classify the Singular proposition separately. Affirmo (I affirm) and Nego (I deny). 2. cated by the letters. the second vowel for the Particular. every known truth Particular. we have no singular con Hence there is a fundamental difference between cepts. A. 44. we use or not. c. on quality. or if. viz. Opusc. Particular Negative. Thomas. the more scientific For the Universal and Particular are distin guished by the manner in which the concept employed as But as we subject is understood in regard to extension. it would seem. Universal Affirmative. though it holds good. shown us that the has two fundamental paragraph forms of the proposition are the Universal and the In one of these two. The first vowel in each stands for the Universal. St. Universal Nega 5. Particular Affirmative. If it does not hold good as regards the whole extension of the subject.O.

we affirming that it was not. SoP. A triangle . SiP. conviction that water freezes at 32 F. which SeP. No S are P. We are. There is nothing in my notion of cow . and Synthetic Propositions. two right angles. as well as for quantity and quality. In the case of the first class of Judgments. is that which consists of parts. is greater than its part. SeP. regard to the second class. Some 5 are not P. A. and in the second. I. But our certainty has a different motive in the first class. Every square has four sides. right angles otherwise must have its angles equal to two it would not be what we mean told of by a triangle. and compare them with such propositions Some cows are as Water freezes at 32 Fahrenheit. The point will best be elucidated by a few examples. 5 are P. SaP. as soon as we consider the concepts of the subject and predicate. SiP. Hence. This dis based on the fact that each of our Judgments is based on one or other of two very different motives. 0. E.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION Another notation. whole black/ we shall at once recognize that there is a differ ence between the two classes. indeed.. is SaP. Analytic is tinction If we consider the following propositions. 6. certain of the truth of all these propositions. and . whole and part excludes the supposition of a whole for the meaning of that is not greater than its part In the term whole. we see that they are necessarily bound to gether. The angles The of every triangle are equal to two right angles. Some 5 are P. our four propositions All may be thus expressed. Were we any figure that its interior angles were greater or less than should be justified in could not under any circumstances be a rectilinear tri In the same way the intension of the concepts angle. the motive of our assent is It is experience that has led to my very different. is 51 SoP : this notation found convenient. and that certain cows are black. has symbols for the subject and predicate.

sarily results of a triangle. on the other. or the subject in the intension of the predicate. 1 An attribute which is thus connected with the subject by necessary resultancy is termed a property of that subject. 8. The former class of propositions is termed Analytic. is not found in the intension or defini here predicate But it is an attribute which neces tion of triangle. Synthetic proposition is one in which the connexion of subject and predicate is not involved in the intension of the terms. nor in my notion of water. Synthetic the latter Synthetic. proposition. The second Every square has four sides. The Such is the or part of the intension of the subject. A be seen that Analytic propositions are of two first kind consists of those in which the predicate is a term signifying either the whole intension. In neither of these propositions are the two concepts linked together in virtue of their intension. from and is And if we involved in the characteristics desire to define the attribute having its interior angles equal to two right angles. The term will be fully dis i. An Analytic proposition is one. and by the greater number of Logicians since the days of Kant. . We place the Scholastic definitions first. A triangle is a figure having The its interior angles equal to two right angles.52 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC which prescribes blackness. in which either the predicate is contained in the intension of the subject. The difference is of Scholastic philosophers primary importance in philosophy. It will kinds. 1 For where this is the case the subject is found is in the intension of the predicate. An example fur nished by the proposition. The definition is of Analytic and pro positions differently given by on the one hand. kind consists of those in which the predicate is an attri bute which results necessarily from the nature of the subject. cussed in Ch. which compels me to think of it as possessing this par ticular freezing-point at the sea-level.

angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the remain Neither of these. de aliquo definite. &quot.&quot. Kant tells us. involving these terms. l It is not however necessary that the connexion of the attribute with the subject should be evident on the first consideration. our knowledge of which depends wholly on experience of the individual case. in which the predicate not contained in the notion of the subject. Ex hoc aliqua propositio est per se nota. and Primus modus ejus quod est per se est Thomas. 2. Art. lect. I. Scholastics St.&quot. lect. by the 3. can be discovered ing sides. also De &quot. in which the predicate contained in the definition of the subject. 2 The modern definitions are as follows : An is Analytic Proposition is one. I. 14. Bradley. A is Synthetic proposition is one. I won- der where There is the connexion of subject the axioms can have no mystery about axioms. come from (Principles of Logic. Summa se Theol. The Kantian division of Analytic and Synthetic propositions relegates to one class propositions. est If proprium accidens it is ejus. quando praedicatur de: . says Mr. would certainly employ them in this latter sense. subject and predicate is involved in the intension of the terms but we must often take a long series of steps before the necessity of that connexion becomes manifest : to us. Si omnibus de praedicato et de subjecto quid sit. Thomas. by analysis. and entirely (a) * We definitions as of vital Analytic per se notae. . . p. For he considers only the case. vel aliquid in definitione positum secundus modus dicendi per se est quando subjectum ponitur in definitione praedicati. propositio nota. finitio . igitur erit quod praedicatum includitur in ratione subjecti.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION we can only do so 53 by stating that it is a quantitative measure proper to the angles of a triangle. Many steps may be necessary. Arist. Every geometrical theorem gives us an Analytical pro The connexion between position as its conclusion. quod a &quot. a question. x.. 4. II. They are Analytic propositions in which and predicate is immediately evident.&quot. notum sit omnibus per . So prevalent have these definitions become. c. St. I. without axioms all impossible to infer. and pro The square on the hypotenuse of a rightpositions such as. Post. &quot. that in any public examination at the present day. Cf. Propositions An. 227). in which the pre dicate is found by the analysis of the subject. &quot. Cf. Anitna. have spoken of the differences between the two moment. Q. i. in An. Post. such as This book is bound in cloth. 1 Propositions were termed Cf..

The Scholastics taught that they are truths relating to tilings. such as e. and there are some propositions which are verbal and real. then I century. every right-angled This is Mill s solution. p. and expressed in words. them on a dictate of our understanding. opposed to a real proposition. even were . and means that which is greater than its part (Physical Realism. Or (2) their truth is a conclusion. Explica and correspondingly.g. And secondly. . all bodies are extended. of indi of the concept which expresses it. which occur to an individual member of a class. They are synthetic a priori.g. sometimes said. (c) 340). This is Kant s solu tion. But the value of an analytic proposition of this kind is not great. . real. and to this add the note the The King of England at form analytic proposition. (d) Analytic propositions are also termed Essential. relating to the square of our conviction as to the truth of such propositions as that on the hypotenuse ? If they are not analy Either (i) we accept tic. . at which we arrive from an examination of individual instances. cerned with the meaning of names only. Verbal 2. may the beginning of the nineteenth century. The division of propositions Professor Case well says. such as. of which no account can be given. The King of England at the beginning of the nineteenth who died in 1820.. &quot. though known through our concepts. The argument is quite fallaci The facts. George III. in which the subject-term is revealed by an What account then is to be given analysis of the predicate. that every synthetic judgment be comes analytic with the growth of our knowledge. a predicate does not cease to be characteristic of a thing by becoming the meaning of its name. that they must be true. died in 1820. ous. It is are not necessary notes of his nature. . and terms them Verbal Leibniz held that they are concerned with our propositions. A verbal is not necessarily into verbal and real is defective. (6) There have been three theories as to the object of Analytic Mill (following Hobbes) holds that they are con propositions. if I form a complex concept applicable to George III. triangle has the property described. the whole is. but we possess no ground for saying. all concepts are universal viduals as such we have no concepts : it possible to have a con (Ch. who died in 1820.g. forming the connotation In the first place. cept expressing the essential nature of the individual. e. the purely Of contingent facts relating to him would not be part of it. died in 1820. a priori. i). two hypotheses only are possible.g. course. that e. is an analytic judgment to one who knows the history of that period. notional and verbal. concepts.54 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC ignores the case. &quot. synthetic propositive. the whole is greater than its Sometimes the same analytical judgment is at once part. that e. is conceived.

as we . this such as Complex Propositions. On whole subject.g. Ampliative. denotation. which are mammals. with an explicative qualification. cations are often (as in the second of the instances to it. Whales. which is in my just given). a posteriori. the qualification does not belong to all the members of the class indicated. to which it belongs. Professor Case s Physical Realism.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION tions are 55 known as Accidental. and the like. but expresses. even if a by a relative. not logical. By a complex term is understood a many-worded term. may be consulted with advantage. its Propositions with a restrictive (or determinative) In these. the roller e. the relative clause is applicable to every individual. have cultivated philosophy. is a special form of complexity in the proposition. 334-353. In (1) Propositions matical. not merely the nature of the also one or more qualifications belonging the white knight. These qualifi garden. and constitutes a single subject or predicate. as the case may be. (2) qualification. the qualification restricts the signification of the general name to a certain part of All nations. expressed by subordinate clauses. are aquatic animals. Complex propositions are have a complex term for their subject or their predicate. so that thing denoted. that is signified by the general name whales. pp. Thus in the sentence. Thus in the proposition. Real. consisting of two or more distinct 7. and is given in order to put us on our guard against ambiguity. introduced Yet it is manifest that. The time determination involved in the use of the past and future tenses of the verb. the term is but one. complex term involves two or three such clauses. fied these the qualification belongs to every individual signi by the general name. that have been civilized. Not all nations are civilized. it parts. Two forms of complex propositions are ordinarily The distinction is gram distinguished by logicians. This however.

benefactor. in which there are two or more subjects or predicates or both. Another constantly recurring form is that produced by the employment of transitive verbs. we have the Compound Categorical Proposition. These are affirmative pro positions. The conjunctions larly united. Here we or Adversative propositions. 3. Pro positions of this kind are divided into two classes. each with its own subject and predicate. No Mohammedan will drink wine. Paul equivalent to : number ended 2.56 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC have noted. Hon ours cannot banish anxiety. This is Peter and Paul ended their days at Rome. (a) Propositions are three classes 1. This. his days at Rome. It often happens that what grammatically is a single assertion. is resolvable into two or more propositions. These latter are termed Exponibles. Riches cannot banish anxiety. in its logical will eat swine s No Mohammedan expression. No Mohammedan will eat swine s flesh or drink wine. Peter ended his days at Rome. as the negative form demands. connected by an adver- . compound in form.g.g. Of these there : Copulative propositions. Hence they are resolvable into a of independent affirmative propositions e. Neither . or an affirma tive and a negative proposition. Remotive propositions. Brutus slew his benefactor/ which gives as the e. flesh. logical predicate. These are negations simi employed will be such For example. riches nor honours can banish anxiety this sentence may be resolved. followed by an object. those whose character is apparent from their gram matical structure (aperte compositi). Logic is enabled to disregard. Compound Categorical Propositions. and those in which the grammatical form does riot manifest their composite nature (occulte compositi}. In such cases. becomes. Discretive have either two affirmative propositions. the complex term a slayer of his 8.

although. God (2) is omnipotent. But if the original order is to be preserved. Only God is omnipotent. . (b) Exponible said. two exponent propositions are needed. No other Exceptive propositions. propositions. such as but. God alone is omnipotent. and another to deny it of all others.D/ These are resolved by two . was not magnanimous. Hence two propositions are necessary to declare the full meaning. William I. In these. yet. three classes Exclusive such as These contain a word. then both Exclusives and Exceptives may be expressed by a single exponent. and thus exclud ing the predicate from any other subject than this one.g. the subject term is restricted in its application by a word such as except save.g. gives us the two propositions William I. In these a statement of made . as we have propositions. will become All that is omnipotent is God and All the crew save one were drowned/ will be The portion of the crew that was not drowned was one man. one to affirm the predicate of this For instance. The reasons which justify a change of order will be dealt with in Ch. Here again. The example just given will become. which excludes a portion of its denotation e. was brave. attached to the subject. This is equivalent to is omnipotent. two propositions are necessary. All the crew save one were drowned. there is the sentence to indicate that nothing in the grammatical structure of it is equivalent to more than one logical proposition. the one denying the predicate of the excepted part. members were drowned. are ordinarily enumerated. One of the crew was not drowned. alone. (1) Here also. the other affirming it of the remainder. something commencement or ending Printing became customary after the fifteenth century/ Paganism ceased in England about the year 700 A. 57 Thus : This William I. 5. In these. was brave but not magnanimous. The remaining If the order of the terms is altered. subj ect.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION sative conjunction. (3) Inceptive is and Desitive propositions. as to the e.

9. Thus mortality is an attribute that is necessarily connected with the In other cases the element of necessity subject man. Printing was customary after that date.. do not relate to the connexion of the subject and predicate . . as terms in thought. the nature man. and then deal with the Kantian account. they belong to the logical order and a treatise on Logic would be incomplete without tions. The Modal proposition affords another case in which the traditional ter minology differs from that in vogue since the days of Kant. that this whole ques Thus tion belongs not to Logic but to Metaphysics. belong to the real order. etc. characteristic of the Modal.&quot. Modal us Propositions. is that the copula undergoes modification. . It Sir Necessity. has been frequently objected. Here too we shall first explain modality as understood by the Scholastic philosophers. : W.. employ the same We whether the connexion is necessary or con But in the Modal proposition. tally expressed by us. one relating to the state of things before the time indicated. the connexion between attribute and subject receives copula is. There The are propositions. . but as realities in existence they are metaphysical. To be learned is affirmable of some men It is not an attribute belonging necessarily to only. the nature of tingent. This objection rests on a misconception as to the province of Logic. is absent. Necessity and Possibility as But as men objective facts. Hamilton &quot. expression. Possibility. in order to express the manner in which the predicate belongs to the subject.58 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC propositions. not logical condisays. and one relating to what occurred subsequently. Thus the first example will become fifteenth Printing was not customary before the close of the century. . The pure categorical draws no dis tinction between these cases. in which the attribute affirmed belongs to the subject by strict necessity. .

rOa. is employed in a distinct sense r6 y&p AvajKaiov fyuuvu/uajs An. Or we may declare the possibility of their separation will : and It is in this take the form.ev Totius dupliciter potest sumi : Summa . we can say with truth that that subject is capable of receiving we have its it. Men are necessarily mortal. when used in regard of Similarly Aristotle tells us that possible what is necessary. tion of the form. possible triangle &quot. c.i \tyofj. Thus e.&quot. must have three Notandum quod possibile Logicae. It exercise free will. impossible for irrational creatures to (3) the Possible (or Contingent). The relation of the attribute to the subject is. {v$t\t&amp.lt. . . Prior. may have It may . sumitur solum pro contingen4 tibus. determined by one of three modes. it is true to for a to have three angles. Alio raodo. and express the proposition as it is expressed above.g. In this case the predicate belongs to the subject in some is And instances. as there are four fundamental forms of Categorical. c. 9. however. necessarium et contingens. 6. there are four fundamental forms of Hence though there are but three modes. c. objec tively. (2) The in this case the is : Impossible predicate repugnant to the subject. 13. but on the other hand is not necessary.g. These are (i) the Necessary. On this subject see also De i. et tune comprehendit . 13. include in it. This relation may be asserted from two points of view. 1 If all triangles it is say that 1 angles. t Interp. Equila teral triangles are necessarily equiangular. We may assert the possibility of the connexion between subject and predicate. 13. The conjunction of the two attributes involves no impossibility. I. while in other instances it. in which the attribute belongs neces This is expressed by a proposi sarily to the subject. Tract. vel in toto suo significato. e. Modal propositions. possible for a case the proposition man not to be a grammarian. It is possible for a it is man not found with to be a gram marian. A difficulty is occasioned by the fact that ambiguity attaches to the word possible.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION 59 some mention of the manner in which the mental judg ment represents these metaphysical conditions. Possible the sense in which just explained signification the Necessary also for if a predicate belongs necessarily to a subject.

P and not a judgment at all. and the Apo1 Of the problematic judgment he it that a free choice of admitting such a prosays expresses position. The apodictic gives us the same judgment as the asser toric. The old saying De modali non gustabit asinus shows that its were appreciated in the mediaeval schools. The root error of this view is the failure to see that the copula is not a mere mental act of union. 66. but expresses the objective connexion between the subject and its attribute in the real order. when it is recognized as determined by the formal laws of the understanding.&quot. a See below. be as the may expressed copula.60 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC similarly the assertion that it is possible for a subject not to have such and such a predicate. p. standing. Secondly. i. The assertoric judgment implies logical reality or truth. &quot. may have a sense in which it includes the Impossible. 2 1 Critique of Pure Reason (Max Muller). The Modal may be expressed . That God should be unjust is impossible. merely in volving that the speaker recognizes more clearly the subjective necessity under which he lies of thus judging. (see Ch. i. not on the objective relation of the predicate to the subject. All triangles necessarily are Some triangles necessarily have the three-angled/ on the square hypotenuse equal to the sum of the on the other two sides. S is P. It is a mere declaration of ignorance. there is no reason why he should not express the assertoric in the same form as the apodictic S must be P. 9. e. and therefore as subjectively necessary &quot. but on the subjective He divides judgments into the Problem certainty of the thinker. 4.e. be P. These modes may be expressed in regard to proposi tions of all quantities. i. . i. the Assertoric. In regard to this division it may be said is of in the first place that such a proposition as 5 may be no value to the logician. * difficulties Kant s division of Modals is based.e. squares The subject of Modals has always been recognized as presenting certain perplexities. since the apodictic judg ment enunciates the same truth as the assertoric. S must be P.&quot. xS may dictic.e. Triangles affecting are necessarily three-angled/ Rulers need not be un or it may itself constitute the predicate. having just for subject the proposition whose copula it affects. And The mode in two ways. note (5)). e. and a purely optional admission of it into the underatic.g.g. Ch.

in so far as it is necessary. as this must needs be fatal to any hope of attaining certitude &quot. (7) below. &quot. It is possible however to analyse them and express them in the shape of A E I O propositions. whenever it is possible. i. 1 The 10. and (3) a predicate. General Metaphysics. which are contained in them. and that the term has no reference to the real order. First. .a &quot. paratively easy. &quot. adjectivally. in order to e. We find the subject by putting to ourselves the question. present itself as the Such a view conclusion from an antecedent (Logic. Mr.g. that wherever it is necessary to introduce a time determination. Of . Rickaby. or of but part of it ? find the predicate We by enquiring. this must be done in the predicate as in No. what or of whom is this statement made ? We made find the quantity of the subject by asking. 222). that it is well. What is it that is asserted of the subject ? These three points must always be considered. principles is denied. p. whenever the Two other cautions may analysis of a sentence is attempted. By submitting sentences to this analysis we reach the simple elements of thought. and an inference is a necessary truth (Principles. p. which must be of the form is or are (or is not. Secondly. We are not infrequently told that when a truth is styled necessary. to ex press the predicate as an attribute. paragraphs should have rendered the task of reduction com Its essential feature is to obtain propositions. there can be no necessity in the conclusion derived from them. 221). Is the assertion of the whole extension of the subject. sentences employed in literature and in ordinary conver sation exhibit considerable variety of form and complexity of structure. nothing more is meant than a neces sity of thought. The existence of any necessary first But where there are no necessary principles. Bosanquet writes.e. 1 Cf. in philosophy or science. That process The preceding is concerned not with thoughts but with words. II. The copula must always be in the present tense. Bradley tells us. consisting of (i) a subject with the sign of quantity attached (2) a copula. the form bring out the true meaning of the proposition All flattery is a All flattery is to be avoided is better than : thing to be avoided. 180. It is plain that this is very different from grammatical analysis into parts of speech. necessary truth is really an inference. be added.Every necessary truth must. Similarly Mr. are not).THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION 61 The influence of the Kantian system is to be seen in many recent logicians. This process is styled their reduction to logical form. Reduction o! Propositions to Logical Form.

that once lived wild in Europe No No is (8) lions are living wild in Europe now (E). The analysis gives us. there . relation of place (5) : if When . there will thy heart be also. the relation is one of likeness. This in logical form He is standing firm at his dan gerous post of these propositions give us the terms of a relation. (9) of the just are enjoying peace of mind (/). are enjoying peace of mind (E). All save he Here we have a had fled. : . Some (I)1 tigers are animals.62 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC A few examples (1) will illustrate the process : Fools despise wisdom. (6) Here the subject is used without any sign of quantity. but the good is great. Logically. In every instance. a relation of time. not good. where the full force of the proposition cannot be brought out in the analysis. All fools are despisers of All s well that ends well. since we have no uni versal term by which to designate all the remainder. the character of a man s harvest is like . . Where we have compound All cases of love are akin to madness. Love is akin to madness. the character of his sowing If the words Where . they : need resolving into their component parts. (3) (A). Where the words As so are employed to introduce the clauses. This gives us four propositions. This resolved into Some None. who are not just. the place of your treasure is the place of your heart (A). . but The pro clearly stands for the whole denotation of the term. . The re duction gives : He is Some (10) not fleeing (^4).g. (the rest) are fleeing great is (0). This will be. this is. Where thy treasure is. . In every instance. case. dangerous post he stood. (2) wisdom (A ) . or exponible propositions. is. All that ends well is well his This will become. Notice should be taken of the reduplicative use of the word The . (E) tigers are living wild in Europe now Only the just enjoy peace of mind. As a man sows. e. Firm at (A). (A). Some lions are animals. that once lived wild in Europe (/)&amp. (4) Here we have a relative sentence. we have a then. position becomes. are used.lt. but not now. The two clauses . so shall he reap. (7) Lions and tigers once lived wild in Europe.

Often. without desiring to commit ourselves to or again. . Most English flowering-plants are dicotyledonous. judgments Hypothetical 1 The are difference &quot.&quot. but does not necessarily imply in addition that Some S s are not P. tributively or collectively (Ch. 2. words such as is collective the proposition is singular. a case in point. Certain. to which All. . .63 great in the first clause. . He occasionally denoted by the who. A few is equiva has a negative force. than : 1 Special note should be taken as to whether the terms. /. Most of the cards in this hand are court-cards. . Few. All not. etc. In every case. gorical Besides the Cate Propositions. &quot. Hence Few is commonly reckoned as merely a sign of the proposition O. be denoted by A few. Certain The word Most has been placed as one of the equivalents of E may may . The whole body of ii. A few. . S s P may A few and Few is to be observed. are attached. are used disWherever the use is 14). Keynes. Always. the great. its the great as such. Few. Scarcely any are also regarded as equivalent to O. . is not good The great. been propositions which we have hitherto there is of another class called considering. even if we English flowering-plants are monocotyledonous. A. And Few says Mr. . It merely signifies that the majority of instances have been examined. knowing that it was possible Few Similarly we might say. were ignorant whether there were any of that character. and found to possess the attri bute P. Other Signs of Quantity* It will be useful to mention a few other modes of expressing Quantity besides those we have already noticed. Not all are. Thus we might say. The words Hardly any. merely in virtue of is (E). etc. Most. O has equivalents in A few not. Any. Whoever. they might all prove to be so. Not all the crew were lost. The use of All with a negative to signify O should be carefully noticed. . just in so far as in the analysis : It signifies it is great. . Generally. The proposition Most S s are P signifies that Some (more half) S s are P. The proposition All the men built a raft may be expressed. The good great (A ) . or This must be expressed greatness. be expressed by the word Never. after looking at any opinion as to the whole flora seven cards out of a hand at whist. . will be expressed Some of the crew were not lost. between &quot. men is building a raft. be regarded as equivalent to Most S s are not P. I The universal affirmative is expressions. . lent to some. we might say. are not.

one in which the predi is asserted as a conse quence from that made in another. the sheep go astray. and (2) If 5 is M. There are two forms in which the hypothetical sen tence may be expressed. M SM Some writers on Logic have maintained that the categorical and hypothetical propositions are in fact equivalent. Nor is it The fact to be expressed positively only the mental forms that are different. can be expressed If 5 is categorically. present section we are concerned with the Hypothetical. by substituting in the place of is P. is called the that which follows on its admission. by the fact that in absolutely of the subject. or All M. We do not affirm that the shepherd is negli quent is nor yet that the sheep go astray. In the categorical we state In the hypothetical we state unconditionally that 5 is P. Judgments constructed according to the first formula. it is P. The proposition on which the truth of the other depends. the dependence of consequent on antecedent. A Hypothetical Proposition is cation made in one proposition. the antecedent is If the shepherd be negligent the conse called the . It is the nexus between the two.64 Conditional. the shepherd be negligent. There can be no doubt that this opinion is erroneous. termed Hypothetical and Disjunctive. The con : bute stituent parts of the categorical are related as subject and attri the parts of a hypothetical are related as reason and consequent. it is P. may usually by a little manipulation be expressed in the second form also. Thus in the proposition. C is D. Hypotheticals of the second form. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC These are distinguished from Categoricals them the predicate is not asserted They are divided into two In the classes. that S is P. Similarly for the categorical All S is P. is Antecedent : If Consequent. demands one form to the . It will be seen that neither part of the proposition is independently asserted as true. the form All 5 that is is P. write. if certain conditions are fulfilled. it is P. which is affirmed. the sheep go astray. These are (i) If A is B. gent. we may If anything is 5. But it is incorrect to say that the latter is a more funda mental type than the former.

F . is A Disjunctive Proposition one which makes an : alternative predication. The affirmation.g. That is to say we must deny the nexus between the antecedent and consequent. . p. are not themselves hypotheticals they do not assert the dependence of consequent on is antecedent. . . . pressed propositions of ordinary life [logicians] do not perceive that similar propositions are often differently expressed. Religions are either false or true. relates solely to the nexus between the two members of the proposition. a salute will be fired. Brit. ordinates were disobedient. Encycl. however. e. they are : . and If I am a man I am mortal and conversely that different judgments are often similarly In ordinary life we may say All men are mortal. : . are distorted when they are expressed as If anything is gold. All candidates arriving five minutes late are fined. Disjunctive is singular. Either the general was incompetent or his sub Q.. negative of If he is poor. Disjunctives like Hypotheticals are of two forms and (2) 5 is either P or (i) Either A is B. 30. is Although : he These negative poor.g.THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROPOSITION 65 Such propositions as Gold is yellow. expressed. fined. vol. In regard to the employment of the one form in place of the other. it need not be P. I being a man am mortal. it is yellow. and The case of the King s arrival is a case of firing a salute. Hence ticals. he is uneducated. he may not be uneducated.). 333. for forms. Propositions. hypothetical belief. Quantity thetical and Quality of Hypothetical. :-. the first expresses a catethe other is a slipshod expression of the gorical belief If any candidates arrive late. This is done The by the form Although S is M. every hypothetical 12. meet a hypothetical with its negation. . or C is D . . Art. we must deny what it affirms. All hypo If we desire to propositions are affirmative. Logic. as we have seen. exclusion of the other. e. But of these universal propositions. There can be no differences of quantity in hypothe because there is no question of extension. and If the King comes. (loth ed. Professor Case has well said Taking the carelessly ex&quot.

Perhaps the most satisfactory division is that of Boethius. a necessarily asserted. 91). or it may be particular.. siveness viz. (2) If If S is not P. We have followed that preferred by Hamilton (Logic. 1 The Disjunctive can be expressed by means of Hypo in a disjunctive are : much thetical propositions. 236) and gives us A subsequently by several other authors. viz. The whole terminology of Conditionals is in confusion. 4. Quantity and Quality of Disjunctives. we need two sitions to represent a disjunctive. it is If the mutual exclusuffice. the other is certainly Thus supposing we are aware that 5 is either false. The King is not both at Its formula is 5 is not both P and Q. their By virtue of form is native disjunctives are affirmative. all The alter difference The proposition may be of in quantity is possible. and are then informed that 5 is P. This division is found in Whately and is accepted by Mill (I. a single hypothetical will 5 is not P. can we conclude that S is not Q ? We shall consider this point in a subsequent chapter. only but also that if the one is true. words. and calls the species respectively conjuncta (connexa) and disfuncta. I. it is Q. If it be maintained that the dis junction is exclusive. form of proposition termed by the Scholastics Conjunctive what is practically the negative form of the Disjunctive. as. hypothetical propo 5 is P. London and Windsor. the form All 5 are P or Q . and give the name conditional to those we have called hypothetical. 14. (i) If not Q. Some 5 are P or Q.66 It PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC has been disputed whether the alternatives in other mutually exclusive or not whether we not know that one must be true. . it is Q. Ch.. He terms the genus conditionalis or hypothetica indifferently. P or Q. be denied. However. 1 See below. Some logicians make hypothetical the genus.

Every conclusion which it claims to have demonstrated. (e.CHAPTER IV. are. In each case the principles have their own sphere science. Just as there are laws which apply to the whole realm to the real order in its full extent. principles of this or that they are not operative. but which of application. i. instance are the definitions of Euclid in regard to Geometry (the science of abstract spatial extension). is such a It is not a law of one of the special principle as this. These are the Laws of Thought. which form the subject of the present chapter. sciences. Contradictory not B) cannot both be : . They are and beyond it apply to all that is. In each science there are which are recognized as fundamental within that science. and the laws of motion in regard to the science of Mechan ics. of which 3. i. A is viz. of Being. and on which depends the validity of every judgment. There which are not confined within certain laws. something has been said in Ch. THE LAWS OF THOUGHT. however.g. so too there are laws which govern the whole of the conceptual order. The Laws of Thought. : judgments true. the limits of any one of the special sciences. to all that has a right to the name of Being or Thing. For instance the law of causality which lays down that every event must have a cause. whatever it may be. certain principles or laws. They are three in (i) number The Law ol Contradiction. universal science of Metaphysics or Ontology. It belongs to that but is true of all things. depends for its Such for validity on the truth of those principles. A is B.

first. their mutual opposition is not recognized.68 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC (2) (3) The Law of Identity. : Everything : is what it is. the law of gravita tion. For the word law is used in various senses. etc. we employ the word. expressed mind. we use the term laws of nature/ e. A is Of two contra not B] the one These three laws we shall proceed to consider in detail. if we are conscious of the contra It is in this last sense that it not infrequently happens that men hold opinions. we perspective. Thus we may speak of the laws of If we wish our drawing to be accurate. The Law must be of Excluded Middle. But since in all our mental judgments our end and object is to attain truth. and carrying with it an obligation of obedience. they are rightly termed laws in the last diction. Otherwise. the law that water under a certain pressure freezes But at 32 Laws of nature are only called laws by F. the other false. It is certainly the case that we are unable to judge a pair of contradictory pro positions to be true. viz. dictory judgments (A true. Hence the laws of thought cannot strictly be termed laws in the second of the senses we have noticed above. there is of course. In its primary signification it means an ordinance imposed by a legitimate superior on the body politic. The law is simply our description of the way in which the agent does in fact act. viz. no question here of the analogy obedience which one will ought to yield to another. we shall not attain our : object. is B. when we of about the laws speak thought. though because they are tory or from some confusion of in different words. which are really contradic unconsciously the one of the other.g. It tells us what is. But .. to which we must conform in order to achieve some end. must observe them. norm or standard. it will be well to ask ourselves in what sense they are termed laws. But it is also employed to signify a uniform mode of In this sense acting observed by some natural agent. not what ought In yet another meaning we use it to denote a to be.

The Law of we have given the Contradiction. ments are not true but 2. &quot. moreover. in the other capacity for writing Greek verse or if we were speaking of different periods in his life. and when it is denied manner and time. 8 Soph. . the predicate must be referred to the subject in the same way in each..fj. This law.s TOV av roG ravro Kal uxmtfrws /cai ev rw CLUTUI xp6v&amp. .pacn. 10). c. and the point of time must be identical. 414). c. III. c.. He words the law as follows The affirmation of an assertion and : : the denial of which it is contradictory are logical equivalents.&quot.j&amp. 1 10. Con tradictory judgments cannot both be true/ is that in which. he says. 2 It might be true to say both that the prime minister is capable/ and that the prime minister is not capable/ if the capacity re ferred to was in the one case capacity for government. : Met. 3. But the order of thought of conceptual Being is It manifests the order essentially a representative order.lt.(Arist. . (Exam. TOV . occurs of one in in when something is both affirmed and denied . p. relation. Elenchi. Met. A refutation. . : This metaphysical law may be stated The same attribute cannot at one and the same time both belong and not belong to thesame thing &quot. Kara TOI/TO /cat irpbs 5.THE LAWS OF THOUGHT sense mentioned : 69 for if they are not observed. /cat Hvos . 1 He. is a ruling principle of the whole conceptual order. with various slight modifications it is several times enunciated by Aristotle. aStjvarov TTJV avri^aaiv aXydtvecrdai a.0. of things. which it has been affirmed..&quot. as we have said.lt. 6. avrov. and the same subject the identical respect.. our judg false.tv yap dvri&amp. &quot. is care ful to point out that where judgments are contradic tory to each other. And this law of thought is the conceptual expression of a fundamental necessity of the real order to the logical principle corresponds a metaphysical princi &quot. principle The form in which of Contradiction. i\eyxos fJ. III. allowable and indispensable to make use of as its logically convertible&quot. of Hamilton. Mill adopts a more cumbrous phraseology. It applies to all that is thought.gt. 5. Kara. ple.

but because he has the capacity to elicit these acts. if we express the former as The same attribute cannot at one and the same time be both affirmed and denied to be. c. man is called a runner or a painter. which we apply equally to all entities whatever. : of the same thing.. 2. The notion which expresses will doubtless suggest itself. namely to exist.70 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC in Another form &quot. be cause the perfection denoted by the word to run. in a on what grounds axioms. is clear to It is absolutely simple. at the same &quot. it would be impossible to explain anything. It is applied to objects in virtue of that primary perfection signified by the verb to be. i). even though the per The fection is not at the moment in a state of actualization. 5. for its simplicity simpler or ultimate. is cannot explain it by any that is Indeed were there not primary notions of this kind. we apply these denominatives to them. 9). X. 3.&quot. We term one man a runner. which it is frequently expressed. What then is the Analytic proposition which unfolds the intension of this term. calls for a brief consideration. 3. which we attain through an analysis of our most primary notion the notion of Being or thing. be observed that the principle of Contradiction is a modal pro and the principle of Excluded Middle a modal dt . But the student should be careful to distinguish the various expressions of the law. which is the first principle to emerge from the consideration of our primary concept ? Its very simplicity : We actuality. Being is a denominative of this type. A brief examination will show us that the principle of Contradiction is the first Analy tic proposition. Further. nor vice versa. This notion. and we call another a painter for a similar reason. first of all * The question this is asserted to be the this primary characteristic of Being us from the dawn of our intelligence. and the most certain of all principles (Met. to be is : It is impossible for the same thing both and not l How closely the logical princi time. not because he is actually running or painting. necessario (Ch. We are accustomed to name objects from their various deter minations and perfections. as it endeavoured to find some idea which did not itself need elucidation. the ple represents metaphysical will at once be seen.&quot. 1 It Is to position de impossibili. The mind would be lost in an infinite regress. This law Aristotle declares to be the first of all axioms. as understood in the first of the senses men tioned in Ch. and when dealing with logical questions not to state the principle metaphysical form. characterizes him.

save that it refers to the mental act by which we judge about the thing The same attribute cannot at the same time be both affirmed and denied of the same : : . cannot at the same time not be . Here then we have the principle of Contradiction. U Ad videnTheol. Leibniz has given expression to the law 1 On Being and Cf. Being is applied not merely to that which does at present exist. cannot not exist. 44. A chiliagon may otherwise than by declaring its differ that it is essentially opposed to cannot state the principle as A Being viz. is identical with this. but to the latter the mode of its existence. non-existence. is manifestly a formula. as we have seen. 1 Yet we that which is not non-existent. is. The principle may be enunciated not merely in reference to the for the nature of an entity determines former. Art. principle. explicative of Its connexion with that princi proposition if we express it as A Being which In this form we see that the only difference be tween the two is that in the one case we affirm that things : which exist. or as otherwise phrased. As thus expressed. expressed. however. is. Summa Not-being as the primary concepts of the understanding. . but to such objects of thought as we see can exist. dum. but its nature that which makes it what it is. i. Thomas. The Law of Identity. 4. Contradiction. c. o St. as the first of principles derived by analysis from the primary notion.. we must consider not merely its existence. we get the form The same attribute cannot at the same time both belong and not belong to the same thing. Q. Tract 3. exist in the other. A Being which is.THE LAWS OF THOUGHT prohibits our explaining it 71 ence is from its opposite. The logical expression. Whatever this Locke (Essay. Like the principle of phically correct. Our proposition must be be termed a thing or a Being. n. Bk. and not the enunciation of a philosophic A=A. This principle is often 3. 7) enunciates it as and this form appears to be philoso is. : thing. that things which exist. c. law is an Analytic the concept of Being. 2. Summa Totius Logicae. stated in the form This. for as we have noticed. it may be enunciated in reference to the nature. however. Opusc. Like the principle of Contradiction also. I. In regard of each Being. which determines the existence. ple will appear plainly is. It is impossible for the same thing both to be and not to be at the same time.

He enunciates the law as Whatever &quot. and to be of any principle service. Leibniz s form will serve us also for the logical order. i. do not admit its claim to rank as a really independent principle. At most they admit that it is a rudimentary form of the principle of Contradiction. is in fact an attribute of that subject. that whatever attribute is affirmed of any subject. Est enim vagum et indeterminatum.72 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC in this He words it Everything is what it is. it must be developed into the law of Contradic tion. true in one form of words. 3. Ad usum principii identitatis 1230. however. Eleatic (circa B. so. There is. . quod continet et germen imperfectum. that we have arrived But in order for the at the limits of all explanation.tvcn) as the foundation of his philosophy. illud a Peripateticis nunquam in sua propria forma adhibitum videmus. which could not be adduced in any other case. because it is indicative of the fact. : is of words. of Hamilton. it may be owned. * The separate treatment of the two principles first became It is true that Parmenides the usual after the time of Leibniz.C. which conveys the p. 409). et principiorum potius radicem 1 Cf. vol. form. same meaning (Exam. to convey any information. It mere tautology. 1 They urge that the predicate of an Analytic proposition must in some way explicate the notion of the subject. The principle tells us nothing. some force in this objection. is true in every other form &quot.fi. It is the universal practice at present to treat the princi ple of Identity separately from the principle of Contra diction. Hence perhaps justification may be found for a tautologous principle here. if it be understood as signifying that every subject of pre dication is what it is. Scholastic authors. Logicae. The form is permissible. Mill somewhat unnecessarily introduces the question of verbal expression.e. attinet. Instil. Yet we must remember that Being is a concept which does not admit of analysis properly so called. 490) had enunciated the principle Being is But Aristotle (ebv efj. The predicate and the is This principle does not do subject are the same concept. Pesch.

8)... 3. . c.THE LAWS OF THOUGHT of all principles 73 emphatically affirms that the law of Contradiction is the first and his decision for long went undisputed. we have affirmation the member which and negation.t&amp. The truth stated. c. Aristotle enunciates &quot. the negative form is the necessary consequence of the primary character of the principle. Should it. A proposition is either true or false : : He further says. and the principle of Contra the first of the diction.... C.T) eVde xfTtu flfai ovSfv (III. Of two contra dictory judgments. y&p . there term&quot. 4.6piov d\rj8^ Qdrtpov ou dvTHpdfffws \frfvd6s (crriv (III. the one must be true and the other this principle in the &quot. tween the two members of a contradiction. is prior to the statement that it is not another thing Here as (Nouv. . is the real ground for the introduction of the It principle of Identity as distinct from that of Contradiction. 3). Qq. the mind has either 1 avdyicri yip jU^/jos T*?S TTJS dvTi&amp. &quot. IV. not be in conformity with its object. That is to say. appeared impossible that the primary analytic principle should be negative. As a metaphysical either be or not be. it is i). Met. the view taken in the last section is accurate. it would seem. 4). Ess. 4). Met. Ess. 8. 7. then the mind has attained truth. whether it be in affirmation or negation. Be no is middle (Met. statement that a thing is what it is. A\\d H. form given above. the first of the primitive truths of reason which are affirmative. &quot. Leibniz however makes the principle of Identity. IV. principle. 31-40. 1 7. thing of this is evident A must from the immediacy of the opposition between being and notThe truth of the logical principle is capable of being. Q. in Met. the judgment is false.the i). 1320) argues that the first place should belong to the princi Every Being is a Being (Omme Ens est Ens. 9). 10. 6) and of Scotus (Quaest.. We can only explain the perfectly simple by distinguishing it from that which it is not. dictories. III. (Met.dfftus ffdrtpov tlvai rb /j. however. sup. : . III. Among mediaeval authors the Spanish Scotist Antonius Andreae (ob. ple But the authority both of St. Thomas (Met.lt. The Law of Excluded Middle.. III.. which he gives as Everything is what it is. 7) and see Cat. c... lect. c. If however. negative truths (Nouv. is constitutes the mental judgment corresponds with the reality.gt. IV. Q. IV. 2. 3) was against him and he is expressly refuted by Suarez (Disp. false He says also. &quot. demonstration as follows.. If Where we have two contra and is not. IV.

is false. De Quatuor Oppositis. 7.. or the nega judgment. of Hamilton. Hence of two contradictories. Of any two contradictory is one It unsatisfactory. will be found . &quot. All contradictories 2). of course. Opusc. Thomas. that in affirmation.g. a mean concave/ love. i. black/ convex. subject. the primary form of negation is the negative must belong judgment. when we reflect. A is either B or not-B. hatred. 1 in St. Mr. the &quot. not an affirmative judgment with a negative predicate and in the expression of a fundamental law. propositions. lect. Mill employs the It is allowable to substitute for the following formula . between terms such as these. or that what is not. He holds that negation qud negation is void of all significance. Bosanquet s views as to negation lead him into this error.. IV. cc. 33.&quot. A full treatment of the import of the negative judgment and of II. the relation between contradictory and contrary propositions. in which the principle to every is expressed by certain predicates. we assert that it does being to the subject . : denial of either of It two contradictory propositions. should be carefully noted that the law of Excluded Middle is in no way concerned with Contrary terms. Thomas. the tive is not. and that the true value Hence he of a negative judgment is to be sought in its positive content. therefore present the alternative between being and not being. not possess this being (Ch. logicians. III. Objects possessed of any i St. 210). 8 We have explained Contrary terms as those which ex press the widest possible difference among classes belong ing to the same genus. is judged that what not. we are attributing a certain conceptual in negation. p. There is. and is represented by the formula. in Met. 416). as we have seen. is. therefore. assertion of the other (Exam. the one must be true. are contradictory to each other. 3. Met. But. Wher the contradictory judgment it be whether the affirmative is. 1 The close connexion between the logical principle and the metaphysical at once appears. white. it is the primary form that we need. 16. that the and not the supposes predicates. 1 Arist. . ever. The way &quot.74 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is. e. the other false. 2. concludes that the principle of Excluded Middle relates to contraries (Logic. will be true.

of whose objective. Such an argument can scarcely be treated as serious. The very basis of the Hegelian philosophy is the recon true nor false. though we can mentally abstract these concepts from the state of dawn. it is answered that the two moments are not. As against this view. he Indeed he goes further. and that the individual does not owe its origin to them. Of more moment perhaps is the Hegelian objec tion. contradictory opposites. for regarding and maintains that qualification. is not even true except with a large Abracadabra is a second intention. thought.it Between the true and false there is a third possithe Unmeaning. however. (2) as principles determining the growth of that ex perience. have no grounds. It seems well to notice here three theories differing widely from that set forth in the preceding sections. The principle has not passed unchallenged. in the interests of the empiricist philosophy. In other schools of philosophy. Hegel himself argues against the principle of Excluded Middle by point ciliation of opposites. . . and that the state of dawn is constituted by these opposites. These views respectively regard the laws of thought (i) as subjective laws of the understanding. which men erroneously distinguish into thought on . It is manifest. ence is neither love nor hatred. very various accounts are given as to the nature and origin of these laws. bility. declared the law to be a mere generalization from experience. &quot. . and the whole of Nature is regarded as constituted by this dialectic development. Becoming is supposed to owe its origin to the union of Being and Not-Being.75 other variety of colour are neither white nor black a and indiffer surface is neither concave nor convex plane . validity. is neither it We as necessary. however. Other Views as to the Source of the Laws of Thought. that an object must be either white or not white. but the contraries dark and that dawn is and light not in any sense constituted by a dialectic development out of darkness and light. : -A * 5. we can have no rational guarantee. . Mill. feel love towards him. . ing out that between + A and it is urged that in Hegel s system the opposites are in fact con traries not contradictories. as alleged.&quot. lies A. convex or not convex and that in regard to any particular it is either true that we do or that we do not individual. Thus if it be urged that at dawn we can say with equal truth It is day and It is not day. An unmeaning proposition is not a judg ment at all. but that they are obtained by abstraction from the individual.

all. . : &quot. gatively by ceasing to think at that the conditions of possible thought correspond to conditions of possible being. 207). and which it cannot transgress. He tells us that the principles of thought are laws under which the mind is compelled to think. 308. modifiable. It is needless to point out that such a view as this leads 72). they are ledge. Constant experience of one character is. &quot. repudiates the view that these the thinking faculty. It is under this aspect Mr. Mill (Logic. it is impossible to have any evidence (Proleg. The first view is that of Kant. He holds from a constant experience of a matter of fact known any of Hamilton. Logica. according to which the operations of the mind are vital functions by which the so-called world has been constituted. be owned that universally true. &quot. &quot. They are the which govern the development animating principles of growth of experience and if we recognize them as postulates of know this is because on analysis of experience. most of the sup- posed necessities of thought are. The second view is represented by Mr. and things on the other hand. otherwise than neIt may be. the creatures of circumstances and alterable by circumstances. 71. p. sufficient to lead us to regard its opposite as inconceivable. directly to philosophic scepticism. 205&quot. He holds that we cannot say that these principles are merely laws of thought. if by that we mean thought as distinguished from things Since a separa&quot. 417) explicitly principles are subjective laws of that they are conclusions derived their truth. I. But of this. he admits. II. We have already (Ch. in his view. we have already seen that he holds that it needs qualification before it can be admitted as we cannot It must.&quot. that what is to us inconceivable is in itself non-existent. As for the law of Excluded Middle. Hence we rightly lay down a general but empirically discovered principle to that effect. he adds.&quot.&quot. : tion between intelligence and experience is purely fictitious.&quot. &quot. from the nature of the case. Bosanquet. Among English logicians it is explicitly taught by Mansel. We have never as contradictories case where two have been simultaneously true. i. Exam. real Bradley regards the laws of thought. note (7)) called attention to the theory held by the neo-hegclian school of logicians. &quot. (3) as mere generaliza tions from experience. now conceive the opposite of these laws to be true. &quot. &quot. found to be active factors in it from the first (Logic. inconceivability is of little value as a criterion of truth to those who know how artificial.&quot. there is nothing to be gained by cutting down the content of these principles to a minimum in the hope of restricting their reference to thought as opposed to things. p.76 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC the one hand.. But this &quot.

but with the real : diagrammatic representation ceases to be intrinsically im If the terms be thus understood. it may proposition such as. provided that he bears in mind that the diagrams exhibit ing the relations of the classes.CHAPTER V. will be looked on as a statement of the relation that exists between the class man and the class mortal things. in many respects. necessar Take. The proposition All men are mortal. senting by a diagram the mental act of judgment. The most usual method employed. can there be any material representation of so essentially a psychical act as the abstraction of round from the concrete object ? Or how can any figure If indeed we proposed to express a universal concept ? represent the proposition as it is mentally conceived. a purely artificial method of treating the proposition. a simple ily involved an impossibility. the proposi possible. and hence the conceptual order. consider not the mental judgment. helpful. represent things and not thoughts. : Euler s How. the extension of the terms constitut In extension we have to do not with ing the judgment. DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF PROPOSITIONS OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS. is that entitled . if we objections would be unanswerable. but. tion is viewed not as expressing a relation of attribute to subject. of course. This is. But we may. But the student will find it. The orange is round. i. : Diagrammatic Representation of Propositions It might well seem that the task of repre Circles. but as expressing a relation between two classes. what is a very different thing. be asked. for instance. these ness will.

the various relations compatible with each of the four pro positions A. The proposition S a P will be repre propositions. 2. The class signified by the subject may fall within the extension of the predicate A All triangles are plane term.E.O are all of them capable of diagram matic expression. E e propositions. as in All men are mortal. i* FIG. By the aid of these circles. Or the extension All of the two In terms mals is may . sented either by Fig. the circle standing for the collection of objects denoted by the term. i or by Fig. 2 All equilateral triangles are equiangular. FIG. this case. we deny In every proposition of the form that the two classes have any members . the two circles must be coincident. FIG.78 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Euler s Circles. be identical. In it S and P are represented each by a circle. and representative of the proposition. 2. 3. Fig. It was devised by the Swiss logician Euler (1707-1803). as in men are rational ani Fig.I. P. accurately represents the figures. relation of the two classes. In this i case.

4. Figs. 3. we In propositions of the propositions. of such propositions. No fishes have lungs/ these Hence are propositions equiangular. in which it is some and not all FIG. of the objects denoted some that assert form S o P. Some are When this proposition is used. some in a particular proposition : some. 2 may be the relation to which the I propo sition refers. it may be all. It is true equilateral triangles say. Fig. But S i P as will be remembered. Fig. 4 and Fig. by the object . which fall within the class P.g. The one class is declared to fall altogether No scalene outside the other. triangles are represented by Fig. sents the case in which there exist other class members Fig. 4 and 5 show us the two cases of the proposition S i P. 4 repre of the P besides those which are found within the extension Some men are black will serve as an example. 5. There are many objects belonging to the class black/ which are not men. I propositions. of the class S. 5 stands for the case in which there are no members of the class P. 5. instances are Aryans/ of 5. The mere form of the proposition does not tell us which rela tion in fact exists between the two classes denoted by the Hence not merely Fig. save those which Some elements are metals/ Some men are are also 5. i and Fig. is understood to mean. there are four possible cases. e. to does not exclude the truth of S a P for. but also terms. FIG. equiangular/ even though every equilateral triangle be such.DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION in 79 common.

Where it thus employed. and only (3) Each proposition in the schedule of propositions. members in common.&quot.g. Some is scalene triangles are not equiangular. the form of the proposition is compatible with the case when the classes are mutually exclusive. but also some outside it. relation Each diagram must represent one one. P. three possible cases. e. Fig. some also fall S o P proposition will. s circles fail Euler failure have been found fulfil this fault with on the ground of this that they is to condition. then the like 5 i not Aryans. the classes will stand in the relation represented by Fig. There are five possible relations be tween the extension of two classes. be represented by Figs. 5 gives us the class in which P is a class falling entirely within 5.g.8o PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC it is term. e. tory. it is P proposition there satisfac For a diagrammatic scheme to be thoroughly usually stated that three conditions fulfilled (1) must be :- The relation expressed by the diagram must be evident. But here too. Some men are not black/ Fig. fall outside the extension of the predicate. Some men are within the extension of P. When the case that while some are outside. Two of these Other systems : .g. and when they have no &quot. of representation have been suggested various writers on Logic but by the nature of the by case none of them is really satisfactory. in which P not only has some members within the class S. 4 repre sents the case. 3. as soon as the principle of representa is tion (2) understood. 4 and 5. The true function of the proposition is not however to express the extension of the terms. e. therefore. For the S o are. must be represented by one diagram alone. The reason easy to understand. but the inherence of an attri bute in a subject. Diagrammatic representa tion only possible in regard to extension. and there are but four is fundamental propositions. Hence it would be idle to look for a perfect system of representation.

we shall see that neither of them distributes the predicate. Some European nations are not Aryan/ I exclude the European races of which I G . true that the predicate equiangular refers here to for there are no equiangular equiangular triangles . 81 first it is necessary to terms in a proposition. The judgment All crocodiles are amphibious. said to be distributed in a proposition. Thus if I say. But we could not discover this from the form of the proposition. whole extension. When the form of the not such as to indicate that the whole When we it is all say. in the case of the pro cannot tell from We the form of the proposi position tion. whether the whole extension of the term employed in the predicate is referred to or not. Distribution of Terms in a Proposition. In the negative propositions E and 0. the predicate is not taken in its full extension. I ex clude the subject fishes. If we consider the affirmative propositions A and /. In the proposition Some mammals are whales/ every member of the class falls whale within the reference of the term for whales are a small class contained within mammals. But we do triangles besides those that are equilateral. All equilateral triangles are equiangular. If I say. No class signified by the predicate fishes are amphibious. is of precisely the same form. the reverse is the The subject of a proposition is excluded from the whole extension of the term. is A term 2. but only to those which are crocodiles. not know this from the form of the proposition. a deal with point that will be found to have important bearings on But the distribution of several questions in Logic. and here the predicate does not refer to all amphibious creatures. it is said to be undistributed.DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION methods we shall describe. from the whole class of amphi bious creatures. : The same reasoning holds good case. /. when from the form of the proposition we know that it must be taken in its is proposition extension is referred to. In the proposition Some flowers are fragrant.

will thus be : : A __ p / p S P i l 5. * 3. p.E) distribute their subject. one above the other. The lower represents the subject.82 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC speak in the subject from the whole extension of the class denominated Aryan. The figure here given for I is not that suggested by Lambert Lambert s himself. figure is own p o which. refer subject term. Other representing the proposition by means of dia grams have been suggested by various logicians. It will be noticed that E distributes both its terms. two horizontal straight lines. If it be distri When the proposition is buted. &quot. the continuous part of the predicate line is imme diately above the continuous part of the subject line when it is negative the continuous portions are not one above the other. the higher the predicate. while on the other hand / distributes neither subject nor predicate.O) distribute their predicate. whole class signified by the to the very nature. as Dr. as well no S at it all (Sym may be said that certainly ful- . As regards the subject in all it is plain that left it is distributed all universal propositions. Venn observes. the line is partly continuous and partly dotted. which should be Universal propositions (A. there is no dotted portion. it No S is P. of their particular propositions. affirmative. 431). but one proposed in lieu of it by Dr. represent the terms of the proposition. ways of Other Methods of Diagrammatic Representation. Lambert employed a system in which (i) Lambert s method. The forms of the four propositions. They are (i) that pro posed by the German logician Lambert (1728-1777). In regard to this system. p f^ . &quot. To two of these systems we call attention here. Hence we have the following carefully noted : rules. and (2) that of which Dr.might con- sistently be interpreted to cover the case of as suggesting the possibility of there being bolic Logic. and undistributed in Universal propositions. Should the term be undistributed. but are separated by a small interval. Venn makes use in his Symbolic Logic. Venn. Negative propositions (E.

but the use made of them is quite different to what we have seen in the Eulerian diagrams. . The method now proceeds on Dr. we have to confess our ignorance of what the relation in extension really is. The representation of the propositions is effected by shading out the compartment. Thus/ All K is y is adequately denial that there is any x which is not y denies that there is any * which is y All * is all y denies (a) that there is any x not y. as Hence only available for the representation of universal propositions. assists the beginner. Venn (2) Dr. i. and things which This last compartment is sufficiently are neither x nor y (xy). viz. a concrete point of view that often The same form of proposition. term. We do not know where the line should The chief utility of the figure is thus lost. position. representation. however. The system employed by Dr. This provides us with four compartments. is. whose existence is denied. Venn s method. significative of a variety of such relations. The value of diagrams lies in the fact that they are able to repre sent to us the relation between the extension of the classes denoted by the terms. is Circles are FIG. x which is not y (xy). 3. we have seen. The primary diagram consists of two intersecting circles x and y. employed in this scheme.. Venn s view that all uni versal propositions may be adequately represented by denying the existence of certain classes. * which is y (#y). 2. it must necessarily be am As soon as we seek to represent the undistributed biguous. stop.DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION fils 83 the requirements of having but one diagram for each pro and of being based on a simple and clear principle of Yet all will feel that it gives but little assistance. The represented 1 by the : No # is y : following diagrams represent the propositions just mentioned : FIG. FIG. y which is not x (xy). and (b) that there is any y not #. represented by the blank space outside the circles. if we employ but one figure.

or else between an E proposition may must be . or both. 5. The various differences give rise to four kinds of opposi tion. Moreover. No x is y excludes Fig. xy. : a need of eight compartments. The Opposition of Propositions. lends itself to the representation of universal propositions with more than 2 terms. 2.&quot. 4. system is The utility of the materially diminished as we shall show later (Ch. The system FIG. 5). xyz All x is y or z denies the existence xyz. The and an difference it In this case be in both quality and quantity. is one to which. e. we have to introduce a new circle intersecting all the compartments already for the use of 3 existing. of the compartment xyz (Fig. all y excludes xy and Ivy. ~xyz. but differing in quantity. The Opposition of Propositions is the relation which exists between propositions having the same subject and predicate. z. or in quality.g. by its being applicable solely to universal propositions. xy^z. xyz. xyz. All x is y or In this case. 5). viz. xyz. All x excludes xy. and thus doubling their number &quot. 4. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC All % x is y is Fig. 3.. either between an A proposition proposition.84 Fig. serious objections may be urged 4. xyz. 7. will entail terms X FIG. the view that we can obtain an adequate representation of affirmative universals by denying the existence of classes.

Aristotle says that it is merely verbal for the truth of one is compatible with the truth is of the other. there is said to be subaltern opposition between A and 7 and between E and 0.OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS and an 7 proposition. The commonly relations just explained are set out in the figure called the square of opposition. and the particular the subalternate. e. can hardly be said to be opposed in the natural sense of the term. When A : Indeed even in regard true. either universal or particular. A contraries . is termed contraryThat between two particular pro which differ in quality (7 and 0). is termed positions. the Thus opposition between them is said to be subaltern. to sub-contrary opposition. Opposition of this character 85 is styled contradictory. The difference may be in quality alone. subcontrary. The opposition between two universal propositions differing in quality (A and E). for the truth it of the universal carries with the truth of the particular. Where two propositions differ in quantity only. Of these the universal proposi tion is termed the subalternant. 7 must be true. It is plain that this last relation is merely termed oppo by a conventional usage and a particular of the same sition of that word. Some men are just/ Some men are not just. A universal quality. Here two cases arise for the propositions in question may be .g.

but may both be Thus it cannot be at the same time true that false. to which we shall refer in the following section. characteristic to The rule of contradictory opposition is easily proved from the laws of thought. which we have just adverted. some must be false. Hence either A or .86 We (1) shall now proceed : to examine the various kinds of opposition in detail Contradictory Opposition. the other must be For example. gives to this kind of opposition a special importance in controversy. one must be false and the law of Excluded Middle has taught us that one must be true. black/ Some crows are not black can neither be both This will be easily seen by the aid of true. In the proposition. For if it be true that there are . of which it is the case that if one of the propositions is true. In every case of contradic tion. the other Hence it is is false. cannot both be true. part is outside. the two propositions. All crows are black. All crows are false. 2 in which no part of the circle S falls outside the limits of the circle P. Some crows are not black. It is plain that S must either be such that no part is outside P. the one must be true. Of two contradictory propositions. Thus in the judgments. All metals are heavier than water. Propositions which are op diction has : posed as contraries. of which it has been asserted : B is asserted and denied of one and the same A But the law of Contra that the attribute . and at the same time. nor both false. The A proposition is represented by Fig. Contradictory opposition is the only form. Hence either A or On the other hand it cannot be such that it both has some portion outside P. and that No metals are heavier than water. either a part or the whole of 5 falls outside P. or such that must be true. A is not B. portion outside P. the negative proposition denies black belongs to each and all of those individuals. shewn us that where we have two propositions of this form. (2) Contrary Opposition. we have judgments which are opposed as A is B. and if one is false the other is true. Euler s circles. The said to be the most perfect form of opposition. I or Fig.

accuracy of these conclusions. that the propositions I and can be true But we have already seen that this can be the together. It is possible for each of two contraries to be false.OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS no metals heavier than water. Some men are not black/ A consideration of Euler s diagrams will confirm the . 4. Some men are not black. Here again Euler s circles serve us as illustrations. The A proposition (Figs. All metals are heavier than water. 2. These cannot both be the case at the same : time. They may both be true. but may both be true. impossibility involved in asserting both. No metals are heavier than water. opposed as sub-contraries. and 5 represent cases where / and are simultaneously true. Propositions. The I proposition is represented by Figs. Some men For are this reason the older logicians refused the name of opposition both to subcontrary and subaltern propositions (Summa Totius Logicae. viz. is the contradictory of All metals are heavier than water. excludes the truth of the judgment. the contradictory A must be true : is false. there is no . 4 and 5. and that. Some men are black. case. Hence the judgment. It may be alike true that. Similarly if and the relation of . however. For to assert that both can be false together. and 5 the Hence Figs. their two contradictories. 3 alone will : : represent the relation of the terms. This. I. Fig. They cannot both be false for in that case. would both be true. But it may happen that neither is the case. as has just been said. 3. the contradictory proposition E must be true and this being the case. cannot both be false. And this we have shewn to be impossible. and partly without P. then we assert the proposition : 87 may most Some metals certainly are not heavier than water. Tract 6. c. is simply to assert that their two contradictories can be simultaneously true that is. For. A and E. black/ and. I or 2) shews us the circle 5 with no part of it outside P the E proposition shews us the two circles entirely separated. 8).. 4 proposition by Figs. which are Sub-contrary Opposition. For 5 may be (3) partly within. But if I is false.

3 incompatible with either of these. true. In regard to subaltern pro (4) Subaltern Opposition. clear that the truth of I does not involve the truth of A. it does not contradictory particular subalternant proposition A must be false. It is. the truth of 7 follows from that of A by the law of Iden It would perhaps be more accurate to say that it tity. needs no proof. hitherto been treating of opposition as a relation ex it will not have with a means. If A It is commonly said that true.88 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC must be represented by Figs. but not vice versa . as the same attribute is asserted of indivi duals. If then it the contrary of the subalbe admitted as true. But follow that the subaltern of the universal is false. 52) enumerates the We isting between two propositions. the truth of the universal involves the truth of the particular.. i or 2. falsity of the particular involves the truth of its is true. it But escaped notice that also inferences.g. But the con contradictory. but not vice versa.g. and the falsity of the particular involves the falsity of the universal. the universal is is false. If / is false.Opposition as a Means of Inference. The explanations already given which may be made of Euler s circles. have probably been sufficient to enable the student to notice how these rules also are illustrated by them. The follow ing table from Mansel (Aldrich. e. of the use. however. and yet it may not be the case that all men are so. e. p. For two sub-contraries may be true together. if it E being admitted as universal which be be the true. Some men may be black. The E tradictory of the subaltern ternant. have 5. of which it has already been affirmed. the terms is But Fig. which we may thus draw : . and the be false. us provides as to the which we a statement from by may pass truth or the falsity of a given proposition to a statement as to the truth or falsity of other propositions related to the first by the various kinds of opposition. is The truth of these rules is easily seen. positions. then I is certainly true.

/ unknown. 6. supposing the All the proposition to have been denied in the form. If 6. O true. If If If I / is true . . both the original asser tion and the negation would be untrue. of its contradictory.OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS 1. is true. is false. is false is is . 5. 8. A is true A is false If E is true If E is false If . contradictory opposition acquires primary importance in controversy. is true. A unknown. it is possible for both propositions to be false. By the production of a single negative instance. is untrue. the other true. is E unknown. true. or the one in question was not saved. crew save one were not drowned. A false. but that one alone. true. not by show ing that all its parts. 7 / is false. or E from the falsehood of a particular (Nos. is often assumed as the general definition of contra : dictories and in that case it is possible to find a contra dictory to every proposition. is If . 7 true. It is plain that unless a disjunctive is used. 6 and 8) we may : infer the quality of all the opposed propositions from the falsehood of a universal (Nos. unknown. / unknown. E false. 89 3. Thus from the truth false. E unknown. A false. 4. a whole general statement is at once confuted. The generalization is destroyed. / true. Exponible propositions are contradicted by a disjunc is false. and not simply to those which can be placed in a square of opposition. we can only infer the quality Since we argue directly from the truth of to the false A. hood of Scheme. This Contradictory Opposition outside the Fourfold We have seen that it is characteristic of contra dictory propositions that the one must be false. A unknown. if the facts were that not even one of the crew was saved. i and 3). unknown. 2 and 4) and but from the truth of a particular. 7. Thus. of a universal (Nos. 2. true false . is false. . tive asserting that at least one or other of the exponents Thus the contradictory of All the crew save one were drowned/ is Either the remainder of the crew were not drowned. true. . E E A A is false. .

3 we called attention to the fact that although the Singular proposition is frequently reckoned as a special type of the Universal judgment. Caesar was not killed on of the Ides March. will take the form. Sometimes numerical statements must be understood in the sense to signify that the proposition least is true of at and then the disjunctive form is not For instance the assertion The age of Henry required. This appears plainly when it is considered in relation to our present subject. are contradictories in the sense ex plained in the present section. have succeeded. Thus the contra assertion. by prefixing contradiction may.90 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC The contradiction of propositions containing a numerical depends on how they are to be understood. is contradicted by. yet strictly speaking it stands by itself and is neither universal nor particular. under any circumstances. The extended Contrary Opposition outside the Fourfold Scheme. could ing &quot. for instance. may be contra This method of : not. In Ch. senting fewer than fifteen candidates are presenting themselves. viz. be usefully employed if we are called on to deal with such a sentence as the follow This policy. kind of opposition alone. One of the two proposi tions must be true. Caesar was killed on the Ides of March.&quot. Any proposition. however dicted complicated. Either more or themselves. the other false. is a proposition asserting just sufficient 7. Opposition of Singular Propositions. The age of Henry Jenkins of Swaledale was less than 169 that : amount years. they are understood as conveying an exact com putation. as just explained. being foolish and ill-considered. It is false that. of Swaledale was Jenkins 169 years. When Fifteen candidates are pre dictory of the proposition. . it admits of one place. a contradictory. employment of the term contrary. In the square of opposition it has no If the original terms be retained. contra signification given to the term necessitates a corresponding extension in the dictory A contradictory.. a disjunctive must be used.

where a disjunctive is needed as a contradictory. denial. In the secondary signification with which absent. sense in which the term is used. Thus. has been very materially altered. is reckoned as a contrary. we are now Any form of concerned. is counted All house as a contrary.&quot. possess than this. but both cannot be true. which goes further than what is barely sufficient. For instance the proposition.OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS 91 A contrary is to render the original statement false. Some householders not are voters. this sense is altogether by the proposition. they alone. or by Some others besides householders denial either are voters. contrary &quot. which understood as a negative goes further accordingly denying more than is absolutely necessary to Contraries thus ex the proposition it rebuts. a contrary proposition is one which denies the truth of every case embraced by the opposed judgment. . holders. the denial of either one of the members taken singly. Where the term contrary signifies the the opposition between E and A. destroy which the characterizes the property plained. contraries of the square of opposition. are and receives voters. that both may be But it will be seen that false.

On this ground the name of Inference is sometimes denied to Immediate Inferences. i. 2). In the syllogism there is a real advance in knowledge. and this would appear to be the more correct sense.CHAPTER VI. i. for example. Bradley even says : &quot. If we have understood the premiss. we derive another.wise. IMMEDIATE INFERENCE. conversion or opposition is not rational but &quot. must depend on the precise meaning we attach to that term. Take. its use here is justified. Immediate Inference. we already know the conclusion. . The question processes have a right to the name of Inference. The conclusion of an immediate inference declares some fact already formally asserted in the premiss. in which the mind passes gistic inference (Ch. Mr. whose truth is implied It thus differs essentially from syllo in the former. it is wrongly applied to them. 392). Some men are not by which we pass from to The change is Some men are not. so simple an Immediate Inference as that wise. Here however. If it is understood to signify these an advance in knowledge.As your long as you keep to categorical affirmatives. p. The conclusion is not formally contained in either premiss taken separately. If however it includes any mental transition from a datum to something involved in that datum. we have no advance in knowledge. from two truths already known to a third truth distinct from either of them. simply grammatical as to whether (Principles. Immediate Inference may be defined as a process by which from a single given judgment. For it is certainly erroneous to say that the change is purely grammatical.

(2) Equipollence or Obversion. and Thus we subject for predicate. (3) Contra position. In all : but the conceptual expression undergoes transformation. a totally different mental form and the new judgment. but with the system of relations which hold between the four propositions of the square. a knowledge of what is involved in Opposition enables us to draw certain immediate inferences. version from a proposition of the form 5 its pass is by con P to one of the form P is S. are of by negation. as being concerned primarily not with inference. subject and predicate affirmation. as was said in Ch. (4) Inversion. identity of the subject and predicate. The inferences of which we are about to treat are (i) Conversion.IMMEDIATE INFERENCE 93 not a mere question of grammar. 5. Opposition is treated under Imme diate Inference. as being two mental ex- . . (5) Some forms of minor import ance. since. 3. instead of separating 9) (Ch. The The philosophical justification of this transposition is to be found in the significance of the logical judgment. Here we have followed the more usual plan of giving separate treatment to the subject of Opposition. in lieu of the positive concept wise/ we employ a negative concept. 2. hav its ing the predicate of the given judgment for subject. Thus we are justified in asserting in our definition that it is a process by which we pass from one judgment to another. as explained in Ch. Conversion. 2. By some authors. Conversion is a process of which from a given judgment we immediate inference in infer another. : the Convertend original proposition is known as the inferred proposition as the Converse. We there saw that the copula denotes the i. In several recent English works these five kinds of Immediate Inference are contrasted with Opposition under the name of Eductions. 2. but a question of conceptual expression. In the predicate of the conse quent. 5. conjoins them by Immediate Inferences the changes a similar character the same truth is enunciated. i.e.

Hence we may say that the proposition declares the coinherence in the same subject of the two forms of being expressed by the terms. No term may be distributed in the converse. In every affirmative proposition the two terms are different mental expressions The inferred proposition of the same object or objects. expresses an attribute belong ing to the thing. undistributed. the subject is understood as signifying the thing.g. As regards Rule we have is that where a term . already pointed out (Ch. though the form signified by the subject is assumed. If e. by one of the type P i S. In the same way it is equally impossible that a negative : proposition should. there is nothing 2) in the form of the proposition to show that it is to be 2. as it is to say. It is then manifestly impossible that it should be negative for a negative proposition asserts that one of the terms is in admissible as a mental expression of the thing in question. things as known to us. we say. 5. That running thing is a dog. no less than the predicate. the predicate as the thing qualified by some determining charac which we assert of the thing. some form of being teristic Manifestly when the subject is a significant term. and may replace a proposition of the type S is P. . as regards truth. It is as true to say. That dog is running. Of these two mental expressions. that signified by the predicate is asserted. The reason of Rule i is obvious. contains some determining characteristic. appear as an affirma tive. It follows that we may legitimately transpose the order of the terms.94 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC pressions of one and the same reality. no less than the term spherical. refers to the identical object to which the premiss referred. after conversion. and our knowledge in regard to the forms may take either order. it. in a conversion. the term bronze. be expressed in In Logic we are concerned with either order indifferently. and employs the same terms. provided we are careful that the converse should not assert the coinherence of S and P in relation to any entity which was out side the scope of the original proposition. This bronze object is spherical. The (1) following rules are given to ensure the validity of : conversion The converse must be of the same quality affir mative or negative as the convertend. which (2) was not distributed in the convertend. This coinherence of forms may.

To do so would be to violate the rule which we have just predicate convert All S the undistributed. If we add anything. It is true that in certain cases the conversion of All S is P to the form All P is S may give us a true result. which will thus appear as Some is S. Conversion of is A propositions. A proposition. This kind of conversion is known as Conversio We P P per accidens or sometimes as conversion by limitation.&quot. into the Hence is P explained. a the extension of the term. Because All men it are does not follow animals. We learn it from other sources. I of Euler s circles. careful to keep undistributed in the converse. Ex original proposition. say. must therefore be that. it from the shall not have drawn we say be true. This however does not appear from the form of the original proposition. we not It will be an inference. Some animals are men. angle.IMMEDIATE INFERENCE 95 understood of the whole class of objects belonging to If then. A glance at Fig. in the . Thus it is not only true that All right-angled triangles have the square on the hypotenuse equal to the sum of the squares on the two sides containing the right &quot. Such a conversion might well involve the assertion we can that the larger class lay within the smaller. is distributed. more is undistributed term previously than was contained in the converse in the asserted convertend. In A propositions we cannot form All P is S. but the converse proposition may be asserted form All P is S. and cannot be inferred from it. will shew us the fallacy which would be contained in this. amples of this which we are (a) will appear in the case of the now about to discuss. we are going beyond Even if what the point to which our warrant extends. after conversion. All animals are men.

of the proposition. . S e P is represented by Fig. The proposition 5 e P distributes Hence the converse P e S does not dis in the convertend. a plant. If perfect truth frame a proposition of the form P i S. tribute what was undistributed Simi . we may Some Europeans are English Some Englishmen are Should. P i S. Euler s circles will assure us as to the correctness of the process.96 (b) PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Conversion of E and I propositions. terms. there too. Conversion of this character is known as simple In converting these propositions. is capable of sensation/ we exclude one class altogether from the other. to P i S. No P and Some S is P is way no rule both its is violated. however. in either case we may with that manifest 5. Hence the converse also must deny any union between them. P 5 a might have been used. in this conversion. FIG. we may legitimately convert also say. 5). which we convert. of sensation is 4 and It is we have affirmed.g. It will be No being capable S * P is represented by Figs. 4. Thus if we say No plant FIG. 3. No S is becomes P converted to the form Some P is S. 3. In E and I no need to change the quantity there is propositions. as we saw in dis cussing the A proposition. men (Fig. is S. e. 5 i P be employed where Europeans. larly 5 i P has both subj ect and predicate undistributed and the same is true of its converse.

Saul sought for his father s asses. Prior I. Augustus was not a tyrant.IMMEDIATE INFERENCE (c) 97 The proposition and conversion. H . becomes No tyrant was Where both subject and predicate are Augustus. Some of the things living after a man are his evil . (d) Affirmative Singular the rules of Universal propositions. Fig. as it is undistributed in the convertend. by Aristotle in An. be used in affirmative sentences. 3. The evil So. particular negative sition : its predicate distributed. St. These follow Conversion of Singular propositions. to establish the validity of the process of conversion. The proposition should be first expressed as Saul is (was) a man seeking his father s asses and the converse will then appear correctly as A man seeking his father s asses is (was) Saul. such as. P Because we have said 5 will render this clear. singular terms. if we take the proposition. Negative Singulars are converted simply. are given 2.g. was an apostle. o S. copula and predicate. The propo does not admit of conversion consistently with the observance of the rules. : deeds. it is absolutely necessary first to express it in full logical form. place filled. This impossible.g. e. It will not have escaped notice that when it is desired to con vert a proposition. London simple conversion may is the capital of England. Some Europeans are not Englishmen/ we cannot Some Englishmen are not Europeans. converts to One of the apostles was Paul. then it will follow that No (i) E propositions. and with the sign of quantity prefixed. All the evil deeds of a man are things living after him and the converse is. will be converted to the form. that men do lives after them. St.. that the proposition should be of the form But P in is the predicate 5 must be distributed. The proposition 5 o P is as such its subject is undistributed. e. of as will be seen. is by Contraposition. Paul propositions are converted per accidens. c. His father s asses sought for Saul. Aristotle s Proof of Conversion.g. e. The conclude. 2. with subject. If No S is P. this must first be written. Conversion would necessitate o S. * The following proofs 3. conversion in regard to this proposition. Otherwise mistakes are bound to occur : and a proposition.

P is S. 1 Equipollence or Obversion is a process of immediate inference in which the inferred judgment. The following will serve as examples 1 Equipollence is the term employed by the majority of the Latin writers. thus. By Hamil ton it is used as synonymous with Conversion (Logic. It is original pro inferred pro the Obverse. S S a e P SiP SeP So P S oP S aP S i . it will follow that Some (2) A propositions. let it be supposed that something of which predicated. for the predicate its contradictory term. It is manifest that every step in this proof rests upon the Laws Thought. But All S is P. This however is the direct contra it follows that Some S is P. . 262).98 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC : P is S P can be for if not. 4. de Interp. has for its predicate the con tradictory of the original predicate. The use of the term Obversion in this sense. I. say C. (3) this result is incompatible If with our datum that follow that I propositions. Then since C is both S and P. then No P is S. c. 10. The process is briefly touched on by Aristotle. and the supposition on dictory of our datum which it is based. stated : of the proposition. is 5. But this involves that No P. Change the quality and substitute The process is applicable to all the four fundamental The subjoined table will shew the equipol propositions. P. it follows that No S is P. we pass from S is P The rule for the process may be to 5 is not not-P. But we have already shewn that when No P is S. while retain ing the original subject. Obverse. evident that as in the Obverse we have substituted for the original predicate we must also change the its contradictory term. is For if not. Some S is P. and among English logicians has the authority both of Mill and Mansel. If All S is P. then No P is S. are false. . therefore it. Equipollence or Obversion. it will Some P S of is S. For if it be supposed that this is false. lent forms of each : Original proposition. P.. 15. The the position position is termed the Obvertend. quality of the proposition . appears to be due to Bain.

which accu rately expresses the sense of the contradictory term. then if No S is not-P : for according to this anything is P. ministers not- it is possible to find a single word. Among the immediate infer ences which can be derived from the four fundamental propositions. it. are not wise. S must be either P or not-P and since we know No S is P. unpractical/ unjust/ in lieu of not-mortal/ etc. are not-mortal. Thus the use unwise validity of the process is proved by the Thought. Thus. The law of Contradiction shews us The Laws that of if All S is P. are No philosophers are pracare just. such a word should be employed in place of in these examples. it is thereby proved not The Obversion of the negative judgment. none. follows from the Law of Excluded Middle. if we assert that All falls mortal/ the limit of mortal/ It is thus apparent that no part of the circle men is to be found in the space which denotes non-mortals/ Obverted Converse. but the Obverted Converse. 5.IMMEDIATE INFERENCE Original proposition. we conclude that All S is not-P. we may with advantage words immortal. Obverted Converse. must be reckoned not only the Obverse forms of the propositions themselves. practical. This will be as follows : circle representing the circle representing men men are within the Converse. 99 All No men All Obverse. is i Contraposition inference . : conclusions. PiS PiS PeS PoS PoS PaS process of immediate none. Some judges Some judges just. Contraposition. A consideration of the diagrams will confirm these principle. philosophers not- tical. to be not-P. men are mortal. are not notare Some ministers Where Some wise.

too in PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC which from a given judgment another judgment is having for its subject the contradictory of the to inferred. (P. must change its quantity to particular. Obverted Contrapositive. 807). the proposition actions are not agreeable/ will become after Contra Some not-agreeable things are right actions. In this they followed Boethius. since it alone follows the rule of Conversion that the quality remains unchanged. following table will shew the forms assumed by the various propositions position. p. The proposition. is 1 Contrapositives can in each case alter the quality of the proposition. It will be observed that the Obverted Contrapositive retains the quality The older Latin logicians considered Contra of the original proposition. but Conversio Hence they reserved the name for the obvertedper Contrapositionem. The rule predicate. Obverted Contrap. c. and as deriving its importance from the fact that in this way it was possible to convert the O proposition. They called it not Contrapositio. This will give us : itself It is plain that each of the capable of Obversion. 64. The E proposition becomes by Obversion S a P. I. 8. Phil. and this positive. 65). .g. P i S P i S. Maurus (Quaest. and change the predicate to its contradictory term. proposition does not admit of Conversion. We Contrapositive. Similarly. e. All reptiles are vertebrates has No reptiles are non-vertebrates . I. 1 P e S_ PaS none none PiS PoS P i S. L. Hence here we have what has been termed Contrapositio per accidens. position merely as a method for obtaining the conversion of the terms. The : Original proposition. No non-vertebrates Contrapositive will therefore be Some right are reptiles. II. vol. Contrapositive. It will a P PeS 5 S i P none S e P S o P. Cf.. Sylv. P o S. Contraposition js recognized by Aristotle in Topics. the as its Obverse. Cat. This on Conversion. position of a proposition may original obtain the contra : be shortly stated Convert the Obverse of the proposition. De Syll. be seen that the / proposition has no ContraFor after Obversion it becomes S o P. contrapositive.

SaP. gives us the required proposition. Our results may be tabulated thus : Original proposition. but commencing with Conversion and it is seen that after two steps we that the first : find ourselves with the proposition PoS to be converted. . having for its subject the contradictory of the We have seen how to pass from a pro original subject. P a which P. it be possible to pass to one having S for its process of obtaining such a proposition must be similar to that employed in the other methods of imme diate The mode in in Conversion and Obversion. This however we and hence it appears that impossible cannot find the Inverse by that route. Inverse. S a P. we are again met with the difficulty of an proposition demanding Conversion. P e S. viz. Conversion. P We whether subject. Obversion S o P. By By By Conversion Obversion Conversion P i S.IMMEDIATE INFERENCE 6. it will be found we commence with Obversion.. experiment will shew that in no case is it possible to get an Inverse i form. The inference. P none SiP none. Inversion is a process of immediate inference. 5 we pass through the series 5 e P. Obversion P a S. It will be observed In the right hand step taken is to obvert. By By By By By Obversion 5 e P. in which from a given judgment another judgment is inferred. to propositions having now proceed to enquire or for their subjects. If however we commence with S&quot. 5 5 o P SiP S_eP S o P. P o S. column we have a similar process. P position having 5 for its subject. Conversion 5 i P. In the case of the proposition on experiment that if 5 e P. Conversion P_ e 5. is . 101 Inversion. In the case of / and propositions. we is shown which arrive at the Inverse of 5 a : P the left hand column below.

when the determinant qualifies the terms under precisely the same aspect. The Obverse will be S~i P that of S i P will be S~o P. A I E SaP SiP SeP SeP SoF SaP PiS PiS PeS P0S PoS PaS P_eS So P. Obverted Contrapositive.1052 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Obverted Inverse. Here we have . Thus. Contrapositive. in a high degree the art of knocking other (2) an inference. Just as we have seen that it is possible to obtain obverted forms of the Converse and Contrapositive. The formula for the process will be 5 is P. which consists in limiting both the subject and predicate by the same determinant. therefore art. he lives in accordance with the prescrip . Inference by omitted determinants. of S o P 7. 8. . S oP SiP PiS PiS. PaS Obverted Inverse. the word good As qualifying merely means that he prize realizes in himself the ideal of a prizefighter . Original proposition. Obverse. Converse. that is. SiP. therefore A good prizefighter is a good man. Inverse. (1) Immediate inference by added determinants is a process of immediate inference. that the man realizes in himself the ideal signifies of man that is. A statue beautiful statue A by Canova is a beautiful work of a work of art by Canova. in which from a proposition affirming of he possesses men down. Table of Results. tions of his rational nature. I cannot argue that because A prizefighter is a man. A statue is a work of art . SiP SoP Other Varieties of Immediate Inference. fighter. PoS PoS. Obverted Converse. We may summarize the results at which we have arrived as follows. so we may obvert the Inverse forms which we have just reached. For instance. is This form of immediate inference is only possible. therefore Sa is Pa. In this case good as qualifying man.

de Potentia. n. two 4. Socrates Thus. Bradley s criticisms (Principles. from was the husband of Xantippe. we infer a proposition affirming of the same subject Men the attribute without qualification. we infer another proposition stating the converse relation in which 5 stands to Q. 8. 5. and the relative name which was attributed to the previous subject. II. 2. Symbolic Logic. process is closely analogous to inference by added It consists in employing both the subject determinants. similar to those we have All already examined. This (3) Immediate inference by complex conception.deFallaciis. delnterp. p. n.. by which from a proposition stating the relation in which Q stands to 5. Art. of course. the subject and predicate of the original proposition are not determined by what is introduced. The stated principle in the governing : its simpliciter. therefore A statue a statue in metal. is consequently replaced by the correlative. In these cases. we conclude Xantippe 1 Venn. c. quando determinatio non est diminuens. in bronze is but are themselves employed as determinants.. n. Thus. Thus. therefore The death of a negro is the death of a man. c. conception.IMMEDIATE INFERENCE 103 a given subject an attribute qualified by a determinant. from are rational mortals. to Spiritualistic manifestations are facts. 17. . we cannot argue from Spiritualistic manifestations are pretended l facts. Opusc. obj. and predicate of the original as parts of a more complex Bronze is a metal. Topics. application was by the Latin logicians tt. 10 Mr. we cannot infer from judges are lawyers. c. p. which is attri butable to the new subject. below. 394) would appear to indicate that he has overlooked Aristotle s discussion of the point. Thus. cies Falla may. 25. Elenchi. Q. if the determinant is such as to alter the meaning of the predicate. A negro is a man. Thomas. The terms are transposed. we conclude Men are mortals. A fallacy may arise here. that therefore A majority of the judges is a majority of lawyers. See also Ch. arise here. Soph. 9. c. by converse relation is a (4) Immediate inference process of inference. 286. This form of immediate inference is or three times discussed by Aristotle. A dicto secundum-quid valet illatio ad dictum form St.

father must have and hence can pass . As this conclusion is false. Who cian. A c. The inference For instance from the proposition It is necessary for an equilateral triangle to be equiangular/ to It is to for be an possible equilateral triangle equiangular. then by the principle of Excluded Middle. B is the child of A. slave of Philemon/ to from Onesimus was the Philemon was the master of : Some of the Formal logicians have denied that this mode of immediate inference falls within the province There is. we can also assert that it is possible for this not to be. in Ch. and we must say that it is impossible (de Inter p. But if it is not the case that what is necessary is possible. it is necessary to be acquainted with the meaning of the terms. by which we pass from B to B is the child of A. In this case. and similarly that whenever we can assert that something is impossible.104 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC of Socrates was the wife Onesimus. c. who ever employs the relative concept in his mind the correlative child. of holds that the object of Logic is the conceptual expression of the real. . by immediate to inference from Aristotle (Categ. we conclude from the fact that something is necessary. recognized by Immediate inference by modal consequence. is the father of B. they urge. 9).. From the point of view of the Formal logician the But to the Scholastic logi objection has much force.. 6). By this method of inference. we recognize that what is necessary is also possible. The process cannot be symbolically represented. no necessary law of Logic. At first sight there appears a difficulty in concluding from necessity to possibility. the contradictory is true. 13. To do so. to the fact that it is possible. it presents no difficulty. A is the father of thought. 3. we use the words in the second of the two senses noted 9. is expressly 7.

this transpos coming this way. without first indicating how the relation between and predicate should be understood. 3. both the subject and predicate express the object of the judgment under some aspect. is Socrates. 6. Thus is may be affirmed we may have a case in which a proper name. stands in the place of the attribute. The copula declares that the object expressed by the subject. i. THE IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS. naturally a mere attribute. For the function of the predicate is simply to tell us what the subject is and when we define the subject to be ition . and as in regard to our knowledge there is no fixed order as to which aspect of an object we know first. inas pressed by the predicate are identical. That object Logically. on this subject in some detail. and that ex subject to Further. the predicate some attribute which we affirm (or deny) of the thing. . were the attribute. 2.CHAPTER VII. this In Import of Propositions Predicative View. Briefly recapitulate what we have said. Ch. with much as the judgment deals the object as it is known. what it though naturally the subject. We 2 explained our own view i. a judgment What as is reverse the natural order of predication. the subject however being construed to signify the thing. of the natural order is perfectly legitimate. or of the process of con version. may stand as the may subject. a name whose special office it is to denote the individual concrete thing. already in Ch. For it was not possible to treat of the proposition. we shall be in considering chapter occupied various theories as to the precise nature of the relation have expressed in the mental act of predication. as when we say.

manifestum est quod album non est lignum proprie et per se loquendo. such an order of the terms is not natural but per accidens. 1 The same is true where the subject is not an accident. and characterize it They stance is not something which determines and characterizes them. 7). the question namely. or as it is sometimes put. where he points out that such a proposition as That white object is a stick is predication per accidens. Post. During the past century the most diverse theories on this point have been held by logicians. intelligitur per accidens. whether a categorical proposition implies that things corresponding to its terms actually exist. 2. It possesses independent existence. since the white did not become a stick. but a substantial term of wider generality. See below. Cum ergo non sit verum dicere quod Album fiat lignum. 39) has completely misunderstood Aristotle s meaning on this subject. quia scilicet illud particulare subjectum. 3.io6 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC to be the this or that particular individual this is most certainly done. 27. Prior I. est lignum. c. Ch. I. &quot. 2 This view of the proposition according to which the subject is understood as the thing and the predicate as the attribute. Sed si hoc concedatur Album est lignum. i. cui accidit album.. Subjectum fit hoc quod praedicatur de ipso sicut de subjecto. 2. in An.. Hence Aristotle rightly says that though we can express our proposition in such a form as. . See also An. e. and the predicate in is known as the Predicative View. 8. 33. hold that proposition The Class-inclusion View. On this St. both subject and predicate are 1 conceived in exten- An. intension. but vice versa. Jevons (Principles of Science. accidents. 22. in which the subject is construed in extension. That man is (Ch. p. lect.&quot. man Socrates. . Thomas comments as follows. The principal In the course of these we shall proceed to examine. The object coming this way is Callias. They exist as its determinations. . of the discussion.. we shall be brought across another problem. 2.g. Iste ergo estjsensus hujusmodi praedicationis in qua subjectum praedicatur de accidente. Clearly : Socrates. . and not in their own right. c. the Those who interpret on the class-inclusion view. which of recent years has afforded matter for debate. That there is a natural order of predication will easily be seen on recalling the distinction between substance and accident it is the substance which supports the determine the sub it. I. Post.

which are naturally understood in this way. that were our express propositions in the form All men are mortal. here we Lions are Felidae.THE IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS sion. as these constitute a whole they are not included within them. within mortal things. e. quite affirm a relation between two classes. on the predi : cative view. copula and predicate are the natural mode of statement is a true for mortal It is sometimes indeed expression of propositions. or excluded from the class signified by the . each taken separately. we should not is the fact. : tively or distributively used. however. The subject on the other hand may be either collec predicate. e. and exclusion from a class in negations and that it is due to this that we are able to frame a scheme of diagrams corresponding to the four funda mental propositions. men are mortal. We have already pointed out that in regard is of the real order. They would assume some such form as All men are included among mortals. the subject. is 107 They believe the true significance of a proposition to assert that the objects denoted by the subject are included in. mortal asserts that all men fall within the . and verbally expressed by the subject copula and predicate. By It Lions are Felidae.class mortal/ The predicate on this interpretation must necessarily be read collectively as A dis signifying the whole class considered as a unit. positae. that there are a certain number urged of what men are. If mortals signifies the class of mortal things. we signify that every lion has the .g. it is inaccurate to say All not the class mortal. namely those which are sometimes termed judgments of classi fication. Daisies are Comto say that inaccurate is. this is A it fatal objection to the theory true. But the question before us. inclusion in a class involved in affirmative : propositions. is not whether the proposition does or does not indicate the existence of classes in the objective order : but whether the relation conceived by the mind. All men are included tributive use would be impossible.g. Every man is On the other hand. Men are .

II. Y. Some 5 {Some not some P. 5 is not any P. Y and O correspond in a similar manner.g. some P. and the same No argu things differently conceived in the predicate. whose members are single-horned. It has long since been recognized to be quite untenable. e. It is All compatible with any of the other forms. All triangles are all trilaterals. ment can be drawn from * Quantification of tha Predicate.gt. If this be so. and Dr.g. At one time it was accepted by several logicians of note. e.. attributes that The copula here has no inclusive signification. some figures. U. E. Some triangles are not some figures.g.g. a Felis. Some figures are not any e. Thomson. must be known. All triangles are e. In thought we do not quantify the predicate. We may e. O. is impossible. such relations possible. these propositions in support of the class-inclusion view. without reflecting in any manner on the extent of the class. w. p. as e. The redundancy of the eightfold scheme appears as soon as it is ex amined. it follows as a matter of course that the quantity of the predicate.g. Further. he maintained. Baynes. e. as we saw in our consideration of Euler s circles. . e. No triangles are some figures. Hamil ton held that the essential function of a proposition is to com pare two notions in respect of their quantity (Logic. jNo S (No S any P. sequently eightfold. e.g. No triangles are any squares. and possesses only historic interest. affirm that All rhino ceroses have a single horn. e. Dr. 17. P. The scheme is is of fundamental propositions becomes con .g. This. is always either universal or sin gular. If the essential function of the proposition is to express a quantitative relation there must be five forms. even with U. fSome S -! Some 5 is is some P.All S S all P.1 08 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC mark. & special form of Hamilton. -rj o&amp. as follows f All (. This is the Class-inclusion view. which we owe to Sir W. a list of eight propositions each expressive of a different There are but five relation between the classes. I. is all is A. even though not expressed. is triangles are some ir regular figures. It declares the identity between each of the things denoted by the subject. some P. and no more.g. 257).g. so that mentally at least the predicate. Some Some figures are all triangles. is in fact the case. A and express the same relation. The theory has nothing to recommend it. like the subject. conveys no infor Finally the proposition mation whatever about the relation between the classes.g. triangles.

and the relation of subject and predicate (Principles of Science. 109 but it is equally true that Some dogs are all latrants (U) dogs (terriers) are not some latrants (mastiffs). does away with the fundamental distinction between subject and predicate. Hence Jevons employs the form Men men mortals. We do not think of the predicate in quan Hence as an explanation of the mental act of judgment. He points out. but. the theory is valueless. exact analogy between mathematical equality.THE IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS . colouring matter of plants. and predicate are read in intension and the import of : the proposition is held to be that the attributes signified by the subject are accompanied by those signified by the predicate. And if the sign (=) is to be understood in its usual sense. he supports it under certain important qualifications. For by some mortals. tity. This view is open to the objections we have urged against the Class-inclusion view. From is judgment he concludes that the import simply that the attributes of the this . that in the great majority of our judgments we are concerned not with a relation of equality but of identity. whose possession of it we have verified. Here the words equal to form a constituent part of the predicate. then all predication is re duced to the form 5 is equal to P. Moreover the representation of the proposition as an equation. It is manifest how = ever. that where we have a general proposition such as All men are mortal. but P. difficulty however arises when the predicate denotes a wider Here if the equation is to be correct. of the individuals signified by such a subject are not known of the to us. The Attributive View. On this view both subject 3. of the subject and that of the predicate. we do not mean that the attribute signi fied by the predicate is possessed by a certain number of Most individuals. He would Common Salt= Sodium Chloride. Mill is ordinarily regarded as the principal supporter of this view. as will be seen. class than the subject. we might indicate quite another part of the extension of the class A Chlorophyll = green = = mortal. than that to which man is equated. Professor Jevons held that the proposition signified not inclusion. but an equation between the extension There is. Equational View. express the proposition in this form : p. he tells us. and that our predicate is not equal to P. we cannot write Men mortals. Nor is it more satisfactory to write Men some mortals. 68).

but he wrong in his explanation of in error he regards the The copula does not express concomitance. we affirm that since qualified is by mortality. And in regard to propositions. connoted by the subject. it copula. We have here for subject. Not only therefore the subject. that we usually construe the subject of a proposition in extension. 5. has the attributes connoted by the predicate. tells us what the subject is. c. which in great measure It is true.no predicate subject. has also those connoted by the predicate. in which the subject is non-connotative. not the mere intension.: the abstract attributes. Mortality constantly accompanies the attri butes of man (Logic. that the true import of a proposition is simply that the attributes of the predicate always (or some The subject in times) accompany those of the subject. such a judgment as All men are mortal. when he interprets the proposition in the form Whatever has the attributes mortal. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC constantly accompany the attributes of the and that the proposition just quoted should be interpreted. A theory which reduced general propositions to statements about the coexistence and sequence of attributes. he owns that their import is that the individual thing denoted by the subject. is conceived as concrete : we do not but conceive the abstract it is notion humanity. I. Whatever entity has the attributes.. These admissions should not however lead us to sup pose that Mill had abandoned the Attributive view for the traditional interpretation. too as mortal. Mill is correct when he says that we can only form on the ground that they possess Yet it by no means follows from things this. he practically concedes all that is required. man. was in harmony with his general philosophic position. viz. it is is Of this concrete subject. . Mill in fact makes admissions. but an indefinite number of concrete things. he says deprive his argument of its force. 4). into classes common attributes. More All men are over.

some thing corresponding to the subject must exist. 2 1 De Morgan. Keynes. I to soldiers. Thus No one now to constitute my universe of discourse.. Mill (Logic. the phrase has taken a are told that things. save those in which the predicate An abso is such as to abolish the subject-notion. 367. . c. Formal Logic. We These various forms of existence are called empirical to distinguish them from logical existence. the universe of folk-lore. * Venn. which belongs to mere objects of thought. p. It has been a matter discussion among recent logicians. the no more than that by a convention our discourse. Part II. but that where a particular proposition is i. 124) holds that analytic propositions do not involve the existence of their subjects. Appearance and Reality. I are restricted in wears say. \ nn alike teach positions do so.g. As verbally expressed. Universe phrase signified propositions. &quot. I. Actors refer are not chain-armour. the universe of heraldry. but that synthetic pro Mr. lutely greatest number is impossible. different As used now however. p. It will be necessary briefly . c. the existence of objects corre sponding to the subject and the predicate. Symbolic Logic. The question seems to have first been raised explicitly by the German philosopher Herbart (1776-1841). exist in the actual physical universe. This may appear strange in the face of such a judgment as Some griffins have long claws. Ueberweg (System of 68) teaches that all propositions imply the exist Logic. But we are told that the existence need not be in the physical universe it is in the universe of discourse. the universe of the imaginable. iv. which do not signification. p. is implied. e. 127. Cf. can exist in the universe of mythology. Formal Logic. ence of the subject.. 1 first of employed. that universal propositions have no such implication. Bradley. whether in a categorical proposition. as their reference. Keynes and Dr. 7. to examine this notion of the (i) universe of discourse.sed.&quot. only under consideration and hence soldiers might be said if . Very various views have been taken.4- of much Implication of Existence.

have no actual we form judgments They are mere objects of thought. but belongs : A distinction should however be drawn between two such ideal entities. was Prince of Denmark/ The upas-tree is the tree. which though they do not exist.112 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is scarcely necessary to bring serious arguments It is rightly termed by Mr. This class consists of entities. these. But in the mere approach to which involves death. Wolf against this view. these cases the subject as verbally expressed is ellip The full form of the judgment would be The of the gods wrath is imagined and described by Homer. Thus I may say Hamlet The wrath of the Homeric gods is terrible. The second of objects possessing merely conceptual existence is of far more moment. and pro positions enunciated. are those mathematical figures. Some of the objects of thought about which judgments are framed. The idea by which they are represented. so far as we know. Here our proposition We it is true as it stands. Such for instance are expressed in universal concepts. but whose nature and properties can be accurately determined. existed. needs no amplification : . verse conditioned we imagine as existing in the physical uni by place and time. are not repugnant to and which the constitution of the physical universe . It &quot. exists in this physical universe. but the object thought of exists as a physical fact not to the real to the conceptual order. concerning which existence at all. which does not really it seems to mean (Studies on Logic. Now in the first place mean what &quot. they are usually made of paint and pasteboard. It may however be well to indicate to what these various universes really amount. class terrible. are mere creatures of the imagina classes of tion . Here we are not concerned with individuals pictured by the imagination. 71). an extravagant conception. which have never. all tical. it is evident that it if a thing possesses actual existence at The griffins of At the heraldry present day. We need not expect to find them in any other world than this. exist. of the objects. Many indeed all. p.

abstract altogether from the question of its existence. while they accurately represent the nature of the thing conceived. they do not tell us that it is. we may the more securely face is question. which by reason of 1 Bradley. We have already pointed out (Ch. however. that the categorical form as such. If then our concept represents the nature of some entity. mean to assert that there are no categorical propositions. All chiliagons I may say Some plane We do not. if that an entity it exists at all. and that the assertion would become true once more 1 if animals were again created. such as All chiliagons have a thousand angles. It is this that explains and justifies propositions. Some geometrical figures are chiliagons. or may be formed both may say. 4. we cannot hold that it would be untrue to affirm mortality of animal. Having now determined whether as matter or as and the spirit. not exists in this physical or actual universe in another. contains no such implication. the and accuracy of the statement is indisputable. Principles. This point will appear clearly in what follows. and affirm this note of the entity. In regard to the subject they tell us what it is. figures are chiliagons. (2) Implication of existence. 2) that our concepts. We have merely asserted that the categorical form as such does not imply it. 47. implied in cate There can be no doubt.THE IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS may 113 affirm that. and we abstract one of the notes which determine its nature. It is plain that such propositions as universals and particulars. which imply the existence of their subject terms. animal perish from the face of the earth. There are certain classes of categoricals. p. I have a thousand angles. whether or not existence gorical propositions. I . The proposition is true even though the chiliagon has never existed for the predicate affirmed is one that necessarily belongs to the subject which my : concept represents. our judgment is true even should the thing in Even should e^ery question be a mere possible.

. or has been the recipient of an action. The mere nature Brutus slew his cannot act. Edmund Campion and other members of that notable est. is a quite inaccurate representation All S (if 5 exists) is P The existence of 5 is of the proposition as we understand it. But we cannot truthfully affirm has acted. John Sanderson. the proposition implies the existence of the subject. may be said to fall within the same cate The pronoun is a sign that we are concerned gory. and Some 5 is P. wholly outside the scope of the categorical as such. 2 To this we may reply. but became one of the exiles for religion under Elizabeth. e. in which a demonstrative pronoun is attached to the subject. signify the existence of the subject. 1 * It has been maintained by several logicians of eminence.&quot. and P : lastics. with a subject. The pro All 5 is may indeed have been reached through position All crows are black but experience of existing things. (i) all propositions.g. Propositions such as has that it The meteor fell to the earth. pp. of their subjects. 1 It is The &quot. information which it communicates. Canon of Cambray. And (3) the judg the existence imply ments. in which existence is actually predicated. The conception. Symbolic Logic. Atqui vero in proNon enim necessario infertur Homo est aninunciatis necessariis non item. ergo mortui sunt. e. reduces the cate gorical to a hypothetical. even though it properties.g. which is not merely existing but under observation. : The Sanderson. unless it has existed.g. should be read Some 5 (if 5 exists) is P. mat. God exists. and that on our showing All 5 is P. ad est secundum adjacens. 1589). 103 (ed. it may have been reached by a process of purely intellectual All chiliagons have a thousand angles. (2) Wherever the predicate affirms e. do contain such an implication. that the view which we have been defending. of course. and assert of it the which flow from its nature. Antwerp. a mistake to suppose that this question was not raised by the Scho Ab est tertio following citation deals with it succinctly. We never existed. and contains prefatory verses by Gregory Martin. B. ergo homo author of this work. in enunciationibus contingentibus recte concluditur ut Si mortui sunt miseri. concerns the nature. p.n4 what Thus is PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC affirmed in them. group of scholars. adjacente. Logica. may define an entity. 135-137. The book is dedicated to Cardinal Allen. had been Logicreader at Cambridge. certainly benefactor. that the subject has acted. should be read All 5 (if S exists) is P. 2 Venn.

and No S is may both be true for it is alike the case that there are no SP s and no 5 not-P s. and given above The conversions of (c) the inversion of A and E are invalid. . Interpreted as we have understood it. some are not P. viz. that universal propositions have no existential implication. and (c) that the inversion of A and are position of also invalid. it is to be noted that he starts from the presupposition that the pro positions are to be interpreted according to the explanation we All 5 is as equivalent to All 5 (if Starting from this erroneous hypothesis he All 5 argues (a) that the conversion of A is invalid. all the processes of immediate inference are valid. and If there be any S. has been discussed with brought. Implication of Existence and Immediate Inference. but that particular propositions imply the existence of their subjects. for the same reason as was and similarly (b) the contraposition of E. and 7 are we may infer a universal . Similarly the conversion of I is invalid. For All S is P merely denies that there are any 5 not Some S is not asserts that. summarize the conclusions to which he It will be sufficient of his own doctrine. In regard to his discussion of the traditional doctrine. as to the effect respectively of the traditional doctrine here defended. The bear ing of the various views as to the implication of existence. (d) Con tradiction does not hold good. In regard to his own view. when we say. and a particular from a particular. Keynes. he arrives at the following have just rejected. some of these figures are chiliagons. Finally (e) Contrariety does not hold good. both these propositions may be true. is that If any geometrical figures exist. The invalidity of these conversions involves (b) that the contra and O. upon the processes of immediate inference. and to is customary thoroughness by Mr. Similarly. Chiliagons are possible entities. and (e) Contrariety for the reasons alleged above is valid. when 5 is not found in the universe of discourse. P E E P P P : : results (a) : is invalid. In regard to Opposition (d) Subalternation manifestly^ does not hold good. if it accurately the nature alone expresses what the nature is. Where 5 does not exist in the universe of discourse. the last thing that we intend to assert. Some geometrical figures are chiliagons. (if there be any P) is 5. : The conversion of A E that These results may be summarized by saying from a universal.THE IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS : 115 and the proposition is true.: is P S exists) P. These conclusions are all based on the erroneous interpreta tion of the proposition. From we cannot conclude that Some (if there be any 5) is P. All 5 is P. but not a particular from a universal. not actually existing things. viz. In regard to the doctrine of Opposition.

Secondly. we trust. But it does not tell us whether there is any y at all or if there be. The proposition All M is y it may be regarded as absolute. . also its any x. the compartment ley partment xy If there are the compartment Xy. since they secure the validity of the two important processes of (i) contra But. throw some light on the theories as to their import. All x is y. The affirmative import. whether there is . cepted it. Venn. Mr. . This view has been called the Compartmental view. of things which are both x and not-y. : . is regarded as a . Keynes holds that these results. Thus existential implication. we maintain that it is not the case that the negative form is the primary import. his estimate diction. Our discussion on the 5. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC : is invalid also for where S is not (/) Sub-contrariety found. We maintain in the first place. Compartmental View. (2) simple conversion. the negative form is a mere inference from the affirmative form.&quot. . * No non-mortal men exist. such things as x. because characteristic feature is that the essential import of the uni versal proposition is regarded as consisting in the fact that it All x is y empties the com empties a definite compartment. All y is x. yet all of them do imply that certain things do not exist. both sub-contraries may be false. viz. but the direct affirmation of an attribute in relation to a known subject. when dealing with the import of proposi tions. Venn. Keynes also has ac section.n6 invalid. No x is y. which we have yet to discuss. that the categorical proposition. . of the traditional view is vitiated by the initial mistake as to the interpretation of the proposition. Those who have found no reason to disagree with what was said in our last section. Hence he urges that &quot.in respect of what such a proposition affirms. The implication of existence in propositions will. but in respect of what it denies. it can only be regarded as conditional. are more satisfactory than those of the traditional view. calls attention to the fact that. declares the non-existence of a certain combination. and the so-called conditional affirma tive form the secondary but on the contrary. Dr. is in no sense a conditional proposition. The view we propose to consider in the present Mr. the assertion certainly contains the information that no such All men are mortal has the nonthings as xy exist. then all the x s are y. If I affirm All x is y. though it is quite impossible to admit that universal propositions should be understood as signifying the existence of their subjects. secondary and derivative implication. will not be prepared to accept this view. owes its origin to Dr. notwithstanding the havoc they make in the doctrine of immediate inference. . as we have seen.

E. Venn s interpretation. and establish no class. There is a sick man (=Some men are sick) O. He u/ged that the ordinary mode of stat ing the A. There is not a live stone (=No stones are living) /. The negative. that as a matter of fact we do not think in these forms. Bradley defines the reference of an ideal content to reality. Bradley on the Proposition. Of these one must be false But to this it may be replied that the ordinary interpretation of the two judgments provides us with contradiction.&quot. and that the contradiction here is obtained by making the universal mean far less. it an extinguish no class. No xy exists and Some dictories. It is manifest to any one who reflects. which have the definite characteristic of having a thousand sides. when rightly understood.. . . The treatment of the particular proposition is equally unsatis In contrast with the universal. * 6. and that the correct forms should be A There is not an immortal man (=A11 men are mortal) E. Venn.O propositions was logically indefensible. it is asserted it does factory. xy exists. . There are no xy. &quot.&quot. than rightly understood they do mean. and has therefore no categojical information to give It is quite true that existentially the particular proposition can extin but a judgment such as guish no class.I. and the particular far more. F. : . and establish no class Some figures are chiliagons/ is most assuredly categorical. is the true and primary significance of the proposition. Mr. Yet the theory tells us that not this. Brentano.. and informs us that there is a class of possible entities. merely tells us that at the present time there happen to be no x s that are not It does not in any way imply that whenever and wherever y. It is this surely. 5. thus appear plainly. . that only thus do we get perfect contradiction between the universal and the All x is y and Some x is not y are true contra particular. says Dr. When discussing Dr. The existential significance of the copula would. us. an x is found. Venn s 3) we promised to say something system of diagrams (Ch. held the same view in a more extreme form.THE IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS 117 A further objection may be raised on the ground that the non-existential interpretation is quite inadequate as representing the true import of the proposition. that x is always y. so. If it did not do imply the existence of its subject. Such a theory carries its own refutation with it. It is urged on behalf of Dr. &quot. The German logician. The . judgment as Mr. he claimed. There is an unlearned man (=:Some men are not learned). on this point. which is the point of real importance. . but the comparatively unimportant There are no xy. it would have absolutely nothing certain to tell us . if they respectively mean the other must be true.

and say Run but further. say Gold is yellow. he tells us. it is true. Bk. Mr. but the reality itself. beyond mere A-B. universal they omit the individualiz ing notes of the several pieces of gold. Further. we treat it as an adjective of the real world. But they do not deny their presence they merely abstract from them. Bradley accepts the con clusion. it means that that which the concept of gold represents. 1 It is an abbreviated sentence. any more than the real determination is a predicate. The contention that we can express a judgment by a single word without either subject or copula. but through the senses which per : : ceive the individual. it is a synthesis of ideas. the copula is a The traditional account of the judgment. as when I point to an animal in motion. and the two terms of in fact a single predicate. But if this is so. we may employ the universal concept to designate a particular individual. Bradley s arguments are of little weight. is the subject of (Principles. are qualified by the real determination yellow. then certainly some fact is present to my mind. 3.n8 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC true subject of a judgment is. But the real entity is not the subject of the intellectual judg ment. I. he rejects as manifestly false. On their showing. In the proposition Gold is yellow. and in saying this is true. by using the demonstrative pronoun and saying This gold is yellow. ning it would be confined to a sphere of unreal universals. Thus the term Gold can be used as representative of every piece of that metal. he tells us. If this view be correct. in A precedes B. namely the real entities for which it stands. the true account of judgment is to be found in saying that we refer the ideal content of our assertion to the real order. universal idea of yellowness. I. of course. nature of a predicate representing attributes which are referred to the real world. c. Thus. When . i. has already been criti cized (Ch. Not only is it the case. did judgment consist in a synthesis of ideas. Mr. c. he urges. &quot. . Subject The concepts are. represents the mental judgment That object is running. since we possess knowledge. 2. and predicate belong to the thing as conceived. the reality to which the referred. A-B &quot.. 17). it follows.. and mutilated proposition. It is a quality of something &quot. In its ordinary acceptation. (Principles. are not bound to interpret the judgment as meaning no more than that the universal idea of gold is qualified by the I &quot. the judgment form that the copula is meaningless. that superstition. those who hold the term Gold to be the true subject. not the grammatical The whole judgment is of the subject. not merely through the concepts of the intellect. this whole relation A-B is the predicate. * adjective A-B is Bk. that one idea is sufficient for a judg ment. But universal gold and universal yellow are not realities Hence he concludes that 5). An expression such as Running is a mere i).

THE IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS 7. they flow. The terms Ground and Reason are sometimes employed to express that on which something depends in the order of thought. king is is What the flags are half-mast high. in contrast with the term Cause which signifies that on which something depends in the real order. explanation gorical judgment was to be found in the comparison of in the in the conceptual order. It is of the utmost importance that the distinction should be borne in mind. Thus if we argue from the existence of a finite world to the existence of God. A somewhat similar comparison will afford us the clue to the meaning of the hypothetical propo sition. It not only judges that If but the will that bomb be the killed/ explodes. as well as from cause to effect and from If substance to property. perforce on on the natures from which causes. accurately distinguished between what is anterior in the order of being (prius in or dine reali). 3. The Scholastics diate antecedent in the conceptual order. for in the study of Logic we are explicitly concerned with the mode in which the order of thought deals with the order of reality. it must In the real order. is often the imme a very remote effect in the real order. To the followers of the Idealist school the mani fest difference between conceptual dependence and real dependence presents a problem for which they are unable to offer any satisfactory solution. from property to substance. The latter expresses the dependence of the conse on the antecedent in the order of conceptual quent If the mind admits the antecedent. The conceptual order is not thus limited. 119 In Hypothetical Proposition. the king dead. They reduce the whole world to relations expressed by thought and their philosophical principles would appear to involve that : . The mind argues from effect to cause. effects admit the consequent. of the the Cate that 2. properties depend being. and what is anterior in the order of thought (prius in ordinc logico). though in the real order the world depends on Him. in the logical order God is pos terior to the world. with being being Import of the Ch. we saw real order.

a salute would be occurred. for that object is B. For its nature is such. it must necessarily develop An acorn : it is according to definite laws. it is merely an application of a principle already acknowledged. it is C. not because they correspond to what is. Our judgments are true. says Mr. that given suitable conditions. . not on a potentiality. and that of Cause and Effect but to oppose the two &quot. there are real potentialities. 1 It may well be the case that neither the antecedent nor the consequent taken separately are true. then we may assert regarding any given object. 2. abstracts from is immortal.&quot. even though those conditions have never If the king were to arrive. Besides what is actually real. Here the judgment depends for its validity. Yet somehow we attribute truth to the assertion in its entirety.g. If the souls of brutes are spiritual. Bradley. is to fall into the false antithesis &quot.g. its truth hypotheticals. it will become an oak. 144). between thought and * reality (Manual of Logic. e. Truth of the Hypothetical Propositions. c. Principles. as on the explosion We may distinguish. Similarly we find systems such as social custom. but potentially is actually an acorn and nothing more an oak tree. fired. Hence it is true to say. being universal. under definite conditions. Welton. but on the generic categorical proposition. time and place. Such a judgment must be true. 49. 50. of the bomb. &quot. I. depends on the fact that the real order does not consist solely of what is actual. . to each other.. about which we make no assertion but because they correspond to what would be. In what sense can it be said to correspond with reality ? To solve this question we must distinguish two classes of In regard to the first of these classes. It is therefore capable of application in regard to any time and any place. law and 1 Cf.120 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC the death of the king depends just as much and just as little on the position of the flag. The second class may be illustrated by the judgment. between the relation of Ground and Consequence. which determine what would happen. Bk. If this acorn is planted. In recent works on Logic somewhat lengthy discussions have been devoted to the question as to how a hypothetical judgment can be said to be true. they are immortal. If the judgment B as such is C. e. If is known. The spiritual soul as such This principle.

as it explicitly professes to be. or an Accident of the entity. in full accord with the principles of his philosophy. It may stand as the Genus. in which the subject is not an indi But man can only stand vidual. i. depends on a fact strongly emphasized by Aristotle cc. because it is itself cap able of being predicated of the singulars. The Predicables. : i. THE PREDICABLES. that the general term is able . Man Plato. etc. as the subject of this proposition. far as individual men exist in . which a universal term holding the position of predicate. but a general term. is derived from the Isagoge of Porphyry (Ch. has no existence save in so and it is because it can be affirmed of the individual. Socrates. which we shall explain in a subsequent section. or the Differentia. Porphyry s treat universal terms stand to the of which which they ment of the subject differs from that of Aristotle in one or two details. etc..CHAPTER VIII. 5) (Categ. It is however. 5). Before explaining these terms it is important to point out that the Porphyrian account of the Predicables. or the Species. The Isagoge enumerates five possible relations. The account of the Predicables given by the Scholastic philosophers. We may of course form propositions such as Man is mortal. 2. The Predicables are the various relations in may subjects are predicated.. of which it is affirmed. that the ultimate subject of all predication is the individual. may bear to the subject of which it is predicated. or as a Property.

namely individual men such as Socrates. and in the case of abstract qualities. we may consider the relation of animal/ not merely to its subject man. to The individual is the Primary Substance the classnature he called Secondary Substance. but to the ultimate subject of predication.g. denoting the individual substance. : hension of the term which signifies this class-nature ? It consists of what we may call the constitutive notes or characteristics of that nature. that when we are considering the case of some general term employed as the predicate of a proposition. we shall see that among the predicates which can be affirmed of him. and the universal term man. Thus. e. which are sometimes found as the subject of propositions. But here too.g. . By the word constitu- In short. Categ. Similar considerations will be of force in regard to those abstract terms which signify a quality. Nothing however prevents them in some cases. Socrates.&quot. Aristotle marked by the names Primary and Secondary Substances. This distinction between the singular term. viz. one. we are able to consider terms in reference to their ultimate subject. 3.g. 1 &quot. 2. (i) Species. What now is the compre class-nature. If we take an individual substance. Amongst colour. these also there are general terms such as virtue.g. in the case of substances. the term animal in Man is an : animal. all general proceed to consider the five predicables we have enumerated above. e. of So that both 1 whiteness. etc. cannot be predicated of a subject. the right of a general term to stand as a subject. an individual instance of the science of grammar is one of those entities that inhere in a subject. and the like. but it is not predicated of any subject. individuals and whatever is numerically Arist.. e. e. Socrates. Plato. It is evident therefore. c. there is one which expresses his We may now man. which expresses the class-nature of Socrates. as exhibited in the individual object. is due to the fact that it is itself used as a predicate of the individual quality. from inhering in a subject.122 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC become a subject of attribution.

species is expresses the full class-nature of its subject. An animal that is not rational. is rightly termed a man and if either of these be absent. essential are those attributes which (a) contain the common and persistent basis of a multitude of others and on which (6) subsistence of the object. as we have said. depend. 56.The (Wesen. conceptus) . Uberweg. . Any entity in which these two notes are found. was also called the species (etVW).&quot. notio. it is no longer a man. &quot. Thus. What is it ? (quid sit). thus expresses the constitutive notes by which the indi vidual is what he is. in regard to any object. it is said to be the species of the subject. : its worth and its meaning. The Notion (Begriff. 1 Two employed to signify the essence. We may may therefore define the species as the sum of the essential attributes of an entity. which make it a representative of the type to which it These notes together suffice to make it what it belongs. essentia) of the object under consideration. intelligence.THE PREDICABLES tive. Thus the comprehension of the term man is rational animal. .e. but belongs to some other class. if I affirm the proposi tion species horse is said to be the Bucephalus is a horse. that conception in which the sum-total of the essential attributes. since we are here it as constituting one of the relations which considering exist the matter thus between predicate and subject. Though the primary signification of the word 1 Cf. Or. we may put Whenever the predicate expresses the : sum-total of the essential attributes of the subject. since the concept of horse. characterizing form. is conceived. we conceive the class-nature as being It that which makes the thing the kind of thing it is. i. tion. is. belongs to a lower order of living creatures an intelligence that is not by nature the governing principle of an animal is not a human The concept which body. If one note were absent it would be a different kind of entity. because it is by the term which declares the essential nature. that we reply to the ques For. is said to represent the essence : : (ova-ia) of the individual. 123 we signify those notes which are alike requisite and sufficient to make the entity the kind of thing it is. of Bucephalus. or the essence . other terms were also It was called the quiddity (TO rl ?]v eivai).

Such a view would be quite foreign to the truth. But isosceles and triangle are not two different attri butes in the sense that it is possible to have the note isosceles Nor can we existing apart from a triangle. not in reference to the essential nature which it expresses. Such a predicate said to express the genus of its subject. isosceles. it is taken not in intension. equilateral. have a triangle which is not either isosceles. the notes constitutive of the specific notion. because our intellect can abstract from the determining . horse. completely determined than that of isosceles triangle. or scalene. In this sense it is almost synonymous with the word And we class. Thus the notes signification (ii) is Genus. and separable one from another.124 is PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC as we have just explained. triangle * When common scalene. The species differs from the genus because it is the nature as completely determined. in relation to the various species is generic in . and equiangular. A term this part of the essence. another based on the extensive : frequently employed. lion. But we can form a generic concept of triangle. Thus ani is A mal is a generic concept man. genus may thus be defined as that part of the essence of the subject which it has in common with other species. we must not be understood to signify that an essence is a collection of attributes. but in reference to the individual objects which possess that nature in other words. shall see that though the definition given above is the more philosophically accurate. Among by the term and to the various man. provides us with a which stands to the subject in a different rela predicate. there are some which are common both to the class in question and to other classes. and denotes the group of objects of which it can be predicated. but in extension. relation to etc. that are mutually independent. that name is often applied to a term. whereas the genus is incom Thus the notion triangle is less pletely determined. it is said that the genus expresses the notes to several species. from that occupied by the species. indicated cative tion of animal are common alike to signifi tribes of brutes.

may be understood in extension. and express it in the concept of the. When the intensive definition is employed.. ra tional is the differentia. The differentia is that part of a specific essence by which it is distinguished from other species of the same genus. of any subject as its whole essence. definition. animal is a genus. It is only in refer ence to individuals that 2. so it can by abstraction form a concept of that por tion of the specific essence which is distinctive of it. Just as the mind can abstract what is common to various species. and so on. Thus. then in the hierarchy of classes. summum known (iii) genus. 125 is and merely represent what common to the three species. such a predicate is found But if we accept the extensive 21. are genera. form an ascending scale of Genera. c. all save the This highest class is termed a highest are species. of which the various species are sub-classes. which is as an infima species. It is this fact that frequently renders it convenient to understand the terms in the meaning expressed by these And : extensive definitions class . And all save the lowest class. under It is evident that just as which man is a species. A species is a narrow class included in a genus..THE PREDICABLES characteristics. which together with the genus animal. 22). like species. so we may find higher genera animal. Man animal above living Being corporeal substance. it will merely be a wider class. genus. above animal/ so As man is animal f The higher classes are none of them predicated species. larly it is constitutes the specific nature Simi man. Genus. This part of the nature is termed the differentia. as referred to the is a species in relation to a species in relation to living Being. for this definition of species makes the term applicable to each sub-class. so understood. Differentia. by the respective differentiae that triangle . Isag. man alone of all the series could be called a it. The two terms may in consequence be thus defined A genus is a wider class consisting of narrower classes.

lt.gt. as distinct. . in fact.&amp.rriK6i&amp. ye\a. 4. but because the faculty of laughter is his by nature.lt. Similarly. But the fact that they follow from it by resultis A ancy. : Proprium convenit omni. is property precisely the same as the extension of the The classical example is the faculty of laughter species. 1 just as the faculty of neighing belongs to the horse. and his practice 1 In the Scholastic phrase Isagogf. that they are found nowhere else. because they are derivative qualities. soli. c. 5. This is immediately dependent alike on the intelligence and the corporeal structure of human nature. (propria We may define them as property is an attribute which does not form part of the essence of its subject. et semper. belongs to him always. The differentia of the infima species is termed a as generic specific differentia.u is termed risible. ov For Man TOVTO 8 ael airrif inrdpxft. ire(j)VKfv&amp. and can view the triangle gular or isosceles. 2 in man. is marked off from the other classes contained under its genus by a differen tia. Besides the notes which go to make (iv) Property. but results necessarily from that essence. differentiating form from the indeterminate generic nature. These are termed &ui)j properties follows . will show that in the real order the genus and the differentia are not two different parts of the nature. These properties are not reckoned as forming part of the essence. and that 1 Hence the extension of the specific they are constant. isosceles triangle. his power of intelligent speech.gt. scalene What we have said as to the genus. Some with of these are directly essential the and necessarily connected characteristics. not because he is always actually laughing. We cannot in the real order separate between a triangle and its equianguIt is the mind alone which can distinguish the larity. many other attributes may be predicated of a subject. TU&amp. That. becomes equilateral triangle. The others are known differentiae.126 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC triangle. not primary. us KO! rip (wiry TO xpefJ-fTtariK^v. ye\av atl dXXd ry 76X01* \tyerat. the essence. ensures that they are found wherever that nature present. which we have hitherto been considering. and its form as equian Each species in the ascending scale.&quot.

These will. The property on own species (Isag. of the crow is an inseparable accident. 2). . the inseparable accident is one which is found present in every individual of the class. though they were without what had heretofore been regarded as an absolutely constant characteristic. c. all those attributes. it would not on that account be placed in a different species This was in fact what occurred when the (ibid. of course. the separable is one found only in certain members. An an subject. Such entities are termed Real Accidents. but to a whole species. 1 Accidents are separable or inseparable accord as the ing subject is ever found without them or not.. 7. 16. the logical order. the contrary is peculiar to Thus the black colour 4). there will be others. If an entity should be found lacking an attribute of this character. Where we are speaking of accidents in relation not to a single individual. which result from the generic notes of the nature. Ch. not as an accident dent its is Porphyry found present ? replies that the inseparable acci in other species besides the one in question. It is thus defined is : which neither is part of the essence. black swans of Australia were discovered. not be limited to the species. It may well be asked what it then is. it to denote a real entity whose connatural mode of existence is by inherence in substance. not of the species but of the 1 The term Accident as signifying the fifth predicable has a different sense from that in which it was employed in Ch. Besides the specific properties. No one re garded them as entitled to a different specific name. 7. which are unconnected with the essence. If an attribute is found to belong to all the members of a species. The relation belongs to proposition. but will be coextensive with the genus to which they belong. have been assigned as properties of man. In the case of accidents. There we used i. c. As a predicable it signifies a predicate which stands in a certain relation to the subject of the These are termed Logical Accidents. 5.THE PREDICABLES 127 of cooking his food. nor necessarily results from the essence of the accident attribute. which distinguishes an inseparable accident from a property. The fifth of the predicables embraces (v) Accident. should we not rank it as a property. 2.

that setting aside the case of the singular predicate. . This. some attribute which can be affirmed nature that is of a subject and the attribute or always universally conceived. A separ able accident is one. c.g. it belong to that subject by strict necessity or not. It may be easily shewn. : the species. has no claim to constitute a separate Predicable. or it must be that part of in which case it is a species the essence which is common to other classes the . An inseparable accident is one which belongs to the subject at all times. it is a necessary attribute. Besides the five Predicables we have mentioned. 2. an attribute For when must either genus * . it either belongs to the constitutives of the essence. term is predicated of Sophroniscus. If. tives of the essence. this it would seem to follow that involve the presence of the genus. on the other hand. the differentia must implicitly that. one of which is triangle. the list is exhaustive. Por 37) notices the case in which a singular of a subject. We form the singular term by limiting some is universal notion in regard of place and time. Socrates is the son phyry (Isag. To be a Mantuan individual. the differentia. e. which can only be predicated of its subject at certain times. e. the form of the figure as isosceles. or is an attri bute resulting necessarily from the essence. In the latter Should it belong to the constitu case it is a property.g. separable an inseparable accident in regard to Virgil. it must either be the whole essence. Thus if it be affirmed. is predicated of a subject. If it is not one of the necessary attributes. however. The primary praedicabilia terms which necessarily can be predicated of something are universal. We have and itself differentia pointed out above that the separation of the genus and that in the thing is the work of the mind : we cannot distinguish two From the other isosceles.128 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC and inseparable accidents are other wise distinguished. necessarily supposes parts. Virgil is is writing poetry. e. or finally the part of the essence peculiar to viz. A singular term predicated. is not one of the primary predicable terms.. this is a separable accident. it is an accident.g. They express .

be found dealt with in Sylvester Maurus Commentary on Aristotle.a. c.fffj. 39. 15. etc. is the he tells us. rational thoughts. The differentia implies the genus as the Opusc. and does not involve the presence of any one species in particular.1 6pt.t&amp. c.&vepov STJ &TI ij TfXevraia Sia&amp. c. After what has been said in the last section. VI.lt. 2 : teaching of Aristotle. 10. it may be urged. . subject of which. the figure commonly termed the It shews us tree of Porphyry needs no explanation. : irpdy/j.lt. it does not express the true differentia of any species as such. 8.. fre quently common to various species. 26. g. 2. This explains how it is that in certain passages Aristotle tells us that the term signifying the differentia is not convertible with the species. c. The question substantiae et qualitati. n. Thomas.gt. 3.. plied that the term employed as a differentia. the series of species and genera from the highest genus down to the lowest species. The Tree of Porphyry. VI. it is true. Cf. ttrrai Ka. c. Materiale will &quot. . : : sit substantia. IV. but merely an element common to the determining factors of different species.f&amp. together with the differentiae. c. since it may be common to more species than one.6y. But in so far as it is common. us the essence. . 6. 1 Yet The specific differentia. fl dr) OVTWS 6 x et &amp. does not involve man To this it is re rational spirits. 4. I.&quot. &amp. St.Tos Generis. De Antepraedicamentis.THE PREDICABLES that the figure determined is 129 a triangle. c.&quot. Natura tia.gt. non est differentia substantiae sed est aliud genus respectu substantiae se habens per modum excedentis et excessi.opa r) ovffia Tota namque constituitur definitio ex ultima differen But with these passages. Thomas. VI.gt. a difficulty may here suggest itself. He says of the term material which may be used as the differentia of substance and of quality. Opusc. which go to constitute each 1 species. is. determinatur per hoc quod in quantum est quid commune . we can have Rational. De Ente et Essentia. and St. Nam differentia comparari debet ad genus sicut pars determinativa ad determinabilem at aeque substantia cum possit esse materialis vel spiritualis determinatur per hoc quod sit materialis ac materiale cum possit esse substantia vet qualitas. 6. compare Topics. and of which alone it is a determining principle but it is not a logical whole containing the genus. De 2 See Topics. etc. Such in fact. 3. gives j 2. . 8. &quot. Met. TOV C. 12.

Figure I Plane Solid 17 Rectilineal Curvilinear TT Triangles I I Quadrilaterals.. The following scheme gives us the It will be observed that a divisions of abstract figure. which qualify substance. It is evident that schemes may be drawn up to repre sent the genera and species. since in this case our language does not possess different terms for the differentia and the species. etc. separate line is not given for the differentiae. . etc. Pentagons. but which can be conceived in abstraction from it. but also of those attributes. not merely of substances as in the tree of Porphyry.I3 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Substance Corporeal Incorporeal Animate Inanimate Sensible Insensible Rational Irrational Socrates Plato. etc.

the predicate must either be coextensive with the subject or not. is Thus the man is tbat of animal sensitive living-being. yet he does not base his division of predicables upon it. as we saw. If it be coextensive. the principle on which the system is constructed be kept in view. there are two points which call for notice. Containing attributes not connected with the essence. it is clear that it is an accident (Topics. it must either form part of : &quot. possible to frame an ascending scale of genera and species corresponding to the order of nature. Containing the essenCoextensive with I tial attributes. If it be one of those attributes. \ Containing attributes not belonging to es sence. and that it is in consequence. If it is not one of the attributes contained in the definition. The Porphyrian scheme is. in accord with the principles of the Aristotelian Yet Aristotle himself gives us a scheme arranged different system. its differentia. 131 Aristotle s is Porphyry on a philosophy. It is thus that he explains his system Whenever a predicate is affirmed of any subject. Accidents. (2) Propria. (1) Definition. The only case in which a predicate can express the species is. it is the subject or a property. . if not. 3)- This gives us the following scheme.THE PREDICABLES * 3. a definition For we have explained the property. Not coextensive with (4) tribute. The fivefold division of Predicables. If however. based on the principle that the ultimate subject of predication is the individual. c. property. This is readily explained if (i) The omission of the species. but solely on the relation between 5 and P. 2. the predicate be not coextensive. as that which is coextensive with the entity to which it belongs. Though this is part of the teaching of Aristotle. it is either a genus or a differentia. I. since the definition is composed of the genus and the differentiae. considered without regard to their position in the scale of being. 1 The definition is ordinarily expressed definition of by the proximate genus and rational animal . 1 . while not forming part of its essence. the predicate is either the definition l of the If it gives us the essence. (3) Genera and Containing some por tion of essential at- Differentiae. 1 the attributes comprised in the definition of the subject or not. 8. In this system of Predicables. subject. subject.. &quot.

But as regards the relative extension of the terms. Yet though the mean ing be thus invariable. and yet stands in the same relation to every member of the it is one. which though ? * individuals 1 Met. the term man is predicated. 2 Or we may say (3) that the only common element is the name. More often our term is common to various species.t&amp. e. and rightly predicated. The Controversy on Universals. this was the teaching of William of Ockham (1280-1349) and his But their tenets school. given to a variety of class.vKev. exceeds it in extension.lt. the Predicables renders it necessary that we should deal with the question as to what it is that the universal term really signi fies. Ttf&amp. militate For the species. c. They were at that period known as Nominalists. the does not differ from the genus neither of them is co species extensive with the subject. cannot give us the essence of the individual with the differentia which separates him from others of the same species. What is this human nature which is one. IV. he says that the differentia is either coextensive with the species or This is the more accurate statement. e. 2 Among modern logicians Hamilton and Mansel were Conceptualists.132 as PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC we saw. in extension from the subject. round. As such also may be reckoned the Idealist logicians. man. We may say (2) that the common nature is merely a thought in the mind without objective counterpart in the real order. We 13. VI. Hence Aristotle reckons the species here under the head of genus.gt.g. though expressing against this explanation.. have a term which expresses the determining we Occasionally principle of a particular species as such. * The full discussion of 4. of different individuals of Socrates. If for instance we consider the terms white. of Mill. . call 2. TOVTO yap Ae Ka66\ov & ir\fio&amp.lt. whose theory of knowledge is based on the doctrines of Kant and Hegel.. belongs at the same time to many Various answers have been given to this question. 2. and of Plato. Socrates is a man. all the constitutive notes of the type.lt. Those who give this answer are termed Realists.g. and of Kant. when the subject is an individual. we see that each of these has a perfectly stable meaning. which it retains wherever it is employed. isosceles in regard to triangle.u many. (2) The ranking of the differentiae with the genus as differing In Topics. We may hold (i) that this common nature is something real. Thus the term intelligent or rational may be employed as the differentia of man. The adherents of this doctrine are known as Conceptualists. Nor does the fact that he declares the genus only to express part of the essential attributes. c. and may also be predicated of spiritual : n beings. on this point agreed with those of the modern Conceptualists.nv inrdpxeiv Universal that whose nature it is to belong at once to *yeT&amp. the whole class-essence. Among the mediaeval philo sophers.

e. they are not at once viewed as universal that is to say they are not referred to a number of similar objects. We see that it is one and the same concept which represents them all. as lustrous. The only satisfactory answer that the problem has received. when they can be related to some law. rather than the nature of man. merely particular fact is A Facts attain their value. i) called attention to the manner in which the concepts of the intellect abstract from the individual Our senses distinguish izing conditions of the object of thought. individual entities. as yellow. which I affirm of the in It is manifest that I affirm the nature..g. But the mind has only to reflect on the nature of the concept.THE PREDICABLES is 133 This view objects because of some real or fancied resemblance.. that of the Nominalists. repre sents the characteristics common to all men and the nature represented by the concept may be affirmed of every one. It conceives it as gold. for instance. whether it is not my concept of man. But a general law is a law affirmed about the universal nature. the concepts formed by the mind if a sovereign is presented to sense. would serve to express not only the gold under observa tion. Take. not the condividual. the assertion relates merely to a concept in the mind. But the mind seizes not on what is individual. when it is observed that every scientific principle relates to the universal. of no value in science. provided they were similar in that particular respect. Whenever we are brought into contact with several objects presenting similar features. in that case. Nominalism has been the traditional doctrine of the English sensationalist school from the days of Hobbes. but on what is characteristic and it recognizes that the characteristics which it represents in thought. or to the meaning of the word water our philosophy. It is true that when these notes are first conceived by the mind. : : : : . 1 That this is a philosophical problem of the very first importance will appear at once. Thus my concept man. It finds its most notable representative in 1 Mm. when we assert that water at the sea-level freezes at 32 F. and that the name expressive of these notes may be affirmed of each. representing the notes they have in common. is that afforded by the doctrine known as Moderate Realism. and it immediately sees that the idea. of yellow. We have already (Ch. but any number of other things. It may however be asked. discredits the assured results of science. . this We frame a concept universality is forced upon our notice. If then we hold that in the real order there is nothing corresponding to the universal term that for instance. even though they be precisely similar to each other. may be reproduced in an indefinite num ber of individuals. and abstracting from all others. 2.

the nature when by an act of reflection. De Potentiis Animae. The concept man while ex pressly representing the notes only that are common to all men It does not signify alike.: What is the human nature. 1 Hence the laws of science. Intellectus. It is as maintaining this position that the adherents of the traditional Scholastic doctrine are rightly termed merely about the Realists.&quot. we consider this nature as it is mentally conceived. between what prime importance to notice the distinction termed the direct and the reflex universal. and which I affirm regarding the subject of my judgment. Opusc. fied I PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC could not say Socrates is a man. in which the common charac teristics are found. viz.&quot.&quot. is in the real order. identity of Socrates with we affirm the only a part of his being. not (as the Nominalists tell us) common name which stands as subject. De Differentia Verbi Divini et Humani. and as thus abstracted affirmable of a subject. The direct universal is simply the nature abstracted from individualiz ing conditions. sed sicut in quo in1 St. Substantia ergo rei est id Istud ergo sic quod intellectus intelligit. human nature. . 40. Im plicitly it includes all the other notes of the individual of whom Nor can be urged that on this explanation. is what at most : it is affirmed. abstracted from the remainder that on our showing we assert Socrates is human nature. &quot. 1 telligit. Opusc. Our conclusions now enable us to answer the question. which we proposed to ourselves at the beginning of the section. [Verbum interius] est tanquam speculum in quo res cernitur.. nor yet (as the Conceptualists would have it) about our concepts. of the class in question. and it is found in the objects of which it is affirmed. does not exclude the remaining notes. It signifies the nature represented in my it my concept. Opusc. yet the nature itself. but a being possessed of human nature. Thomas is the concept &quot. belongs to the nature as and only as it is conceived in the intellect and that it consists simply in the fact that one and the same concept represents all the members . But though we know the nature in a universal concept.134 cept. if the predicate signi concept. 12. man which we can affirm of Socrates. But e. and all our general statements are affirmed. et ideo comparatur ad intellectum non sicut id quo intellectus intelligit. 13. which my mind makes known to me. we see that it is affirmable of each and every It is therefore of is tells us that that which the mind contemplates is the nature : that in which it knows the nature. quia in isto sic expresso et formato videt naturam rei intellectae. which we think of as at one and the same time one and many ? We reply that this characteristic of multiplicity in unity. but about the objects themselves.g. De Natura Verbi &quot. formatum et expressum in anima dicitur verbum interius.

est singulare. uni soli communicabile. 39. as we have seen. should render the student very own on the Aristotelians * 5. For the five Predicables are simply the five possible divisions of the universal thus mentally conceived as being one and many. ut dicit Averroes] supra librum de Anima. A universal term in the predicate. Opusc. n). this According to universal view 1 it consists in &quot. bore no resemblance to Exaggerated Realism. 294 and 1 sqq. that therefore Socrates is a species. Bradley and Mr. be These five Species. This is now be apparent how necessary is the discussion of question to the understanding of the Predicables. as a rule fail even to view. following will serve as a typical passage. They are terms which can only be affirmed of the nature as it is in the conceptual order they do not belong to the object in the real order. Ch. (ed. must. Property or Accident. We cannot argue because Socrates is a man. and man is a species. in which a predicate can stand to the subject of which it is affirmed. The view of the taken by Mr. The above account has shewn that this Moderate Realism the prevalent view among the Scholastic philosophers. 3 English writers on Logic. and represent the Scholastics as ordinarily An error on so objective reality of universals. 2 St. teaching is identical with that of the Arabian Aristotelians. 1 It will all. see Maher. Quod autem commune est. 5. while man is a species in the conceptual order this : alone. similar view * The Exaggerated Realism is famous as the doctrine of Plato. 14. Thomas again and tells and two us that his great Nevertheless mention this teaching the fundamental again rejects such a view in express terms.e. De Natura &quot. Intellectus mentator [i. 6). Avicenna and Averroes. c. 1121). Com- . Differentia. For Socrates is a man in the real order.a persistent identity in difference &quot. and the species and the genus are held to be real things beyond the individuals of which they are asserted. cautious in accepting any criticism which such writers of the middle ages. enim facit universalitatem in rebus. which we have hitherto considered. may pass The Universal in Modern Logic. Genus. or as we may otherwise put it. pp. 2. A somewhat was maintained by William of Champeaux (d. the extravagant doctrine according to which the universal has objective existence in the real order as a universal. a point as this. Psychology. In re igitur nihil est commune multis.THE PREDICABLES man that it belongs to the reflex universal. therefore are Second Intentions (Ch. 135 that it is one and many. quia quidquid est in re Generis. They give us the five relations in which a class-notion can stand to the things within the class. dicitur per intellectum.&quot. Bosanquet is radically different from any of the theories as to its nature. On Direct and Reflex Universals.

must needs be radically c. denies the existence of any distinction between thought and things. (Logic. Secondly. fallacious. There are thus two fundamental errors in the theory..) 38). &quot. 148). &quot. 92). they are so far the same What seems the same. conception got Similarly Mr. &quot. A theory of Logic based on errors such as these. : &quot. mere inherited preIt is which has to think itself a real fact (ibid. as we have seen. (Cf. This identity is not understood as a conceptual identity expressing things. Bk. 3). If we say that A and B are alike. he urges. If A and B for instance both have lungs or gills. and to be wholly absent in no content that can be presented to thought as designating a subject of judgment&quot. which are in the real order not the same but similar.. that there is no reality except exclu 5). they can be expressed by one and the same concept. is not proved. same and cannot be made different by any diversity (ibid. under a cer tain aspect. &quot. says Mr. distinct things are asserted to be identical.. &quot. is the (Principles. &quot. Pt. is confused with the conceptual identity of the universal. Bosanquet. The belief. because it is the identity of its own internal diversity (Principles. that universality involves p. 210.. 8). Bradley. .. Bosanquet tells us that Mortality is affirmed of all individual men in virtue of a oneness of nature running through them all and therefore we must take individual unity to be a matter of degree. because. sive particulars. p. p. I. i.a &quot. whatever be the subtlety with which it be defended. we must be taken to mean that they are so far the same. II. First. . This view.. The finite individual is universal. but as a real identity. Bk. &quot. A further development of the same doc trine is to regard the concrete individual as a universal.&quot.136 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC (Bosanquet. says Mr. the real identity of an individual thing in virtue of which it persists through changes and is the bond of many attri butes. Bradley. &quot. identity is a natural result of the Hegelian philosophy. I. I. 6. II. which.

another to be carrying a rider. another phalus to be black. animal. 3.CHAPTER The Categories in their IX. but in their man. though they cannot exist apart from substances.g. when we term the 1. determinations the which characterize Quality : nature. and as belonging to the conceptual order. : own right. referred. . by things we mean substances of things into classes would signify a classification of This is not what is meant here. and to deal with their logical aspect afterwards. under their metaphysical aspect first. In ordinary dis and a division course. following list a classification of things. the word must be rightly understood. 2. i. Metaphysical Aspect. things : accidents are real entities. both metaphysic It will be convenient to treat of them ally and logically. in other words. It is one thing to be a horse. THE CATEGORIES. e. Socrates. they were termed by the Scholastics the ten summa genera of things the ten classes. natures which exist not as mere deter Substance : minations. to one of which all things whatever could be But in this account of the Categories. breadth of Quantity a substance. we must understand the word. the spatial extension. height. may be all these things at one and the It is in this sense Yet Buce same time. For things includes accidents as well as substances. Viewed as belonging to the real order. The Categories (or Predicaments) may be considered both as belonging to the real order. The word substances.

e. Place : position in relation e. These ten Categories may be illustrated in the case of an individual. determinations consequent on or productive of physical change. 8. 8. e. e. 3. i. Time : position in relation to the course of events. at 6.g. e. itself. which belong to the full integrity of : in Nature. nor even as necessarily exhaustive (Categ. the order which holds between one sub Relation stance and another.g. i.g. 9. Thus two substances may be : alike in quality. the determinations accruing from the physi cal adjuncts. equal in quantity. determinations of the nature (2) (3) knowledge in the intellect. 10.e. Passive Qualities. for instance. The term Incapacity signifies not the total absence of the determination. space.g. the capacity to walk. : (1) Habits and Dispositions. (4) It ! 4. c.138 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Aristotle in the Categories distinguishes four kinds of qualities. fill We find that in order that the individual may one that mined is in all these ten ways. 23).g. is some whom is substance something but can receive determinanot a determination. digging. I his place as a part of Nature. e. London. but its possession in an undeveloped and immature degree. being struck. determinations of the active powers. i. e. know. determinations of quantitative extension. Figure. he . e.. : its work Action the production of a change in some other : object.g.e. They merely embody the distinctions recognized in the current vocabulary of the Greek language. should however be observed that these four classes are not put forward by Aristotle as mutually exclusive.g. 6. last year. cold. the sensible qualities of and colour. Habit lying down. health in the body. heat e. he must be deter Here.g. 5. 7. Posture : the relative position of parts in the object itself. Passion the reception of change from some agent.g. sitting. the same in specific nature. the substance as a necessary equipment for armed. viz.e.e. cloaked. i. As man. in to surrounding Westminster Abbey. Capacity and Incapacity.

by specific differen- 1 1 St. things. Formae autem et accidentia et alia hujusmodi. He is in the and it is October. non dicuntur entia quasi ipsa sunt.. but because the concrete subject is what it is.&quot. by calling them the ten modes of being in which an individual thing is realized. the classes of the viz. Art. vocal concept. is He closely resembles . They are called But things. to whom he thus related by the relation of likeness. says. of which these classes are subor dinate species.f . C. and provided with a hammer and chisel (habit) he is carving wood . 45. 5 fiXXa X^yercu 6vra 2.. VI. rd 5 irddr}. raj clvai. as Aris because in their respective ways.THE CATEGORIES tions. we have employed a traditional expression. shouldered. when the various classes can be expressed in a common uniIt is : mode of now clear why For the various kinds of determination differ one from another by things which they confer on the individual. their nature would perhaps be more clearly indicated. and his tool has just cut him (passion). there is not one summum genus only. not be cause they possess existence themselves. quod habet Esse. Summa Theol. rd 5i TotoTTjraj. I. et est subsistens in suo Esse. &quot. : r&amp. his father. (action). 139 As regards (2) quantity. Illiproprie convenit Esse. i. and are distinguished &quot. or Thing Being.. 1 The con crete subject is walking. is Among square- his qualities it tician.. may skilful be noted that he carver. rd 6 AXXo TI TOIOVTOV. totle Hence.lt. 1907 (time). sed quia s aliquid est ut albedo el ratione dicitur ens. In what sense are the nine categories of Accidents called How can we regard the quality of swarthithings ? ness or the relation of likeness as a thing ? If indeed we are speaking of these accidents considered as separ ate entities.tv TO. 2 In speaking of the Categories as the summa genera of is and healthy. . These accidents are said to be.Thomas.&quot. Met. (3) (i) a mathema (4) a swarthy. 4. he is six feet high. then they are not things at all there is no : such thing as walking or sitting or health existing independently. being. quia e subjectum est album. Genus and species are only found. * TOV otfrwj 6vros ret /j. Q. city of York (place) He is stooping (posture) dressed in cloth. through them. they determine that which is a thing in the sense of being a substance.

not of a univocal concept. From these three primary Categories result three kinds of relation. 1 Most assuredly. the substantial nature cannot exist without those acci dental forms which constitute the 2 being. pendent existence. As a matter of fact those who say this. which give an order and harmony in the manifold of the universe. . p. that Aristotle apparently drew up his list in a hap hazard fashion. But in the physical universe. Categories. It has a different : Thing an analogous term. These ten Categories would seem to be arranged on little or no principle. this would be a very extraordinary feature in a doctrine to which Aristotle recurs so fre quently. the second extension they are remaining categories are extrinsic determinations. each entity determined not merely by &quot. This will easily be seen on considera tion.&quot. It has been asserted by some authorities that the order of the Categories is based on no intelligible princi ple.140 tiae. equality of quantity. no univocal concept of thing/ nor can by which the notion is determined. It is in no sense an order of time. The Category. Of these the : first is complement of its magnitude or extension Physical qualities presuppose supported by the substance as extended. The substantial nature gives us In virtue of as it were the start ing point. it possesses the universality of an analogous. They its add nothing to the entity is itself. The nine kinds of accident are irreducible. 25). mean ing as applied to each of the ten categories and though we can form a universal notion expressive of Thing in general. the thing possesses inde But is the kind of thing it is. For the same reason there is no common genus Accident. have missed a most important feature in the doctrine of the The order in which they are enumerated. reveals to us the law governing the synthesis of forms in the individual.: likeness of quality. viz. 1 Thus Dr. Wallace says (Outlines of the Philosophy of Anstotle. and this. 2 The order of the Categories is of course an order of relative subordination. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC There is is we find differentiae. sameness of specific form.

For man. but by its status as a part of the whole. St. Though the limits of space are immensely distant. would be out of place here. The lower animals need no instruments and no extrane ous covering save what Nature provides. Man on the other hand must make good what is lacking to him. a special Category arises Further. Art. Thomas would have founded the claims of these Categories to independence. is not fully equipped by Nature. he would have urged. A mere limit. not by relation to sur 2 There can be rounding objects. cannot be called a change of relations for here also we have but one substance. The case of time. no relation between these limits and the thing in question. cannot be the term of a relation. For to constitute a relation. they have no right to be reckoned as independent To enter fully into this question which is properly metaphysical. and at a Its own parts are disposed either definite period in time. action and passion. a change of position among the various parts of one and the same thing. As concerns posture. after one order. we do so by indicating its relation to other bodies. The entity is now determined as a part of Nature. The Category of habit would indeed be reducible to relation. it is true that when we state where an object is. It must be at a definite point in space. Quodlibet. and supply by artificial means what is deficient in his equip ment. 2 Cf. not logical. 1 * It is often asserted that the last six Categories are all rela tions. if man could be looked on : 1 The Categories of Action and Passion are frequently enumerated after Relation and before the remaining four. not two. Absolute local position is therefore determined. and limits to space exist. different physical substances there is mutual Hence arise the two last Categories. yet the universe is finite. which in itself is nothing. . he would have regarded as precisely analogous to that of place. that classes. But between the interaction. it is necessary that there should be two substances related the one to the other. In regard to the Category of place. unlike the beasts. It may however be of interest to indicate in a very brief manner on what grounds St.THE CATEGORIES 141 inherent characteristics. This alteration is unimportant. but in regard to these limits.. 3. VI. of man. Thomas. that place consists essentially in relation to the surround ing objects. or after another. But it does not follow from this. in the case that of habit.

. species. 1 The treatment of this subject belongs of course to the Logic of the Concept. external world cannot be universals.&quot. Art. . The Categories : logical aspect the Categories in their Logical Aspect. Yet at the same time they are universal though as universal they exist in our mind alone. but as habit is viewed the complement of the as yet imperfectly equipped. It may be noted that there has always been considerable divergence of opinion among Scholastic authors regarding the value of this tenfold division. but are differentiated from that Category. or its reception. The reader may be referred to the treatment of the subject by Domet de Vorges. Thoma. These terms signify real substances. i. substance. 14. . for they can one and all be affirmed of the concrete individual and what is identical with the individual is real. Things in the real order are all singular.142 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC as a complete substance related to the extraneous substance which is predicated of him. Disp. and individuals from the summa genera to the individual entities. 1 aliud est Joan. Q. Cf. Log. It is as thus regarded that they belong properly to our subject. the not as an independent substance. qualities and quantities which are found in the The singular alone But when we pass to the order of knowledge we Our find not merely things singular but things universal. (1590-1644). real understood. It is under this aspect that Aristotle treats the Cate As thus gories in his famous work known by that name. Abrg de Metaphysique. and as to whether certain of the number can justly be reckoned as independent classes. animal. exists. individual. inasmuch as they further involve the production of change. Met. are no longer In their modes of being they belong to the conceptual order. usque ad individuum quod subjicitur omni superiori.. 2. Suarez. a S. The sub stances. uno supremo genere quod praedicatur de omni inferiori. They claim our attention as a classification of things as mentally represented. In precisely the same . But. cc. 25-36. Proem.. as we have seen. XXXIX. Praedicamentum nihil quam series seu co-ordinatio praedicatorum superiorum et inferiorum ab &quot. Action and passion include relations. not to the Logic of the Judgment. they are defined as the orderly classification of genera. intellect shews us universal natures such as man. II.

while they can be predicated of others. In the second are found all those things singulars. genera alone. p. The store of these conceptual representations of the real order which at any time is found in our minds. A careful scrutiny of the character of these concepts reveals the fact that they stand in a hierarchical subor dination one to another. . in virtue of which the wider concept is predicated of the more restricted. but colour in some particular case . To say that a colour &quot. We cannot predicate a term beIt further This point is well put by Mr. we are predicating the species of individuals. rather than that a colour is blue. : can only occupy the position of predicates. Joseph (Introd. to Logic. The first of these three classes consists of individual 2). mental importance in Logic is this law. : 4 1 : The triangle (as such) is equilateral. In the third class are the Socrates is a say. which themselves stand as species to wider generic conceptions. universal terms. and are incapable of receiving predication (An. 27. c. 1 Of what funda vertebrates. Joseph here calls attention. we shall see in 1 We : may be blue is natural enough just as it is to say that a stone may be a diamond but still we predicate the genus of the species. not the genus stone. viz. constitutes the elements into which our knowledge is resolvable. at once appears. that when we say Some stones are diamonds.THE CATEGORIES 143 lar quality this whiteness. summa man. if we reflect that we cannot say. Prior I. rather than that some glittering things are diamonds that blue is a colour. the mental order reveals to us not merely the singu but the universal quality colour. can themselves stand as the subjects of predication while a last group . except where they are mere coincident attributes.&quot. Commonly. and not the species of : : the genus it is not the genus colour. Some are such that they can not be predicated universally of any other some again. the groups we have desig nated as the Categories. Of them our judgments and our reasonings are all formed. Animals are Vertebrates are men. but some particular mineral that is blue or that is diamond. appears that this hierarchical arrangement falls into distinct groups. Thus we can Man is vertebrate. The fact to which Mr. way. Vertebrates are animals : but we cannot reverse the order and say. subsequent chapters. not of the genus. say that diamonds glitter.. Stone (as such) is diamond. They are that out of which our mental furniture is built up. 236). the predicate is a wider term or more generic than the subject in judgment.

The concrete term alone expresses the subsistent reality which belongs to substance (S. except where the two determinations happen to belong to one subject. Thomas. The Categories on the other hand are terms of First Intention. Summa * I. and ending with singular terms. The latter form expresses the accident as qualifying something virtuous. But. as : the abstracted and universal nature stands to the sub jects of all which it is predicated. of an ordered series of terms significative of a special mode of being. 3. are funda 1 mentally distinct.. This discovery must ever rank as one of the great est results of Aristotle s genius. Inst. e. It is by the abstract term alone that we can signify the accident as a deter mination distinct from the subject in which it inheres (vide Pesch. the universals as universals we consider in what relation man. transform the accident 1449).g. We are con cerned only with the nature expressed. by means of which they are conceived. e. into a substance by employing the abstract term. else. Thus white signifies some substance which is qualified by whiteness. no less than the real order. lines on Hence as arranged in ascending series according to their several categories. virtue. Negative and Privative terms belong to the category to which belongs the positive term. it is governed by definite laws. Thus the Predicables are terms of Second Intention. this Each series develops into a tree of Porphyry. The Categories in their Relation to the 3.g. the terms belonging to the nine genera of accidents are expressed in the ab not prudent. Log. Terms of Second Intention belong to the Category of Relation. commencing with the term that designates the summum genus. but that. The natures expressed by the different Categories. and not with the character of the nature so far as universal. ad. 2 Each Category then consists. the universals of the Categories must not be confused with the uniIn the Predicables we view versals of the Predicables. We do not. however.I 44 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC longing to one Category of another. as we have said. The investigation of the conceptual order has thus revealed the fact that it is not a chaos of concepts.. stract. as has been objected.. Categories provide a complete classification of concepts. as prudence. The important bearing of the predicamental 1 Sciences. Q. Theol. we have noted on more than one occasion. As belong ing to the Category of substance the nature man is not a species/ but is rational animal. not in the concrete form. 3). The .

the objects expressed by the several concepts have each of them a group of attributes peculiar to itself. The Categories may further be viewed in their bearing L . in a system of true universal. i. Thus the Categories provide us with the principle on which the analysis of the sciences must be based. ments known in regard of any object. throughout considers the sciences under this aspect The and in the light of these principles. Thus in the series horse-equidae-^ungulate-mammal-verte- each of the types expressed has many distinc These properties are affirmed of the properties.e. either as falling within different Categories. etc. In any such line. or as differentiated by various degrees of abstraction. together with the complete series of attributes predicable of it. They shew how in virtue of the various sciences are correlated in our mind : and they shew how their respective objects are distinguished from each other. science organizes itself in our mind on this basis. 5) as a treatise on the logical analy sis of science. The Categories as a Classification 4. Provided that our abstractions are not arbitrary. i. whether as constituting its own properties or as belonging to it some type higher in the scale. In other Categories also. which we have de scribed above (Ch. It is not merely in regard of substances that the pre dicament has this function.. constitutes the science of that object. Posterior Analytics of Aristotle. of Predicates. able ideal. Thus quantity triangle. tive : The group of generic judg phalanx of the third digit. generic judgments type e. continuous quantity extension plane its provide us with so it many heads surface of scientific knowledge. Equidae as such tread only on the hoof upon the last brate.THE CATEGORIES those organized bodies 145 of knowledge which we term be overlooked. the concepts in their ascending scale of wider and wider generality furnish us with so many distinct objects of scientific consideration. Did science in any case reach would consist of the accurate unattain definition of some object thus universally conceived.g. but are grounded on the nature of sciences. should not things.

on the And it is as thus conceived that they have received the name of Category (Karrjyopia. Propter hoc ea in quae dividitur ens primo. esse significet in Met. apart from the doctrine of the Categories. it signifies that the subject is determined either substantially. V. /caryryopeiv to predicate). They regard the copula as always signifying that the subject is determined by a relation of equality. 1 Cf. is in fact incomplete. and its Latin equivalent Predicament. The copula. ceteris ideo oportet quod unicuique modo praedicandi esse idem significet : ut Cf. : 39. etc. * cum dicitur homo est animal. Thomas in Met. homo est albus. Since then the Categories are our mental representations of being in its various modes. et sic de aliis praedicamentis. dicuntur esse praedicamenta quia distinguuntur secundum diversum &quot. in other words 1 according to the ten Categories. et sic de &quot. Such a theory of the copula esse significet substantiam. The discussion as to the import of the proposition. of the The Categories shew us that it does not express one mode of determination only. It is under this aspect they are introduced by Aristotle in his Topics (I.. quaedam significant quid. or quantitatively. Opusc. is to tell us what the subject is to assert some form of being in its regard. 53. cation of possible predicates. or qualitatively. lect.. Eorum autemquae praedicanquaedam quantum. according to the different modes of According to the predicate being. 9). or by some Nothing can be more errone ous than to hold that the determination is always of one kind. etc. signi fies that the subject is (or is not) determined in some way. as we saw. modum 2 praedicandi.. cum vero dicitur qualitatem. but a variety. St. it cates of all propositions follows of necessity that the predi may be grouped according to the particular kind of being asserted. the part of those who hold the equational theory as to the import of propositions. 9. quaedam quale.&quot.&quot. St. Thomas.146 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC As such they form a classifi logical proposition. From this it appears that the doctrine of the Categories throws a new and most important light on the meaning is of the copula.. 9. Generis. 3 This is the mistake which we have noticed on 2 relation. p. The very purpose of the proposition. .. De Natura tur. c. employed. may be found in Sidgwick s Fallacies. lect. V.

1 * 5. : Coexistences. . Q. It would be beyond the scope of this work to enter upon a criticism of Mill s metaphysical views. Mill s Scheme of Categories. e. 5. no reality save that of the feelings which it experiences that it has no substantial existence of its own. Hence even where the predicate is a generic term. He has. &quot. the following is the scheme he It should be premised that the point of view is alto gether metaphysical. remarks that the imperfections of this classification are too obvious. After a lengthy discussion. the Likenesses and Unlikenesses between feelings or states of consciousness. when it is a more generic term do not determine the subject within the same category. We when we figure : Man is an animal. 2. and 1 Cf. Thoma.&quot. which excite certain of those feelings. Bodies.. ad. It is a list of things. as feelings.. and its merits not sufficient to reward a minute examination.THE CATEGORIES 147 It may at first sight appear inaccurate to speak of the pre dicate as determining the subject. no justification for placing minds in a separate category from The same is true in regard to bodies. (4) The Successions. But it must be remembered that in any proposition the predicate alone is understood in comprehension. II. the attempt proposes to made with such imperfect success by the great founder of &quot.g. the subject being understood in extension without formal advertence to the attributes it connotes. Joan. He therefore recommence under better auspices. and is not proposed in any way as a classification of concepts (i) Feelings. Art. (2) The Minds. 4. after enumerating the Categories of Aristotle. Mill. or States of Consciousness. logic. and because their existence is taken for granted in the common language from which I cannot prudently deviate. (3) The Bodies or external objects. for the predicate in these cases A triangle is a plane shews us the same nature as the subject but more abstractly conceived. therefore. which experience those feelings. existing realities apart from the sensations by which we are : by sound philosophy. together with the powers or properties whereby these last being included rather in comthey excite them pliance with common opinion. : &quot. than because the recognition of such powers or properties as real existences appears to be warranted gives us. it is conceived as one of the attributes or determinations belonging to the subject. a S. say. It must be sufficient to note that this scheme is not even consistent with his own He holds strongly that the mind has philosophical position.&quot. Logica.&quot.

1 These twelve forms he termed Categories. which operating on the unconnected mental impressions. 5. The problem. before him was to explain (Ch. Substance and Attribute. 7. Categorical (S is P) 7. They too then should have been relegated to the category of Feelings. Relations fare no better. 3. as we have noted (5)). Hypothetical (If Disjunctive (S is S is P. The result. i.148 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC conscious of bodies. The philosophy of Mill. Ac 1 Kant believed that all thought is judgment. Q is R) 8. also. 1. Relation. S is P) is 1. III. of its own. He tells us that no relation is anything but our feeling of such a relation. a figment of the imagination. II. . he taught. Unity. Kant. P) Totality. if these are our data. to the sensitive faculty that our impressions appear in time and The intellectual faculty. * 6. of Judgment. Particular (Some Universal (All S S is P) 2. and that for that reason the various kinds of judgment must necessarily shew the various modes in which it is possible for the intellect to shape our knowledge. Quality. 9. is all we can hope to possess. Reality. 6. P or Q) 9. 8. Affirmative (S is P) Negative (S is not P) Infinite (S is not-P) 4. Cause and Ef fect. fashion them within us into the appearance of a world. any scheme whatever kind The Categories of Kant. assumed as certain the hypothesis that the data of knowledge consist solely in the subjective states of our own mind and further that these states are mere instantaneous and unconnected feelings. Quantity. are. : is in fact incompatible with of Categories at all for it reduces a reality of to mere subjective feeling. They are shewn in the following list : Forms I. It is due. according to him. 4. note : how. Plurality. neither in time nor in space. The internal knowledge thus afforded. our experience can present us with the world such as we know it. Negation. therefore. 3. he held. 5. is due to subjective principles of our cognitive faculties. Categories. Limitation. 6. Singular (This 2. corresponding to the twelve different species of judg ments. provides twelve forms space. Reciprocal tion.

have shaped my knowledge. Modality. because there is an actual world outside me. Judgment. of 149 Categories. Reality. 11. contains. 3. 10.THE CATEGORIES Forms IV. . in which there is a race of men. 9). considered as an analysis of logical judgments. Possibility and Impossibility. : tive. the scheme of Categories. Substance and Accident. Thus. Problematic (S may be P) 10. by way of illustration. as we have already pointed out (Ch. and Existence and Non-existence. categorical. But apart from the more fundamental errors with which the system may be charged. 3. Apodictic (S - exist Necessity and Contingency. this is not. Existence and Non ence. Assertoric (S is P) n. affirma must be P) 12. We are not called on here to enter on a discussion of the Kantian philosophy. 12. and have thus produced a judgment which is universal. all of whom have this attribute of mortality it is because within my mind the four Categories of Totality. serious imperfections. and assertoric. as I fondly imagine. if I judge that All men are mor tal.

Hence. seems to be the most convenient place at which to deal with them. are known. as it is the connotation explained being simply logicians of the subject term. the case that whenever thinkers. DEFINITION AND DIVISION.CHAPTER X. question belongs. of course. as it is understood by competent Now it is. the essential characteristics of a thing its true nature. a definition is given in the form of a proposition. It is this predicate which is the The discussion of the definition properly so called. it will often happen that a name is applied to a group concerned with nature of objects. we as have to the Logic of the said. the definition Concept is the concept which expresses the true nature of the : thing defined. can be satis factorily treated. unle ss the Predicables have previously been explained. however. Definition. The definition of an object is the declaration of its essential characteristics. therefore. Thus. . while at the same time. with two processes. which we are perfectly able to identify by certain common properties they possess. We are concerned in this chapter i. It is carefully to be observed that the definition the is For by some of a thing. and the essential characteristics form the predicate. Neither Definition nor Division. both of which belong. Thus the intension of the term triangle. is But a plane figure contained by three straight lines. considered as a mental for act. not to the Logic of the Judgment. This. in which the object denned stands as the subject. we are ignorant of their real nature. but to that of the Concept. these will constitute the intension of its name.

Si A rl lariv. for it is These are of no importance to the defini concerned alone with what is essential is with the permanent type. To what extent we are able actually to realize this ideal in our definitions. in collateral effects. give The term in this case. the sleeping sick its appearance.. au sens de concept r6sumant la science. The true definition makes it : must do more than enable us to recognize unfold its it. 5. est la fin de la science. Logique. Definition is always of the universal. The aim of defini on the type. Cf. ness. The ideal definition will then contain the essential char these characteristics. doctors recognize it and a name. nor yet because he is an animal that cooks his food. differs in duration. Aristotle expressed this. Nature gives us general classes. fever. He is a man because he is a rational animal. though these statements are true. 2.g.. and phenomena which occur subject to classes. long before they are able to define it. op. by which is differs to seize from every other. in variety. Post.g. 151 when a new disease.. Mercier. Xe^o/uev rb rl IITTW ravrd tort Kal i. has a connotation. that he is a man. It is acteristics. c. we shall see when we study the various kinds of definition. p. 153. general laws.gt. which is constant amid all attack. from another of sleeping sickness. etc. is a case in If we are asked point. An. is a rational animal. c. It must nature. II.DEFINITION AND DIVISION for instance. La definition. viz. Rabier. we reply that he possesses not because he is a toolusing animal. One of malarial particulars. Post. by saying that the definition 1 The definition Man gives us the why of the thing. c.. or in a hundred intensity. e. 2 Hence 1 definition rightly said to be the &quot. 3 An.: the symp toms by which the disease is known but we have not yet found the definition of the thing. The individual members of these the individual instances of the phenomena. all are tion this different it : each has accidental characteristics. ibid. 13. 19. 8. tion .flffwep oCi&amp. what makes Socrates a man. La definition est avant tout un moyen d asseoir les bases de la science. Cf. * II. e. . 180. cit. etc. aim of science.

Aristotle considers this question at length. and distinguish it from others.t&amp.ijfj. p by genus and dif There are indeeH certain cases in which we can assign the genus and differentia.co/xa. there are (i) definitions objects.lt. understanding those words as they were employed in connexion with the Predicables..alt&amp. d\XA rl . Srav efirw Tpayt\a&amp.gt. cannot self-contradictory concept provide us with a for that must state the essence. 1 It is often said that all definition should be ferentia. A Nominal defini declares the nature of a thing.i $2 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Science has achieved its object. : : sponds. It is an expression which Real definition consists. l Cf. rb y&p /UTJ 6v. II.rr dSuvarov eiSevcu. nomine differentiae aliquid distinctivum particulare. n /j. loco illius ideo intelligitur nomine generis aliquid commune. but it has not properly speaking a genus or differentia.. Bk.yox rj rb d&amp. and to other classes differentia signifies the notes which are proper to the class. already are intended to do more than this that one and all . 3. In the first place. Post. tion on the other hand.lt. rl 5 &amp. . : 2. sed etiam descripqua proprie genus tivam et accidentalem in qua non est proprie genus et differentia.tv a&quot. a S. 2 An. An Real definition essence which contains repugnant characteristics is no A dragon is a essence at all. or the law of some phenomenon. Definitio fit per genus et Joan.&quot.ei o X6&quot. they merely unfold the connotation of terms. to An impossible a serpent breathing flame. nned. Hence these terms are here employed with a certain amount of latitude. Various Kinds of Definition. Real and (i) In the last section we shewed in what a Nominal. and distinguishes two kinds of Nominal definitions. et cum haec conditio non solum complectatur definitionem in invenitur et essentialem. sed aliquid &quot. c. 2. this is impossible.gt. Thoma. 7. a dragon as of names which signify imaginary which nothing either actual or possible corre We may find an example in the definition of differentiam. 2 Indeed the expression. Genus should be understood as meaning no more than such attributes as are common alike to the class of objects in question. . ovSels oWev 8 fffrlv. differentia. c. when it has accurately determined the nature of some substance. however. Logica.. II.os. as we have have maintained that no definitions noticed.gt. In some Thus an eclipse can be de cases. is an expression declaring the meaning of a word. Some logicians.

they then possessed a sure basis for reasoning. the definition of thunder. A a dragon oent imagined by flame sei breathing (Ch. the alleged importance of definitions. can rightly be termed definitions of the thing. When at length. Is it the case. c. There the other. may exist a figure bounded by three straight lines is. But it it should be embodies is one * Mill holds strongly to the position that definitions are merely Hence he is led to consider at some length explicative of names. the existence of the object has been manifested to us. In this latter class existence is presupposed. Thus the definition of triangle obviously comprises not one but two &quot. c. 4). is nominal nominal. 8. because what is meant. It is the former which is the basis of all reasoning about the triangle. and yet does not unfold the nature of the object (An. 7. (2) are unable to assign the essential properties of a thing. Post. The former of be termed a triangle. therefore. But the ground of reasoning was not the this figure And may is these propositions . but from the implied postulate of the existence of the thing in question. The latter is a mere Nominal definition. i. that some sciences. II. * Mill s analysis is here at fault. But in Aristotle s view.g. 7). none save those which express the essential characteristics. This occurs when. previous to definition. are deduced from statements as to the meaning of names ? His answer is that the sciences are not derived from the definitions at all.. This distinction of Real and Nominal has largely fallen into disuse for reasons to be mentioned presently. . perfectly distinguishable. do not deny exist ence to their objects. e. long before they knew how to define it. not a definition at all. Thus. TO. For instance men knew that the relative motion of earth and sun existed as a fact. he asks.&quot. as : it describes All Nominal definitions. it was expressed in a definition accurately setting forth the law of the process. Aristotle further reckons as Nominal definitions. carefully noticed. The one propositions. Often it is true we do pre suppose the existence of the object. Fully (as stated. Geometry. and are merely able to indicate it by a description. those in which we a noise in the clouds. for the principle of importance.DEFINITION AND DIVISION serpent breathing flame/ the proposition should be the writers of fables) is is 153 elliptical.

but its nature as known in other words. pds etSevai rb ri ianv. I. informs us that it cannot be made the foundation of a train of reasoning. The limits by which a plane figure bounded. that the substantial principle. a lion. matical figures. C. nor even the nature of the pheno menon in itself. or as it is often called totally different from that of a horse. it is The specific differentia. It is at definitions of this kind that the student of natural history or of physical He seeks to state the science. avfj-pepriKtiTa. 8.154 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC existence of the phenomenon. 47. : As a matter existence is of fact in the case of a triangle. from These are the definitions Definitions. More- Cf. Mill has combined the postulate of existence and the definition of the nature. Arist. however. must needs be except man. in his first proposition and then he triumphantly points to a second proposition. of the properties type with which he 1 most is characteristic 1 dealing. (ii) Essential which are formed by genus and differentia in the stricter Such for instance is our definition of man as a sense. but their essences that are the foundation of science many mathematical figures have never existed. I.gt. the definition. plane figure contained by three straight lines/ is the essential definition of a rectilinear triangle.fja /xepos of the properties contributes in a . and styling it a definition. constitute its specific differentia. Such too are our definitions of mathe rational animal. rt&amp. In the case. by they except must then be content with definition by properties. which is neither postulate nor definition. since the statement of its essential characteristics is quite sufficient for the mind to recognize that we are dealing with a possible essence. When the essence is once known. I.. the postulate of unnecessary.g. principles. From the definition of a right-angled triangle Pytha goras deduced Euclid. e. is unknown to us. It is not the existence of objects. TO. we can deduce the properties which flow : it.. hope to penetrate to any knowledge of the we can never two We : (iii) Distinctive Definition. The knowledge cm/*/3aX\eTai /j. of every other natural type is A impossible to obtain an Essential defi from which its peculiar While we recognize properties flow. aims. which determines the distinctive characteristics of. nition. their manifested in as are so far properties. De Antma.

5. result in its production. In rebus enim sensibilibus ipsae differentiae essentiales nobis ignotae sunt unde significantur per differentias accidentales : quae ex essentialibus oriuntur. the same substance under different circum Thus stances. Moreover. because they fail to reveal the specific Yet between the Distinctive essence of the nature. satisfactory if a class of definitions. and it is always possible that he may discover some property of primary moment hitherto overlooked. were ranked as merely Nominal. definition which states properties only. (iv) Genetic Definitions give us neither the essential nature of the thing nor its properties. within their own sphere. but the elements which. which. manifests itself by different properties. conclude to the essence. the the properties of phosphorus are totally different from those of what is termed amorphous phosphorus : while it is needless to point out how much those of carbon. we are supposed to be dealing with the same substance. c. . De Ente great measure to a knowledge of the essence : and St. For wherever we possess the Essential we can reason from the essence to the pro But we cannot from the properties given in Distinctive definition. 26. definition will form the subject of a later chapter. manifesting itself by different properties when affected by different conditions. are the It is because these Distinctive definitions only definitions attainable in the case of natural classes. Yet in each of these cases. taken in conjunction. there is a great diiference. graphite and diamond differ from each other.DEFINITION AND DIVISION 155 finality over he recognizes that he can scarcely hope to attain For the number of distinctive in his quest. Thomas. sicut causa significatur per suum effectum. This application of classification of natural types. et Essentia. and the Essen tial definition which unfolds the essence. definition perties. Opusc. properties in every natural type is vast. are the highest result of science. that Aristotle s division of Real and Nominal defini It would be manifestly un tions has been discarded. These definitions are of the highest importance in For it is on them that is based the scientific science.

2. We naturally define the double cocoa-nut as the fruit of the tree Lodoicea Seychellarum. which do not constitute distinct . The definitions employed in chem are of this type. define those sub-classes. that it is (&) The other class of Causal definitions It stating the Efficient cause. Here the several segments gradually traced by the line are not themselves a circle. Causal Definitions are of two kinds. is given in this manner. Some things.g. This form of 7. VII. as a figure formed by the revolution of a line in a plane round one of its extremities. which express the nature of a figure by a statement of the manner in which it may be constructed.g. and all the parts are seen in conjunction.156 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC The term is most frequently used in reference to certain mathematical definitions. Koch. works of human ingenuity. c. may often defines by happen that the most satisfactory explanation of the nature of the Thus since the days of thing. 8). e. (a) One class by indicating the Final cause or purpose of the object (Arist. Met. Thus a circle may be defined. But the employment of Genetic definitions is by no means limited to this special case. e. the definition of water as istry two atomic weights of hydrogen chemically combined with one of oxygen/ For these definitions do not inform us regarding the qualities of the substance.. a stirrup by terming it a metal hoop for the purpose of supporting the foot when riding. it is a true definition illness an of anthrax (wool-sorter s disease) to say that it is caused by the introduction into the body of the bacillus anthracis. who first discovered that certain diseases were due to the presence of specific microbes. they constitute a circle. as. Yet when the process is complete. definition is the one ordinarily used in the case of the (v) defines We define a clock by saying a mechanism destined to indicate the hours of the day. They tell us what constituents are requisite to its pro duction. can hardly be defined in any other way.. These are employed to (vi) Accidental Definitions. natural products.

unifying principle of the material object. In a natural entity such e. a man. and Analytically-formed This distinction has : Synthetically-formed been employed by it is only applicable when definitions recent logicians are regarded not as declaring the nature of the thing. the final. that which makes it to be the kind of thing it is. The shape Charles I.g. Logic. rather to be regarded as descriptions. of course. (vii) Definitions. as signify employment a change periodically recurring in time and space. may Apollo. however. is the substratum to was first which Vide Ueberweg. it is of the term wave said to be synthetically-formed. as e. The meaning of these be illustrated in the case of a statue. they are internal constitutive principles The formal cause is the determining its principle which gives the thing of specific character. the statue. since of the thing itself. The formal and material causes are termed causes. terms may efficient : intrinsic. the mere external shape. The cause of the statue is the sculptor the final cause is the motive. These are. If the definition gives the recognized intension of the term. It. He however given by Kant. ing When a new definition of this character is introduced. Every material thing has four causes the efficient. Such for instance is the by physicists. Julius Caesar. or any one of the animals. it is said to be analytically-formed. but simply as stating the meaning of the word. that leads him These are known as the extrinsic to execute the work. be viewed as such. 1 The Aristotelian doctrine of the four causes throws considerable light on this long list of definitions. sometimes that a special meaning is attached to a word. and the material cause. is the vital principle. . happens which hitherto it has not borne. the cause is soul. however. than as definitions. the formal. 1 The material cause 61.. The it distinction 100.DEFINITION AND DIVISION species. the formal The not. be it honour or profit. 157 Thus a negro may be defined by his colour as a black man/ even though colour be an accident and not a property of the nature. interprets somewhat differently.g.

Thomas. Post. result in internal changes. from each of the four causes which we have mentioned. 1 Sometimes a more satisfactory explanation is given by sometimes assigning one cause rather than another known one is to us. which are found in tion. and An. 3. etc..2. that the attributes belong. II. u. . as in the case of chemical combination. In the latter passage humanitas is some St. Socrates est similis Platoni in humanitate. II. In the statue it is the marble. and points out that it belongs to the conceptual order. But we can form an abstract notion of humanity. the soul. cause. The definition rational animal expresses the notes : this formal cause. c. which is.158 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC the formal principle gives its character. viewed as is humanity though it were a formal cause by which the individual is constituted man. and need not be further : discussed. 1. abstract specific essence conceived as though it were a form. which belong to his humanity. lect.. which make him a man. was On this subject see St.. Post. of the thing in ques distinctive attributes the lack they It is only to the whole produced by their conjunc tion. But it is only those attributes philosopher. 1 Cf. in virtue of which an In the conceptual order this individual is a man. He may he may be a Greek. lect. cause The definitions fully only drawn from the efficient and final causes have been ex plicitly noticed in our list. 3.. An. 1 The * For this aspect of the material cause. the parts always stand to the whole For taken separately in the relation of material cause. 4. see An. De Ente et Essentia. 2 definition is definition by the material Genetic Finally Even when the conjunction of constitutive parts cause. a have many other attributes etc. Thomas guards his readers against supposing that thing real. non quasi una humanitate numero in utroque existente. does not. II. c.. c. mal We expressing those attributes alone. Post. 20. II. 7. 3 Thomas. Physics. Opusc. common to the various members of the species homo. 26. St. We stated above that the true definition always gives Definitions are formed us the cause of the thing defined. Essential definition is definition by the for are not speaking here of the formal cause in the real order. termed the forma totius. as we have seen.

It must. neither erring by excess nor defect. enumerate the properties of such when. Further it is impossible to define the simple qualities which are the immediate data of sensewhich they with : perception. It is manifest that the highest genera so called. reduces the whole science to what is is far too narrow. It least 1 important of its is. Thomas point out. They can only be described. four in definition must be adequate to its object . It must thus be convertible with the number (i) The : name. be to applicable every member of the class defined. De Anima. pain. we say that red is the colour which manifests itself through vibrations varying from 360 billions to 500 billions per second. At the other end of the scale. Much more is this the case concepts such as Being.&quot. whiteness. Rules of Definition. cold. of course. Thus the definition. sed est stare in specie specialissima. : . not defined for definition is always of the universal. Unity and the like. in fact. Logic class We a machine for combating fallacy. that we can not define the terms of a definition in infinitum. constantly come across definitions which are too wide or too narrow. that is. itself. as both Aristotle and St.DEFINITION AND DIVISION 3. e. 8. which transcend the limits of the highest genera. as : colour 4. will be incapable of definition properly We cannot assign any higher genus under may fall.g. I. etc. rules We must now consider the These are traditional of definition. quia non est ascendere in infinitum in generibus. lect.. object by an analysis. 1 We can.g. sweetness. e. there can be no definition of individuals. and to no other objects. 159 Limits of Definition. sed accipitur nee etiam est descendere in infinitum quasi primum genus generalissimum in speciebus. &quot. one of the Mill s definition of properties. These are the elements from which knowledge begins. But this is not for apart from this properly speaking a definition information we have a perfectly clear conception of the qualities. Hence it follows. Definitiones habent priucipium et finem. and are found in all of them. The purpose of definition is to unfold the nature of the Here there is no room for analysis.

are said to explain obscurum per obscurius. or defined. obscurities are unavoidable. he has received the summarized Such definitions do not really offend results of science. seront pour qui les entend pour la premiere fois.. and many definitions will.. for they are true analyses of the against this rule into its phenomenon simpler elements. 1 A definition is the result of long study. An. 20. a philosophic definition. say of free-will. Logique. It is possible to influ ence men s feelings by speech without eloquence.g. . This fault (3) The definition must not be tautologous. he will realize that in the definition. In regard to this class of definitions. A four hours. the definition is intended to serve as a brief explanation for those not versed in the special subject under consideration. This rule is violated when we have what is termed circulus in definiendo. is committed when the subject of the definition reappears either explicitly or implicitly in the defining predicate. would convey no information whatever. is too wide. of lightning. Post. bizarres ou fausses. Sometimes the elements of the definition may to the uninstructed be less comprehensible than the thing In a scientific definition. This rule must not signify that the defini tion must in no case appear obscure to the uninstructed.160 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC eloquence as the power of influencing the feelings by speech or writing. seem more obscure than the thing (2) The definition must not be obscure. is to err by excess. ambiguous and metaphorical expressions. Thus to define a horse as a member of the species equus. however. e. So too. a moins cependant qu elles ne soient une suggestion d idees Cf.. e. 13. it is requisite that it should be couched in simple terms. When the mind of the learner has been prepared by the requisite instruction. the purpose of the rule is to forbid . Those who violate this rule. they profess to explain. to those whose minds are unprepared for them. It does not be misunderstood. 198. to define religion as the totality of man s relations with God. Where. II.g. c. donnees d emb!6e. p. Verba ei voces praetereaque nihil . 1 day is a period of time consisting of twentyand An hour is a twenty-fourth part of a Les trois quarts des definitions 6tant Rabier. 19.

1 Quantity c. regarded as a circular defini day. I. . l (4) The definition must not be negative i! it can be We are not to define wisdom by saying that positive. in the case of two relative terms. Logical Division is the analysis of a logical into its parts ... There are two cases where positive definitions cannot be given. 4. Q. e. 4. 52. An. consequent without mention of antecedent. n. antecedent mutually dependent. The first of these is when we have to define or unextended. defined 6toi. Fault has been found with it on the ground that it contains no positive element at all. tions 5.ovd. Q. It is expressed^in a proposition in A whole genus which the generic term occupies the! place of subject. it consists in the avoidance of folly nor health as the absence of sickness. Topics. t\ovaa). Pythagoras had also it its a unit having positive aspect as by position (fj. Sumnta Theol. We cannot define without mention of nor consequent. Aristotle. Substance is is either corporeal or incorporeal. I. Punctum est indivisibile haberis situm. ad. De Anima. defines Art. This definition (oC /xepos ovfftv) is that of Euclid.. define the unextended define a line as We are therefore compelled to 2 by negative expressions. and hence must be defined in that manner. Thomas. 7. Darkness is the absence of light. A point has position.v it an. Arist. and belongs to continuous quantity. I. each appears in the definition of the other since their concepts are . corporeal and extended. . Logical Division.g. I. Our objects which are incorporeal cognitive faculties have direct knowledge only of what is . 27.y^ 5t ovcla 0er6s and St. Thomas. 3 c. These consist essentially in the mere absence of a positive quality. VI. 13.s Cf. : M .. either continuous or discrete. The second case occurs in regard to nega and privations. Art. We a point as length without breadth 3 that which has no parts a spirit as an immaterial substance. 2. Cf. 4. St.1 ^the analysis of a into its species. however...DEFINITION AND DIVISION 161 It is not. 2. Summa Theol. in other words . Post. Blindness is the absence of sight in an animal usually found with that sense. tion when. while the subordinate species are enumerated disjunctively in the 1 predicate. c.

and (2) Artificial. or e. 2 (In how many Boethius. The charac teristic whose varieties thus modify the indeterminate genus is called the basis of the division . (2) or Australians. Men are either Europeans. col.g. which they termed divisiones per accidens* (1) Divisions of substances according to the presence of some accidental quality. e. or Asiatics. while on the other hand an A Artificial division is one based on the modifications of a few attributes. Division of an accidental quality according to the substances in which it is found. Beings with vocal organs are either men or brutes.g. bers of the division. (3) Division of things having some accidental quality according to the modifications of some other acci dental quality. (fundamentum divisionis) 1 Definition of the former is and Division may be distinguished by saying that the purpose to reply to the question Quid sit ? (What is the thing ?). generic notion which forms the subject of a logical It expresses no division is necessarily indeterminate. either amphibian or reptile or bird or Logical divisions are ordinarily distinguished into (i) Natural division (divisio Natural. either bilingual. Migne. or even of a single one.162 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is l fish or The Vertebrate mammal. Each of them removes the indeter- a disjunctive mem and it is the mination of the genus in some manner is actualized mode in which the indetermination of variety : that constitutes the difference of species. or Africans. De Divisione. Inhabitants of Scotland are English-speaking. e. or Gaelic-speaking. and sit ? the purpose of the latter to reply to the question Quotuplcx forms is the thing realized ?). The older logi cians distinguished three kinds of such artificial divisions.g. For this correctly expressed by The subordinate species are termed proposition. or Americans. one of its subordinate species in particular but it must : The be realized in one or other of these reason the division is species. or Polynesians. 877. . ed. per se) is based on the essential modifications of the constitutive attributes .

The species are not parts of the genus because each of them contains a certain number of individuals. Summa Theol. IV. is by sense. .DEFINITION AND DIVISION The essential difference 163 between divisio per se and the divisiones per accidens. 2 Cf. On the logical whole.. so the part contains the whole is actually con actually. ad. (i) it is found in each of its parts. We say. 3 2). Hamilton. not intellect we the indi that by distinguish predi cable of The generic notion is A members of a species : the function of the intellect to reveal unity in multiplicity. cf. further point to be noticed is that logical division It properly so called stops short at the ultima species. The generic nature triangle tained in the specific notion scalene triangle/ And (2} : it is. whole of this kind belong two noticeable characteristics.. ut animal homini et equo. 77. and belong to its own category. The relation of logical whole and logical part arises entirely from the indeterminateness of generic nature as realized in the conceptual order. lies in the fact that in the former the genus is divided into the species which are naturally subordinate to it. not the specific notion of the Mammals are vertebrates. pre dicated of the specific notion. not Verte generic. 1 &amp. It is most important to observe that in logical division we are not concerned with extension. Met. i. Art. sale adest cuilibet secundum totam suam essentiam 2. Thomas.. l To a logical equilateral. St. The division of the universal by its own differentiae stops short at the comvidual is .(.lt. Logic... which taken all together consti tute the larger class. Totum enim univeret virtutem. * Arist. it is cap contains its parts potentially able of being determined by various differentiae to each of them. and the determination of the subordinate species. brates are mammals. In the latter the differentiating note is something accidental to the genus and belonging to some other category. Thus the notion triangle contains potentially isosceles and scalene.. i. contains the part potentially. I. c. 204-207. The whole in other words... I. 2 As the whole viz. pp. 26. 9. as we saw when all its treating of the Categories (Ch. parts. parti Q.

XP? yevos eij ret Arofia. The whole The in the two cases. looser terminology is sometimes found and the expres : logical part applied to all subordinates of the whether class-notion. we attain a logical division in regard to our concepts. It is evident that each of the subordin Subdivision. Post. The subject of Classification will the Method of Science. 116. have identified logical division with the general theory of Classification. p. the other whole The treatise on Classification is a single generic nature.. Aristotle terms the ultimae 6.lt. Introduction indivisible. we shall occasionally employ it. c. sion belongs to the science of the conceptual order. Together with the attain of a scientific classification of real things. is summed up ^ in logical Joseph. that on logical divi belongs to the natural sciences and the parts .? species An. one is a whole of many concrete individuals. II. Several recent logicians. Hence. failing to distinguish between the science of the conceptual order and the sciences which deal with the real order. For it is by a series of subdivisions that syste science. 1 many to sciences. matic classifications are mentally represented. the mutual relationships of the natures as conceptually expressed reveal them results of the As the selves ment as a logical division.1 64 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC 1 Yet though this is the case a plete specific nature. Owing to the sion is convenience of this terminology. T& irpura. These subdivisions are of importance to division. they be subordinated as species to a genus. or as individuals to a species. ate species enumerated in an act of division. . occupy us when we come to consider It deals mainly with the prin real order should co ciples on which the student of the ordinate the types offered by Nature to his contempla The co-ordination of these types is effected through tion. Thus 13. our knowledge of the elaborate classifications. are widely different. and careful comparison of numerous individuals. the long comparison being registered in definitions. may itself This is called a sub be subjected to a similar process. which play so large a part in divisions. definitions are framed. etdft Logic.&quot. r&amp.

Thomas. many citizens will be found to have a little place in two classes. The classes founded on the two systems will manifestly not be in accord with each other. ad. But even the propositions in which the terms are of different categories. The following four rules are : ordinarily accepted (i) Each act of division violation of this rule involves either that appear in must have but one basis. who are. e. S. The subject is regarded as a species subordinated to the predicate in virtue of a divisio per accidens. the mind views the subject and predicate as standing in the relation of logical part to Indeed the term subjective part is used as logical whole. if we divide American citizens into Republicans. man may be divided Thus. it may be. Thus. Q. Mammals are verte brates. This aspect of the proposition will be found to be of great logical importance. In the proposition. both faults occur. The rules of Division are enumerated. The constituent species must together be equal to the genus. Summa Theol. according to political divisions. will not be included under any of the species (2} enumerated. The some members more than one species. and should by no means be overlooked. while others. interested in politics. . e.DEFINITION AND DIVISION 165 Co-division occurs when a single class is variously divided by divisions founded on different bases (fundamenta divisionis). 4.g.. 2 may 6.g. I. e. variously Rules of Division. Art. Democrats. between subject and predicate is manifest in regard to those propositions in which the predicate belongs to the same category as the subject. The rule prescribes that the division should 1 An * The term SiAjective part is a little wider in its reference than Logical part. Cf. Tigers are ferocious/ be thus regarded. individual is a subjective part in regard to the species. or according to racial divisions. Usually.. the important passage.g. 1 This relation synonymous with that of logical part. or that some are alto gether omitted. 3. 85. and Immigrants.

. 31. etc. be broken. German.g. De Part.. This name has been 7. it follows that as long as one basis is adhered to. if after dividing quantity into continuous and discrete. if we divide. some divide continuous quantity into triangles. If. division as a definition Plato advocated this method of means of discovering definitions. if the first rule be observed. Plato. This condition is fulfilled. it was held that we might arrive at last at a fully determined notion of the last species. even if it be the case that certain individual men have a right to citizenship in more than one country. we should at once proceed to neglected. Semitic.. omitted. I. and Hamitic races. and the genus (3) is not exhausted. By neglecting the step. Anim. given to a method of division consisting of successive steps. it is true. hence in severely criticized this view of Plato some mention of dichotomous division is logical treatises. An.g. . might be supposed to be reached by subdivisions of successive Aristotle the notion of substance. Since the division is constituted by different determina tions of the indeterminate generic notion. Cf. etc. By thus repeatedly subdividing. Prior I. etc. The rule would.. we leave out many varieties. in which continuous quantity is first divided into plane and solid. The constituent into English. 266. This is e. s. for instance. Protagoras. 332. 2. quadrilaterals. cc. 3.166 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC that e. necessarily exclusive of the other. be complete. in each of which a division is made into two classes according to the presence or absence of some given attri bute. we should have omitted all the species of solid figures... Division by Dichotomy. c. species must be mutually exclusive.. 1 and found most 2 2 Cf. none of the subclasses should be we divide men into Aryan.. Phaedrus. the members of this division that plain considered as nations are mutually exclusive. French. one determination is Thus. (4) Each step in a continued division must be a proxi When this rule is mate one (Divisio ne fiat per salturri) . 1 Thus the of man. the genus nation etc. species are omitted.

Division by dichotomy is ranked by Kant (Logic. species will appear in their wrong position them all in the classification. distinguish the class A non-B by subsequent the division. Logica. be introducing a class.DEFINITION AND DIVISION Regarded as a method of finding the it is 167 definition of an In order to know to which object. and which is entirely independent of material con Mansel has rightly pointed out that this is siderations. we must already know its definition to that extent. . whose very existence is At this rate. is calculated to mislead into supposing they have a generic unity.. unless we know that there are rational and cannot divide any generic notion into two classes. More people we if over. doubtful. Thus. division. 193. pp. unless we knew that man is corporeal. unless we are acquainted with the determinations which that notion is capable of receiving. the class AB. not so. .g. member of the division we should assign the entity. Or (2) we as co-ordinate species with may be supposed to be unaware of the existence of other objects save those we are con In that case. these objects marked by the absence of B. For they viz. e. it would avail nothing to divide substance into corporeal substance and for we should not know under incorporeal substances which member we should class man. and to rank together as A non-B. at each step of the sidering. will not be placed where they should be placed. we shall. divide animal into irrational We men and rational.. is no basis on which to constitute a class. 1 We cannot. 1 We Proleg. One of two things must be the case. 192. with wings (if any) and might divide men into men without wings. because the mere absence of an attribute. Either (i) we know that in this class there are real If this be so. 113) as a method which is applicable in purely formal Logic. our dichotomous division might be carried to any length. own In all prob have their differentiae. ability they belong to many different species. specific objects clearly useless. irrational animals. Let us consider what is involved in dividing a class A into AB and A non-B. Again the method is invalid.

e. col.g.. 76. of the faithful. and will. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Various Kinds of Division. With We have seen that the analysis of a logical whole into a view of rendering quite distinct the between this kind of division and the other which are so termed. 878 I. church as a building. Theol. and church e. Art.. op. Thomas.g. 1 Physical partition.g. between the colour. (4) Distinction between the various meanings of a term.1 68 8. They differ but very slightly from those enumer ated in his (1) list. Summa . glass.. is logical division its parts. Boethius in his Liber de processes difference Divisions calls the attention of his readers to the other cases in which a whole is resolved into its parts. and cf. etc. timber. e. the partition of a house parts roof. S. 8. cit.. Boethius. ed. animality is term . (3) Distinction of faculties. shape. of the soul into intellect. bricks. as into its e. (2) Metaphysical distinction. 877. memory. of an orange.. of the genus from the differentia. between as signifying the whole 1 body . Migne. Q. The sometimes employed to signify further the distinction of the qualities of an object. etc. The following are those now usually mentioned in this con nexion. fragrance.g. viz. as when we distinguish between the and the rationality in man.

/j.lt. c. ie&amp. : A All mammals are vertebrates. All horses are mammals.f rarra clvai. as it does. P. Prior I. We Categorical the Logic both of the Concept. a M. viz.bs reff^vruv Tivdv trtpiiv n rdiv Ki. we argue from the individual or particular to the general. syllogism is denned as an inference by which. A propo may be represented by the formula : M S S a P. 50. All horses are vertebrates.gt. induction. from two given propositions. . we proceed to a third proposition the truth of which follows from these two as a necessary 1 Thus I may argue consequence.. In ence.cvitJV dvdyKr)! ffVfjLfiaivd r&amp. e 6. It remains for us to treat of the third of the mental processes mentioned at the beginning The discussed of this work (Ch.). THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM i. more general to the particular or the individual. have now Syllogism. that we are at present concerned. The deductive inference is known as the syllogism. Reasoning or Mediate Infer This has already been denned as the process by which from certain truths already known. i. An. It is with the former of the two. the mind passes from the respectively. Therefore.lt. 2). consisting. and of the Judgment.CHAPTER XI. This syllogism. 2v\\oyi&amp. the mind passes The two principal to another truth distinct from these. of three sitions.. (i. forms of inference are termed deduction and induction In deduction.r/J. 52 ^crrt \6yos tv a 1 Arist.

A logical part. Hence. . Hence. 2 selection of this name. The relation belongs. calling the two premisses respectively the sumptio (or sumptum) and the assumptio. but to the hierarchi cal subordination of species and genus in the conceptual When we predicate one term of another. a logical whole : Some of the earlier writers employ a different terminology. conclusio) or consequent.&quot. &\\&amp. not to extension. application of a general principle to a case that falls under it. from the more general to the less general.ev 6 KO. and a logical whole in regard of the third. (Migne. 10. it is the order. contained in it. as we saw in Ch. 64. Quoniam omnis syllogismus ex propositionibus texitur. one at least of the premisses must be a universal proposi And the essence of syllogistic reasoning lies in the tion.tcrov. c. Hypoth. (5) is cannot be too clearly recognized that this is what is meant by the terms whole and part in this connexion.7repaa-fj. 1 In all deductive inference. ex his quae infertur secunda vero dicitur assumptio Boethius. 3. Prior v. sumptum conclusio 844)2 vocatur : nuncupatur. since the middle term is subject of one premiss. 6. 4. it will be seen that the general principle. col. stands to its whole in the relation It of a subordinate concept to one that is more general. is the term which is itself con tained in one of the others (P). while the remaining term Aristotle (TO /meo-ov). The relation of which he here The middle is that of logical part to logical whole. applied to the particular case of the horse. 5.ji /cai &\\o ev nai TJ Qiaei yivcrai /j. he says.170 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC are known as the premisses that which follows from them praemissae) as the conclusion (aru/u. also c.a.. Cf. All mammals are vertebrates.I avrb ti&amp. it is a logical part in relation to the term predicated of it. speaks. : An. we argue. KaXtD 8 fieffov fj. This term known as the middle term gives us two reasons for his The middle term. as has been just The two given propositions . and predicate of the other. prima vel propositio vel 1 &quot. the genus is affirmed wider notion which is the predicate of the species. 41.gt. It is evident that is is no inference is possible unless there a term which is is common to the two premisses. stated. b /. In the example just given. term is a logical part in regard to one of the other terms. De Syll.lt. t. (7T|OoTucret9.

as do many logi he looked on the terms of the syllogism in their extension. S. These names are adhered to even in negative conclusions. and in other cases not found.^Regarding standard type. and S is M. which the major term occurs. therefore S predicated of syllogism. It is entirely cians. Prior I. I. Aristotle in his treatment of the syllogism ever keeps in view the typical case in which the terms stand in this erroneous to say. concerned with the form alone. contained in another as a whole. The second reason. The form lies in the special arrangement of the terms in the three propositions. ffarepov . which Aristotle gives. A distinction sometimes drawn between the matter The matter of the syllogism consists of the terms and propositions employed in it.&quot. is called the major premiss that which contains the minor term is called the minor : premiss. employed the form.. untrue.THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM in relation to the (I) 171 1 term of which it itself is predicated. the term which is a syllogism of the same character as the is subject in the conclusion as the minor term. while in regard to the matter. that telian M P is is method of stating the P. c. in virtue of which the conclusion follows from the premisses by necessary consequence. To say that one thing is Odrepov ravrbv IGTW. This reason is of less moment. is that the middle term is such by position. every proposition may be is and form of a syllogism. We treat of the vari ous ways in which a process of reasoning may be con-rb 5t fv 8\v elvat Hrepov tr^py Kal rb (card iravrbs 8. 1 The greater part An. aptly known and the term which is predicate in the conclusion as the major term. where the relation of whole and part. &quot. is M. is the same as to say that the second can be predicated universally of the first. and called the middle-term by that name because in extension it lay between the two others. M Where we say he P. and need not detain us. It is evident that a syllogism may be formally valid. is The major and minor terms are sometimes The premiss in spoken of as the extremes (roe UK pa). It rested on the Aristo order. therefore is predicated of P is predicated of S. KaTTiyopelffOai. is of the Logic of the syllogism.

Hence it appears that we cannot argue that the pre misses must be true because the conclusion is true. 2. General Rules of the Syllogism.iy2 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC this structed so as to conclude validly. is easily seen it is from the diagram. but it is . The following . is but one portion of Logic even in it. It is true that I assert that 5 because M. is P. premisses (An. con tains nothing that is not implicitly contained in the i. the minor premiss is false. yet the conclusion is true. Relation of Premisses to Conclusion in regard to Truth. For a conclusion legitimately drawn. and the argu ment is rightly stated. 3. not so because of the reason alleged. 2. that the Formal logi cians were led to hold that Logic deals only with selfconsistency. and abstracts altogether from the question of truth. S is P. Prior II. On the other hand. The way in which this occurs. 4. its truth is not con nected with the reason assigned in the argument. c. we may be sure that the conclu sion is true. 13). therefore All owls are vertebrates.e. if the premisses are true.. A conclusion of this kind is said to be true per accidens i. c. The answer to this contention is of syllogistic form. It is quite possible that false premisses may furnish a true conclusion. It is chiefly because important branch of Logic deals wholly with the self- consistency of our thought with securing conclusions consistent with their premisses. All mam mals are vertebrates. All owls are mammals. we treat of formal truth only as a that the theory and that . means by which the mind passes from true premisses to a true conclusion. Thus if I argue.

nisi cum praemissa. Hence. to quantity. We have stated above (Ch. one premiss be particular. to the effect that the conclusion must always follow the inferior alternative. Rule deal with each of these rules separately. 12) that an term is really equivalent to two terms. summing are traditional in English works on Logic 1 : up the rules of the syllogism Distribuas medium. the conclusion particular. 8. Rule The middle term must be distributed in one. Et non distribuat. signifies that where one premiss is negative. terms. the conclusion is negative. . where both premisses are particular. No term ma} be distributed in the con clusion. I. Sectetur partem conclusio deteriorem. \Rule 6. conclusion can be drawn. Rule 2. A three. must be We shall i. Corollaries. the conclusion Rule No must be negative tive. and the particular as inferior to the universal. The following example will serve to The following mnemonic verses. A syllogism must consist of three.THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM eight rules hold good of l they may be stated : (I) 173 all syllogisms. Relating to the structure of the syllogism must contain three. III. at least. to quality. : conclusion. and only Rule i. where both premisses are negative. Negation is regarded as inferior to affirmation. The third line. Utraque nee praemissa negans. one of the premisses and to prove a negative must be nega IV. \ Rule 4. 4 Relating 3. and where one is particular the conclusion is particular. negetve. and only three. 2. j / Rule Rule 7. equivocal when the middle term is equivocal. nee particularis. of the premisses. which is not distributed in a premiss. propositions. II. nee quartus terminus adsit. in whatever form syllogism. we have not three terms but four. This rule prohibits what is known as an ambigu now ous middle. No If conclusion can be drawn. and is employed in different senses in the two premisses. \ Relating 5. If one premiss be negative.

the accompanying diagram. otherwise we have no means of comparing major and minor. are incapable of sin. The object of the third rule is to guard against the fallacy known as undistributed middle. but three have must propositions. in which from two given propositions. obvious. example.174 illustrate PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC what is meant. Here the word therefore Slaves are incapable of sin. we have no guarantee that both propositions refer This may be seen in to the same part of the extension. given in Ch. though they consist of syllogisms. syllogism Rule 3. The term man is not equivocal. 4. There A are not syllogisms. Beings. we pass to a There are. by comparing each with the middle term. When the middle term is undistri buted. 8. as we shall see. argument. forms of third proposition. which contain a number of propositions. It is therefore absolutely essential that the term of comparison should be the same in both cases. The second rule follows immediately from the definition of a syllogism. I may assert with truth . who are not free. in the other in reference to the conceptual order. Man is a species. which states that it is an infer ence. provides us with another case of ambiguous middle. But when a term is employed Socrates in the one case in reference to the real. therefore Socrates is a species. In the syllogism. Rule 2. in in the The major premiss denotes the freedom of the the minor premiss civil freedom. free will. Slaves are beings who are not free. is a man. It prescribes that in one premiss at least the middle term should refer The reason for this is to the whole of its extension. ambiguity necessarily arises. we discover the relation exist ing between the major and minor terms.

therefore No bipeds are viviparous.g. the major term receives illegitimate distribution in the conclusion. nected with the middle term. therefore e. therefore Brutes are not beings with an immortal destiny. Jevons (Principles of Science. we may take the All men are beings with an immorBrutes are not men. give no ground for the conclusion that All negroes are men. S is Hence that P. that the error occurs. it is known as illicit process of the minor. though 5 is M. and assert more in the conclu sion than is warranted by the premisses. if in place of the term negroes the term birds or fishes. It can be vio When lated both as regards the minor and the maj or term. that is. premisses only justify Some bipeds are not viviparous. we deny the connexion of the middle term with the extreme contained in that If both extremes are declared to be uncon premiss. All negroes are mortal. Rule 5 forbids that both premisses should be negative. This appears we substitute Rule 4. we have no means of com paring them. tal destiny. Illicit process of the minor be illustrated No birds are viviparous. are bipeds. if we take an example which is precisely similar. Certain recent logicians have called in question the universa Prof. As an instance of the former. All birds may by. Brutes are not men. In a negative premiss. It forbids us to go beyond our data. Brutes are not animals. Should this occur. and that proposition happens in fact to be true. We cannot say whether they are found following argument. the fallacy is termed illicit process Should it be in the case of the minor term of the major. 63) validity of this law. such as All concluding men are mortal. at once. save that the conclusion is false All men are animals. The invalidity of such an argument is manifest. though the premisses gave information about a part only. In this the us in syllogism concluding. : conjoined or not. gives us the following syllogism as an exception to it : . we have no means of drawing a con clusion. The reason for this rule is obvious. premisses. p.THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM that (I) 175 But I am not justified in that Pis M. when the conclusion takes it in its whole extent.

the connexion of the other extreme with the same term is denied. Since there are but two particular propositions. Jevons. is taken as it stands. When the one premiss is affirmative.&quot. and hence violates Rule 3. Ed. Carbon is not capable /. But it is necessary that two terms. Boethius refers us back to Alexander of Aphrodisjas. 00. the middle and the major. . should be distributed A distributed middle is required by in the premisses. The reason for the sixth rule is evident. 105. Bradley concurs with Prof. to c. Migne. the connexion of one extreme with the middle term is asserted. The solution to the difficulty will be easily Carbon is not seen. I and 0. when it is observed that if the proposition. t. (ed. that a negative conclusion involves a negative If the conclusion premiss. calls attention in Lib. It follows that the conclusion must necessarily deny that the two extremes are con nected inter se. Carbon is not metallic. 2*&quot. &quot. metallic In the major premiss we have what-is-not-metallic. and testing them by the preceding rules. viz. and the other negative. the possible combina possible cases of tions are limited to three //. we have no middle term. equivalent affirmative. of powerful magnetic influence. Mr. &quot. the predicate of 0. that from two denials you somehow have proved a he says.176 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC 4 is What not metallic is not capable of powerful magnetic in fluence. is shewn in a similar way. The truth of the second part of the rule. and the syllogism concludes without breach of rule. de Interp. and in the The mind replaces this proposition with the minor metallic.. : denies the connexion of the two extremes. This rule may be proved by examining the : two particular premisses.&quot. Of these the first // contains no distributed term. 64. 10. 1 Rule 6. viz. The fact remains. Carbon is a-thing-which-is-not-metallic. and thus contains a breach of Rule 5. by Boethius. and the other is not. this cannot be because both of them are connected with one and the it must be because the one is con same middle term nected with this term.&quot. Rule 7. difficulty is of respectable antiquity. : 1 The its . further denial. The third 00 gives us two negative premisses. solution 551) and Ueberweg. The combination 10 has one term alone distributed.

Fig. stating the premisses. (i) In the first figure. one premiss is particular. Fig. The conclusion AO and El both contain therefore cannot be universal. Since EO contains two negatives. Since the middle term must be distributed. can only be particular. and subject in the minor premiss. the predicate must be a distributed term. and which is to be the predicate. A I contains but one distributed term. in other words. it may be disregarded. middle of the the by position The arrangement of figures now usual supposes that in 4. which of our is two the minor premiss. The possible combinations are four. The is rule that. (3) In the third figure. 2. ~S~P P P M M_S S~P 4. the middle term is subject in both pre misses. AI. the syllogism as determined (i) Figure is the form of term in the two premisses. if conclusion is AO. The figures are represented by the following forms : Fig.THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM . MP MS S 3. One of these must be the middle Hence one term alone is distributed in the term. (I) 177 Rule 3 and a distributed major is also needed. the also proved by an examina particular. since the conclusion must be negative by Rule 6. tion of cases. since in both cases there is a negative premiss. But the universal negative E has both terms distributed. and (2) In the second figure. But the conclusion must necessarily be conclusion. Rule 8. the middle term is subject in the major premiss. and which the major. the middle term is predicate in both premisses. Figures and Moods of the Syllogism. (4) In the fourth figure. negative. UP S S . The conclusion therefore. EO.! i. predicate in the minor premiss. two distributed terms. N . for. the middle term is predi cate in the major. we are already aware which of the extremes is to be the subject of the conclusion. it follows that no term is distributed in the conclusion. El. propositions This gives us a fourfold division. M P P S M M Fig. since it has but one distributed term.

which were thus distinguished (i) Fig. are those which.178 * PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC For many centuries logicians employed a division of figures which no account was taken as to which premiss contained the major term and which the minor. 00.0. accord ing to the system now in vogue.I. The last of these had already been rejected on the previous count. I. EE. it follows that there are but sixteen possible arrangements of premisses. in a point which will be mentioned in Ch. according as we make A or B the subject of the conclusion. //. (3) Fig. viz. (2) Fig. viz. figures. A. predicate in both. constitute the fourth figure. It differs a little from Aristotle s own treatment of the 2 below. 2.E. can be shewn to involve an illicit process of the major : . The Theophrastean arrangement logicians. subject in both. The rule of the syllogism prohibiting two negative premisses. The forms in which B. is still preferred by many (ii) Mood is the form of a syllogism as determined by the quantity and quality of its premisses. a disciple of Aris totle. becomes the subject in the conclusion. the term which is predicate in its premiss. and three figures only were recognized. EO. IE. and each of these must be one of the four propositions. Since there are but two premisses in a syllogism. subject in the one premiss. Not all of these sixteen combinations. viz. 10. predicate in the other. : AA AI IA // EA El OA -01- AE AO TE EE Efr OE 00. by the rule. necessarily provides two vari eties. Of the nine remaining cases. M. Four also are excluded. This arrangement was that of Theophrastus. i. 12. M. The figures may be in represented as follows (i) : MB AM The first of (2) AM B M MB MA (3) these figures. 3. which tells us that : two particular premisses give no conclusion. however. can be employed in the premisses of a syllogism. OE. however. one. M. Nothing was considered save the position of the middle term. excludes four of the sixteen. 01. 00. from which the mood of the syllogism can be selected.

and only admits those moods which conform to these rules. 1 (1) If the minor premiss were negative. Special Rules of the Four Figures. Therefore a conclusion drawn from these premisses must needs be vitiated by an illicit process of the major.179 For since it contains a negative premiss. term should be distributed in its premiss. But the major term is predicate in its premiss hence were it distri buted. The possible moods are therefore eight in number. and the seven possible combinations. and therefore in the major premiss also. major . which contain the premiss A. which of these moods may be employed term. there are eight possible moods. In this section. Figure I. it The older logics give us these rules in the following vero generalis. the con must be negative. the premiss must be negative. A negative conclusion distri butes its predicate. not all of them can be employed in each figure. (2) S P The minor (i) premiss must be affirmative. mnemonic hexameter Sit minor afflrmans. the middle term in that premiss is undistributed. It must therefore : be distributed in the major premiss. The major premiss must be universal. and consist of the combination El. Thus we should have two negative premisses. clusion in the several figures. and hence necessitates that the major But in IE. as we have seen. 1 In that premiss. no term is distributed in the major premiss. 5. MP S M Rules. A negative conclusion requires that the major term should be distributed in the conclusion. /. the conclusion would be negative. Though. involved in the arrangement of terms peculiar to it. Every figure has its own special rules. we shall deal with the rules of the four figures in succession. We must now examine. (2) Since the minor premiss is affirmative.

(2) (1) (i) The minor premiss must be affirmative. Since the minor is affirmative. M P M_S S P Rules. were both affirmative. AAA. Therefore one must be negative.l8o PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC : stands as the subject the subject is distributed in univer sal propositions alone. EIO. EA. distribution of the subject involves a universal proposition. A A. EAE. it would not be distributed in either. 2. AGO. is negative. 1 Una Sit 8 negans esto. viz. and therefore there would be two nega tive premisses. AI. it stands as subject. The conclusion must be particular. I A and Rule (2) . El. EIO. will therefore Figure 3. (2) M M negative. (2) tributed. its predicate is undis The conThis predicate is the minor term. if we express them with the letter denoting the conclusion to be drawn from them. minor affirmans. contrary to the fifth rule of the syllogism. (2) Since the conclusion It distributed. AEE. . universal. A negative minor would involve a negative major. Figure P S S P Rules. moods : AE and AO. i. and Rule (2) excludes IA and OA There remain therefore four avail able moods in this figure. All. Here Rule (i) excludes A A. Rule (i) excludes the . the major term is must therefore be distributed in its In the major premiss. . Or. premiss. condusio particularis. 2 The former of these rules is established by the same considerations as shewed the necessity of an affirmative minor premiss in Fig. AI. 1 (i) One premiss must be The major premiss must be (1) Since the middle term is predicate in both pre misses. major vero generalis. The I A and OA The valid moods of this figure be EAE.

and through it they acquired universal notoriety. AAI. 12. moods are expressed in succession by the vowels of each word. (2) The fourth If the minor is affirmative. Cesare. Camestres. The Mnemonic Lines. There are five valid moods. Its rules however are somewhat more complex than those of the other figures. Quarta insupcr addit 1 Bramantip. viz. are enumerated in the It will be noticed that the following mnemonic lines. AAI. breach of Rule (i) would involve undistributed middle a breach of Rule (2) an illicit process of the minor and of Rule (3) A : . and Camenes. Figure 4. Summulae 1377). afterwards Pope John XXI. (3) an illicit process of the major. form (Ch. Many others of the old mnemonics are found in this work. Camenes. They are contained also in the (d. (i) If the major is affirmative. Feiioque prioris. Datisi. Cesare. AEE. Tertia Darapti. Fesapo. P S figure. EAO. be explained in 7 Barbara. . 2. EIO. is both theoretically and practically of very minor importance. Five of these moods. give universal conclusions. EIO. the minor must be universal. EAO. We will : 1 first in These particular mnemonic* in an the work of William Shyreswood earlier (d. IAI. Celarent. This was one of the most widely knowu of mediseval logical treatises. If the conclusion is negative. The significance of the consonants 6. Fresison. Logicales of Petrus Hispanus. Barbara. the conclusion must be par ticular. Disamis. Darii. Ferison. Felapton Bocardo. EAE by Celarent.THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM (I) 181 elusion therefore has an undistributed subject. The valid moods of this figure are six in number. whose validity we have established. Rules. Thus the mood AAA is signified by Barbara. as will M M S P be seen in the sections which follow. OAO. sccundae. habct. Baroco. Celarent. IAI. * AH. Camestres. is and thus particular. the major must be universal. note) occur 1249). Dimaris. The nineteen moods. Festino.

&quot. 2 and he regards as valid. and what opera moods the Mnemonic lines. the figure validity of our conclusion absolutely evident. the middle term is twice distributed. I. This process was called Reduction by the Scholastics. Barbari. is if may we will. etc. In Darapti. of course. The remaining syllogisms. is fifteen moods are termed fundamental That peculiar evidential quality. The name of strengthened syllogisms is occasionally given to the moods. the major term is distri buted in the premiss. are constructed on an ingenious plan. Darapti. The names of the various is expressed as a syllogism as they are given in Barbara. D. Felapton. Aristotle held that only in the first Reduction. These signify respectively that the Of the reduced to Barbara. but as destitute of the 3 Figs. the same conclusion could be obtained by a particular premiss in lieu of one of the universal premisses employed. Darii or Ferio. and undistributed in the conclusion. In Bramantip. to which they are to be reduced. consonants composing the body of the word. and Fesapo. and may be defined as the process by which a syllogism in one of the imperfect figures of the first figure.&quot. the syllogism is rearranged in some mood of the first figure. They are. are known as subaltern moods. Bramantip. C. or F. since there is nothing to pre vent us from asserting less than our premisses would warrant. B.. It will be observed that every name begins with one initial letters is of the four letters. etc. draw from the premisses a con . the letters mood in question Celarent. so as to indicate the moods of the first figure. when after the conversion of one or other of the premisses. and Fesapo.. Celaront. to be . for the reason that in each of them. which marks Fig. tions are necessary to achieve the result. alone is the perfect (re Xe/o?) syllogism. of no import clusion that particular ance. These moods. The others are im Their conclusiveness is only manifest. perfect (areXei?).1 82 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC however. 7. Felapton.

No Englishmen are negroes. p (= per accidens) signifies that the preceding premiss muta). Some men are unsafe companions. No No The of the Hottentots are Englishmen. per contradictoriam propositionem). Some murderers &amp. All Hottentots are negroes.iii. that the premisses are to be transposed. not selected arbi trarily. All murderers are men. is shewn to be equi is two premisses. The process may be symbolized P e S a S~T~P The conversion of the M M M e S a S~e~P M P major premiss gives us.lt. i. the initial C indicating that the syllogism will be in the mood Celarent of Fig. No Hottentots are Englishmen. . Here we have to convert the major premiss. are unsafe companions. The letter s in Cesare tells us that the major premiss must be converted simply.-. All Hottentots are negroes. . following example is in Disamis. valent to it by simple conversion. that the reduc tion is to be indirect or per impossibile.-. One or two examples will illustrate the application of these methods. (I) 183 m. but in each case denote the Latin name of the m (= C must be converted per accidens. These four letters were. the resulting conclusion not the actual conclusion of the syllogism in Disamis. i Moreover. therefore. negroes are Englishmen. as the final s indicates. give first a syllogism in Cesare of the We second figure : .THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM S. (= process employed. p. Here the symbolic representation becomes. C are employed to tell us what changes are re quired to obtain a syllogism in one of these four moods S (= simpliciter] signifies that the premiss indicated : by the preceding vowel must be converted simply. but. and to transpose the order in Fig.

its If is true.1 84 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC M Ma l /&amp. Some mammals the conclusion i. This process. .. 2) (Fig. premisses. All whales are aquatic animals. Some unsafe companions are men. to which it cannot be applied.-. for that is in the first figure. (Fig. and in showing by a syllogism in Barbara that this supposition involves the falsity of one of the original premisses. Some mammals are not aquatic animals. ever. how the conclusions in Hence we are Bocardo and Baroco are gism valid. This consists in admitting by way of hypothesis that the conclusion of the mood may be false. Thus. . which is One of the in the reasoning. however. another method. But the error does not lie this proposition. . In these moods. This conclusion is. using as our premisses and that one of the original premisses a universal affirmative. conversion this conclusion is By shewn to be equivalent to the conclusion of the Disamis syllogism. is termed There are. All whales are aquatic animals. premiss premisses . we may take the following syllo in Baroco. is employed. are not whales. however.e. Some unsafe companions are murderers. This gives us. the contradictory of the Some mammals are not aquatic ani original premiss. we must admit that All contradictory must be mammals are whales. are ex hypothesi forced to admit that The original known to be true.gt. All The therefore be must false. false. two Baroco and Bocardo moods.*.^JIf a i S The syllogism i S-^-P P M S as expressed in Darii will therefore be. 3). that of Indirect Reduction. All mammals are aquatic animals. which gives us a syllogism in the first figure precisely equivalent to the original syllogism. We now form a syllogism in Barbara. All murderers are men. All mammals are whales. Direct or Ostensive Reduction. mals/ and is therefore false.

and then will serve as an Some /. The combination ks and Darii t signifies that the premiss must be first converted. c. we is the only method employed by If. are whales however. Some men. All ministers are privy-councillors. a syllogism in Felapton.THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM whales are aquatic animals is. illustration : The following syllogism obverted. o P. * Further are not straightforward are privy- employment 7. is consequently and since it is false. (I) 185 The premiss All mammals . 4) how Aristotle also shews us Reduction. 5 a P 5 is true. ministers are not straightforward. in lieu of the ostensive process. We may now form a syllogism&quot. that he should think that these moods gain anything by reduc- .g. Some privy-councillors are not straightforward. false.. given as true. : This will become All ministers are privy-councillors. original premiss M in Barbara a a P But e Ma P is is is inconsistent It follows that the supposition S o is true. Let us take. sion of the preceding premiss. is true. Darii and Ferio may be reduced re It may appear remarkable spectively to Barbara and Celarent. the original conclusion of the Baroco syllogism. M eP M a S. with the M S M a P. mosk. they may be treated The mnemonic words Faksoko and Doksaostensively. This method of indirect Reduction may be applied to any mood. Some men. and 5 a P therefore false. who councillors.. its contradictory. of (An. who are not straightforward are ministers. indicate the necessary operations for the direct reduction of syllogisms in Baroco and Bocardo to Ferio The letter k signifies the obverrespectively. If the conclusion S S o P be false. P. the erroneous one e. dealing with Baroco and Bocardo. and that P Indirect Reduction Aristotle for however. make use of Obversion. Prior I.

nor to particulars as in Fig. But his reason will be seen. 1 Only a universal judgment can become the object of an entirely intellectual intuition. 5. 8. the contradictory of the oiiginal premiss S i M. 5 e P is true. Superiority of Fig. is an argument in Barbara whether our subject be Mathematics.term either contains the middle or absolutely excludes it. Every argument in which we bring a special case or type of case under a general rule. Not only does theYirst figure excel the others as a mode of inference. 5 Kara fifpos els a The universal proposition is the object of intellectual intuition reXevrp.. The method of reduction Aristotle here employs. &quot. by cumbrous. and ob verted to Pa s. 2. equivalent to 5 e M. c. In them the subject and middle-term are related as logical part perfect and logical whole. We may now. 1. 1 An. pen Ka96\ov vo^rr]. ii. c. Ethics. Law or what not. This may be converted to P e S. that by it we can obtain a universal affirmative con clusion. Ferio may be dealt with in a precisely similar way. is the fact. . is somewhat We may illustrate it in the case of Darii. If the student will.lt.186 tion. for instance. Prior /. $.&quot. 24. In the particular moods we no longer have three universal concepts. (ff6rt&amp. /. 2 More important still. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC since he explicitly recognizes them as being among the moods of the syllogism. the particular ends in sense-perception. For this reason a syllogism in which one premiss is particular does not attain to what in Aristotle s view is the absolute standard of the in : ferential process of the intellect. We are not limited to negatives as in Fig. be at the pains to analyse a short pro position of Euclid. When we consider how great an im portance attaches to conclusions of this character. employing one of the original premisses form the syllogism in Barbara M a P which MaS P aS gives the conclusion M a 5 or M e S.. he will find that each step of advance is a syllogism in this mood. simpler method is A possible. T. The minor is particu lar and particular propositions always depend in the last resort on sensible experience. Physics. we see at once that its utility exceeds that of all the other figures. while the major. * An. (i) By its means we may arrive at conclusions in all the qualitative and quantitative varieties that are possible. It has two other characteristics which render it superior to them. if we remember that the two universal moods alone give us what he holds to be the absolutely typical inferential process. in Barbara. viz. 15. IfSiP be false. Post. T.nv .

differ but slightly Pars I.). Canon of Syllogistic Reasoning. is not regarded as a collection of individuals. is stated of (or denied) universally thereby affirmed (or denied) of every The Dictum is based on a logical part of that subject. Ae-yo/uei S rb Kara.The actual words of Aristotle. definition (quid nominis) of the universal. TTO-VTOS KaryyopdaDai orav *ai rb Kara. fairly representative of the de aliquo subjecto. i with On the true meaning of that passage. and accurately represents his theory of inference. I. in a canon to which they gave the name of the Dictum is de Omni : et Nullo. 7. predicated of All a subject. which it represents. Whatever is affirmed any subject passage of Aristotle. when there is no one of the parts of the subject. from each other. which con stitutes the major premiss. the principle.). Joseph s Introduction to Logic.. are found in An. St. fj. of which the attribute is not predicated and similarly in the case. Some recent writers have erroneously identified Arist. c. c. Prior I. (ll. 3. Post. which governs the reasoning of the figure. c.7i8fvbs wcrairrws. 3. it gives us the Nominal i--. Scotus. Q. Sup.. valuable note in Mr.r. see a the Dictum de Omni et Nullo. x). Quidquid unircrsaliter dicitur omni quod sub tali subjecto continetur : quidquid negatur de aliquo subjecto.. Cf. 275. Ka6 06 Bdrepov o j Xex^fferai We say that an attribute fj. It must be carefully noticed that in this principle. 1 This would The principle is thus given by John of St. negatur et de omni contento sub tali subjecto (Logica. though his expression of it does not give 1 it as the ultimate canon of reasoning.e. THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM i. As Scotus says (I.&quot. in which it is predicated of None. . Thomas An. Priorum.CHAPTER XII. principle of the This they held to be the fundamental It may be thus reasoning process. 9.. We stated in the last section that Aristotle held the first figure to be the only one in which the conclusiveness of the inference His Scholastic followers expressed absolutely evident. p. 8.8ev 17 \ajBfiv ruv roO viroKftnevov. Lib. The passage explains the significance of the universal proposition. The various forms in which it is stated. the subject of which the affirmation or denial is made. Cat. lect.. 187 . I. Lib. dicitur de who may be taken as Thomistic school. Thomas. I.

1 88

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC
:

for if the subject reduce inference to a barren tautology is regarded as a collection of individuals, no inference is required to affirm the attribute of them taken singly. The general proposition has already affirmed it of each. Such judgments as these, which are really a matter of counting heads, are called Enumerative judgments. In the Dictum the universal subject is the species or genus as such, the logical whole. This appears clearly if we state the proposition in the generic form, Man is The nightshade vertebrate/ The salmon has scales, is Our reason for employing the prefix poisonous. All, is to emphasize the distributive force of the subject, not to show that our knowledge is to be viewed as the result of an enumeration. It is possible to attain a knowledge of the species without knowing each member of the class. We cannot have experimental knowledge

of all

men, or
is

There

therefore

of all salmon, or all plants of nightshade. no tautology, when we infer from

the logical whole to one of its parts. 1 It is manifest that all reasoning in Fig i, is of this the major premiss affirms (or denies) some attri type
:

bute of a universal subject in
tion, e.g.

its

distributive accepta

states that
of
this

The minor premiss lungs. some individual is a subordinate universal subject. The conclusion affirms the
All

mammals have
class or

some

attribute of the class or the individual in question.

The Dictum
of

is

an immediate

deduction
to

from the
assert

any principle attribute of a generic whole, and then deny it of some part of this whole we should violate that primary law
1 That the Scholastics understood the universal terms constituting the subject and the predicate, not as classes reckoned in extension, but as logical wholes, may be seen from the following passage from Versorius Parisiensis, a Scholastic commentator on Petrus Hispanus. When dealing with the Dictum de Omni ft Nullo, he distinguishes as follows, between the two expressions employed Primo scienby Aristotle (An. Prior I., c. i, 8) of the universal proposition. dum quod dici de omni est conditio praedicati in ordine ad subjectum sed esse in toto est conditio subject! in ordine ad praedicatum, quia sub"

Contradiction.

Were we

.

.

.

jectum

est

in praedicato sicut pars subjectiva in tola suo

universali."

Petrus

Hispanus (Venice, 1597), p. 217. If the subject is a pars subjectiva of the predicate it must be viewed as a logical unity, and not as a collection, even though it be qualified by the term All.

THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
of

(II)

189

thought.

We

should

simultaneously

assert

an A

and an O proposition.
be asked, did Aristotle regard the first one possessed of perfect evidence ? The answer must be that in this figure alone is the natural synthesis of the terms given in the premisses themselves. The premisses of the first figure give us S is a logical The subordination a logical part of P. part of

Why,

it

may

figure as the only

M M
,

of the concepts, gives us the synthesis we require and we pass at once to 5 is a logical part of P. The transi
;

tion from the mental acts
to the conclusion,
sary.
is

which constitute the premisses, spontaneous, immediate, and neces

In Figs. 2 and 3, the premisses do not give us the terms in the order of subordination which we need. The synthesis we are seeking, is not offered to us in the

mere conjunction of the premisses. The scheme of that of Fig. 2 makes both S and P subordinate to us as a of 5 Hence and P. 3 logical part Fig. gives the logical relation of the terms 5 and P is not given to

M

M

:

us in the premisses themselves. Doubtless our data are sufficient for us to draw the conclusion which de

we do draw. But the mental operation here is for in that the not the perfect process of inference are two whose causative mere con premisses principles us in the mind the conclusion as an imme junction gives
facto
:

diate result. 1

It

was

for this reason that Aristotle

was

led to regard these forms as imperfect, and to maintain that only in Fig. i does the full necessity of the inferential
It need not however be supposed that he act appear. believed Reduction to represent the actual working of
1

Aristotle tells us that the premisses are the material cause of the conclusion. vvoOfafis TOU ffvii.-repdfffLa.Tos uij rb e 08 atria, tariv. II. Phys. 3, 7, cf. Met. IV., c. 2, 7. They are the material cause in a sense analogous to that in which the parts are the material cause of the whole. Thus e.g. the parts of a circle separately are merely the material of the circle but set together in due order they result in the circle. In this sense in An. Post. II., c. n, i he calls the material cause to rb rtvuv 6vruv avdyici) TOUT dvai. The similarity between this definition and that of the syllogism (p. 169, note) is material but taken patent. The premisses taken separately are mere
at
: :

together they give a complete inference.

190

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC
mind
in reasoning.

the

doubted, Figs. 2
thought.

We employ, it can hardly be and 3 as independent instruments of Where e.g. we have such premisses as,
All heliotrope is sweet-smelling. This flower is not sweet-smelling,

we recog other conclusion than This flower is not any would involve a the contradiction. But heliotrope
:

we need not convert the negative premiss

nize that

by which the premisses result in the conclusion not the connatural inferential process of the mind. That is only found when the three concepts which to gether constitute the object of the intellectual act, stand in such a relation to each other, as themselves to give us the logical relation of the terms of the conclusion. 1
process
is

It is asserted

was
one

by many recent logicians that Aristotle in error in holding the first figure to be the only in which the inferential process is absolutely evident.
:

Independent canons are given for the other figures and the whole process of Reduction is declared to be useless. The following canons are among those which have been suggested. If a certain attribute can Fig. 2. Dictum de diverso. be predicated affirmatively or negatively of every member of a class, any subject of which it cannot be so predicated,
"

is

not a
Fig. 3.

member
(I)

"

of that class

(Mansel, Aldrich, p. 84).
"

Dictum de exemplo. If a certain attribute can be affirmed of any portion of the members of a class,
it is

not incompatible with the attributes of that class

"

(ibid.)

(II)

Dictum de

"

excepto.

If

a certain attribute can
class, it

be denied of any portion of the members of a

1 No argument can be drawn against the doctrine of Reduction from those syllogisms in the third figure, in which the middle term is a singular term the Some wise syllogismus expositorius, e.g. Socrates is poor, Socrates is wise. men are poor. This is not an inferential process at all, but an appeal to ex perience in a particular case. The mind does not pass to a new truth it did not possess. Syllogismus expositorius non est vere syllogismus, sed magis sensibilis demonstratio, seu resolutio facta ad sensum, ad hoc quod consequentia quae vera est secundum intellectualem cognitionem, declaretur in sensibili." St. Thomas, Opusc. 43, De Natura Syllogismi. It is in that manner that it is employed by Aristotle in the proof of Fig. 3.
.
"

THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
is
"

(II)

191

not inseparable from the distinctive attributes of that class (ibid.) Fig. 4. Considerable difficulty has been found in dis

covering any principle, which shall serve as a canon for Lambert s Dictum de reciproco runs as figure. If no is B, no B is this or that if C is follows
this
"

:

M

M

:

or

is

not this or that B, there are Bs which are or are

not

C."

who reject Aristotle s doctrine, regard the syllogism from a totally different point of view, and in most cases appear to be ignorant as to the nature of his 1 In the canons just cited, the theory of inference.
Those

mem general proposition is a mere statement about the taken in extension. The idea of the bers of a class
"
"

terms of the premisses as objects of thought related one to another as logical whole and logical part, was quite It is easy enough to draw up canons foreign to them.

on the basis of extension.

But

if

the canons are to be

strictly logical in their character, it

may

whether any save that of the

first

figure

be questioned can claim to be

absolutely self-evident. Mill rejects the Dictum de omni on the ground that it merely amounts to the identical proposition that
"

whatever
"

is

true of certain objects,
"

is

true of each of

those objects

(II.,

c.

2,

2).

He

Whatever which this

is

a

mark
is

of

any mark,
of."

is

prefers the canon a mark of that
it

last

a

mark

In regard to this

is sufficient

to say that in the conceptual order

we

are

not concerned with things and marks, but with subjects and attributes. The principle is not a logical principle
at
*
all.
2

2.

The Fourth Figure.

The Fourth Figure

calls

for

Aristotelian theory of the syllogism fell into almost complete oblivion. however to note that it was explained and defended by the See Dugald Stewart s eighteenth century Scottish writer Lord Monboddo.
It is interesting
i. Philosophy of the Human Mind, vol. II., ch. 3, z Precisely the same objection is valid against the principles given by many Scholastic writers of the last three centuries Quae sunt eadetn uni tertio, sunt eadem inter se : Si ex duobus unum cum iertio identicum est, alterum non est, n?qne inter se ilia duo identica esse possunt." Mill s axiom is based on Kant s formula Nota nolae est nota rei ipsius : repugnans nolae repugnat ret ipsi.
"

1

The

:

192
separate

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC
treatment.
It

natural process a logical part of B, B a logical part of C and we are asked to regard a conclusion in which C is subordinate to A, as a normal working of the mind on a parity with a conclusion in Fig. i. It may safely be asserted that the mind never actss in this way though, of course, the conclusion that C is in part subordinate to A, is not invalid. Three of the moods (Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris), are in fact simply the first three moods of Fig. i with the conclusion converted. The two remaining moods (Fesapo, Fresison) are not of this character. But they need not therefore be relegated to a special figure. Aristotle (An. Prior /., c. 7) views them as cases of Fig. i, in which the minor a (i) P. TT , Here, he says, a con premiss is a universal negative, TMof inference.

The premisses

corresponds to no tell us that A
;

is

:

M

clusion can be obtained, if the premisses be converted but in the conclusion the minor term will be predicated of the major,
:

Me
it

S.

viz.
.-.

Pi M P o S.

The arrangement made by his disciple Theophrastus,

was,

would appear, more satisfactory. He recognizes the not merely of the normal conclusion in Fig. i, S is subordinate to P, but also of the abnormal but valid conclusion, P is subordinate to 5. This adds the five moods in question to the four Aristotelian moods of Fig. i, but reckons them in a This system was followed by the mediaeval different class. 1 It is logicians, who termed them Indirect Moods of Fig. i. stated that Galen was the first to rank them apart as an inde pendent mode of reasoning. But this method did not become prevalent till the decadence of Scholasticism, when excessive attention was paid to the mechanical arrangement of terms and 2 premisses, and philosophic considerations were neglected.
possibility,

Aristotle s conception of the figures of the syllogism is perhaps best understood, if they be considered in their application to the mental organization of our knowledge along the predicamental

In Fig. i, employing a genus as middle term 3). establish a connexion between a species on the one hand, and on the other either a property of the genus or some higher
lines (Ch. 9,

we

1 The mnemonic ment
:

lines as given

by Petrus Hispanus

follow this arrange

Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferio. Baralipet Deinde Celantes, Dabitis, Fapesmo, Frisesmo. Baroco. Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Darapti. Felapton, Disarms, Datisi, Bocardo, Ferison (Petrus Hisp., Venice,
p.
* S

1597,

249).

On

Fig.

4,

vide Joseph, Introduction

to

Logic, pp. 301-305.

Ueberweg,

103.

THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
genus under which
:

(II)

193

it falls in Fig. 2 we shew the negative re between species which do not fall under the same genus in Fig. 3 we shew the relation which holds between two genera,

lation
if

;

the same species is subordinate to both. This last relation can, of course, only give a particular conclusion.

find

Expression in Syllogistic Form. The student will a valuable exercise to throw into syllogistic form some of the reasonings he may meet with in the books which he reads, and in ordinary conversation.
3.
it

Whenever we conclude

from a general principle to a particular case which falls under that principle, the argument is syllogistic, though the syllogism may not be expressed in full. An argument stated with its fuh paraphernalia of major, minor, and conclusion may be compared to a specimen beetle set out for exhibition. When at large and alive, it is not accustomed to display its members in a manner so convenient for the entomo Nor do we, either in the spoken or written word, logist. express every step of our argument. We may omit one of the premisses, leaving our hearers to supply it. Or we may state the premisses, and leave the hearer to draw the conclusion for himself. Or we put one member, not as a judgment, but as a rhetorical question. One
1

or two examples will serve to illustrate the point:
This undertaking is doomed to failure. No enterprise suc ceeds whose promoters lack foresight and prudence. This may be expressed by the syllogism, No enterprise, whose promoters lack foresight and prudence,
is

successful.

This undertaking is an enterprise, whose promoters lack fore sight and prudence. .. This undertaking will not be successful. The following example is a little more complex There is a real reason for distrusting many common-sense judgments, since these are largely the general opinion of men based on mere sense-perception, without the
:

1

correction which mature reflection affords.

The

syllogistic expression will All general opinions, based on

be

:

mere sense-perception and with

out, etc., etc., are to be distrusted,

194

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC
are general opinions, based

Many common-sense judgments

on mere sense-perception, etc., etc. .. Many common sense judgments are to be distrusted. The next example provides a case in which one of the members
is

expressed as a rhetorical question
;

:

Can any general, whose army is disheartened, attain victory? That was his case and there lay the cause of his failure. This will become No general whose army is disheartened is victorious. He was a general whose army was disheartened. .. He was not victorious.
:

Progressive and Regressive Syllogisms. 4. Progressive Syllogisms are those in which we reason from a cause to its effect. Regressive Syllogisms are those in which we reason from the effect to the cause. Thus I may argue from the ascent of the mercury in the

tube of a barometer, to the conclusion that

it

must be

subject to atmospheric pressure. Or I may argue from a previous knowledge of the existence of atmospheric
pressure, to the ascent of the
result.

The Regressive syllogism
liquid,

mercury as a necessary will take the form
:

A

which (under the given circumstances) ascends in an exhausted tube, must be subject to
atmospheric pressure.

The mercury of a barometer
/.

is a liquid which ascends under the circumstances stated. The mercury of a barometer is subject to atmospheric

pressure.

A
way

Progressive syllogism will proceed in the converse
:

What is subjected to atmospheric pressure will

(under given circumstances) ascend in the tube. The mercury of the barometer is subjected to atmo

/.

The mercury
tube.

spheric pressure. of the barometer will ascend in the

In Progressive syllogisms it is the middle term which expresses the cause. The cause from which we conclude to the effect may be either the immediate or the remoter cause. Thus, if

(II)

195

argue that Socrates is capable of sensation because he a man, I argue from a remoter cause. He is endowed with the capacity to feel, not because he belongs to the narrower class man, but because he belongs to the wider class animal. It is in his being an animal that we find the immediate cause of his sensation. When we know a thing through its immediate cause, our knowledge of it is of a higher character than when we reach it in any other way. It is when we know the precise immediate cause of a thing, the reason why it
I
is

takes place, that
it.

we regard

ourselves as fully under

standing In the syllogism in which we argued that the mercury must rise in the barometer because of the presence of the atmosphere, our reasoning was based on the efficient cause. But each of the four causes (Ch. 10, 2) may be 1 employed in a Progressive argument (An. Post. II., c. u). The syllogism is thus seen to afford us an inference based on our knowledge of law. It is our knowledge of a law

which enables us to infer either from effect to cause, or cause to effect. A syllogism in which the major premiss is a mere enumerative judgment, is an inference of an other and far inferior kind. Arguments such as, e.g. All the apostles were Jews St. Paul was an apostle St. Paul was a Jew, have for those who know the grounds on which the major is based, no right to the name of reasoning. For those who themselves have made the enumeration, there is no passage from one
;

;

.

.

truth

to

another.

They knew the conclusion before

2 they asserted the major.

It is necessary for us 5. Validity of the Syllogism. to consider a view taken by certain logicians, belonging
1 Syllogisms in which the middle term is the immediate cause of the attri bute which constitutes the major, are styled by Aristotle Syllogisms of the Cause (ffv\\oyifffj.ol TOU SI&TI). All others are classed as Syllogisms of the Fact (<rv\\oyio-fjiol rov Sri). Cf. An. Post. I., c. 13. It is Syllogisms of the Cause which he regards as the true syllogisms of science in them alone our mental expression of things is in harmonious correspondence with the order of Nature. * Ou the two kinds of universal, see Summa Totius Logicae, Tract 9, c. a.
:

r 96

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

to the Empiricist school, to the effect that the syllogism as a method of inference, is formally invalid. The most

tion

conspicuous recent logician who has adopted this posi is Mill. In this section we shall notice the objec tions which he urges against the syllogism, and the

account of the mind

s

process in reasoning which he

regards as presenting a

more

satisfactory analysis.

argues that the major premiss, if literally inter In it, preted, is a manifest begging of the question. we assert the very fact, which in the conclusion, we
profess to prove. tains nothing new

He

The
:

it

is

conclusion, as we state it, con merely a reassertion of what
in

we have already

In every as an considered to syllogism, argument prove the conWhen we say, elusion, there is a petitio principii. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal, it is unanswerably urged by the adversaries
affirmed

the major.

"

of the syllogistic theory, that the proposition Socrates
is

mortal,

is

that tion, All men are mortal of the mortality of all men, unless
:

presupposed by the more general assumpwe cannot be assured

we

are already assured
"

of the mortality of every individual man (Logic, Bk. It is if be c. that this clear, II., admitted, we 3, 2).

do not reach the conclusion that Socrates is mortal from the major premiss, but on some other grounds.
Mill holds that the true
in every case to be found in individual facts. from the deaths of individual men, of John and

grounds for our conclusion, are We argue

Thomas

and every other person
has

in

whose case the experiment
person
rest.

been

fairly
is

tried,

are speaking
r

mortal

that [the like the

whom we We may indeed
of

pass through the stage of asserting that All men are not one iota is added mortal, but we need not do so to the proof by interpolating a general proposition.
:

Indeed, experience assures us, that as a matter of fact, we habitually do reason from particulars, without the All our interpolation of the general proposition.
"

*

earliest inferences are of this nature.

.

.

.

The

child,

who, having burnt

his fingers, avoids to thrust

them

&quot. Mill holds those look on it as useless. 5). The universal proposition shews us that &quot.&quot. the inference is finished when we have asserted that all men are mortal. From these considerations. Were we not to make use of it. (ibid. It which will justifies a single prediction. we might easily. The assertion of the universal pro position shows that the grounds on which we draw an inference in regard of some one individual. does the inference take place. where. while denying the claim of the syllogism to be a correct analysis of reasoning. has reasoned or inferred. are sufficient for us to infer the same conclusion in regard to any indi vidual. who. in cases in which we feel a special interest. 3). when we use the syllogism in argument ? Mill tells us that the whole of the inferential process is found in the assertion of the major premiss. Fire burns. but also to contain our inference from these facts. in certain attributes. : : If then. must be such as (ibid. 3). it may be asked. &quot. . But &quot. Nevertheless. give way to the natural inclination to draw a conclusion in accordance with our wishes.THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM (II) 197 again into the fire. though he has never thought of the general maxim. (ibid. to be mistaken. resembles the cases we have observed. He is not generalizing he is inferring a particular . is be performed afterwards remains to merely deciphering our What own notes &quot. The true and but ill concludes that the represented by the syllogistic Mill universal type of ratiocination thus Certain individuals have a be may expressed. who the experience. or individuals resemble an individual attribute given the former in certain other attributes therefore they resemble them also in this attribute. there is no inferential process in the descent from the major premiss to the conclusion. : from particulars &quot. A general proposition serves not merely to preserve in the memory the particular facts it records. The universal statement renders us cautious in our inferences. may bear out a general theorem well be that this general theorem . is reasoning process form. .

Prior II. while. but. asserting that all mammals breathe through But inference lungs. but with our knowledge of the facts. when we have erroneous to say that the whole inference is asserted the major premiss. (2) It is finished. When e. The Empiricist future. For unless I think of the two premisses together unless I make the syn thesis.198 is PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC manifestly untrue. 9. I may never reach the conclusion involved in them. . 1 1 Cf. has to do. past. The true universal pro we are not here concerned with the enumeraposition. through ignorance of the minor. c. not with the facts as they are in the real order. to the nature regarded in the abstract. And if I do not know that whales breathe through lungs. we discover our error by Our issues (1) : criticism on this theory shall be confined to three It is not the case that the universal proposition a mere record of individual facts. (for is tive judgments mentioned in i) relates. An.g. covered the fact that whales do so. and yet because I imagine that a whale is a fish. It may even happen that I know both the major and the minor premiss. I may have learnt that all mammals breathe through lungs. well The major premiss may be known to us. I may not be aware that whales breathe through lungs. in whom that nature is realized. 21. we may be unaware of the conclusion. and is to be found in any number of individuals. It is true that the major universal proposition. I certainly did not infer it when I made the assertion that all mammals breathe through lungs. Hence a reductio ad impossibile.. not to a collec tion of observed instances. we The cow is a ruminant/ we mean that the attribute ruminant belongs to the nature of the cow. and yet may be ignorant of the conclusion. as we have often said. school deny that we possess this power of intellectual abstraction. present or say. together with an inference to other particulars. By so doing they cut away the foundations of Logic.

has four terms. and 12 20 8. we shall find that a universal proposition is involved.-. We predicate the attribute Secondly. It is a truth relating to the real order. but a relation = = between two quantities. . as elsewhere. Here. not to the conceptual. We argue from one case to another.THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM (II) 199 (3) If we examine the nature of the inference. but it is not a canon governing the : inferential process itself. which tells us that is what its parts. . equal to DEF of the two subjects ABC and GHI. we base our conclu sion on these attributes. Mathematical Reasoning. Several recent logicians have maintained that much of the reasoning employed in mathematics is not syllogistic. common enough in geometry and in arithmetic : * . is not a canon of the syllogism. it is impossible that the axiom Things which are equal to the same thing. etc. 12 Here. But if this be required of us. predicated of the logical whole. 7 + 5=20 8. 7 + 5. etc. may be predicated of Doubtless. the process is clearly non-syllogistic. not three. In the first place the for data most certainly give us a subject-attribute relation this is inseparable from judgment.. That is to say. DEF. by which we pass from particulars to a conclusion about another particular which resembles them. 6. It is necessary to the inference. But this involves a universal proposition applicable to each and every case in which such attributes are present. The argument if carefully inspected. but the axiom Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. ABC. The mind has no more need of this than it has of reduction. As cases in point they allege inferences of the following character. And the principle on which the reasoning is based. Our data do not give us a subject-attribute relation. we find our ultimate justification in the Dictum. it is argued. We believe this view to be erroneous. plicit reference A canon of inference must have ex to the conceptual order. should be a principle of inference. The The The triangle triangle triangle ABC GHI GHI is is is equal to the triangle equal to the triangle equal to the triangle DEF. because they possess certain common attributes. the argu ment must be evolved in the form : . in practice we do not need so to arrange our data as to show how the argument is justified by its con formity with this canon.

as the case may be. Thomas. the syllogism have gone so far as to maintain that there is no such thing as non-syllogistic infer of ence. Art. Art. in which sense and intellect meet See Summa Theol. 1 * Mr. 2. Cardinal Newman has sane whole it but no form of a discussed this form certitude in the : But of inference at length in the Grammar of Assent. therefore A is north: : Thomas holds that as these inferences are solely concerned with particular they are effected by the vis cogitativa. But among the many inferences which we draw daily. The evidence taken as a may be sufficient to produce man would endeavour to state general law. It is emphatically the inference proper to scientific demonstration. When a jury. Q. II s Q. i. and GHI are equal to each other. They represent the syllogism as the only legiti mate form of reasoning. they but they do not employ syllogistic undoubtedly infer reasoning.200 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Any two quantities. ABC . 14.. the greater are not deductions from general principles they are conclusions drawn from one or more concrete facts. Bradley. r. the difference between the two forms of reasoning was familiar to St. and hold that whenever the mind infers. are equal to each other.. facts.. B is due west of C. ABC Some defenders 7. with the man s innocence.. and GHI (as being equal to DEF) are two quantities each of which is equal to the same third quantity. each of which is equal to the same third quantity. acquit or condemn a man accused of burglary. after weighing a mass of evidence. istic mark of the syllogism is that it is an inference a general principle. de Pot. They decide that these facts are compatible or incompatible. therefore A is to the right of C (2) A is due north of B. &quot. dealing with this question. gives the following as specimens of non-syllogistic inference (i) A is to the right of B. Inferences other than Syllogistic. and is carefully noted by him more than once. it must of necessity proceed syllogisticThis is certainly an exaggeration. II. B is to the right of C. . They form a critical estimate of what certain : : based on number particular facts involve. 1 St. The character ally.

THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

(II)

201

west of C, etc., etc. In regard to these, we believe him to be mistaken. It seems to be indubitable, that in these cases, as in the mathematical inferences considered in the last section, the

mind

relies

on an unexpressed, but self-evident

first principle.

locally to the right of an object, which is situated to the right of a third entity, is itself to the right of that entity, as that things which are equal to the same
It is as self-evident that

what

is

thing are equal to each other.
*
8.

by Mr. Bradley
extent
"

The view taken s theory of Inference. as to Universals (Ch. 8, 5) will have to some prepared the reader for his theory regarding the
Mr. Bradley
"

Inference," he tells closely connected question of inference. rests on the principle that what seems the same, is the us, same (Principles, p. 264). In virtue of this axiom, wherever
"

we have two premisses with a common term, we
effect

are able to

an

ideal construction,

which unites the two judgments
"

into an individual whole, and so permits the mind to pass to the assertion of a new relation. are two The premisses or more judgments, and the operation on these data will consist in joining them into a whole. We must fasten them together, so that they cease to be several, and are one construcThus instead of A B, B C, we tion, one individual whole. must have A B C (ibid., p. 236). If we are to construct, we must have identity of the terminal points. Thus in A B, B C, B is the same, and we connect A B C. The operation consists in the extension and enlargement of one datum by Havothers, by means of the identity of common links. ing thus turned our premisses into one whole we proceed to our conclusion by mere inspection. By inspection we discover and select a new relation, and this intuition is the conclusion. ... It is useless to lay down rules for either No models for construction can part of this process.
.

.

.

"

"

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

possibly be

invented"

*

(ibid.,

pp. 237-8).
differs in various respects

The view taken by Mr. Bosanquet
from Mr. Bradley
cess as a
s theory. construction. He

rejects the account of the pro however, at one with Mr. Bradley in holding that inference depends on a real identity shared by the various differences of a common universal. It is possible," he says, to proceed from content to content, because the world
is,
" "

He

as
1

known

consists of universals exhibited in differences,

and

Mr. Bradley s respect for the theory of the syllogism is small. He denies that a major premiss is necessary in inference. Begotten by an old metaphysical blunder, nourished by a senseless choice of examples, fostered by the stupid conservatism of logicians, this chimaera has had a good deal more
"

4

than
"

"

its

day."

The syllogism
say that a

itself like

Perhaps we
reasoning,
is

may

man who
much
in

the major premiss is a superstition." cannot use more than three terms in
"

unlikely to do

any subject

(Principles, pp. 228-9).

202

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

the contents from which and to which we proceed, are not shut up within their respective selves, but depend on a pervading identical character or universal, of which they are the
differences" (Logic, II., p. 2). The simplest example of an inference through a universal he finds in the syllogism in which the middle term is a proper name, as when we argue that since

Socrates is both good and a Greek, therefore a Greek may be 1 good (ibid. p. 200). As we have already pointed out, this view that things which can be brought under the same universal are united by a per vading identity, is based on the confusion of the real and con

ceptual order. In the real order the things are similar, not identi cal. But in virtue of the abstractive power of the intellect, we can prescind from individual varieties and represent them by a common concept. This universal concept enables us to make statements valid in regard to all objects to which it may be applied, and thus provides us with a basis for inference.
1 The reader will not need to be reminded that the Scholastic authors denied that there was any inferential process in these syllogismi expositorii see p.
:

190, note.

CHAPTER

XIII.

HYPOTHETICAL AND DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS.
i. Mixed Hypothetical Syllogisms. Syllogisms, in which one or both of the premisses are hypothetical If propositions, are termed hypothetical syllogisms. both premisses are of this character, the syllogism is known as a Pure Hypothetical. This is of far less im The portance than the Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism. latter is defined as a syllogism, in which the major premiss is a hypothetical proposition, and the minor premiss a

affirming the antecedent or denying the consequent of the major. The following formulas show the character of the reasoning : in Ex. in Ex. 2, the consequent I, the antecedent is affirmed
categorical proposition either
;

is

denied.

Ex.

i.

If

.-.

B, not D. C is is not B. is .-. A The affirmation of the antecedent, and the consequent constitute the two moods
is it
is

Ex.

2.

If

.

.

A A A A A A

is

is
is

B, B.

it

is

D. or

If

A A
C

is is
is is

B, B.

C

is

D.

D.
D. or

.-.

D.
B, C is D. not D. not B. the denial of of the mixed as the modus

If

A

is

These are known hypothetical syllogism. the constructive ponens (or hypothetical syllogism), and the modus tollens (or the destructive hypothetical syllogism)
:

respectively, these names being derived from the canon of the syllogism, which is thus stated To posit the antecedent is to posit the consequent ; and to sublate the consequent is to sublate the antecedent. 1
It is

more convenient
ponitur

to

employ the terms
:

posit

and
tollitur

1 Posito antecedente antecedens.

consequens
J03

sublato

consequente

204

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

affirm and deny. sublate, in this connexion, than For the antecedent may contain a negative and in this case the proposition positing it, will also be of negative
;

of negative propositions as affirma This feature is illus only cause confusion. trated by the following syllogism, If the doctor is not skilful, he will cause this

quality.

To speak

tions, could

patient

much

pain.

not skilful. /.He will cause this patient much pain. Here we posit the antecedent by a negative sentence. It is further to be observed that when the consequent is denied, the conclusion will be the contradictory, not the contrary, of the antecedent it denies. Thus in the
is

He

syllogism,

we

men were actuated by the highest motives, the sanction of punishment would be unnecessary. The sanction of punishment is not unnecessary can only conclude that Some men are not actuated
If all
;

by the highest motives.

It

would be

fallacious to argue

that none are so actuated.
liable.

There are two fallacies to which these syllogisms are These are (i) the fallacy of denying the ante

From
it

cedent, and (2) the fallacy of affirming the consequent. the fact that the antecedent can be denied, we
:

cannot conclude to the falsity of the consequent for well but be that the same result take may place, may owing to some other cause. I cannot argue thus If his rifle is damaged, he will fail to hit the bull s:

eye.

not damaged. fail to hit the bull s-eye. Similarly, to assert the truth of the consequent affords us no ground for concluding to the truth of the ante
rifle is

His

/.He

will

not

cedent.
If

We cannot, for instance, argue the novel possesses real literary merit,

it

will

be

It will
.*.

widely read. be widely read.

It possesses real literary merit.

HYPOTHETICAL AND DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS
This fallacy has, at
all

205
fre

times, been one of the

most

old ordinary reasonings. Cucullus non warns us monachum, that, facit proverb, though it is safe to argue that because a man is a monk, he will wear a habit, there is risk of error, when we con

quent

pitfalls in

men s

The

clude

if

he wears a habit, therefore he must needs be a

fallacy of denying the antecedent is often said to be equivalent to illicit process of the major, and that of affirming the consequent to undistributed middle.
It is in fact the case, that

monk. The

Barbara
fallacies

syllogism
of

as

a

express the major of a hypothetical judgment, the
if

we

illicit major and undistributed middle will be thus represented. For example, Every man is a bird is This is a man, will this a bird /. biped biped If anything is a man, it is a biped this bird become, is a biped This bird is a man. But it cannot be said there is any real equivalence. The error in thought is not the same. Moreover the transformed categorical
; :

:

:

.

.

is only in appearance a hypothetical syllogism. has no true right to the name for the minor affirm the contains a term bird, which is not ing consequent, found in the major. In the true hypothetical, the minor introduces no new terms.

syllogism
It

:

Several logicians of eminence, amongst others Kant, Hamilton and Bain, have held that the mixed hypothetical syllogism is an Immediate and not a Mediate Inference. The reason for this view, is that in the hypothetical we have only two distinct Hence it has clauses, both of which appear in the major.

been argued that the true mode of stating the
syllogism
is,

hypothetical

If
.-.

A

A is B, being B,

C is D. C is D.

is

The judgment A is B, not part of the conclusion, but is one of the data. From the conditional statement, If the afternoon prove fine I shall go for a walk, we cannot draw as a conclusion the judgment that The afternoon is fine. The data of the syllogism are two in
The view cannot be maintained.
number, and neither Pure Hypothetical
is

sufficient alone.

Syllogism.

In

the

Pure

Hypothetical

206

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

hypothetical.

Syllogism, as has already been observed, all the propositions are The argument is of the form
:

If

C

is is
is

If
.-.

If

A A

D, E B, C
B,

is is is

F.

D.
F.

E

Since the hypothetical proposition admits no variety as re gards quantity or quality, but is necessarily both affirmative

and

singular, this syllogism has

but one form and no more.

2. In Reduction of Hypothetical Syllogisms. these syllogisms, the modus ponens may without diffi culty be reduced to the modus tollens, and vice versa.

All that

required is to substitute the negation of the consequent for the antecedent, and the negation of the antecedent for the consequent. Thus,
is

If

Modus ponens A is B, C is D, may be expressed

If

Modus tollens C is not D, A

is

not B. A is B. A is B. .-. C is D. .-. C is D. It will be seen that the second form is a true Modus C is contradicts the tollens, since the conclusion of the antecedent major premiss.
>/

Reduction to categorical form. It is sometimes said that all these syllogisms can be reduced to categorical In regard to this point, the essential difference form. between the two classes of proposition must be borne The categorical proposition gives us two con in mind. cepts related as subject and attribute ; the hypothe tical proposition gives us two judgments related not as subject and attribute as a thing and its determina It may safely tion, but as reason and consequent. be said that to express the one in terms of the other, is to do violence to our thought. This appears plainly in the following example. If the opium habit is innocuous, the whole medical faculty is deluded. The whole medical faculty is not deluded. .-. The opium habit is not innocuous. A syllogism of this character cannot naturally be

HYPOTHETICAL AND DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS
expressed as a categorical.

207
is

The
:

result,

it

is

true,

sometimes achieved, as follows

The

case of the

opium habit being innocuous

is

a

case of the whole medical faculty being deluded. The case of the whole medical faculty being deluded

a supposition not to be admitted. case of the opium habit being innocuous is a supposition not to be admitted. But it is rightly urged that the altered major premiss has no meaning, unless it is translated back into its hypothetical significance. The latter clause does not
is

/.

The

really

express an attribute of the former. The mind must understand the two clauses as reason and conse

quent, whatever be the clumsy phraseology we elect to Hence, there is here no reduction properly so called. The mental process remains the same. It

employ.

is

the words only that have been changed.

result of the

change

is

And the thoroughly misleading, since it

induces us to regard as identical, processes which are

fundamentally
3.

distinct.

The Disjunctive Syllogism,

(a)

Import

of the

Dis

Before explaining the disjunctive junctive Judgment. be said as to the import of the a word must syllogism, This disjunctive judgment. point could not be conven
iently treated in Ch. 7, where the import of categoricals and hypothetical was discussed for, as we have seen (Ch. 10, 5), one form of the disjunctive expresses the relation of the genus to its constituent species, and in
:

consequence, cannot be understood till the nature of that relation has been explained. The disjunctive proposition is of two kinds. One may be termed the In it the subject is a Disjunctive of Logical Division. while the generic whole, predicate is formed by the dis of enumeration the subordinate parts. This junctive form of the judgment has been discussed sufficiently The other kind may be termed the Disjunctive already. In this we affirm that one out of two (or of Ignorance.

more) predicates which we enumerate, belongs to the

208

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

subject.

Our knowledge is sufficient for us to assert that the truth lies with one of these alternatives, but we do not know with which e.g. This curve is either
:

a
is

circle or

an

ellipse,

very stupid. not the logical whole but a subordinate part. It is the function of the predicate to express the whole, as in the categorical sentence but we are in doubt to which of two logical wholes the subject should be re
:

In

either very thoughtful or disjunctives of this class the subject
is

He

ferred. 1

Logicians have disputed as to whether in a disjunctive judgment the members of the disjunction are mutually In other words, when we assert 5 is P or exclusive.

do we intend to exclude the supposition that some In regard particular 5 may be both at the same time ? to the first class of disjunctives, the mutual exclusiveness The species must be distinguished is quite evident. from each other. But in regard to the disjunctives of ignorance, it would seem that the mere form of the propo If I say He sition gives us no assurance on the point. be must very clever or very painstaking, I can hardly
Q,

be understood to exclude the supposition that the person in question may be both. Often however the members
of the disjunction are The horse was either
:

mutual exclusion form as such. This may be defined as (b) The Disjunctive Syllogism. a syllogism in which the major premiss is a disjunctive proposition, and the minor a categorical proposition, either affirming or denying one member of the opposition. It is to be noted that this syllogism has no application in regard to the first of the two forms of disjunctive
proposition.
It
is

formed by repugnant terms, e.g. Here we have bay or chestnut. but it is not due to the disjunctive

concerned with the Disjunctive of

The argument has two moods, called respectively the modus ponendo tollens and the modus tollendo ponens. The affirmation in the minor premiss
Ignorance alone.
1

The form Either A

is

B, or

C

is

D,

is

also a case

of the

Disjunction of

Ignorance.

209

one of the two alternatives, gives us the modus ponendo the denial of an alternative, the modus tollendo ponens. The following formulas illustrate these cases
of
tollens
: :

Modus ponendo tollens. S is either P or Q. 5 is P. /. 5 is not Q.

.

.

Modus tollendo S is either P 5 is not P. S is Q.

ponens. or Q.

The modus ponendo tollens is only valid in those cases, in which the members of the disjunction are known to be mutually exclusive. Otherwise it would be impos
sible

to conclude

to the absence of the other.
is

from the presence of one alternative The modus tollendo ponens

always valid.

The Dilemma is an argument 4. The Dilemma. which both the hypothetical and the disjunctive judgment are employed. It is defined as an argument in which the major premiss is a compound hypothetical In actual proposition, and the minor a disjunctive.
in

use the disjunctive

is

often placed

first.

Its chief

ance arises from

its

effectiveness as a rhetorical

import weapon.

The

disjunctive apparently exhausts the alternatives open to the adversary and the hypothetical, which
;

follows,

shows that each one of them leads him to an

unwelcome conclusion. Hence it is not surprising that this argument was first analysed and explained by
rhetoricians. 1

Where
:

have the Trilemma

where

three alternatives are offered, we Like four, the Tetralemma.
it

other hypothetical syllogisms

has a constructive and a

destructive form, according as the disjunctive proposition affirms that one of the antecedents must be true, or that

one of the consequents must be

false.

Moreover both

Constructive, the of the two clauses are identical. consequents hypothetical In the Complex Constructive they are different. It is

the Constructive and the Destructive Simple or Complex. In the Simple

Dilemma may be

no question

manifest that in a Constructive Dilemma, there can be of the antecedents being identical for
:

1

See Ueberweg,

123.

P

and is is Z). F G is F : and if C Either is D. is #. is (4) Complex Destructive. If A C is is B. and consequently can pay heavily to the king. E is is is F H.210 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC so. the . .. cedent the Complex Destructive has two. D. 5. Whichever alternative is selected. notorious agent of Henry VII. on the other hand.gt. He is rich. his savings must have made him very rich if. if Either . or G is #. as the reader will remember. he maintains a large household. Either Either If yl is is A (3) Simple Destructive. G is H. the opposite The Simple Destructive has but one ante is the case. The following formulas show their varieties . . But either he lives at a small rate. or G is not H. Either E not F. . B. and if D. . or he maintains a large expenditure. This piece of reasoning was known. A is C : is E If is F. as Empson s fork. or C is F.. the result is equally disagreeable. is not F. (i) We may structive Dilemma find a suitable illustration of the Simple Con in the argument by which Empson. is is (2) Complex Constructive. Either A is not B. his expenditure proves him to be : : wealthy. E is F. or : and D. G . or G . A C B. . is said to have always been able to prove that his victim was capable of paying a large amount into the treasury If the accused lives at a small rate. speaks of a man as being impaled on the horns of a dilemma. or C is not Z&amp. which is a striking parallel to the which expression. B. they could not be disjunctively asserted In the destructive form. The argument leaves no escape. a name. A not H. were they in the minor. is not B. . E is F E is F. . If ^4 5. : (1) Simple Constructive.

the denial of one or other of them in the minor premiss would not necessarily involve the falsity of the antecedent. If they are guilty of crimes. your refusal to permit a public may : enquiry is irrational if they have committed no offence. Hamilton. he would see the worthlessness of his arguments if he were honest. that were the two consequents alternatives. not disjunctive If A is : B. or E is F.HYPOTHETICAL AND DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS (2) 211 As an example of the Complex Constructive Dilemma.. C is not D. he would own himself wrong. . But either he will not escape Scylla. Thomson. A is not B. C is D and E is JFV The reason for this is. But either he does not see that his arguments are worthless or seeing it. or he will not escape Charybdis.-. in which the consequents are disjunctive. or not. (4) This example of the Complex Destructive Dilemma is given by some authors If he were intelligent.g. F. the consequent is copulative. it is unjust to punish them. . this It should however be noticed is^not a true dilemma. . . Either he is wanting in intelligence. Your conduct is either irrational or unjust. he will not own himself in the wrong. either C is D. be constructed. . will not pass the straits unharmed. that not a few logicians (e. which postulates a dis junctive minor premiss as essential to the argument. nor is E. According to our definition. neither justice nor reason have weighed much with the persecutors of the Church. He : . (3) The following may serve to illustrate the Simple Destruc . The student will observe that the premiss of the Simple Destructive form differs in a material point from the Simple Constructive. or he is dishonest. he must escape both Scylla and Charybdis. . tive : If he would pass the straits unharmed. In the Destructive Dilemma. Unfortunately from the days of Nero to the days of Clemenceau. . and both are denied in the minor B. we take Tertullian s argument against the methods employed by Marcus Aurelius in his persecution of the Christians Either the Christians have committed crimes. UeberIf A is . An argument : can. of course.

212

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

weg,

etc.), hold it to be such, and adopt a different defini tion of the argument. Thus Mr. Joseph (Introd. to Logic, p. 331) defines the dilemma as "an argument offering

alternatives, and proving something against an adversary in either case." The point is not of first-class

importance. We have preferred the view, which re quires the disjunctive minor premiss, since the separate treatment of this argument seems to demand that its form should be one and the same in all its varieties.

We have already called 5. Answering the Dilemma. attention to the great value of the Dilemma to the rhetorician. It is, therefore, not surprising that attention
should have been paid to the manner in which it should be answered. Three ways of dealing with it are enu

merated
(1)

:

Taking
it

it

by the horns.

Here the person against
offered

whom

is

brought,

accepts the alternatives

him, but shows that they do not involve the consequents
attributed to
in the major. Where this is shown one of the alternatives, he is said to take the dilemma by one horn. Thus, in the Complex Destructive given in the last section, the controversialist against whom such a dilemma was urged, would probably reply that he would willingly admit himself to be intel ligent, but that it by no means followed he would recog

them

in respect of only

nize his arguments as invalid he knew them to be valid.
(2)

:

that,

on the contrary,

Escaping between the horns. This is the method adopted, when it is shown that the disjunction is not complete, and that another alternative remains. For example, suppose it to be pointed out to some man, that he must vote either for the conservative or the liberal candidate in some election, and that in either case he would materially injure his business prospects

by giving

offence to a section of his clients.

He might

it might reply that there was yet another happen that he would be enjoying a well earned holiday

possibility, for

abroad at the time of the

election.

HYPOTHETICAL AND DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS
(3)

213

Rebutting the Dilemma.
is

be rebutted, when reply
in

which the

The Dilemma is said to made by another Dilemma, same alternatives are taken, but are shown

to involve consequents fatal to the original argument. It is, for instance, not difficult to construct a rebutting argument to meet Empson s fork.
If

the accused lives at a small rate, his economy is if he has maintained evidence of his poverty
:

a large expenditure, that must needs have im poverished him. But either he lives at a small rate, or has main
tained a large expenditure.

/.He To

is poor and is incapable of paying much to the king. rebut the argument, the two consequents are trans

posed, and their quality changed.

Where the
is

original

Dilemma
If

gives us,

A

is

B,

E
is

is

F
is

;

and

if

C
is

But
.
.

either

A
is

B, or

C

D, D.

G

is

H.

Either
If

E
B,

the

new argument

A

is

G

F, or G is H, of the form, is not and if

H

:

C

is

D,

E

is

not

JP.

But
.-.

either

A

is

B, or

C

is is

D.
not F.

Either

G

is

not H, or

E

their

or two celebrated dilemmas of the ancients still retain fame as par excellence the classical examples of this argu It is re ment. Of these, the best known is the Litigiosus.

One

lated that Protagoras the Sophist agreed to train one Euathlus in the art of rhetoric, the condition being that only half the fee

should be paid at the time

:

the

payment

of the

remainder was

to depend on Euathlus s success in his first law-suit. Should he Euathlus delayed to undertake fail, the fee was to be forfeited.

any

suit,

before

and eventually Protagoras himself summoned him the court. He urged the following dilemma against

him

:

.

.

decided in my favour, you must pay me by if it is decided in your favour, you order of the court must pay me under the terms of our agreement. But it must be decided either in my favour, or in your favour. You are in any case bound to pay me.
If this case is
:

214

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

This argument was met by Euathlus as follows: If the case is decided in your favour, I am free by the terms of the agreement if it is decided in my favour, I am free by order of the court. But it must either be decided in your favour, or in my favour.
:

.-.

knotty question should be solved, is still dubious. it should be said that this case was not contemplated Perhaps, by the terms of the original compact, and should have been But various solutions to the dealt with independently of it. puzzle have been suggested. The judges, we are told, left the
case undecided. 1
1

I am in How this

any case discharged

of

my

debt.

For a

list

authorities

of the more famous of such dilemmas with references to the where they are found, vide Hamilton, Logtc, I. 466.

CHAPTER

XIV.

INDUCTION.
Induction. In the chapters on the Categorical Syllogism, we dealt at some length with the subject of deductive reasoning. saw how it is
i.

The Nature

of

We

the process
principle to
principle.
all,

by which the mind passes from a general
a particular case, which falls under that In order, therefore, to employ Deduction at

the

universal truth.

mind must have reached the knowledge of some The question now arises, how do we

come to the knowledge of these general truths. We must reply to this enquiry, by drawing a distinction between such as are analytic, and such as are synthetic in character. The source of our universal analytic In these pro judgments need cause us no difficulty positions the necessary, and therefore universal, con nexion of subject and predicate, appears on the analysis of the notions themselves. Every object of which the
.

subject can be affirmed, is necessarily such that of it the predicate too can be affirmed. Thus, for instance, when ever we can term a figure a regular hexagon, we can
It is also affirm that each of its angles equals 120. with the other class of general truths, with those namely

that are synthetic, that Induction, the subject of our In these judgments present chapter, is concerned. the predicate is found to belong to the subject not by

Induc the analysis of the notions, but by experience. tion is the legitimate inference of universal laws from individual cases. Here, it at once appears, there is a problem for solu
tion.

Our experience

is

limited

to

a comparatively

216

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

number of individual cases. Yet in many instances, we hold ourselves justified in asserting a universal law of nature, which embraces not merely the cases we have observed, but all other members of the same class. We
small

say that

floats in water,

diamonds are combustible, All potassium though in each of these cases the number of instances observed is infinitesimal compared with the full number of which the assertion is made. It may even happen that the carefully tested observation
All

of a single case is held sufficient to justify a universal conclusion of the kind to which we refer.

Every law

of nature

may

be viewed as expressing a

relation of cause

and

effect.

Now, when

is it

that after

the examination of a few instances in which a certain effect is found to occur, we hold ourselves justified in
asserting a universal law attributing this effect to a certain cause ? It is when we are certain that we are

giving the name of cause to that which is in fact the reason of the effect, and not to some circumstance, which

although in these instances it is found in connexion with the effect, is not itself the true reason why the effect
occurs.

When we have
which the

in virtue of

effect is

discovered the precise quality produced, we say with

confidence that, given these circumstances, this quality Thus to take a will always have this same result.
familiar example, a few experiments with

hydrogen and

oxygen
not in

satisfy us that these elements produce water, virtue of anything peculiar to the individual

instances, but simply because of their character as and we have no hesitation in hydrogen and oxygen holding that they will always produce water. The logical process by which we pass to this universal conclusion is purely abstractive. Should a result a be produced, we endeavour to determine the particular and then characteristic A, by which it is effected
:
:

neglecting all that belongs to the instances simply as This individuals, we affirm that A as such produces a. is very different from saying that a concrete object,

which among many other qualities has the quality A,

INDUCTION
is

217

For we abstract one quality, namely and we assert that it is from this that others, a proceeds. But by the very fact that A is thus ab it is stracted, it is no longer conceived as individual
the cause of
a.

A

from

all

:

the object of a universal concept. Our statement is not that this particular A is the cause of a, but that the
nature A is such, that (given similar circumstances to Thus in the those under review), it has a as its effect. instance cited, we say that hydrogen and oxygen as

such produce water. This process is not ratiocinative. We do not argue from premisses to conclusion. Our

work

is

the non-essential, causal relation. 1

done when we have separated the essential from when we have discovered the- true

The difficulty of Induction may thereiore be said to be practical rather than logical. The logical inference to a universal conclusion, does not admit a variety of forms, such as the moods and figures of the syllogism.
But
as the history of science
is

may tell

us, the discovery

of universal laws

no easy matter.

The complexity

of the physical order is prodigious : the circumstances which affect the operation of natural causes, are so

multifarious, and their accurate determination sur rounded by so many difficulties, that the progress of human knowledge is slow, and its victories won at the

prolonged toil. We may illustrate the diffi determining a causal relation by an example. Let us suppose that a certain herb produces favourable results on patients suffering from a particular illness. Can it therefore be assumed that the plant possesses definite curative properties in regard to that illness ? May there not be something peculiar to the constitution of the patients in question, owing to which the result
cost
of
culties of
1

1 Cf. Ueberweg, The formation of valid inductions is very closely 129. related to the formation of notions according to their essential attributes. For a great number of properties and relations stand in a causal nexus with the essential attributes of the object of which the notion is formed : on this causal nexus depends the validity of the induction. From this comes the logical right to refer properties to the whole species which have been observed
"

.

.

.

in single individuals of a species, in so far as

they are not evidently conditioned

by mere individual

relations."

218
is

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC
?

produced

Even granted

that

it

in this region the results are invariably favourable, we be sure that the relation between the medicine

can be shewn that can

and

the ailment would be the same in a different climate ? Further, is the result due to the plant as such, or can we discover some special constituent in it, to which and
to which alone the curative effect should be attributed
?

Even an example

us how undertake to separate what is essential from what is non-essential in a physical process. It is often stated that Induction depends altogether on the great principle of the Uniformity of Nature, to the consideration of which our next chapter will be devoted. This principle may be stated as follows All relations of cause and effect are constant and uniform ; or in other words, The same cause will under the same
:

so simple as this, will suffice to show difficult is the problem before us, when we

circumstances always produce the same effect ; and reci procally effects of the same kind are the results of the same
,

The logicians who tell us that Induction depends this principle, usually signify that it is actually em ployed in the inferential process by which we arrive at
cause.

on

our universal conclusion. They assert that the Uni formity of Nature is the major premiss of all Induction, and that our conclusion is reached by a syllogism of
the following type
:

Every relation of causality is constant. A and a in the instances examined, are related as cause and effect. .*. The relation between A and a as cause and effect
is

constant. 1
It is

easy to see that this explanation is erroneous. in this syllogism is itself the statement of a universal law. For if, when it is said that in the instances examined A is the cause of a, it be still left

The minor premiss

He denies that it is strictly speaking particular in the premiss, and universal in the conclusion. This distinction, however, depends on the manner of formu i. lation. Cf. Mill, Logic, Bk. III. c. 3, Bain, Induction, Logique, p. 149.
This formula
is

1

given by Rabier.

syllogistic, since the

minor term

is

C. 2,

I.

INDUCTION

219

uncertain whether a was really due to A as such or to some other circumstance peculiar to the individual instance, we have no ground for a universal conclusion.

The meaning must therefore be that A as such is the a. But when this is asserted, we have already left the individual instance far behind, and have by
cause of
abstraction reached our universal law.

The
ity of sense.

assertion that Induction depends

on the Uniform

Nature
It

may however

be understood in another

may

we have
will
is

the guarantee
fact.

merely signify that in that principle, that our universal judgment

be verified in

Our judgment that A
little,

as such

the cause of a, would help us but further knew that in the real order the

unless

we

same cause does the same effect. The principle actually always produce
corresponds to the logical process. Just as in our act of abstraction we judge that the universal nature A is intrinsically connected with a, so the metaphysical

whatever that

principle assures us all ^4 s may be.

must produce the same effect,

must not be thought that the principle the canon of Induction in the sense in Uniformity which the Dictum de Omni is the canon of deductive

Once

again,

it

of

is

It does not reply to the question, How does reasoning. the mind pass to the conclusion that the nature A is necessarily connected with the effect a ? ; but to the

question,

Does the same
?

real cause

always produce the

same

belongs to a different order to the order of things, and not to the order of thought.
effect

It

2.

Cause and Condition.

The

last section

has shewn

every induction depends upon the accurate determination of cause and effect. It is not possible to lay down a universal law, until we have discovered the
that,

us

precise nature of the relation in the case with are dealing. Yet here a difficulty meets us.

which we How can

we, considering the complexity of Nature, say what is the cause of any phenomenon, and what is not ? As I write at my table, can I really say what is the cause of

220

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC

I form on the paper ? I the cause ? May not the paper manufacturer, or the maker of pens, or the carrier who brings me my materials, all claim to be the cause ? Could I write, if it were not for the laws of gravity ? Must we, in fine, own that it is a hopeless task to fix on anything special, as the cause par excellence of a certain effect, or is it possible to distinguish between cause and condition ? How are we to define a Cause ? Many and various are the definitions offered us. One that is given by Dr.

the letters

Am

Thomson (Laws of Thought, p. 218), seems to come very near what we really signify by that term. We mean," he says, the of cause of a the sum the facts by thing,
" "

to which it owes its being." definition practically identical with this, was in fact frequently employed by the Scholastics. But since this formula is, as will appear,
it seems preferable to avail ourselves of another expression having the same signifi cance, and define a cause as that which makes a thing to

A

open to a certain ambiguity,

be what it is. 1 Let us consider our definition as it is verified in the four causes enumerated in Ch. 10, 2. Once again the will of the statue serve our purpose. Most example the we that final cause the assuredly, may say (i) has made it for which the statue was carved purpose it is. Its characteristics are determined what special in reference to this. The statuary will make it in a different manner, if he intends it to fill a niche over an altar, and if he intends it to stand on a column fifty feet high. Of (2) the efficient cause the statuary himself it is hardly necessary to speak. Every detail of the and his carving is his work. His brain conceived it it is. Simi hand executed it. He too has made it what If larly, in regard to (3) and (4), the intrinsic causes. made of a different material, it would be something
;

1

The cause

is

defined as

Id quod

influit esse in rem,

and as

Id quo

res
;

id quod est. for that which
est
it is.

The two definitions may be rightly regarded as equivalent makes a thing to be, is the same as that which makes it what
of

No

agent can be the cause

the existence, which

is

not also the cause

of the nature.

is a condition rather than a cause. which consideration will is show us that there between the way in which the object owes exercises istics. in the case of the ship we have to do with an agency which does not make the object what it is. a great difference its being to the ship or to the skilled workman. the application of certain chemical agents would have had the same result. A condition is that which in one way or another effect. no determining effect on its special character to do this. the statue would be qualitatively identical. in the state required for the exercise of the causa- . for instance. Yet a very little It is. If. percussion. the be said to owe its being to other agencies. My action merely put the forces. but is one special kind of condition.INDUCTION : 221 while its dependence different from what we now see on the formal cause is yet more intimate. But : condition. The same result might have been There produced question. without causing the least difference in the characteristics of the Granted that similar marble can be obtained statue. is the distinctive mark of a cause there is not a single characteristic of the statue which has not been received from one of its causes. Of the form. it is quite true that the friction by which I light the flame. may it be said that it makes the statue what it is. enables the causes to act in the production of the which does not make the thing what it is. in England. Some other mode of convey ance might have been substituted for the ship. I strike a match. but a characteristics to it. and they are its causes only in so far as they communicate these The ship is not a cause. which merits mention since the name of cause is often applied separate to it. statue may . the case that in various ways. in many ways its does not owe a sure sign that the effect characteristics to those of the action in Heat. that were present in the match. A ship brought the marble from Italy an English workman did the rough-nobbling. of course. even more than of the matter. whether the block came thence or from Italy. In other words. and to the four causes we have specified.

To this it must be Sometimes replied. which set free these forces. They are in no sense the origin of the effect. In virtue of this a such as this. 596. Mttaphysique des Causes. For instance. since it communicated the impulse. condition. is not character. Man has to fasten on Nature as best he can. Yet undoubtedly this act has a special character. that it is not in all cases the same. But the method of communication remained a problem for science to the determining cause was discovered in the insects that pass from one plant to resolve. 207.&quot. which of the various causes we have enumerated. 2 Often indeed. B.222 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC tive powers they possessed. pp. . knows more about present facts than about past causes and when he knows causes. fertilization takes place by the communication of pollen from one plant to another. p. without having discovered the affinity so-called. Strong). it had long been known a body force is of chemical : that in unisexual plants. is the object of inductive investigation. and very frequently it happens. originative without reason known as the determining cause (causa . 3. as when the chemist knows the elements out of which composed. by T. requisite for one reason or another as does this one. 129. nervous. Other conditions may be but they do not. what we wish to discover is the deter mining cause. Lectures on the Method of Science (ed. the knowledge of one cause. it is sometimes the efficient cause. as in where we know for what end we act. without morals. is . He . sometimes the material cause. determinant)}It may be asked. sometimes that of another. The Aim of Inductive Enquiry. as in the mechanics of the forces by which bodies act on one another . the voluntary. As Professor Case has well put it. by which they it sometimes compose again the final cause. &quot. set in motion the whole process. and musfully understanding cular forces by which we perform our actions. important to us that Nature has only put the knowledge of one cause within our reach. 5. till 1 1 De R6gnon.

induce a general proposition. The pre 4. unless the railway were such as to bring the neighbourhood into connexion with some populous centre. if we desire to prevent the spread of some epidemic. is the cause of the increase in the value of land. it is hoped. given the reader a clear notion as to the object of inductive investigation. 223 When our search is motived by a practical end. in which the mind recog between a cause and its effect. and after considering a few concrete cases of the causality in question. etc. that there is no difference. may be applied to any one of the antecedent conditions. we are able without hesitation to abstract the relation and thus from the particular nizes a relation . signification. in which this recognition is easy. It is is Colloquially.INDUCTION another. We must now examine the way. scientifically speaking. ceding sections have. Thus. We say a . in all such cases. Inductive enquiry is not concerned with causes in this popular sense and we must be on our guard against confusing the word as thus colloquially employed. as how to bring it about. it the determining cause. in the absence of place. There are certain cases. rather than any other.. the knowledge of the determining cause may be of far greater moment to us than that of the causes properly so-called : for what we desire to know is not so much the inner nature of the phenomenon. between cause and condition. and on to lay stress. instances.. Recognition of the Causal Relation. etc. the word cause is used in a loose sense. or how to prevent it. to increase the productivity of soil. with its more accurate It is the failure to draw this distinction. which the object of the scientist s search. which the event would not have taken which for some reason it may be desirable We say that the construction of a railway in the neighbourhood. But the mere construction of the railway would not in itself increase the value. . which alone has given plausibility to the erroneous assertion contained in not a few works on Logic. for instance.

I see my do not pass to my conclusion by a syllogism. . and judge that as often yielding material. It recognizes the relation between the shape of the foot as cause. the nature of the relation which united the malady and its cause of its minuteness.). and induces a universal law that wherever this cause operates. it will make the same mark. but in the fact of the coincidence only the repetition evidently adds much to the value of the coincidence. The Abbe Hatty lets fall a piece of quartz. whether there may not be some error in our observation. this effect must follow. 431. Here too. though only occurring once. I see the impression made by as I my foot step on this I on the sand. The cause of malarial because was discovered in a special microbe. : . 1 induction of this kind. if. it immediately became evident how the illness followed from its cause. foot make and leave its impression. When it was known what havoc this minute creature worked among the blood-corpuscles. conclusion. The knot then is not in the repetition itself. In the knowledge of this causal relation. fever long escaped observation But as soon as its origin was evident. a thousand cases. &quot. and the activity of this microbe in the body had been studied. Were we convinced that we had avoided It is an this danger. the mind abstracts the rela tion. . p.. . for ordinarily a single instance leaves us in doubt. it has the ground for a universal . and and it knows the the shape of the impression as effect one as determined by the other. . so much did his feelings recoil from causing animals to suffer. Bell would not repeat the famous experiment that established the difference between the motor and sensory nerves.224 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC few cases. Janet. 1 Great scientists rarely mistake the worth of a significant fact. he concludes that he has discovered a law of nature. and the mind immediately that recognizes in the concrete substance. one instance would suffice us. for instance. Final Causes (English trans. even when the action is of a less simple character than in the case just described. and merely by observing the So in fracture.. It is said that Sir C. We are often able to understand the nature of the causal relation the reason why such an effect should follow from such a cause.&quot. precise quality its external form in virtue of which it produces an effect of similar form.

Why. usually the case. the intellect recognizes and abstracts the universal rela tion. first liquefy.INDUCTION 225 Yet there are a vast number of cases. and the result : we syn is water. considered as the cause of the There is no resemblance between resulting compound. then thicken. Again. before the law is looked on as established. we must not be thought to mean the singular fact as perceived by sense. We analyse water. not been deceived If nature of the experiment. In the singulars which sense perceives. even more than where the nature of the causal relation is recognized. remains altogether concealed from us. and water on the hydrogen oxygen The properties of the effect bear no likeness to other. and on the one side. It we have. and in which therefore the causal relation cannot be recognized. that a number of experiments is necessary. merely a guarantee that in the It is preliminary to it. In saying that our knowledge in these cases relates not to the reason of the causal connexion but to the fact. should galena crystals be cubical while quartz crystallizes in hexagonal prisms ? Why should gold resist the action of solvents. the properties of the cause. and hydrogen and oxygen are found thesize hydrogen and oxygen. we cannot hope to discover any reason to account for the properties possessed by the different natural substances. for instance. But why such a cause should produce such a We must result. our experience assures us as to the fact of the rela tion. which are efficacious against other metals ? Why should sulphur. But here too the repetition is not itself it is is part of the logical process. This is especially noticeable in regard to physical constituents. The fact here is recognized by the intellect. be content to know the bare fact that such and such things are causes of such and such effects. In thus determining experimentally a causal connexion. as it is recognized in these examples. when heated. for instance we . in which we can see no reason why a particular effect should follow rather than some other. and then liquefy again ? In all these cases.

but of hydrogen and oxygen of these elements viewed in abstraction from as such. individualizing conditions. The manifestation the tyro. recognize that the suggestion contained in the evidence. The value of the instances to produce conviction will depend almost entirely on the intellect which considers Evidence which to the untrained mind has no meaning. We can do no more than describe in general outline the principal ways in which evidence of a causal . will reveal with certainty a universal law to one who is already versed in the subject under considera An investigator of this kind sees the evidence in tion. or he may see that either it or they must be may of the universal law by the be made to depend altogether cannot particular case. with a view to establishing for the first time the universal truth that these are the causes of water. in order to satisfy ourselves that no other ingredient but hydrogen and oxygen was present in our synthesis. We assert that . the light of a hundred facts previously known. causally related to water not of the individual particles of hydrogen and oxygen with which we experimented. When once we are satis fied that the fact is as we conceive it. that the result was not due to something peculiar to the individual case. then we proceed to our induction. It depends also on the mind to which it is presented. we should repeat the experiment under a variety of circumstances. It will follow from what has been said that it is sible for us to give a canon or a series of canons. hydrogen and oxygen are and the assertion is made. What is sufficient for the mind well stored with knowledge is insufficient for false. We induce from the securely estab lished fact that in such and such concrete cases water has been produced from these elements. He them.226 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC suppose the experiment to be the synthesis of hydrogen and oxygen. on the nature of the evidence. shall be to Induction what the Dictum de omni impos which is to Deduction. is precisely what these facts would lead him to expect. a universal conclusion.

owing to our inability to apply our senses. is succinctly taught by Aristotle. To sum up. and the light-particles coming through. The memory of many in dividual instances constitutes. and thus to indicate what may be termed methods of inductive enquiry. tamen singularibus. i. one Experience (e/irmpia) this Experience results in the possession of an abstract universal Since the passage itself is so compressed principle in the mind.It I. but a purely It becomes possible as soon as we abstractive process.. that the effect is not due to some accidental circumstance. Post. we should not still be seeking a solution. fit experimentum : quia experimentum nihil . as to stand in need of some exposition. In this passage Aristotle should not be understood as approv He uses. Sense would perceive the individual instance. We shall therefore defer its consideration to the second part of this work. but of Science for the logical ground of the not altered by the different manner in which the evidence appears. II. Post. and the intellect would recognize that this was a universal law. see in the individual instance (or instances) of the cause in question.INDUCTION 227 connexion presents itself. 19 he treats the case in which we draw our universal conclusion from the observ ation of a number of particulars. is Not indeed place. 4. but that it belongs essentially to the type. that the mere act of sight would give us scientific knowledge but sight would be the means through which we should attain the universal. Induction is not a syllogistic. he tells us. This subject however does not belong to Logic strictly so called.. Thomas Ex memoria multoties facta circa eandem rem in diversis . that certain For could we but see what takes questions remain unsolved. And this is known either (i) by rational insight into the nature of the connexion between cause and effect.&quot. A similar passage occurs An. as is his ing the theory of light which he mentions. 31. the cause of its illuminative power would be manifest. c. In the well-known chapter An. Thus if we saw the perforations in the glass.. An. Post. to the Method is : induction * The induction of the universal from the particular in the manner we have described. wont. II. c. or (2) by rational recognition of the fact of the causal connexion. : : &quot. c. &quot. we prefer to give in its place the lucid commentary of St. a contemporary opinion as an illustration.

accipit unum commune quod firmatur in anima. is The Inductive Syllogism. id est medicinae. et Placum autem sua tonem et multos alios singulares homines consideratio ad hoc ascendit. dicitur esse experimentum quod talis herba sit sanativa febris. The The that validity of the argument depends on our certainty we have overlooked no one of the parts. sit &quot. Post. Hence this mode of reasoning is only available for the cases in which we are dealing with the several species of a genus. a special mode of arguing from the particular to the general. 20). per quam confertur unum ad aliud. II. . he evi dently supposes that we are dealing with species.. Aristotle held the tells . quod est proprium rationis. et hoc Puta diu medicus conaccipit ut principium artis et scientiae. sicut posuerunt quidam antiqui non discernentes inter sensum et intellectum et ideo ad hoc excludendum Philosophus subdit. susceptiva cognitionis universalis will observe that in these passages no use is made The word experimentum (e/x-Treipia) of the term Induction. takes its place. Ratio autem non sistit in experimento sed ex multis particularibus in quibus expertus particularium est. not with individuals. The their individuals belonging to a species cannot be counted number is indefinite. The reader 5. : (An. hoc accipitur ut quaedam regula artis tentis. 1 But the species are always : limited in number. The syllogism may be represented by the formula 1 : following when he number of individuals in a species to be infinite. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC quam accipere aliquid ex multis in memoria reSed taraen experimentum indigct aliqua ratiocinatione circa particularia. Puta cum talis recordatur quod talis herba sanavit multos a febre. et considerat illud absque consideratione alicujus singularium. . quod talis species herbae sanat febrientem simpliciter. Hence us that the enumeration of the parts must be complete. sideravit hanc herbam sanasse Socratem febrientem. . may be affirmed (or denied) of the logical whole. lect. : : vel Posset autem aliquis credere quod solus sensus memoria singularium sufficiat ad causandum intelligibilem cognitionem principiorum.228 aliud videtur. quod cum sensu oportet praesupponere talem naturam animae quae posset pati hoc. different from Induction principle of this method of inference is that an attribute which is affirmed (or denied) of all the logical parts. The Inductive Syllogism properly so-called.

it is on one of its sides. 1 An Inductive Syllogism. This method of proof is not infrequently employed by Euclid. by means of the minor term (An. is is P. The twentieth proposition of his third book is of this character its conclusion may be expressed as an Inductive syllogism The angle at the circumference of a circle is half the size of the angle at the centre on the same arc. Hence Aristotle calls it an argument by which we prove the major term to be true of the middle term. oldti&amp.V ov yap y rpiyuvov oi/Se ugles. Post.-. a and the scalene separately. the isosceles. (2) when it. 229 O 2 03 are o .. (i) when the centre of the circle is within the angle at the circum II. 128. when he establishes his proposition for the separate cases. lt All M 5 2 S 3 alone . (3) when it is outside of But these three cases are the only cases in which it is possible to have an angle at the centre and an angle at the circumference on the same arc. : : ference. He supposes the case of a man who has proved of the equilateral. Jr z . cannot be really said to know that all triright angles. c.. but as of the deductive syllogism For the purpose of this syllogism is to establish is P. . 5. the general proposition. 23). Ueberweg.gt. which in the deductive syllogism M stands in the major premiss. TTO. /.. Post.INDUCTION Oj. &quot. represented not as in the formula The conclusion here All All 5 is P. M : M 1 Cf. The angle at the circumference is always half the size of the angle at the centre on the same arc. in which the supposition he makes can be realized. if we do no more than shew that P is found in each of the logical parts severally. he says. Aristotle points out its enumerative character in An. 2 though one valid of an indefinite number of individuals. It does not show us that there is a law connecting with P for the reason why P belongs to the several parts of may be different in It is an Enumcrative judgment. the different cases. are M. I. does not give us a universal proposition in the full and complete) sense of the word. that the interior angles of each are equal to two This man. have this attribute. as such. c. 5 .

&quot. Of this doctrine Wundt says. . And though the theory of the humours. choleric. * An. 4 Topics. 2 The example at first sight presents two considerable difficul ties. 12. . 4 But. As a matter of fact.pi6fi6v KO. w &amp. Priorll. given by Aristotle has often. melancholic.gt. c.. rplywvov. It is as follows : are long lived. it would be necessary to shew that the reason for the inherence of P is the same in regard to all the parts of M. ^&quot. (&quot. would appear impossible. &quot. Aristotle doubtless that the animals in question have no excess of choleric a different thing from being totally without bile. II. I. not as a whole. Anim. For he does 5.All animals without bile are long lived.) He describes this proof ( i) as that which occurs tirav rvyx tv /Mfpei 8\ov efi deiKwrai. owing to the brevity of its expression. c. An. plete enumeration would not present insuperable difficulties. caused some perplexity. In another passage Aristotle gives the following. dXX ?) /car A. : For it is given as an example of dialectical argument. 7 De Part. not know the attribute to belong to the triangle. and so on. as such nor does he know it to belong to all triangles. It is by no means intended as a typical instance of the argument in its perfect form. 3 Further the assertion should be understood.&quot. Psychologic. but in its logical parts. it would be misleading to employ this here as an illustration. 3 The reader will not need to be reminded of the importance attached in ancient physiology. of animals without bile. 23. c. yet the distinction of the temperaments seems to have been derived from acute psychological observation.&quot. 1 In order that The example of this Syllogism. : . . Post. He does not know it to be a property of the species. In the first place the minor premiss as it stands.. . 17. LI&amp. is mani In the second place. and the skilful driver. When it happens that our proof concerns a whole. are animals without bile. ass .IV.&quot. III..230 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC it should be more than this. signifies humours : &quot.lt. 2. /. not of animals in for in An. but of the more highly organized animals Post.) 1 Euclid is generally able to do this.&quot. The proposition may require different constructions but the same proof mutatis mutandis is ordinarily employed. I. . we may conclude that the man who is skilful is best at every occupation. which was its physiological basis is now obsolete. general. on which the temperament of the individual sanguine. Thus a com 7 he restricts it to quadrupeds. c. II. we must be con tent with probabilities.. 637.T elSos 5 ov irav. ass horse. : &quot.. except in so far as all is understood of mere numerical reckoning. a complete enumeration festly untrue. Man. c. or phlegmatic was held to de pend. . 2 cf. by the expression without bile.. . as exemplify If we know that the skilful steersing an inductive argument man is best. Psychology borrowed the doctrine of the four temperaments from the medical system of Galen. Man.&quot.e. in which demonstrative certitude being unattainable. 17. horse.j5 (&quot. to the four humours.

form here 5. is copula it that ordinary import x means S lt S 2 5 3 constitute If this were the would meaning. logical not by sense-per that we sum the ception up equilateral. The minor is sometimes expressed in the S 2 S 3 are all M. Thus I may assert of each of the apostles taken separately.. yet this general pro position presupposes the knowledge of every so-called conclusion. and then proceed to affirm it of the class as a whole. It suggests that the significance of the from its : M . is The term Per fect Induction which we employed signify the process by affirm a given attribute of all the individuals to belonging to a class. A general proposition obtained by Perfect Induction is a mere summary and though inferences may be drawn from it. and affords us a solid basis for inference to new facts. When we draw 1 a universal conclusion after enumerat of a class. the isosceles and the scalene as completing the list of possible triangles. process may. M 6. ing some members only we G. different . But in Perfect Induction the enumeration is purely sensible. be drawn up in the Jews. and so All the apostles were pass to the general proposition. This is legitimate. that he was a Jew. since the enumeration is known to be complete. are said to employ Mansel. an individuals. 3 with a universal instead of a particular conclusion. the conclusion would be illegitimate. It is a simple counting of heads.INDUCTION The Inductive Syllogism resembles a syllogism 231 in Fig. Further. On the other hand the conclusion of an Inductive Syllogism is true of an indefinite number of for it is . the conclusions obtained are of different value the one from the other. be used collectively in the minor premiss. This form is however inad . and distributively in the conclusion. The of course. Perfect and Imperfect Induction. an Inductive Syllogism. But it The enumeration there is of intellectual process : differs widely parts. form from It is of it. A pp. . Aldrich. missible.

1 But if we have reason to believe the attribute to be causally connected with the subject. Nam si universalia nihil aliud quam singularium collectiones. and contract when exposed to cold. we are relying on something trate this else than mere enumeration. argues a remarkable want of acquaintance with their writings. by Imperfect Induction. adminiculis. contract of cases . if we remember how at one time. As we are well aware. sunt . et hecatombae sacrificio digna habita quod ego non sine stuporelegi. We have already had occasion to point out how cautiously we should receive what our popular logicians say of Scholastic philosophy. There is indeed a considerable But variety of opinion among the Scholastics on this subject. experi ence seemed to indicate that all bodies expand under the influence of heat. . to rest on a process of Imperfect Induction by mere enumeration. Numbers under the influence sion been of heat. had been examined in which the rule was verified. was based on mere enu meration. A conclusion drawn in this way is of such a precarious character as to be valueless. Mox enim prodibit. Vincentio alios in negasse totum esse majus sua parte. rubber. would have proved * It is commonly stated in English text-books of Logic. indiaing. This point is forcibly put by Leibniz. It may indeed be owned that the subject of Induction received far less attention from the mediaeval writers than it merits. that the Scholastic philosophers knew of no inductive process save Perfect and Imperfect Induction. qui negabit ob peculiarem quandam rationem in aliis nondum tentatis veram esse. though no reason could be assigned why it should be so. De Stilo Phtlosophico potest.&quot. in angulis saltern con tact us infinite et Thomam Hobbes (at quern virum ?) coepisse dubitare de propositione ilia Geometrica a Pythagora demonstrata. clay and certain other substances. Had a universal conclu it drawn in this case false. exceptions are found to this rule. quemadmodum ex facto scimus Gregorium a S. when it falls below 39-4 F. Water expands instead of contract and similarly. additis quibuscunque magis esse : : : . It may illus how liable to frustration are conclusions drawn in manner. unless we have grounds for supposing some causal connexion. and that they believed that our certainty as to the laws of nature.232 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Imperfect Induction. Yet to say that they believed our know ledge as to the laws of nature. et propositionem hanc Tolum sua parte sola inductione nunquam perfecte scimus. . Leibniz. Certitude perfecta ab inductione sperari plane non 1 &quot. sequetur scientiam nullam haberi per demonstrationem (quod et infra colligit Nizolius) sed collectionem singularium seu inductionem.

They are the condition of our act of abstraction. experimentales autem sunt quas accipimus intellectu orto ex sensu. [Propositiones] Thomas on this subject. in Scotus. We have already cited St. Op. but is an effect having for its cause the specific nature of the In other words. Q. It covered all argument from the particular to the general. A as such is followed by a. been that criticized in i above. show that the position Scotus was the same as that of St. The reader will see that his taken. jumped too hastily to the conclusion that the mediaeval philosophers rested their know ledge of the laws of nature on no basis but enumeration. . Anything more remote than this from the doctrine which is usually asserted to have been held by the whole body of Scholastic philosophers. they held the enumeration of instances agent. Prior II. yet in these few instances we have equivalently seen all.g. But it was more usually employed to denote the formal process of Perfect Induction arranged as an Inductive Syllogism. that our argument might be thrown into the form of an Inductive Syllogism for though the enumeration was incomplete.. experimentum. noticed at the end of 4. do not constitute the premisses of a universal conclusion. . An. 70. Albert the Great. inasmuch as it enables the investigator to judge that the phenomenon a is really connected with the nature A. what vague. Moreover it was some times pointed out. can hardly be imagined. Following the terminology of Aristotle. Incautious readers. The error seems to have arisen from the fact that the most famous of the Scholastics (St. : finding in certain passages the Inductive Syllogism described as the formula of inductive argument. p. they call it the proof from experience (ifnrtipia. Thomas. : is Leibniz s own view would seem to have Nizolii. It was by a later generation that the term Induction was restricted to its present signification. according to which the uniformity of Nature a major premiss in a syllogistic reasoning . 8) it might include this meaning among others. and not merely with some circumstance incident to this individual instance of A The instances thus understood. The following brief of Albcrtus Magnus and of Thomas. Scotus) do not employ the term Induction as the distinctive name of the inference by which we establish universal laws of nature. to be of value. . phil. (Erdmann). sicut scimus quod scamonea purgat choleram et quod vinum inebriat sensus enim apprehend it inebriationem post potationem vini saepius extracts will &quot. The significance of the term Induction was some experientia). that when the operation of some natural agent produces regularly and habitually some par ticular result. words imply the view we have here . in 4. Hence (as e. this result is not due to an accidental circumstance.INDUCTION 233 the more eminent amongst them base our certainty in regard to natural laws on the principle.

nee universale est sensibile. et percipit intellectus quod hoc vici virtute accidit et si esset casuale non contingeret saepissime et sic in intellectu generatur illius rei scientia firma. Post. Metaphysique des Causes. nee quod semper sed quod pluries. n. et quod semper. quod in nobis est principium scientiae. pp.. De cognitis per experientiam dico : &quot.234 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC : factam. Scotus writes as follows. Tract i. Tract i. 3. An. est I. Post. de qua non est dubium. experientia non habeatur de omnibus singularibus. sicut in ante habitis dictum est. Mag. Cf. II. 9. I.&quot.. c. An. 4. effectus naturalis illius causae.&quot. Quamvis sentire non est scire. sed sensibile per abstractionem fit universale. 3. c. Alb. 40-54 . 2. et in om nibus et hoc per istam propositionem quiescentem in anima quod licet : : Quidquid evenit ut in pluribus ab aliqua causa non libera. Sent. Dist. tamen expertus infallibiter novit quod ita est. sed de pluribus. &quot. also Regnon.&quot. q.

a shall follow. as we saw in the preceding chapter. This is expressed in Scholastic philosophy by saying that the principle of Uniformity is physically necessary. The Uniformity of Nature. and bring it about that a given cause shall produce an abnormal effect. THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. We . The Power which established the universe can suspend the opera tion of its laws. or as it is sometimes termed. unless we also show that in the order of reality. In this chapter we consider the principle of the Uniformity of Nature.CHAPTER XV. is abstracted from the particulars of experience. not metaphysically. not about the way in which we think and reason. is the cause of a. or no effect at all. The principle as we have enunciated it. It was further pointed out that this principle is not a logical principle. Hence can claim no higher degree of necessity than belongs to the constitution of this natural order. the Uniformity of Causation. i. assures us that the effects of the same cause will. propose in the following paragraphs to explain the reasons which justify us in holding that the uni and (2) the formity of Nature is physically necessary (i) . must be under stood with a qualification. It belongs to the real order it tells us about the nature of things. Nature prescribes that given A. That principle. It is insuffi cient to show how the general proposition A as such. always produce the same effect same kind are to be referred to the same cause. It refers exclusively to the : and that material it universe governed by natural laws. Yet Logic can scarcely be adequately treated without discussing it. under the same : cir cumstances.

It cannot This it must give what it has. but absolutely prescribed by that nature. for scientific certainty. Moreover unless an agent possesses free-will. It will affords (i) be remembered that when we considered the distinction between cause and condition. give what it has not by the nature for nature is : does not mean that it will act in the same way in every variety of circumstances in which it may be placed. When we : see the young cuckoo appear that it is in the nest of the starling. it must act in a manner not merely in accordance with its nature.236 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC and the grounds it limits of physical necessity. The action involves a relation to the object acted on. the starling s offspring. The Hermes of Praxiteles could never have possessed its beauty of form. says Livy The as a portent. The connexion between cause and effect is not a mere time sequence of antecedent and consequent. Its power for action is measured Its nature or essence it has received. we saw that all the properties of the effect come to it from one or other of its causes. do not gather grapes from thorns and we should regard a man as eccentric. and hence depends not merely on the agent but on the patient. active powers are proportioned est : : to the nature of the agent they are in fact the expres sion of that nature. who told us that : we never dream We he saw no reason Bos locutus it why such things should not occur. to say the least. had its material cause been clay and not marble. But it does involve that where the relation . and can act in no other way. but another term for essence is the prin ciple which determines the character of its active powers. We can find in the cause the reason of every characteristic : that the effect possesses and it is by the action of the cause that they are all communicated to the effect. had not Praxi teles conceived that form in his imagination it would never have possessed the durability which has preserved it to our own days. but even he regarded in foro. It is further manifest that every agent acts according to its nature.

He must needs be the fountain of all activity. to the First Cause the created universe.THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE of the agent to its surroundings it is 237 be miraculously impeded) its the same. St. the necessity Effectus assimilatur forma quod unius rei non est nisi Unde qualeipsum est. same cause must in like circum same effect. est autem Una forma naturalis per quam habetesse. involves that under the action will be of the same kind : In order to deal with the question of the limits of physical necessity. Thus the very concept will. that it of active produces results higher than those which destined to realize. In acting. Thomas. there (unless action will be the same. This. the First Cause may so affect any one of these subordinate agencies. 2. No exercise of causality can take place. moreover. He must concur in every origination. viz. of a natural agent devoid of free same circumstances. From this it it is naturally follows that though we may say 1 truly that the stances always produce the Cf. Apart from this communication action. Hence as the First Cause is the ground of all reality. neither spiritual nor material agents could perform any of those actions which are connatural to them. 41. a con being. save in so far as He com municates the power to act. Were the conserving action of the First Cause withheld they would fall back into nothing ness. The very of : notion of a First Cause involves as its consequence that He is not merely the cause of all things as regards their He continually sustains them in Their persistence in being is. .. Again. its and precisely similar similar effects show that must be referred considerations of the same kind. holds good not merely in regard to the existence of creatures. &quot. Summa agit. In other words to causal agencies 1 is of Nature an the Uniformity analytic judgment.&quot. agentis per quam Manifestum Theol. power the mind could not think nor could one body act upon another. a creature obtains a further realization of itself an extension of its being. tale facit. but that Without this concurrence. but to all exercise of active power on their part. tinued creation. Art. we must touch on a matter which (2) the relation belongs properly to Natural Theology. as it were. Q.

The objection might have weight if we represented the Deity as interfering capriciously with these laws. together with all the truths of Mathematics possess this higher degree of necessity. This very regularity affords man a guide without which he could not direct his life with a view to the future.238 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC of this principle is hypothetical necessity. but absolute. justifies the dis It 1 &quot. than that they should constantly be able to obtain exceptions in their favour. at the To assert that the be. Axioms such as the principle of Causality that Whatever comes into being must have a cause. that the regu larity of Nature s order is recognized in Scholastic treatises on Natural Theology as a mark of Supreme Wisdom. and the principle of Contradiction that. and that occasionally He does in fact sus pend them. What. physical necessity. when the striking manifestation of His power may be for man s good. It is a very different thing to hold that a capricious suspension of law is at any moment In the long run. In it there is no scope for hypothetical. In some cases we tinction see that certain concepts statically considered. stern regularity of law should train men to rule Nature by obeying her. So far however is this from being the case. ? The answer must be that these principles are metaphysically necessary. It is not like physical necessity. because they are altogether independent of any physical process. It supposes the First Cause to preserve the ordinary operation of natural laws. It is one thing to own that the Deity has power to suspend His own laws. it is better that the likely to occur. it may be asked. stand in a relation of identity (or difference) under pain of a con tradiction in terms. is to render the principle of Uniformity nugatory. has occasionally been asserted that to admit the possibility of any interference in regard to the laws of Nature. miraculous intervention. We have asserted that there is a higher kind of neces This is termed meta sity than belongs to physical law. is same time both be and not to assert same thing can what is . It is impossible for a thing both to be and not to be at the same time.

it would not be more readily and created activity : universally it will recognized as necessarily valid. but because here there is no object for the exercise of power. not indeed because omnipotence is limited. The untutored mind. be urged. and consequently the cause the intrinsic nature of the figure produces its effect by an absolute. Every conclusion in pure mathematics is analytic yet many of these are : unintelligible to the untrained mind. It may perhaps be asked. Where no physical pro cess involved. is to suppose a contradiction. To realize the analytic character of the principle in question. anthropo- . if the principle were really analytic. we must see what is involved in the concept of a natural agent devoid of free-will. both classes are rightly termed analytic for in both. and not a merely hypothetical necessity. apart from any dynamic efficiency. These are immutable. Yet notwithstanding these differences of degree. risible. cases a causal relation is involved in the very nature of the abstract concept. the one hand there are those which involve the action of creatures. and hence are for instance is liable to miraculous frustra Such To the proposition that Man is this class belongs the principle of Uniformity. whether. look for capricious action on the part of natural phenomena. Here no physical activity is in question. should be three-sided. On Analytic propositions fall therefore into two classes. On the other hand there are the judgments is in which not in question. principles are on the same level. Savages. to suppose a cause without its connatural Even divine power effect.THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE 239 In other self-contradictory. in other words. and that it should not have figure three angles. meaningless. is cannot produce what is self-contradictory. tion. This is exemplified in the case of geometrical figures and It is impossible that a plane their resultant properties. and children recognize the truth of the multiplication table more easily than that of this To this it may be replied that not all analytic principle. the com of the and parison subject predicate is sufficient to shew that the proposition is true.

To extend it to the human will without first discover ing whether that will be free or not. 1 1 On Free-Wil! see Maher s Psychology. and that which asserts that similar effects are to be referred to similar causes. as equally valid. If all action depends on the nature of is the exception made ? the agent. and not by a mere analogy drawn from natural agents. But it must be borne in mind Philosophically this is so. this may be attributed partly to the morphic in free-will not influence of experience. that not uncommonly the object of scientific search is a determining cause. be out of place to enter on the subject of It must suffice to point out that free-will in a logical text-book.2 4o PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC all its representations. is operative in all. our argument is only valid for such agents as. and not a cause properly so called.T icts. xix. are not free. is apt to attribute merely to animals but even to the powers In so far as children and the uneducated of Nature. pp. would be arbitrary. it may be asked. and the mode of its action must be discovered by an appeal to the testimony of consciousness. 394-424. We cannot argue from the mode in which natural agents act to the mode in which the For the human soul is unlike them. A few lines cumstances in which he is placed ? If we make an exception here. partly the result of his Will not the character of his act depend on the cir past life. of course. On what grounds. It is spiritual. But in common parlance. in regard to the will of should perhaps be added as to the exception made man. and partly to the growing capa city to distinguish between the free and the determined agent. must not human action do the same ? Each man has his own character partly inherited. are we not arguing altogether arbitrarily ? It would. We have throughout treated both parts of the prin ciple. c. Moreover agents altogether diverse may possess some similar characteristic in virtue of which they produce Here strictly speaking the same cause similar e. It would be to prejudge the whole case.. will acts. . alike that which asserts that similar causes produce similar effects. do as a matter of fact expect the same cause to act in the same way. ex hypothesi. we speak of the effect as due to different causes.

The law of section he enunciates it more fully. and makes this principle the founda J. i). of course. the invariable antecedent the invariable consequent the is termed the cause &quot. Thus. 3. 241 on the Uniformity of Nature. S.Every induction may be again&quot. the principle which we are now considering. 5. by which the mind comes He recognizes that apart to know laws of nature.&quot. . of before and question R . (ibid. In the present section. and tells the truth. If this be actually done... : : effect&quot. and some other fact which has preceded it . is tion of all inductive inference. such know ledge is impossible. i) a principle implied in the very statement of what Induction is . Mill. is but the familiar truth.THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE 2. III. will appear as the ultimate &quot. of which he was a leading exponent. that of the uniformity of the course of nature. According to his view. 2). thrown into the form of a syllogism. will under a sufficient degree of similarity of circumstances happen and he says (ibid. namely that what happens once. by supplying a major premiss.. he tells us (Logic. from a belief in the uniformity of causation. major premiss of all inductions. as conceived by him. His theory is.. based on the Empiricist philosophy. we shall deal shortly both with his explanation of the principle. and with his account of the manner in which we arrive at a knowledge of it. Mill all logicians. us that it is &quot. The different causal relation.. that every fact which has a But in the following has a cause (c. beginning. c. that invariability of succession is found by observation to obtain between every fact in nature.. thus Causation . We must first observe that there is Bk. of the one who has devoted most attention to the enquiry into the process. &quot.) &quot. He terms the principle the Law of Causation. is totally from the account we have given of that relation in the last chapter.. the whole is one of succession in time. The explanation which Mill gives to the principle rests entirely on the meaning which he attaches to the terms cause and effect.

the absence of counteracting causes (ibid. never come into being. positive is the sum total of the conditions. cannot possibly its existence from itself. : phically speaking. that is to say. cannot itself Hence. it cannot be self-created hence it must receive existence from something else. it is nothing and what is existence. the negative be all summed up under one head. are not efficient &quot. &quot. Yet it should be carefully noted that mere in 3). effect. namely in the case of the First Cause. the Greek philosophers. no wise differs from a condition The cause. &quot. (ibid. but an efficient cause which is the reason why it exists. . : able. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC The cause does not exert any influence on the : &quot. &quot. . tells totally contrary causality to to reason. if it be remembered that before a thing exists. in followed by another (ibid. variability of succession is not sufficient to constitute a relation of causality. not a mere ante cedent in time. That this must be so appears plainly. and negative. unless the sequence. philoso. must have.&quot. Who has eternity. but has existed from all . call There are various points in this account which for criticism (i) : The reduction is of efficient time-relation. nothing give everything which comes into being. because they wished to see the reason why the physical antecedent should produce this particular consequent they were not content merely to know that one phenomenon was always A cause in fact. unless the succession is also unconditional. In one case alone is there no need of an efficient cause. unless it would take place whatever supposition we may make in regard to all other things Invariable sequence is not synonymous with causation. 9). He He finds fault with but physical causes 2). .242 after. is also unconditional. . &quot. the causes with which I concern myself. . taken together conditions may &quot. expressly desires that the causes treated of not be viewed as possessed of efficiency should by him. besides being invari . a mere Reason : have us that a thing which begins to exist. namely.

The i of the plurality of causes fact that Mill s theory did not is. and condition is inad have dwelt at length on the difference between these two (Ch. (4) away from a mere is record Another inconsistency of the to be found in his de cause as the invariable antecedent. we must know of some we choose bond reason linking the consequent to the antecedent. that if we are able to affirm that the however. . which fails to distinguish them. itself. . whatever suppo make about other things. final. 2). On the other. scription This can only mean. connexion is unconditional. of causation. it is always the result of the same cause. latter includes in its reference all catisee. 14. it should be noticed that he has confused two entirely distinct principles. It is. of course. on which Mill lays great stress. that whenever a particular effect But occurs. On the effect is reduced we must be cognizant the connexion. (5) Finally.&quot. formal. .&quot. &quot. Many causes may produce motion many causes may produce sometimes death. Each one of these will. under similar . and causes properly so called. sition i. material.that the same phenomenon is the effect a may always produced by the same cause : from A sometimes from B. efficient. evident. far and that we have passed of sequences. (3) The theory is inconsistent with one hand the relation between cause and to succession in time. we are told that of the unconditional character of it that to will take place. : The doctrine due to the admit of his distinguishing between determining causes. must be fundamentally misleading.e. he tells us. &quot. (a) the principle of cau that everything which begins!tobe must have an sality efficient cause and (b) the principle of uniformity. and it is unnecessary to identification of cause The We It is clear that any account discuss the point again. such a view contradicts a doctrine. that of the plurality of causes. arise .THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE (2) 243 missible.It is not true. some why this consequent must follow this antecedent.

Mill tells us. which begins to be. as we have done. because the uncertainty of simple enumera tion is due to the possibility that the empirical law whichTour observations establish. : . had not the same certainty as now belongs to laws of nature. 2). he holds. The Uniformity of Nature. which justify us in regarding the &quot. Were it so. For since they could not receive confirmation from the principle of uniformity. were merely Mill recognizes that he will be accused of inconsistency in thus first contrasting the uncertainty of simple enu meration. either creation could never have taken place. with the certainty derived from the principle of uniformity. and then teaching that the former is the and it certainly looks as if he foundation of the latter were building an immoveable house on a moveable But he argues that the inconsistency is foundation. To this school. 21. relates The former There is no expressly need for a thing.244 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC produce the same to efficient effect. enumeration (Ch. causation. circumstances. or matter must have always existed. on which it was based. and a sense-experiences truth summarize a number of does but such general knowledge are individual experiences. on which we accept the major premiss which our knowledge as to the laws of nature is based on something firmer than simple enumeration. &quot. It is evident that an empiricist philosopher cannot. of from a number gathered particular uniformities observed in nature. But before the estab lishment of the wider principle. antecedently to its establishment they based on the enumeration of instances. We must now consider Mill s account of the grounds. base it on the this principle. time and circumstance. the sole sources of . is itself dis covered by the loose and uncertain method of simple The principle is. of all induction/ in virtue of nature of things. these particular uni formities. to have an antecedent material cause. law as of universal application. may be true only within certain limits of place. only apparent.

Two points in it call for special notice - : be already pre (1) Unless the uniformity of nature supposed. &quot. So Hux The one act of faith in the conley.The fact generally expressed as Nature s Uniformity is the guarantee. regard is it as a case of such a uniformity that hemlock dence.&quot. We can give no evidence for this uniformity. Life of Darwin. is the effect produced by the plant on a number of individual men.&quot. Mill himself owns that he sees no reason why the law should hold good in Pre distant parts of the stellar regions (Ch. even shewing. Deductive Logic. on Mill (2) s own Human ciple of uniformity be nothing more than the imperfectly recorded successions observed by men on this one small planet. 245 of a generalization is so wide no time. what guarantee have we that the poisoning was not due poisonous. To prove the principle. . for instance. cisely the satisfactory grounds to rely on same reasons would suggest that we have no it for any time beyond the present. unless we rely on the general principle. and no combination of circumstances. the ultimate major premiss of all Induction. but must afford an example of its truth or falsity.. . App. through a few thousands of years. on which The evi we rely. . although the symptoms were so similar. 200. p. D. 21. on which it is based. Few thinkers now attempt to defend this theory. Thus Bain. how can we be sure that any of the particular uniformities. have any right to that name ? We may.THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE Where the subject-matter &quot. But in estimating the evidence. and portion the records of that experience are fragmentary and some If our grounds for holding the prin times uncertain. It is worth noting that some Empiricists boldly renounce all attempt to prove this principle. II. we must presuppose it. and it be never found otherwise than that there is true. 4). . then we may regard the generalization in question as possessing all the force of a scientific law. experience has extended over a minute of space. &quot. to different causes in the different cases. it is as insecurely based as ever was an induc tion by simple enumeration. no place. Indeed.

has been gathered to his fathers. and even after the man who heated and hammered This criticism it. in all times and at all places. and of the absolute validity.&quot. A ploughshare once made remains a ploughshare. . The intermixture of effects occurs when two or &quot. This confession is an act of faith. . &quot. and the effect a Heteropathic Effect. shewn that cause and sequence must fall to the ground. .&quot. 6) to the discussion of this He quotes against himself the Scholastic possibility. Well might Bain speak of it as the leap in the dark. 3. were at all times many familiar instances of the continuance of effects long after their causes had ceased. c. cessat effectus.&quot. cessat effectus (When the cause saying the ceases to operate. is to renounce the hope of finding any secure basis for physical science. Yet there once generally received doctrine. constitutes the Composition of Causes and the effect is called a Compound Effect. V.246 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC vert to science. seems to have occurred to him. l and says. it is evident that a theory. the truth of such propositions of proof. is not susceptible To adopt this attitude. If it can be Cessante causa. effect are ever absolutely contem poraneous the one with the other. of the law of causation. which reduces the causal relation to mere time&quot. without any continuance of heating and hammering. One or two terms employed by Mill in his discussion of this question should be observed. . Hence. . and that in 1 Vide Arist. . Thomas s com . Met. 5. This is called Combina tion of Causes. 3. is the confession of the universality of order. II. ^in It never consideration of any Aristotelian doctrine. c..&quot. as they are occasionally employed by others also.. because by the nature of the case. more causes combine to produce a complex effect. and St. and Phys. 2. the effect ceases). Mill is led to devote some space (Ch.&quot.. seems to have been a &quot. . necessity for the continued existence of the cause to the continuance of the effect. Mill approached the which is indicative of the temper. Sometimes as in chemical compounds the effect is totally unlike the causes. 13. mentaries on these two passages. Sometimes This this joint effect is of the same kind as the separate laws. that he must have failed to understand the meaning of the axiom. Cessante causa.

247 the absurd sense which he attributed to have been a dogma of the schools. it. This does not mean that when the smith dies. he ceases to exercise his causality. If either of these two causes ceases to operate. as we have said. Thus the sun both calls into being and sustains in being the ray of light which proceeds from it and the pressure of the atmosphere both causes the mercury to ascend in the exhausted tube. If. it would not be a ploughshare at all should be melted down and lose its shape. only : into the the cause of the change. the plough share ceases to be for the smith is not. its effect ceases. while the change is going on. Had it been made not of iron. trations. (Cause of becoming) and the Causa in esse (Cause of each with its own proper effect. it remains no longer in a transition state. It is an existing thing. and this fact . the cause of its being. Let us take Mill the ploughshare. The efficacy of two among the causes the final and of own example the efficient ceases. but of some yielding sub and if it stance. the process of change stops. He is. it work is at an end. it could not A review of its true meaning will help us in the further s elucidation of the causal relation. We have then two kinds of cause the Causa in fieri . the material and : formal causes are what make it to be a ploughshare. it would cease to be one. being). and depends on other causes. and sustains it in that Yet these instances are useful chiefly as illus position. There are causes which may be said to be at one and the same time causa in fieri and causa in esse to their effects. It becomes what it is through them. The effects in question are mere accidental modifications. and consider what part the various causes hold in regard to it. it is for But when he has done his task. as soon as the thing is made. strictly speaking. On their depends on them no longer the other hand. by which the iron is transformed new shape. But as soon as we can say of it that it is. No created cause is both causa in fieri : : and causa in esse to any complete entity .

cessante actione agentis quod est causa effectus secundum fieri ita nee esse rei potest remanere cessante actione agentis quod est causa effectus non solum : . a sua causa secundum quod est causa ejus. non autem directe quantum ad esse ejus. but though the action of the cause is contemporaneous with the effect. : secundum Dei ab Ideo Augustinus dicit Virtus sed etiam secundum esse. Summa Theol.. simul et illorum cessaret species. is regarded by these writers. 104. Thomas. then the effect. . who form what is called the Neo-Hegelian School. Unity of Nature. We call atten tion to this. I. for such a view seems to be implied by the words of certain recent writers. : Omnis effectus dependet Cf. H. eis &quot. esse ejus quod quidem convenit in artificialibus et in rebus naturalibus. the effect no longer takes place. .. in our experience. quae creata sunt regendis si cessaret aliquando. 1 Each effect then is dependent on the cause which produces effect.Q. This name is preferred by those adherents of the Idealist philosophy.248 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC reveals to us that created agents realize but in an im perfect manner the full concept of a cause. unnecessary as it may appear to do so. if it be caused at all. This does not imply that cause and effect are one and the same. the Uniformity of Nature. and sustains it in every instant of its existence. and not as an effect communicated from Him. Art. Further. Green on the point that we shall have in view in the present section. It is plain that if cause and effect are the same. . in so far as they are related as cause its and If the cause ceases to exercise causality. Sicut igitur fieri rei non potest remanere. yet the efficient cause itself must be prior to the effect. . must be caused by itself a supposition that is self -contradictory. Aedificator enim est causa domus quantum ad ejus fieri. fieri. On the other hand the great First Cause God Himself is alike causa in fieri and causa in esse to the whole universe. is by some logicians spoken of as the Unity Of Nature. i. . The name Unity of Nature. St. T. it. things appear as governed by uniform laws and as conforming to uni form types. et non directe 1 &quot. * The principle which we have termed 4. not only are the two distinct. The cause must exist before it can act. To imagine otherwise would be to imagine that it could possess existence in its own right. secundum . as better indicating the reason why. The most eminent exponent of the Neo-Hegelian and it is his teaching doctrine was the late Prof. Sed considerandum est quod aliquod agens est causa sui effectus secundum fieri tantum. He called it into being. omnisque Natura concideret.

are just so far as related not successive. It is not the case that it first exists in unity. Is then the distinction drawn by common12). selves testify to their intellectual origin. as we have already noted. that we know nothing save what is within us. sense wholly without meaning ? No. are distinguished as being the one the work of the mind. not merely are the objects of knowledge within the mind. . in a mind. and that all the objects of our experience are states of our own consciousness. the other possessed of an independent existence of its own. we shall find that it is wholly Abstract the many relations from constituted by relations &quot. If from the futile question. what can be the meaning of the distinction. even a relation of succession. and in a mind. the real itself con on the sists but in relations. &quot. unless we admit that in one. it is mind which thus unites them. In other words a succession always implies which can something else than the terms of a succession simultaneously present to itself objects as existing not simultane31). The objects of knowledge. Without the relations it would not exist at all (Green. It is the intellect. (ibid. The question now arises. exist not successively but together i. in so far as they are related. . consists equally in relations. determine and constitute its definite unity. ously. For on the one hand. . and therefore cannot exist before or after the other. mind or intellect. Of two objects which form the terms of a relation.e. fancy and fact. Prolegomena. the mind as relations they can only exist for a mind. Thus two entities united by a relation of succession. Further. What is the real ? which we can only answer by saying &quot. . Green. does not ad mit the difference between thought and reality. them If we ask of ourselves. and the intellect alone. This distinction is now seen to be untenable. which are themselves mental other the unreal if it be really the work of the mind. They being many. and has no less a claim to be looked on as real (ibid. . they are also the work of the mind. . Now relations are essentially the work of 28). For every relation involves the mystery of the many a mystery that is inexplicable. For this reason the objects between which a relation exists. it is urged by Prof. Its defenders hold it as indubitable. but one before the other&quot. in what any object really consists. and there is nothing. Apart from the activity of the spiritual principle which we term. and then is brought into various relations.THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE 249 The Idealist school. which transforms what in themselves are simply subjective feelings into an orderly world of matter and motion. the one thing. there could be nothing in our consciousness save transitory sensations. : &quot. which men are accustomed to make between the real and the unreal ? The unphilosophic mind is apt to hold that the unreal and the real. one cannot exist as so related without the other.

. All the motions in the working of a watch. We shall examine these points in succession. and is thus a postulate of all knowledge.. several funda mental errors. 26). Green points out. and (3) that the real differs from the unreal as being an unchangeable. The theory we have summarized contains. It is based on three main positions (i) that relations can only have a mental existence. intelligence. the mind which thus related them. Grave objections may be urged against each of them. We may freely own that this is inexplicable and yet we may deny alto without a combining intelligence gether that the ordered entities must needs exist only in an When things are united by a relation of succession. we believe. as contrasted with a changeable. is the presupposition of all our enquiry into the real nature of appearances It is thus (ibid. by which the spiritual principle within vis constitutes the objects of our experience. There is in every relation a unity of the manifold. In all this there is not a little which calls for criticism. (2) It is difficult to understand how it can be maintained iv* : &quot. this lends no support to the theory that it It merely proves that it owes exists only in and for a mind. is due to the unity of the spiritual principle which constitutes it.250 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC that the real is everything. we pass to one more hopeful How do we decide whether any particular event or object is really what it seems to be ? .&quot. &quot. : : : : . Hence the expression Unity of Nature may justly be looked on as more philosophic than the commoner phrase Uniformity of Nature. as Prof. But to say that the mind organizes our ex perience in unalterable relations. That there is an unalterable order of relations . a bond an order of connexion it is according to the old definition that holds between one thing and another (ordo unius ad aliud). are related to each other. Although therefore the world of our experience is bound by a myriad relations. that relations involve the mystery of the many in one. they are not simultaneous but successive. its origin to an intelligent First Cause. A relation is a link. (1) It is true. the answer must be. that we do so by testing the unalterableness of the qualities which we ascribe to it. order of relations. Yet these motions do not exist simultaneously they follow each other.&quot. must indeed have grasped them in a single thought but as regards their own existence. of Nature is therefore involvexl in the very difference between reality and unreality. a multiplicity of that which is one.. Reality then consists in a certain unalterable set of relations. is to say that Nature is governed by uniform laws. seen that the uniformity of the world as kncfwn by us. The uniformity &quot. (2) that individual objects consist solely in relations..

is as unphilosophic as is the Empiricist doctrine which admits no reality save sensation alone. On the contrary it is an hypothesis which is contrary both to reason and to the testimony of our cognitive faculties. Idealism no less than Empiricism leaves mean physical science destitute of any basis. and cannot be proved. bound by relations to others. (op. yet in that real order which thought should represent. &quot. that though the objects represented exist in thought. is what it means by relation. Now the entities which are thus connected. The accuracy of the definition of relation as an order holding between one The can. there is nothing to correspond to these creations of the mind. we think. They are substances or quanti ties or qualities. and nothing else. is a real thought and from this he concludes that the figments of the imagination and er roneous judgments are as real as anything else 22). It is true that every substance and every attri bute is. These alike testify to the existence of a twofold order. On the contrary its own distinctive character is the ground of these relations. and affords us no means whatever by which we may account for the Uni formity of Nature. He has. what they is. is misstated by Green. To empty all the other categories of being and to reduce everything to relation. cit. as antecedent.THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE 251 that an individual consists solely in relations. as consequent and so on. We conclude therefore that the Idealist theory of an unalter able order of relations breaks down at every point. Had it not certain characteristic qualities. of course no difficulty in showing that a thought even if it be erroneous. But it is not con stituted by the relations. are not themselves connexions. there could be no relations. But this conclusion is only valid on the hypothesis that the And this has never conceptual order embraces all existence. for one reason or another. the real and the conceptual. been proved. as similar. (3) The question at issue as to the distinction between the real and the unreal. owing to his Idealist assumptions. . thing and another intelligence recognizes that this. as patient to agent. hardly be disputed. speak of a judgment or an imagination as unreal. And when men : &quot. It is related as agent to patient.

are purely syllogistic into an induction followed by a deduction. viz. and in no sense one of thought. therefore. is the usual manner in which syllogistic reasoning is It has already been pointed out verbally expressed. or the conclusion. : and Analogy Analogy. the minor premiss. of infer Enthymeme. whenever we reason that. All save one. : is resolvable Yet because the structure of these forms differs in certain particulars from the standard type. : XVI. Enthymeme in lieu of the fully-stated of reasoned We have only to read any page form is more and the than complete employed frequently longer form. it is convenient to treat them in a separate chapter. ence have now been discussed. which rendered necessary the section on the expression of arguments in It is plain. we think in syllogisms. 12. the Enthymeme . though from a general principle to a special case.CHAPTER ENTHYMEME i. do not exhibit any new process of the mind. 3) distinction between the Enthymeme and the Syllogism is purely one of language. thought. The forms of argument with which we are concerned in this chapter. to assure ourselves that the shorter . An Enthymeme is a syllogism. that the syllogistic form (Ch. yet we do not constituent judg three each of the ordinarily express ments. We are usually satisfied when our words are sufficient to bring our meaning home to our hearers with clearness and precision and this can be done by : employing the syllogism. The fundamental methods . : SORITES ANALOGY. According as omission is made of the major premiss. Indeed it is precisely this fact. abridged by the omission The Enthymeme of one premiss or of the conclusion.

he says at the commencement of the Ethics. a coward. look for just so much precision of argument as the matter in hand rhetorical syllogism is admits. we may have Enthymemes of the three orders in these Similar omissions may syllogism. term he tells us. 8). even though we do not insert the hypothetical major implied. The following brief The Syllogism. /. Every Caius liar is is a liar. be made in the hypothetical abundantly clear when we He will see the notice in the Times so he will say. In any other case. Scientific conclusions are worthless. I. examples are given Every Caius Caius liar is is is by Hamilton : a coward. Some account therefore of this desirable in Logic. but to sway the will. unless we can appeal to some indubitable and universal principle. it is demonstrative reasoning . * 2.ENTHYMEME is : SORITES : ANALOGY 253 said to be of the first. used in a different sense. and leaves it to the hearers to draw the conclusion. its place is filled by some thing closely analogous. if only that we may see how. hear of something to his advantage. Enthymeme of the Third Order. Enthymeme of the First Order. Every Caius a coward. Our meaning is .. Hence when the orator appeals to a principle. rhetorical syllogism c. will always man. Hence. is indeed often far more effective rhetorically.&quot. By It Aristotle the is. they would not carry conviction. /. a liar. syllogisms also. is impossible. a coward. second or third order. Caius Caius is is a liar. The a recognized that though the processes of reasoning are always fundamentally the same.&quot. a coward. But in rhetoric our object is not primarily to convince the mind. (Rhet. which merely the premisses. even when Enthymeme is Aristotelian Enthymeme. 2. yet the manner in which we apply them. The Enthymeme states of the third order. The perfect syllogism is the method of reasoning appropriate to science. &quot. /. a coward.. will differ greatly An educated according to the class of questions treated. He &quot. liar is is Enthymeme of the Second Order. than the explicit syllogism would be.

1 ^v6tjfj. Prior II.-. e. For instance. Pittacus is good (s).r/jit)s ^ eitcbruv $ cri)/J. the orator points to some fact.t]fj. An instance of such an argument is to be found in a well-known clause in the will of the late Mr.-. This man trembles in the presence of the murdered man. in Fig. The wise are good.eiuv (An. there is fire. and therefore Scots men (y) in generaljare metaphysicians. . Pittacus is wise. The Enthymeme. and is of very different value in the different cases. and is perfectly conclusive. Hume. when we are told that are good. which is usually true. the sign is an effect of the fact in question.lt. and thus affords a basis for a probable conclusion. The legitimate conclusion is only that Some wise men We meet with this argument. likelihoods or signs. decision he desires. Murderers tremble in the presence of the murdered man.tv &amp. Resident fellows of colleges live secluded from the world. which would not preclude some fellows of colleges from being highly capable in such matters. from (ft) which we conclude to the existence of a general law. i.a (J.254 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC sufficient for him if it is verified in the majority of cases. and an infallible indication of its presence. A piece of reasoning. .. (a) If gism. since there is an illicit process of the minor. the syllogism is in Fig.. and so affords a reasonable motive to his audience for coming to the Where such principles are not to be had. Nor does he usually trouble himself to secure anything resembling conclusive proof. Wherever there is smoke. . is denned as a syllogism from The likelihood is a proposition. The sign is some fact. Reid and Hamilton were Scotsmen. Cecil Rhodes Those who live secluded from the world are as children in business affairs. The sign maybe an individual instance (or instances).lt. The . 1 : That house is giving out smoke (s).-. 2). wise are good. which affords evidence either for the truth of some general principle or for the existence of some other The argument here may fall into any figure of the syllo fact. which may serve as a sign or evidence that his view is correct. That house contains a fire. it is of less value the argument from the sign falls into the second still since the premisses do not justify . and if analysed. When figure. 27.&v tarrl ffv\\oyi&amp. even a particular conclusion. .g. therefore. c. for Pittacus 3. They are as children in business affairs. This man is the murderer. is is This is in fact a syllogism good. seen to be of this form : The argument is invalid.

lt. Possibly the explanation may be found in a passage. Oed. it is the major premiss which is in each case supplied by the Prosyllogism. yap TOVTO 13).&quot. in which Aristotle says that. sacrificed The martyrs were men who to gain eternal.rv\\oyiff/J. is : is Should three syllogisms be thus connected. ment.ENTHYMEME man still : SORITES : ANALOGY 255 In countries where it is the custom to confront the suspected with the body of the victim. is not so clear. The syllo gism. rd 5 tvdi/(i. 292. sacrifice temporal things to gain eternal. &quot. It is used to Hence. and was employed by logicians to signify the abbreviated syllogisms considered in i. ou8 6 d/cpoar^s (Rhet. Col.Tiv 1 17 t . as distinguished from the demonstrations of science. In this instance. (3) temporal things /. we are said to have a chain of reasoning.lt. 1 the term naturally enough applicable to the suggestions or persuasive arguments of rhetoric. .. KCU ty 6\lyui&amp. 1199. The eighteen Carthusians were wise. Aldrich. p. Chains of Reasoning. * wpo&amp. Mansel says. or as it is sometimes called a Polysyllogism. the second an episyllogism as regards the first. The martyrs were wise. the syllogisms form a connected series. vide Mansel. a prosy llogism in relation to the third..6s eav yap fj rt TOIJTUV yvupifiov. termed the Prosyllogism the name of Episyllogism is given to that which borrows its premiss from the other. whose conclusion becomes the premiss of the other. if one of the premisses is well known to the 3 audience. ffvXXoyifffj. The (1) following poly syllogism may serve as an example. is In any sustained argu 3. the conclu sion of one being used to form the premiss of another.lt. the orator should omit that premiss. The following Sophocles. The etymological meaning of the word enthymeme would seem to be the result of an act of reflection. 3.-. /. 1 Those who prefer the greater to the lesser good. (2) Those who are wise. I. The eighteen Carthusians were martyrs.TTl6-ri&amp. are wise Those who sacrifice temporal things to gain eternal. 216.^. How it ceased to bear this meaning. prefer the greater to the lesser good. re Kal iroXXd/aj ^\arr6vwv &v 6 irpcDros &amp.gt.T)[M. When this occurs. as signify a thought suggested by a person or thing. this particular Enthymeme appears to carry some weight. c.

major term. 1 episyllogism.. 30. however.&quot. The second only in the variety of Sorites differs from the first arrangement of the propositions composing 1 The Sorites is not a form of reasoning which frequently occurs. i. viii. that the minor must be affirmative. Watts. cannot be an infinite series of subject and the logicians of the summum (An. Post. the major universal. and the syllogisms are of the first figure. conclusion. which forbids a syllogism in Fig. may be (1) Only negative. and that the first. we break the rule. II. 20). &quot. Laurentius Valla (1415-1465). middle terms between the ultimate genus may be held to imply it Hamilton tells us that among the Greek it Complex Syllogism Sorites (croopos was known by the name of and that the name a heap) does not appear in any author before Lower Empire. are identical with the two special rules of Fig. where the argument is thus stated. . (2) Only one premiss. it follows that. Rom. (i) If other premiss except the last is negative.c. calls our attention to a well-known passage in For whom he foreknew.. save the first. (o-uAAoyur/^os a-vvOeros). The two rules. Paul. etc. and that the last.258 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC conclusion forms the minor premiss of the subsequent This is termed the Aristotelian Sorites. But every one of the pro positions. may be any The reasons particular. (2) The second rule is involved in the first. in his Logic (1725). There are two special rules for the Aristotelian Sorites: one premiss. he St. The result would inevitably be an illicit process of the tive . Since the minor premiss in each syllogism is affirmative. etc. plays the part of a major premiss. for these rules are easy to see. the major premiss must be universal. also predestinated. unless we are to have an undistributed middle. ment Aristotle himself does not treat of this mode of stating an argu though the discussion in which he shows that there . itself a minor premiss in its episyllogism. Dr. i to have a nega minor premiss. 29. then. For the first premiss of the Sorites and any subsequent negation save is itself a minor would involve a negative in the case of the last premiss.

Socrates Socrates is a man a substance. Analogy. : SORITES : ANALOGY 259 Goclenian Sorites.-. but which has also pointed the way to many of the discoveries of science.ENTHYMEME it. and that the last.a}) we have in this chapter. may be particular. but with a mode of inference. from Rodolphus Goclenius. professor at Marburg. such as are those with which we have been hitherto occupied totle. who first drew attention to it in a work he published in 1598. and not. a restatement of the two special rules. the minor premisses. used without much caution. of the major. on the Organon In this Sorites. it is it is the major premisses of the episyllogisms. lowest of the logical parts. since (i) here all the hence a premisses save the first are minor premisses in of them would involve an illicit any negation process And (2) were any premiss. 6. Example (Trapd&eiyiJ. but with that which is imme It is called the diately subordinate to the summum genus. . not with a logical form of comparatively little moment. which. and that the first. . is analysed. save the last. It is however a guide. They now become (1) Only one premiss. particular. as in the case of the Aristo This will necessitate telian Sorites. may be : negative. When seen that the argument. misleads instead of assisting. we should have a particular conclusion to one of the prosy Uogisms. . (2) Only one premiss. In Analogy (or as it is termed by Aris to deal. and in consequence a particular major premiss involving an undistributed middle. . as thus stated. which are omitted. we begin not with the of Aristotle. which we not only employ constantly in the practical concerns of life. All mammals are animals . . All men are is mammals . Thus : All living creatures are substances All animals are living creatures . These changes are necessary.

: &quot. But in regard to this causal relation. S a is M. Log. the inference is between M If they are not causally related. major term conclusion In that part. .&quot. The following is the illustration. 1 The Example is Aristotle thus describes the argument from Example an inference. 3). is P. 24. but one of the two is better known to us than the other (An. us no reason for supposing that it was also P. Aristotle terms it an inference.-. If this be the case. &quot. c. (P) may be universally predicated of the middle (M). on the ground that it is predicable of S 1( a term which resembles the subject of our eventual Sa . 1 argue deductively. ing characteristics of S i (cf. This description &quot. and should not be one of the differentiat In the 38). when both fall under a common genus. .260 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC similitude. . for the mere fact that 5. All M M M . The analogical argument may be said to contain both induction and deduction. our argument ceases to be an Analogy and becomes a perfect syllogism. is M. Thus. . that P should be a property resulting from the nature M.: S a is P. Arist. Analogy may be defined as an inference based on a The formula for this mode of argument be thus represented 5. By an induction we conclude are P and we then from the instance S 1 that All are P. as we have indicated. we must have no more Our grounds for believing it must than a supposition. by a term which resembles the minor. in the illustration given. but from part to part. 5 2 resembles is P. Trendelenburg. Prior II. As soon as we are certain that is the cause of P. nor from the logical whole to its parts [deduction]. term of the middle. with which Aristotle provides us The war of the Thebans against the Phocians proved calamitous. the inference passes from S t to S 2 both being logical parts of the genus M.. in which we prove the major same passage. Elem. not justify certainty. The value of the inference here depends altogether on the supposition that there is a causal connexion and P.. we conclude that the applies to the inductive part of it alone. War between Athens and Thebes Thebans with the Phocians bouring state. 5 2 : may : Si in being M. in being a resembles the war of the war with a neigh War between Athens and Thebes will prove calamitous. not from the logical parts to the logical whole [induction]. The validity of the argument requires. would then give cious . it is falla legitimate.

for instance. tion strictly so-called has often argue in place. been one of the most fruitful sources of scientific dis covery. which form the subject matter of deliberative consultation and in which Induc . The analogical argument is however not merely of value in such matters as these. as we have noted. Analogy would suggest that events would follow the same course in France. The phenomena of electricity were at that time only known to him through the small elec trical machines of the day. the investi gator is led by Analogy to enquire whether the same property is not to be found in the other class. It is in fact frequently applicable in regard to those practical affairs. that lightning was . when at a time of complete political disorganization. a Frenchman to have made no We We a forecast of the future on such grounds. this way. and that on a smaller scale. It will be sufficient here to give a single example of this scientific analogy. The discovery was made by Franklin in 1749. He would remember that Julius Caesar under some what similar circumstances. and conduction can be effected by is metal. the motion rapid. just as he regards the Enthy- meme ment is as representing Deduction. It suggested itself to him. had seized supreme power at Rome. which appears to be in some way dependent on these attributes. By way of illustration we may take the inference which led to the discovery that lightning an electrical discharge. may well suppose. and on between similarity lightning the other the sparks given off by the conductor of the machine. Cromwell had done the same in England. It has. But he had noticed the on the one hand. and one of the two is further characterized by a property. When two different classes of objects have certain attributes in common. In both cases the light is of the same colour. he saw Napoleon Bonaparte return to France as the general of a victorious army. since we shall have to return to the subject in a later chapter. where rhetorical argu concerned.ENTHYMEME The inference from : SORITES is : ANALOGY 261 Example termed by Aristotle the Induction of Rhetoric. when we apply the lessons of history.

&quot. III. be such as to amount to cer tainty. Moreover. Thus he says (I. of unascertained properties it follows that . c.e. not conclusive. which we possess for supposing that the characteristic common to the two objects These reasons is really connected with the property in question. and next with the extent of the unexplored region &quot. depends on the extent of ascertained resemblance. we find that it agrees with A in nine out of : ten of its known properties. of the inference depends on the reasons. must not. ference. he judged. But this was sufficient to establish a truth of vast moment. viz.262 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC and was due to the clouds just electrical in its character. Mill s demand that a comparison should be instituted between the known points of agreement and difference on the one hand. is in fact a point of little moment... is and the unexplored region of unascertained properties. 20) to the sub He holds that the force of an analogical in ject of Analogy. They must be probable. any attempt to form an estimate of the number of properties which it contains. What has been said above will have shown that such a basis for analogy presents many difficulties. the clouds should. if after much observation of B. It is true that itself the analogical this inference only concluded to the fact that the clouds would give off electrical sparks. Since the region is unexplored. give off sparks. Mill devotes a chapter of his Logic (Bk. it. kite sent was experiment up during a is Were this then a conductor among thunderstorm with a wire attached to cipated result was obtained. being charged with electricity. charged. : that lightning was to be reckoned among electrical phenomena. Since the 3). But it is they and where they that are the true foundation of the argument are wanting analogy becomes mere guess-work. value of an analogical argument. incapable of fulfilment. was A tried. must needs be fruitless. as we have already said. compared first with the amount of ascertained difference. The mere number The value of resemblances. inferring one resemblance from other resemblances without any antecedent evidence of a connexion between them. The anti The two phenomena proved : to resemble each other in this point also inference was correct. we may conclude with a probability of nine to one that it will possess any given derivative property of A. The precisely as does the conductor of the machine. as the electrical machine sent so. : . depends entirely on the number of points of similarity between the two objects.

state ing traditionally known as Analogy. is one which plays a very important part. which was used among the Greeks to signify numerical proportion. occasionally denned as an argument based on similar Of this kind is the inference which compares various orders of citizens to the different parts of the human body the head. and on the other between the organ in question and the body. is the similarity of relations between the group of citizens and the on the one hand. etc. Nothing would be gained by restricting the use of the term to a narrower scope.. and then reasons to The whole basis of such an argument their respective duties. This account of Analogy adheres closely to the etymological meaning of the term (dvaXoyta). the eyes. are not similarities of relations. In many cases the resemblances on which it is based.ENTHYMEME Analogy is : SORITES : ANALOGY 263 ity of relations. . As a The form of reason definition it presents some inconveniences. the hands.

&quot. be such as to amount to cer tainty. Moreover. But it is they and where they that are the true foundation of the argument are wanting analogy becomes mere guess-work. viz. and was due to the clouds just being charged with electricity. is in fact a point of little moment. III. Mill s demand that a comparison should be instituted between the known points of agreement and difference on the one hand. depends on the extent of ascertained resemblance. if after much observation of B. The anti cipated result was obtained. we may conclude with a probability of nine to one that it will possess any given derivative property of A. It is true that this inference only concluded to the fact that the clouds would give off electrical sparks.262 electrical in its PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC character. that lightning : was to be reckoned among electrical phenomena. Mill devotes a chapter of his Logic (Bk. The precisely as does the conductor of the machine. was tried. which we possess for supposing that the characteristic common to the two objects These reasons is really connected with the property in question. must needs be fruitless.e. The mere number The value of resemblances. Since the region is unexplored. any attempt to form an estimate of the number of properties which it contains. 20) to the sub He holds that the force of an analogical in ject of Analogy. But this was sufficient to establish a truth of vast moment. Since the 3). not conclusive. charged. They must be probable. the clouds should. inferring one resemblance from other resemblances without any antecedent evidence of a connexion between them. c.. : . A kite was sent experiment up during a is Were this then a conductor among thunderstorm with a wire attached to it.. depends entirely on the number of points of similarity between the two objects. must not. he judged. The two phenomena proved to resemble each other in this point also the analogical : inference itself was correct. What has been said above will have shown that such a basis for analogy presents many difficulties. of the inference depends on the reasons. as the electrical machine sent so. value of an analogical argument. give off sparks. of unascertained properties it follows that . is and the unexplored region of unascertained properties. and next with the extent of the unexplored region &quot. we find that it agrees with A in nine out of : ten of its known properties. as we have already said. compared first with the amount of ascertained difference. Thus he says (I. incapable of fulfilment. ference.

and then reasons to The whole basis of such an argument their respective duties. As a The form of reason definition it presents some inconveniences. state known as Analogy. the eyes. In many cases the resemblances on which it is based. and on the other between the organ in question and the body. This account of Analogy adheres closely to the etymological meaning of the term (dvaXoyta). is one which plays a very important part.. on the one hand. Nothing would be gained by restricting the use of the term to a narrower scope. etc. which was used among the Greeks to signify numerical proportion.ENTHYMEME Analogy is : SORITES : ANALOGY 263 occasionally denned as an argument based on similar Of this kind is the inference which compares various orders of citizens to the different parts of the human body the head. are not similarities of relations. ing traditionally . is the similarity of relations between the group of citizens and the ity of relations. the hands.

with which the science is concerned. Hence it their work. the Sophistici is Elenchi. Verbal intercourse or Discussion was not the the but also method of method. the pursuit of knowledge far less on written books than on the spoken depended word. The Treatment of Fallacies in Logic. as an argument is fallacious. to be warned against a syllogism whose middle term is ambi guous. and by which controversy was carried on. The chief reason why fallacies almost invariably form a constituent part of treatises on Logic is historical. which it is the work of Logic to explain. i. concerned with came about that subsequent writers on the subject also included them within the scope of them. then. FALLACIES. We have throughout treated Logic as the science which deals with the conceptual representation of the real order. : . For here we have not one of those legitimate operations of the mind. merely for which friends in the search by philosophic co-operated There truth. It contributes but little to a knowledge of Logic. So far. or Refutations of the Sophists. The last portion of the Organon of Aristotle. It might perhaps seem that fallacies have no place in this work. no longer processes. We shall realize why Aristotle treated some length. if we recall the circumstances At that period. it is It fails to conform to any of those logical.CHAPTER XVII. but a mere counterfeit argument. instruction. whose plausibility is due to the fact that the same vocal sound represents two different ideas. were three main kinds of these reasoned discussions this point at of his day.

and the falla tions argument as carried on between con He discusses the methods. But the art of making its the adepts. not for the discovery of the truth. so. For a discriminating account of the Sophists. pp. is Elenchi. c. philosophy. to be thought that the study of We have not indeed a class of men prepared for a consideration to defend fallacies useless to ourselves. What Errors are reckoned as Fallacies ? It is manifest that in treating of fallacies. These ques form the subject of the Topics and the Sophistici It is not. 2. 104-155. belonged the arguments of the Sophists. 1 1 . by which cious arguments of the Sophists avoided. (3) To The men was that they could defend either any argument. but to win popular 2 applause and secure pecuniary gain. special science. however. the claims of suggested solutions tested. occurring in an argument.FALLACIES (1) 265 relating to to learners. we do not reckon as such every error which. could vitiate the conclusion. shall detect the sophisms proposed for our acceptance but it will undoubtedly render us more capable of doing talents. Intellectual skirmishes between opponents. 2. that Aristotle in boast of these in side his logical treatises deals not merely with the internal reason. but with in tending parties. see Grant s Ethics of Aristotle. Politics. these verbal discussions. this alone will not ensure that we pitfalls. there i. To such a task. either side of any thesis. It is therefore not to be wondered at. 1 this class. Soph. truth might be pursued. still has the main types of be service in of real may guarding us against It is true. Some acquaintance with fallacy . and reduce their opponent to discomfiture. proposed (2) The demonstrative arguments by a teacher some Friendly co-operation in the search for truth. To them reasoning was a means employed. afford these men a field for the exercise of their worse cause appear the better. Elenchi. certain aspects of religious contro versy.

Hence. with the matter of which the syllogism deals. many of the false arguments propounded for our acceptance. even if we consider the Art of Discussion as part of Logic. ist Epoch. The 1 In this fallacy. Perhaps the prevalence of these errors has arisen. the false conclusion occurs. continuous (For traversing an infinite number of parts does not occur. In these days.&quot. is therefore excluded from the treatment of fallacies. 3. of argument are conclu and which are who made philosophers. Here the fallacy lies in an error relative to the nature of motion. But no one. say five yards. . Moreover most of such errors belong to some special science. the tortoise would still advance in front and so on. c. is the famous argument. ad infmitum. it is not the function of Logic. such as undistributed middle and illicit process of the major or minor term. list are further ruled out from the of fallacies. &quot. can cover an infinite number of distances. because their detection belongs to the special science. scarcely know which forms &quot. this distance. versed in the precisely in these respects. another solution see Lewes. Hist. to men art of dispute. Therefore Achilles can never overtake the tortoise. of Philosophy. then during the time that Achilles was advancing In the same way. In these. it would have made some further progress. to indicate its falsity. he says. Another class of errors is similarly excluded. but because some method of solution inappro priate to the case in question is applied in the reasoning. A fallacy must present a semblance in of truth. 1 Breaches also of syllogistic rule. while he was covering the new ground gained upon him. and men sive. For if the tortoise It was urged that Achilles could never overtake his rival. as de Morgan suggests. It is throughout supposed that it is composed of a . for instance.) of separate parts. number difficulty of thus the It is in fact like space itself. the tortoise gained a small start. not because the premisses are wrong. it was supposed that a race takes place between Achilles and a tortoise. and that while Achilles slept. indeed. the discovery (or what has been allowed not. Achilles Such. had a start of. The consideration of erroneous premisses. relating to and the tortoise. err syllogism. but of the science to which the error belongs. But a which these rules are violated. lacked the essential qualities necessary to recommend it. however small.266 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC could be no possible termination. because the study of Aristotelian Logic has been neglected. not even Achilles. .

of logical principle. 3. (Amphibologia (Compositio Trapa Trapa (Divisio rrjv rtjv 7rapaTr]vaiu. Fallacies in the language. Statpriv.(pi/3o\iav. It is more of whose falsehood the employer is not conscious. of these two classes : A. should for the special as synonymous with : Sophism. Figure of Speech. frequently employed to signify a breach of the formal rules of Paradox. (Formal Logic. 1. in driving study of the connexion between language&quot. but in which nevertheless we have a false con A fallacy may then be defined as a violation clusion. irapa T*IV vvvQeariv. (Accentus 6. Equivocation. and whose conclusion follows in due form. p.} 4. Composition. The errors in argumentation. List be noted. whose premisses are undeniable. disguised under a show of validity. in which we have the appearance of a syllogism. 5. a false syllogism fabricated this purpose of deceiving others. rrjv o^wuu^/ai . have succeeded by false history.FALLACIES 267 to pass for one) that Bacon invented a new species of Logic.) the language (fallaciae dictione (2) Those in which the error arises from some other source than the language (fallaciae extra dictionem These were called by some of the Schoolmen. (Aequivocatio Trapa. since in them the is cies in the source of the confusion The following is the list in the thing stated. (Figura dictionis irapa TO .) 3. Paralogism word is explained by Hamilton (following Kant) as a fallacy. something contrary to received opinion.) TrpovwSiav. Aristotle s of Fallacies.) 2. out from our system all thought and The following terms occasionally used fallacy. inference. Division. Aristotle divided in fallacies into (1) two groups. Falla matter (fallaciae in re]. which are reckoned as fallacies. which was to supersede that of Aristotle.) Accent. 241). and falser theory. are thus limited to those cases. Those arising from Trapa rtjv Xefyv. Amphibology.

Equivocation is the fallacy which from the employment of the same word in different The premisses appear undeniable. Soph./3ef3t]Kd$. viz.aTa ev (Plurium Interrogationum Troieiv. c. Thomas proves that this is so in ployed in the argument. 2.) 3. for the context senses. he says. Many examples : 1 8 St. This gives us two cases. (Consequentis Trapa TO eTro/u-evov. simpliciter (A dicto rj secundum quid ad dictum Tr/. Opusc. and (2) when it belongs to a phrase (Composition and Division). (i) when the quasiis : : : found in a single word (Accent). given in illustration of the fallacy are De Morgan supplies us with the fol simple enough. Elenchi. (i) when the ambiguity belongs to a single word (Equivocation).gt. . Confusion (Accidentis Trapa TO a-v/u.268 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC B. and (2) when it belongs to a phrase (Amphibology). 3. 4. Fallacies in the matter.) of absolute and qualified statement.? (Non Causa pro Causa Trapa TO M a*Tiov 7. (Ignoratio Elenchi Trapa Trjv TOV eXey^ov ayvoiav. Thomas.? Xe yecrOat. determines the word in question to an appropriate sense but we are brought to a false or unwelcome conclusion.) Refuting the wrong point. Consequent. a Equivocation. aiTiov.) irapa The list of the fallacies in the language. ) Many TO * TO. 4.gt. Accident. ft&amp. Aristotle tells us. This also gives us two cases. a7rAft&amp. de Fallaciis. exhaustive. three possible sources of misapprehension as to the meaning of the language.) the question. including all which can arise from the words em 1 St. (b) The second source of error occurs when the words are not really ambiguous. lowing All criminal actions ought to be punished by law. i. ovo epa)Tiiiu. (c) The am biguity may be due merely to the misunderstanding on the part ambiguity is of the disputant (Figure of Speech). False Cause. but may be rendered so by a change of pro nunciation. Begging (Petitio Principii Trapa TO ev apffl Xafjifiaveiv. (a) The words employed may be really ambiguous.) 5. c. questions. 6. 35. the following manner There are. 1. 4. arises . viz.

So-called final causes do not possess real existence. or as it is now often identical with Equivocation. called. except Amphiboly that here the error is due not to an ambiguous word. cit. conquer that the Romans can conquer thee. we ordinarily mean efficient causes. Yet the erroneous win acceptance. I. The reply alleged to have been given by the oracle to Pyrrhus before his invasion of Italy. not in virtue of real in so far as an intelligent efficient cause but existence. his end-in-view. conclusion. When one noun is qualified by another in the genitive case. and can only be known from the context. 1 Where the sophism is of this character it may sometimes cause grave perplexity to the student. son of Aeacus. : 1 Soph. Indeed it would seem to have been these that Aristotle had specially in view. cause exerts sets it before him as major may easily of. Prosecutions for theft ought to be punished by law 241). Amphibology. Thus it might be argued Nothing can be a real cause that does not possess real But : existence. but to the doubtful meaning of some phrase. son of Aeacus. p. . as the typical example of this fallacy. Prosecutions for theft are criminal actions. The form of the phrase is such that it may equally I tell thee. it (op. Here the analogous word cause brings us to a false The major premiss is not true of all causes. 7. has appeared in almost all logical treatises from the time of Boethius to our own and it can days omitted be scarcely Aio te Aeacida Romanes vincere posse. final A its causality.*. c. should be remembered that Equivocation covers the case not merely of equivocal but of analogous terms. the Romans. that thou canst well signify. the relation between the two is left quite inde terminate. /.FALLACIES 269 . is Amphibology. and I tell thee. So-called final causes are not real causes. Elenchi. because when causes are spoken 5.

Thus if we say. other words. The fallacy of Composition occurs. when we join together the members of such a term. To create is defined as to make something out of nothing. three. Creation is impossible. such as.-. In the old axiom phrase Ex nihilo nihil fit. we define creation as to make out of nothing. when it is was a statesman and a and philosopher. . When one term of a proposition consists of several words. When. that between an author and his book. out of which something is made . Thus if we argue.-. as there in the idea of employing nonentity as a substratum. The It is impossible that nothing (Ex nihilo nihil anything can be made out of fit). 6. must be taken in But predicate.g. Composition and Division. . Thus some of the old logicians and the thing possessed.270 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is Often the relation signified that between the possessor But frequently some very different relation is in question. This book belongs to Aristotle. following instance may serve to show how amphi bology may give rise to a philosophical difficulty. is we mean to make without any substratum is No impossibility involved in this. Peers and ecclesiastics are excluded from membership of the House of Commons. however. these members must sometimes be understood conjunctively. : What . we mean that nothing cannot be in a substratum. arises Here the to fallacy from the ambiguity of the make out of nothing. we have two separate predicates the sentence can be analysed into two propositions. at all. no one can turn nothing into something. give this example This is Aristotle s book. is Aristotle s belongs to Aristotle. the words as two and three conjunction constituting a stated that Bacon single . in a case where they should be kept separate. and some Five is two and times disjunctively. e.

character : The happiness of a. the predicate must be understood in sensu diviso. Two men only are excluded from membership . Here in the minor premiss. Each several individual [should] desire the happiness of the aggregate of persons.-. . . real fact can be either On this or c he bases a long and intricate discussion as to the real of the proposition. of the fallacy of Composition In treating of the Disjunc tive proposition it &quot. Heaven is the reward of all who love their friends and forgive . that each person s happiness is a good to that person.FALLACIES 271 Two men only are peers and ecclesiastics. The argument involves a syllogism of this &quot. The alleged difficulty is case of The words either b or a this fallacy.&quot. Caius loves his friends. is the happiness of the aggre gate of persons. An instance of the fallacy to be found in one of Mill s works. and it is not necessary that a man should be alike a peer and an ecclesiastic. we have all the proof which the case admits of . d .*.. An is interesting example he lays 6 furnished by Mr. happiness of . c. c. Each person desires his own happiness. . 122). we commit is this For each of the two classes excluded. He says. p. The argument is vitiated by this fallacy when we separate what should be taken together. and the general happiness.). is the greatest happiness of the greatest number. It occurs in his Utilitarianism. It is quite . . simply c have been read conjunctively instead of disjunctively meaning (Principles. In the major premiss however the same term appears as subject in sensu composite. he is seeking to establish that the summum bonum. fallacy.-. Heaven will be the reward of Caius. a good to the aggregate of persons. b. d d . . The individuals a. down as evident that the expression real fact. . their enemies. The fallacy of Division is the converse of the preceding.. when has become famous. A No is cannot possibly answer to or. a. Thus. This being a fact. b. of the House of Commons. to be disqualified. after which all men should strive. own happiness (the . . b. as is evident. . c. therefore. Bradley. desire their .

Figure of Speech. . c. Aristotle in unwritten discourse can hardly furnish a fallacious controversy and criticism reasoning. but only on the poets. 444. speak of his deliverance into the hands of the Boleyn faction as being a punishment inflicted upon him by God he saw it as the act of an ungrateful master.g. d. The conclusion is of course worthless. 3 A term really belonging to one Soph. Hist.Accentuation to the fallacy of Accent. in order to render exhaustive his list of the errors. etc. to Sir William Kingston. Brewer.272 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC untrue that the happiness of a. when dying. Had I but served my God with as much zeal as I have served my king. Elenchi. For he slips into this error as well and. Brewer. of Henry VIII. cit. c. and contrasted it with the treatment he would have received from God. de Morgan.. had he made His service his chief aim. 4 (Poste s trans. . in 1 written It would appear that he only introduces it. which can arise from the language. 7. p. p.&quot. op. ambiguity arising in this way often difficult to fix the precise thought. he concludes instead that it is the end at which they should aim.&quot. Moreover further vitiated by another illegitimate alteration. to restrict makes it Within the sphere to which he inclines the it. As says. whose termination happens to be one which is ordinarily 2 1 . as they are when we say that each desires his own it is happiness. &quot. is the happiness of the aggregate if they are taken severally and out of relation to all others. 8. e. This fallacy occurs when the structure of a word or expression leads us erroneously to suppose that its meaning is analogous to that of words whose form is similar. He would not have given me over in my old age to my enemies. are thus printed by Dr.. If it be the true reading. 3 We sometimes see it stated (cf. which an author intended to express. Wolsey did not &quot. which we shall notice more particularly when we discuss the fallacy known as Figure of Speech. b. * The stress on the word He gives a new significance to the passage. Accent.). For example the words addressed by Cardinal Wolsey.. 250) that the fallacy is simply the grammatical mistake of giving a feminine adjective to a masculine noun. the historian of the reign of Henry VIII. when he should draw the conclusion that all men do as a fact aim at the general happiness.

. and the It is true that this case is . Such an error is not logical at all. and But heard. or can be implies that the object can be desired.FALLACIES category 273 : may be understood as belonging to another quantity may be taken for substance. 1 to be desired. and so on. : : feminine like. means much more. desirable/ though it is heard. In like manner.&quot. lies in the object tsseen or can be seen. readily conceded that it is so. 1 In this argument. viz. already been made in which our previous citation was taken. The only &quot.. Whether a man must not have It is lost that which he once had.. The question is first proposed. and loses one. I apprehend. proof capable of being given that an object is visible. which denote subjective affections. and now has no longer. another totally different in kind. the fallacy carries us from one species of relation to (e. The only proof that a is that people actually see it. The follow ing example. On identical grounds exception may reasonably be taken to the use. T . and deals with for it signifies that the object ought the moral order . is that people do Here the whole force of the argu actually desire it. mentioned by Aristotle but it should be remem bered that one of the objects of the Sophists was to make their opponents ridiculous by driving them into grammatical solecisms. ten dice. No better example can be given than one found in Mill s Utilitarianism. The form of the word perception is similar to that of terms such as emotion/ passion/ etc.g. of the term a per ception/ to signify an object perceived. by certain authors. to which reference has In the same passage from 6. is that people hear it. bona poeta). and hence paves the way to the fallacious conclusion that the immediate objects of sense are likewise subjective. . ment the similarity of the words visible/ audible. where there is an illegitimate transition from category to category. no longer has what he once had. The Sophist then argues He who has ten dice. which he gives. he says. agent for patient. Aristotle includes under this fallacy all cases. sound is audible. Yet visible and audible signify that desirable. the sole evidence it is possible to give that anything is desirable. well illustrates how a Sophist might succeed in putting an unskilled dialectician into a difficulty.

e. belongs to it. The man Soph. having A sheath is a scabbard. Thus the Sophist is represented as asking. are understood of an object considered independently. two terms three relations. is true of the subject. 10. may have definition. Accident. and in so far as. which are entirely different. they are different unless their meaning.g. 2 They may may (i) precisely the same Or (2) they e. what he once had signifies the collective body. They are so. is the same. (3) the common.274 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC longer has the ten dice he had once. unless is asserted of the predicate. He who no sarily lost what he once had. precisely in so far as its definition is identical with that of the is 3 The fallacy of accident results from neglecting subject. Do you know the man with his Do you know Coriscus ? 1 face muffled I ? I do do. 22. e. in definitions may have something Or again. 24. . Elenchi. Here a predicate is said to be accidental to a subject. The horse is black.g. The meaning of the term accident as here employed. If one be removed. 3. Opu. this relation Hence there is here an illegitimate is lost by each and all. We cannot true of the predicate. if by this we mean but considered that they denote the same individual . c. i. S. sarily lost ten dice.g. Objects col lectively considered stand in mutual relation as members of a group of such and such extent. 35. has not neces longer has He who no . a. c. and from that it has when it denotes the nine last Categories. their definition. Aristotle gives us various examples in this principle. c. Soph. 2 3 Thomas. it has not the same definition. when. definitions is stand to each other in be synonymous.-.sc. Man risible. Elenchi. As applied to the dice. Viewed from this aspect. has not neces it. in regard to what they signify. Man is conclude that animal. The form of the proposition 5 is P leads us to regard S and P as identical. 1 The fallacy lies in the fact that in the original question the words to have no longer what he once had. 9. c. is somewhat different both from that which it bears as applied to one of the Predicables. what what not. illustration. transition from substance to relation.

e. 2 1 1 8 (2) above See Ch. a property. 6. Topics. is that it is one thing to be Coriscus. A predicate is said to be i. . Inference by the omission of determinants. is a duty among the Triballi. from its Latin name. can likewise be affirmed of man. 1 But because it is the case that To offer up your aged parents in sacrifice. ii. It is perfectly possible at the same time to know Coriscus. In the and not to know the man with muffled face. That dog is therefore he is your father. It may be such as to limit and to narrow the reference of predicate to subject. as he points out. could not be true. Qualification may be of two kinds. fallacia a dido simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. It is true that risible . and another to be with muffled face. 10. so that it would be false to affirm the proposition without mention of the Or it may be one which. This fallacy is commonly known as the fallacy Secundum quid.&quot. Man Man is is risible. Risible is a property. II. You have both The asserted and denied that you know Coriscus. so far from limit qualification. . affirmed secundum quid. because it is a property of man not follow that everything that can be affirmed of .FALLACIES with his face muffled is 275 Coriscus. we may dispose of the sophism. we cannot conclude that the same is a duty elsewhere. Gibbon is a great historian. Cf. solution of the difficulty. presupposes the truth of the unqualified assertion. only in some particular respect. were not the absolute statement Gibbon is an historian. when a word is ing the applicability of the predicate.-. single individual. true. contains man as part of its but it does definition. yours. same way. merely because they refer to a Of a similar character is the argument. added qualifying the application of the predicate to the subject. Thus the proposition. and he is a father The two terms yours and a father cannot be treated as though they were one. c. Confusion of Absolute and Qualified Statement. risible.

. Indeed. infer the truth of the absolute statement. not the point which he has undertaken to prove. that there is danger of the fallacy secundum quid. to this island that a nation persuade an inhabitant of can prosper and be happy. For a more detailed analysis of the various ways Thomas.276 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC statements limited in this manner.g. it is commonly said that we have in certain cases done positive harm by imposing English methods on races. as we have already seen (Ch. of the predicate. for instance. to which they were unsuited. 35. Ignoratio Elenchi. or respect. e. Our legislators. This fallacy may be said to be connatural to the race of man. but something which may be mistaken for it. speaking absolutely. in which the predicate . with out representative government and trial by jury. must needs be so to other men. judged that what was adapted to Englishmen would be equally serviceable to the Hindoo. xi. A Or it may assign centaur is an imaginary animal. is now commonly cance of the term is ignorance of the nature of refuta It is the fault committed in controversy by the man who does not prove the true contradictory of the statement advanced by his opponent. 4. c. &quot. but some other conclusion. Opusc. and in other circumstances.. A true refutation. It is hard. in a just war. can we from the limited. 1 etc. The name Ignoratio Elenchi applied to all cases. This limiting qualification may be such as to deny the reality This coin is a false shilling. see St.g. to health in certain illnesses. 1 is limited. 2). arguing too hastily a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. time. in which a man establishes. etc. e. A centaur is not an animal nor is laudanum. in reference to which alone the assertion is made. It is in regard to some precise place. conducive to health. We are all apt to believe that what has been found useful within our own narrow experience. But the true signifi ii. only occurs when the same predicate is denied of the same subject in the tion. Laudanum is conducive It is lawful to take life In none of these cases.

But then whatever hand or eye I imagine. c. not on the dignity of those who hold the opinion. a good example is afforded in a well-known passage of Berkeley.. Here there is manifest ignoratio elenchi : for the statement The Popes are not impec brought as a refutation. not un is common infallible for the Catholic doctrine that the Pope regarding matters of faith and morals.&quot. of forming general concepts undertakes to prove that the mind is incapable and he does so as follows I can imagine a man with two heads or the upper part of a man joined to the body of a horse. will rightly regard his view as inferior to that of the great authorities on art. it must have some particular shape or colour. religion.FALLACIES identical it 277 in respect. 5. in which the speaker judices : : urges that the dignity of those who hold his opinion is such. I cannot by any effort of thought conceive the abstract idea above described. The latter relies. . Within the sphere of philosophy. a man but little versed in the subject. It is . does not deny the same predicate as was affirmed in the original proposition. relation. etc. : cable. x manner and time It is. . . Elenchi. statesmanship. the nose. contained in the Introduction to the Principles of Human Know ledge. that his hearer should feel himself constrained to yield his opinion to theirs * the argumentum ad hominem. where the speaker trusts to the ignorance of his hearers for their acceptance of his statements the argumen tum ad populum. 5.&quot. the eye. carefully distinguished from the perfectly legitimate argumentum ad auctoritatem. in questions of political The argumentum ad verecundiam should be economy. &quot.. : He plain that his reasons prove something quite different from what he is seeking to establish for they only show that we cannot form a universal phantasm. affirmed. Together with ignoratio elenchi we may class the argumentum ad ignorantiam. in which the previous : 1 2 Soph. viz. which has been for instance. the appeal not to reason but to popular pre the argumentum ad verecundiam. to be attacked on the ground that it can be historically proved that some Popes have been guilty of grave sin. not that we cannot conceive a universal idea. but on their supremacy in the particular matter under discussion. The Popes are infallible. Thus in a question which concerns art. Similarly. each by itself abstracted or separated from the rest of the body. I can consider the hand.. etc.

It would perhaps be possible at the present day to hear the thesis that the House of Lords is out of date. Welton (Manual. but for which he has not yet advanced his arguments. totle to The term employed by Aris 12. supported by the argu ment that an upper chamber in England is an anachron ism. Mr. of which as a whole it is to be proved : (5) the : : assumption of a proposition. the truth of which carries with it the truth of the one to be established. signifies literally to assume the very point proposed for debate at the outset. . of course. Petitio Principii. 1 The first of these is the case in which the proposition itself is assumed. are : (2) the assumption of a universal proposition which involves the conclusion to be established (3) if the the is universal. : viii.g.278 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC history of a man is urged as rendering it impossible that he should with consistency hold certain views. the famous argument by which in the Monadology Leibniz 1 Topics. This was the sense in which the term was used by the Scholastics. speaking of this form of Petitio Principit. Aristotle enumerates five ways in which the ques tion may be begged. 35. denote this fallacy. Cf. e. which the disputant undertakes to prove. Thomas. Opusc. proposition needing proof assumption of a particular case involving it (4) the assumption of the truth of the conclusion in regard to each part of the subject. he must conceal the indecency of the pro ceeding by the employment of different words. 13. he may escape detection. The example The other four just given will illustrate this method. Where this is done. but rarely that it is possible for a man to assume without any circumlocution the point at issue. For the question (quaestio) is the name used by the old logicians for the conclu sion. Of these various kinds perhaps the second is the one which affords the disputant the greatest facility for 8 A notable instance is afforded by escaping detection. 187). At the least. c. It is. In this 8 he is in error. St. Hence our English expression to beg the question/ renders the original sense with fidelity. 13. says apparently implying that they did not recognize the other four forms. c.

J. does not once name Christ. hypothetical syllogism 13. This form of argument assumes that some event was unknown to a writer. des simples. He argues that what is compound must needs be an aggregate of simple substances hence. we know that there are simple pound substances. really amount to petitio principii. owing to the fact that their food has to be sought among while conversely. i. and yet is not a simple entity. pp. Fallacy from the assertion the antecedent 1 : of the consequent or the denial of : as for instance Monadologie. of parts already separated not formed of actual from each other. : the continuous. Gerard. : y a des composes II faut qu il y ait des substances simples: 2. 94. which is parts. this is a mere assumption. tive. on the ground that they have assumed these hues. Fr. one of the popularizers of the evolutionary hypothesis in its more extreme forms. A well-known form of the fifth case is the circulus in argumentando or vicious circle. Many instances might be cited to show that conclusions thus based Thus Theophilus of Antioch. . 1 The argument relies on the supposed prin But What is not simple is actually compound.e. he accounts for bright fruits and flowers the development of the bright colours of the edible berries. ciple. In his work The Evolutionist at Large. he ac counts for the development of brilliant plumage in certain species of birds. on the ground that they have acquired an aesthetic taste. have a taste for bright colours. in which of two correlative propositions. : This fallacy is of the Consequent.FALLACIES seeks to 279 show that all material bodies are constituted and indivisible monads. viz. 2 In this connexion we may mention the argument from silence. puisqu il car le compose n est autre chose qu un amas ou aggrega- tum a Cf. For there is a third alterna of simple . Grant Allen. since we know that there are com substances. because none of his existing works mention it. Tacitus does not mention the tragedies of Seneca. writing a defence of Christianity. understood as the ordinarily denoting illegitimate con which is in drawn a clusion. An in stance may be drawn from the works of Mr. each is made to depend for its proof upon the other. because the birds which live upon them. 84. and Martial and Statius never mention one another. Science and Scientists.

the word in his enumeration of fallacies. i. Indeed. and it. separate treatment in his logical works to the hypothetical syllog It is therefore unlikely that he should deal with that error ism. as ancient Athens. A. both of the predicates are among the mal. are identical the one with the other.. we are concerned with a single subject this we identify with its accident. which is necessarily involved in a subject. are not 1 questions. Bonitz in Arist. of which the same accident Is affirmed and on these grounds we identify the subjects. erroneously imagine that this relation is that which fallacy. merely that in the latter. 27. The obtains between the subjects and the predicate of their premisses. 981. 3) are. * 13. fallacies of the consequent. This man dresses elaborately. are a subordinate The difference between them is species of fallacies of accident. and he illustrates this by the syllogism : Men . where it is of fre quent occurrence. man. These errors have already been noticed in Ch. Those who are unversed in Logic. 5. into which Soph. of loose character dress elaborately. but has de But it is not scended to them from the mediaeval treatises. . 1 Thus. He is idle. This man is of loose character. 10. 3 : : 14. c. and affirm of the accident what really belongs to the subject alone. This student has little acquaintance with his subject. he will have little acquaintance with his subject. 2 he says.-. In fallacies of the consequent we have two subjects. Cf. Ibid. 6. Elenchi. in the propositions man is ani man is mortal. It denotes any predicate.2 8o PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC If a student is idle. two things. which are identical with the same thing. c. False Cause. The fallacy of consequent occurs. Both the fallacy it of non causa pro causa and the following one of Many was z though incident to disputation. he adds. 9. he says. * a. Met. is based upon a misapplication of the axiom. carried on at among those errors. It is not Consequent (e7ro/xei/ov) in his logical treatises. there is no need to deal with them afresh. Aristotle gives no identical with the Aristotelian account. As a matter of fact. This explanation of the fallacy has a long tradition behind a novelty of the modern text-books. when we eTTOyaera of treat the consequent as convertible with the antecedent. has a different meaning from that now attri buted to it. vitiated bv this fault. Rhe torical Enthymemes (of Fig. .

the Sophist he had feigned to employ he had joined to it other and it was from these. a direct affirmative Questions. though apparently single. . Here the original statement has nothing to do with the conclusion obtained. though in fact it was not so that he was thus guilty of the fallacy Non : causa pro causa.FALLACIES the 281 mind of man keeps falling. would almost certainly base it on the very different principle. if we suppose the Sophist s opponent to have affirmed that the death-penalty for murder is just. and not from his doctrine. The or negative proposed by took the task of confuting the positions advanced by the other. that the punishment must be proportioned to the crime. then it follows that it would be equally just to inflict the death-penalty for pocket-picking. a principle which is in no way connected with the state ment that the death penalty for murder is just. Thus. when he desired to show that the statement of his opponent led place. however. to an absurd result. The respondent might be put into a serious the question. who under . difficulty if was required in answer to the questions that one of the two disputants. the absurd conclusion was not due to the statement of this as his adversary. Many days tions earlier was rendered fallacy of Many ques possible by the fact that in the of dialectic disputation. and that punishment is to be held just in so far as it is efficacious as a deterrent. that the reductio ad impossibile might argue as follows : : The position leads to an absurdity for granting that the death- penalty for murder is just. The False Cause was employed by the Sophist. The opponent would therefore reply that the Sophist had alleged his state ment as the cause of the conclusion. For those who hold this. For although one of his premisses. In his own argument. This follows from the principle that the justice of a pun ishment is measured by its efficacy as a deterrent. assertions opponent s was attained. irrespective of time and They may therefore be briefly treated. 15.

and required two answers. in Consequent. we take what is not opposed the absolute to the original thesis to be opposed to it in Petitio principii. to be two dif fallacies . . c. and replying to rhetorically. In the fallacy of Accident we take things which are merely conjoined to be identical in Secundum quid. such as Do you not spend much of your time on the useless Do you study of Logic ? contains two members. . he assumes that it was intended as the reply to the member. With a new classification. proposed by based on a different system from that of Aristotle.282 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC in fact complex. we confuse the condition and the conditioned in False Cause. Mill s Classification of Fallacies. Thus a question. Aris totle warns his disciples that they must insist on resolving the question into its constituent parts. It is necessary to consider the classification J. he makes a similar misapplication of that. For should the answer be affirmative. and that a logical error was committed in referring them to a single group. 1 facts. Yet it seems that there is a real justification for holding one and all to be due to a confusion as to the thing stated (fallaciae in re). S. as though it had reference 16. his opponent has a manifest advantage. and should he receive a negative reply. 35. and embraces a wider field of errors. an interrogation referring to two to one. viz. we confuse the limited with in Ignoratio Elenchi. If ? It cannot be answered by a single the respondent attempts to do so. one and one negative. we imagine what is not the reason in Many Questions. we take the same fact asserted under two forms. . Thomas. * It has been frequently asserted that the seven preceding have no point in common. as a natural This scheme is 1 of fallacies St. . 9. Is not that spend your time on the study of Logic ? affirmative : was study useless reply. . he. which needed the negative answer. effective Such questions are still and many a schoolboy has felt himself aggrieved on being asked by his master whether he has not wasted his whole morning on cricket. It may be freely conceded that the resemblance is of the slightest. each separately. Mill. we accept of the conclusion to be its reason ferent truths . Opusc.

Elenchi. introduced a new terminology has to a greater or less extent been adopted by many subsequent writers on Logic. i. It follows that the science of Logic he draws up a scheme of five different classes of fallacy. perplexity to a man of ordinary &quot. as his view of Logic itself is different. four classes fall under is two heads that in which the evidence clearly conceived. it only professes to enumerate significance. the treatment of (Logic. 1 It was further pointed out. The Aristotelian scheme was. fallacies should . in which statements not in themselves untrue. Fallacies of Simple Inspection.FALLACIES . so it is the duty of the writer on Evidence to discuss what are the most dangerous varieties of &quot. which is itself one of the subsidiary methods. is. but to people of average intelligence for it would be an endless work to enquire into the sources of every idiotic belief. i). 9. Mill s view as to the place of fallacies in Logic is different. Soph. (Poste s trans. : be coextensive jwith and proceeding on this principle. The to dialectician. that the subject belongs properly. 283 and this consequence.&quot. V. capacity. says Aristotle. c. but the erroneous.&quot. not to Logic. whereby persons are misled into opinions for which there does not exist evidence really conclusive &quot. which are of such a character as to occasion &quot. and that in which the evic. The essential character of the fallacy lies in the acceptance of erroneous The remaining logical process is 1 propositions as self-evident. apparent that any ignoramus. by which we seek to arrive at truth. a classi fication of the principal cases. . are so presented to the mind. Bk. is the science of Evidence and precisely as the scientist . 7. who investigates into the nature of health is bound to treat of disease. that it is misled into forming a wrong judgment as to their Moreover. Logic. as we have seen. those difficulties. but to the theory of discussion. he defines. These errors are antecedent to all evidence. the sources of apparent proofs.). must enumerate not . viz. Apparent Evidence..

as Mill relegates to it a considerable number of philosophic principles. Classes 2 and 3 are termed Inductive fallacies. Fallacies of Ratiocination. does not distinguish between sense-perception and intellectual cognition. sufficient Were this all. &quot. It follows must take and thus the Empiricist account of sense-perception for some consideration of is bound to find room Logic . fallacies. several times noticed. in not sufficiently ascertaining the facts on which the theory is grounded. Fallacies of Confusion. with which he did not agree. from this.284 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is dence confusedly apprehended. two categories embraces the 2nd. the error lies Fallacies of Observation. such as the belief in pagan Rome that words of ill omen would bring disaster. there would scarcely of this appear class. tion to a place in Logic. To this class are to be 4.g. as e. Some few of the instances cited by Mill are the vulgar errors of the uninstructed or the superstitious. that any science of knowledge .&quot. 2. and Deductive fallacies. as we have ricist view of the science. In these. together with the Aristo of Accident and Secundum quid. This class contains (2) False Analogies. The Fallacies of Simple Inspection are those errors where the proposition is embraced not as proved. We shall deal briefly with such of these groups as seem to call for notice. and 4th of these classes : the latter gives us but one class. reason for the introduction But it assumes some importance. The claim of errors in observa Fallacies of Observation. but as requiring no proof as a self-evident truth. referred faults against the laws both of mediate inference. Illicit Inductions. that the same effect must be produced by the same cause. The remaining Aristotelian 5. telian fallacies and immediate Errors due to confused apprehension of evidence. Fallacies (i) of Generalization. The former 3rd. . 3. the fallacies of confusion. stands and falls with the Empi This theory.

inasmuch as in is does not lie in the fact that something The unseen. have been sufficiently adverted False Analogy provides us with a copious source of Few things carry conviction to the mind so as a striking analogy. between these cultivation. 14. are most likely to escape the notice of observers The most frequent (Logic. sorts of instances. error. we have analogies misleading. Of recent years. Bk. or of William of Orange. approach a subject with their minds strongly biassed in one direction. The most important among the Fallacies of Generali zation are the illicit inductions arising from simple enumeration. or of circumstances in any given instance. It is needless to point out how.FALLACIES 285 These are distinguished errors arising from this source. analogies are drawn from it to support views which are concerned with matters not even remotely connected with it. perceptions with the inferences which we draw from what we have perceived. Mai-observation differs from Non-observation. c. and afterwards to have discovered that we were deceived by certain points of whom we resemblance. In regard to Non-observation.. origin of these mistakes lies in the confusion of our it the error &quot. Whenever a . by Mill into fallacies of Non-observation and fallacies of Mai-observation. V. they become almost incapable of judging the evidence on the other side. the what logician must give an answer to the question. to in Ch. that the person we saw was our friend.&quot. when men opinions. i). 4. much and few things can be more doctrine becomes widely accepted. &quot. A strong partizan in politics will scarcely hold the balance even in estimating the character of King James II. Mill rightly finds in preconceived &quot. We had in fact inferred from these points. generally ? source of such neglect. but that something is seen wrong. is But inability to discriminate greatest among those of little mental it probably has happened to all of The us to be convinced that some person we have seen and recognized know. These 6. perhaps in themselves not particularly important.

almost grotesque. and pieces of any similar money one can mention are all like their owners them. in a valuable lecture on Currency and Coinage.&quot. As another example of false analogy. in perfection. in his work. The saints resemble the persons aforesaid in being able to read the thoughts of others. B. Theresa divine the thoughts. . French francs. Thus for instance. and at &quot. Shillings and sixpences are like men in being sub ject to the law of heredity. the heirs of the ages. from a logical point of view. 1 Lectures on tht Method of Science: edited by T. &quot. . 1 Any comparison between the law of natural heredity and the history of coinage. . St. p. and St.\ Some The M.286 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC drawn from the theory of Evolution for every conceiv able purpose. Vincent less. and that in consequence the analogy is worth St. obedience to the natural law of heredity. Ferrer. Henri Joly saints were hypnotic. given in 1905 by Sir R. writes as follows very fact English : sixpences. /. Temple. The explanation enabled them to represent the alleged miracles as circumstances naturally incident to the condition of persons subject to hypnotic influences. he says. Catherine of Sienna. Strong. Hence the analogical argument.In the close. have sought to explain as a is hypnotic phenomenon the power possessed by certain saints of the Catholic Church to read the secret thoughts of those with whom they spoke. takes this form : The argument persons manifesting abnormal phenomena are hypnotic. has well pointed out that the resemblance is entirely superficial.&quot. The Psychology of the Saints. is the merest metaphor. 313. the distinguished author throughout treats the history of coinage from the point of view of evolution. we may cite the argument by which some of those interested in abnormal mental states. The race of man is ever advancing in perfection. not of those &quot. . Shillings and sixpences are ever advancing in selves.

. but of 287 those whom they dominate. as it Fallacies of Confusion. They are rightly to be compared not to the hypnotized but to the hypnotizer. But the latter. are the divined present hoped. p. Eng. are by this time familiar to our himself. it seems unnecessary to add to what has already been said on the subject. . sufficiently explained the nature of Secundum quid and Accident and of the various foregoing is readers.&quot. And the sections of the chapter have. . l In regard to the Fallacies of Ratiocination and Fallacies of Confusion. . The various faults. even Charcot and not the diviners. which can be committed against the rules of immediate and mediate inference. trans. . 68. Psychology of the Saints.FALLACIES who dominate them. 1 Joly.

.

Philosophy.&quot. APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT. Wherever the mind can abstract an aspect of the know1 1 When we speak of the Sciences. and of their mutual relations. H. each concerned with some aspect of the knowable 1 &quot. In order to understand the precise meaning of the term Applied Logic/ and the connexion between the branch of knowledge thus designated.PART CHAPTER i. The various and manifold aspects of one and the same thing. In the present section. and the Logic of Thought. it will be necessary to explain with somewhat more detail than seemed the relation between the Logic of Thought and the sciences of the real order. 289 . I. What is . under its various aspects. its Scope and Relations. we mean what is sometimes more the special sciences a group of organized bodies definitely expressed as of general knowledge. we do not signify a concrete individual thing. tion between Science and Philosophy. The first three sections of the present chapter are devoted to this advisable in Ch.. II APPLIED LOGIC XVIII. 1 world. and its classification by genus and species. the same living plant is the object of different It is studied by the chemist in regard to the sciences. 1 By an object of thought. it : by the physiologist the botanist considers . Sidgwick. p.a science ? We may define a science as an organized body of truth regarding some special object of thought. constitute so many different objects of thought. Thus. Science and Philosophy. organic products resulting from in regard to its vital processes its structure. 4. we treat of the distinc subject. which the mind can distinguish the one from the other.

Sidgwick ex &quot. 2 It is this universal science which we term Philosophy. there we have provide a science. whose properties. p. we largely regard knowledge of particular facts e.. in virtue knowledge type considered in abstraction from the individual. 1 knowledge. the characteristics of sulphur and of we radium. They own 10. There are laws and principles. develop many provinces. true.g. special sciences the universal science. but which embrace in their reference the objects of all the special sciences. is used in various significations. and can thus attain to a universal science. generality I of as the think. in view of (op.. as scientific knowof the discovery of a new planet ledge : but only. Introd. we must.g. take the charessential distinction historical between scientific knowledge and merely It is true that knowledge of particular facts. we believe. I think. 8).. History of Philosophy. The mind can view the objects of all the sciences in common. which relate not to some restricted area of the knowable. for their very being it is It provides the foundations on on which they 1 rest. Scientia est de universalibus was a dictum of the ancients. cit. the most usual. For a somewhat different account see Erdmann. details within their Arist. principles. and causes an organized body of knowledge. And Mr.290 able PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC world. organizing knowledge 4. Post. Now made even had every special aspect of things been the object of a special science. the work of the mind would still be incomplete. and still.To get a definipresses the same thought as follows : tion of science acteristic . The depend can. its relation to general knowledge&quot. The meaning here assigned is the traditional. e. . save in so far as it It will be observed that it is scientific of the fact that of the : illustrates a general law. A great province of knowledge would still be untouched. of the lily and of the date-palm in general are not concerned with the individual peculiarities of the specimen under examination. 1 The word Philosophy .. c. An.. We consider. I. can frame a system of the knowledge which relates to them as thus considered. is always universal.

\ All regard philosophy as the science. In order even to make a commencement. fication. St.. when he says (op.gt. in the former they would have no justi is the science which treats of the and the characteristics which belong to the universe as a whole. they must accept the its as objectively real such facts as. are primd facie philosophical that the questions with which it deals i. Thus the intellect finds itself forced to seek for a science having for its object these facts of universal import. It is the part of Philosophy to deal with the universal conditions of things.g. In the latter case they would experience. 1 . it any validity.. to be true. Sidgwick expresses himself to the same primas et universalescausas. cit.. KO. Thomas. he explains philosophy somewhat differently. of bodies in space. questions Elsewhere. dpx&amp. They carry us far beyond the mere rule of common-sense. the in vindicated. . validity of the special sciences lieu When is it does this. . Met. This science is Philo sophy. rr\v 6i-ona. if the principles of mathematics. Among recent philosophers. p. however.o/j. 38). their duration in time. the movement another. commenting which treats of primary causes and principles. Sapientia est scientia quae considerat Mr. says. or the objec tive reality of local motion or of temporal duration. Not one of its conclusions would possess of explaining them. &quot. As to Rational Theology. i. power of one material thing to act upon the unity of of a substance the notwithstanding of multiplicity parts.*s VTroXafjL^dvovtn irdvres. a denial or false explanation of which would ruin their whole system. it is not uncommon to find Science distin- . cro0( ac rtpl r& rpCira alna. Arist.APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT 291 and involving the facts in a rational system. it seems to me effect. the No science could lay claim special sciences collapse.lt.e. c.fvr)i&amp. . . they belong to the contemplation of the universe as a whole. But they must postulate for it is beyond their province to explain many facts and principles. . principles mathe matics. 1 Philosophy then principles 1 ras Cf. I. on this passage of the Metaphysics. were denied. The sciences can no more divorce them selves from Philosophy than they can from commonsense or have no data. and so to explain them that the account which it affords of them is consistent with the facts of experience. e. When explains them away. the law of causality.

. . Thomas. treats only of phenomena. the consideration of the corresponding noumena being relegated to philosophy or [These writers] may rest assured that the best result metaphysics. though Indeed very incomplete and capable of immense extension. all the four causes enumerated by Aristotle. And somewhat similarly. which has extended the signifi science to this case also. of scientific know Two other characteristics distin its generality. the body of truths known about the phenomena of light. It has been asserted that the Schoolmen admitted no knowledge as scientific. and sulphur. except such truths as were capable of a priori demon Some of the shallower spirits may perhaps have ex stration. . This distinction we owe to Kant. Thus. cation of the word But it should be noted that we have not here science in the fullest meaning of the term. The assents At the present day.292 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC * The character of scientific knowledge. such knowledge. as ex pressed in terms of the theory most generally accepted by those who are experts in the matter in question. guish it from the majority of the assents we give. pressed themselves to this effect. is often used to signify the organized body of facts science : &quot. &quot. as e. cit. We have in the present paragraph already noted one feature. in question. between Reality and Appearance. and itself requires the distinction . is scientific knowledge of its nature. bep. indeed. when expressed in terms of the undulatory theory. There is no need to quarrel with the terminology. : oxygen. that sulphuric acid consists of hydrogen. Philosophy or Metaphysics with the Reality. 176). the traditional. philosophical work. Thus understood. viz. that term includes in its meaning cause.g. Sidgwick (op. But there is no reason what ever to attribute such an opinion to Aristotle or St. and. guished from Philosophy. Thus. to eiof this contemned metaphysics in modern times has been just this plode the conception of such duplicate entities as they still cannot help half believing in. saner view. 175. as we hold. and to repudiate in consequence the brand of that only before phenomena (Scottish Philosophy. Such an expression of the facts is of course provisional it lacks the full certainty of science strictly so called. Professor It is hardly possible to open a scientific or semiPringle-Pattison writes. and by many writers There are however signs of a return to t is accepted without question. which lies behind appearances. was further the knowledge of things by their causes cognitio certa rei per propriam causam. Mr. the term of true Science are certain. ledge. on the ground that Science is concerned with Appearance alone. 93) declines to distinguish Physics from Metaphysics on this basis. . It rests on an altogether too narrow interpretation of the word As we have seen. so far as he is concerned. This demand has given occasion to much adverse comment.&quot. pp. experimentally known regarding some aspect of reality. without meeting the complacent admission that our Or the writer tells us that the science knowledge is only of phenomena. Science as defined by the ancients. is called the science of light. cause Physics regards its object as real. &quot.

Bailie. logically considered. 2. . The . 1 We have already 2. Le concept de science a toujours etc. ou bien on regarde les autres rameaux comme des etrangers. 1906). . elle commence a etre scientifique : mais elle n est jamais le dernier mot a dire sur le sujet. 63. are Logic and Ethics. which deal with the pro duction of order in our actions. ou sur 1 intuition generalisatrice en 1 appliquant. not with the knowledge of an already existing order. but with the production of an order we desire to see realized. i. 1 on est monte on ne voit plus que la branche ou Ton est. The sciences. we since. cit. entitled Qu est-ceque la Science? by L. the generalized notion. . The Subdivisions of Philosophy. science begins as soon as we have the generalized notion of the object. . p. et par suite infiniment souple malgre 1 apparente precision de sa (Paris. speculativae) Logic treats of order in the acts of the intellect of order in acts of the will. definition of an object. et pourtant et c est la le merite singulier de cette definition toujours en continuite parfaite avec leur commune origine. our object is to know the order of things in the universe. In the speculative sciences. explained (Ch.io. that according to this definition.&quot. as it offers itself to our contemplation. or in ex ternal things.APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT it 293 has been well observed. definition. II arrive toutefois qu en poursuivant trop exclusivement 1 un de ces d6veloppements. throws light on this point and further indicates with considerable insight. &quot. its formal cause. which is philosophy s distinctive characteristic. and the regulative or normative sciences (scientiae practicac] on the other. is. how it has come about that the acceptation of the term science has varied so much at different periods. des qu une proposition s appuie solidement sur 1 observation en la depassant par la generalisation. Ethics Both of these sciences are . . Thomas] nous ont 16guee. on De 1 arbre ou perd de vue 1 origine de la notion et du concept primitif. opposes meme. 3) that the Scholastic philosophers divided the sciences into the speculative sciences (scientiae on the one hand. our purpose I is to deal more following passage from a little work. . both possess that note of supremacy. as rightly regarded as branches of philosophy shall point out in the next section. as we have pointed out in Ch. The normative sciences are concerned. professor at the Leonine University of Anagni. susceptible de developpements variables. For. En vertu meme de la definition qu ils [Aristote et S. Op. pour cette philosophic. In the present section. . i. This order may be in our own acts. applicable seulement a 1 une des branches de la science. . un concept analogique.e.

which is here spoken When we affirm Socrates is a man. It was this. Met. the import. Opusc. they are no longer true. 1 we have seen. i. . scientific Nor s is his knowledge of the individual fact St. 5. he held. of. in quantum rationes illas : : applicat ad res etiam particulars quarum sunt. knowledge. is of course in the conceptual order. Art. considers primarily. which Aristotle. but solely in so far as the universal 2 If the scientist devotes himself type is found in them. in lib. Scientia est de aliquo dupliciter. In this chapter Aristotle discusses the place of Metaphysics in relation to the other sciences. The keener insight of Aristotle perceived that the solution of the difficulty lay in another direction. in which it is realized. Uno modo primo et principaliter Alio et sic scientia est de universalibus rationibus super quas fundatur. By this. we do not intend to assert that science is concerned only with our abstract concepts. that led Plato to suppose his world of super-sensible entities. the true object of all scientific know . V. et quasi per reflexionem quandam et sic de rebus illis est quarum sunt illae rationes. ment about it and before the words are well out of our mouth. The application of the universal to the individual.204 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC the threefold division of speculative we owe to the profound insight of particularly with philosophy. or the motions of a particular spinning-top. which were. which our intellect abstracts from the singulars. St. Boethii de Trinitate. which our intellect abstracts from the 1 See Arist. ad. 4. to the study of the phenomena manifested by a par ticular electrical machine.. .. nor can there be. Thomas. it is that he may discover laws of universal All science. but in those universal and stable types. We make some state petual flux. This would be to fall into the error of the Conceptualists.. save in so far as he. The object of science was not to be sought for in the super-sensible world of Ideas. adminiculo inferiorum virium. There is not. we mentally apply the form humanity to the individual Socrates. 2. and not with things. Q. not but the general type the universal nature. modo est de aliquibus secundario. to use expression. ledge.c. 63. as individual. * Cf. applies Thomas the abstracted universal to the particular case. a science of particulars as such for the particular is in per It is ever changing. Science is con cerned with things.

(one really cannot be precise about directions in these Copernican days. and have gone down or up. Schiller s lively that he is drawing us work. Even in the early days of Greek philosophy. may well be termed Natural Philosophy. 2 It is not uncommon in the works of non-scholastic writers to find the assertion that Mathematics deals with merely mental creations. following subject to is Aristotle. The eter nal truths unable to sustain the pace have long since ceased to reside with us. and turns our most con scientious predications into falsehoods. and to consider corporeal substance solely as the subject of extended quantity. The science which treats of bodies purely in so far as endowed with quantity. 34. called it Physics. finds its object not in the concrete individual the object of sense-perception but in the type. in the individual. and not with the extended bodies of the real world. There are. Mr. until we stop breathless in the chase.) into the riiros voi)rfa. three such grades. The real is here. C. To adopt this view is to introduce into science an error of the most serious and far-reaching kind. and in the singulars themselves so far as the type is realized in them. which are the objects of Geometry. Schiller. from which Aristotle delivered philosophic thought more than two thousand years ago. whose the object totality of material substances. 2 1 The following passage will show that this ancient difficulty is with us yet : In strict fact nothing ever is everything becomes. lies in the fact that the intellect in form ing its concepts. is the of the foundation science. where it is possible to . moreover. is Mathematics. recipitur secundum modum . preserve one s dignity without doing any as Postulates. F. which considers the general nature of material substance motion and change. as Aristotle has shewn us. Axioms and agreeable style should not blind us to the fact back into a quagmire.&quot. The solution of the difficulty mentioned.APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT 295 ever-changing singulars. and to the different grades of abstraction must correspond distinct sciences. abstraction. It is urged that the perfect circle and the perfect square. there and every where. however imperfectly. The realization of the type is conditioned by the material receiving it. a truth expressed by the Scholastics iu the phrase Quidquid recipitur. 1 Abstraction is the basis of science. it was quickly iccognized that such a doctrine does not account for the facts. are mere figments of the understanding to which nothing corresponds. further abstraction enables us to prescind altogether from those sensible qualities which are the conditions A of all change and mutability. The intellect grasps the principle of order and harmony realized. simply abstract from the individuating con Such is the abstraction we employ in all the This special sciences dealing with the material world. The error contained here is identical with that which Heraclitus taught. and point gasping. Geometry no less than the physical sciences deals with the real world. The ancients. This science. We may ditions.

i. Boethii de Trin. 1 Quaedam vero sunt speculabilia. Were the arithmetical unit not of this nature. A word may be added on the subject of discrete (arithmetical) quantity. quia praecipuum cognitorum in ea est Deus. in lib. the science of Theology. quae non dependent a materia secundum esse. divina scientia. The ex pression e.296 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC third degree of abstraction yet remains. id est transphysica. potentia et actus. Arithmetical number is obtained by the division of continuous quantity into equal parts. Hence it was not undeservedly termed by Aristotle and his followers. 5. of the meaning of Being. c. Substance. gives us the real height of a real building. unum et multa et hujusmodi de quibus omnibus est Theologia. This is reached by a similar process of abstraction. but not so if applied to a quality or relation. gives us the science of Ontology or Metaphysics. id est. but with the real world and a proposition. nor yet in so far as they are they are endowed with quantity. On this subject see Summa Totitts Logicae. 1 recipientis. et in quibusdam non. in Trigonometry. of absolutely universal This science alone enables us to ascend by Accident. reason as distinct from revelation. In but perfection polished metal the imperfection is in some measure removed we cannot attain. from whom all proceeds. ut substantia. and other such notions Potentiality. which dominate all must be true as well of the spiritual as of the material universe. from the creature to the Creator. as far as we know. 123 is intelligible as applied to a line or other continuum. qualitas. Alio nomine dicitur Metaphysica. By this abstract from matter altogether. since they hold good of things. Dicitur etiam Philosophia prima in quantum scientiae aliae ab ea principia sua accipientes earn sequuntur. Tract 3. realization of geometrical forms is. : A plane surface as shewn on a black-board is very remote from the ideal. Yet the intellect in the act of abstraction. quia sine materia esse possunt sive nunquam sint in materia : : : sicut suit in materia. . disputed point whether the name Metaphysics was given for the reason here assigned. but because This highest degree of abstraction things. Perfection. e. sive in quibusdam : Physics. and consider those A we universal notions Being . St. It is this science whose function it is to treat of the principles of Contradiction and Causality. there could be no such things as fractions. It is a Opusc. not in so far as they are material bodies. these and principles. Thomas. 63. Unity. seizes the type. Q. according to the nature of the material. from the contempla tion of the visible universe to some knowledge of the First Cause. i.g. quibus ex sensibilibus competit in insensibilia devenire. Actuality. or simply because Aristotle s work of that name came next to his treatise on Deus et Angelus.g. The unit is a portion of continuous quantity viewed as an undivided whole and number is produced by the repetition of the unit. Art. Hence Geometry deals not with figments. quia post Physicam discenda occurrit nobis. reference. Thus the always more or less imperfect.

he &quot. V. 5. 1 says. That acquirement. but as an introduction to.. The will being able to choose productive. i (see p. * In this paragraph. we have reckoned Logic with Ethics as a regulative science. which is requisite to the right ordering of all those organized bodies of knowledge.&quot. it is of no avail to look for certainty in the conclusions of Astronomy. The conclusions of Mathematics are worthless. he did not denote pre what we have signified by the more general term regula tive. are a mere^ intellec amusement. and an instrument of the sciences. (TO. that it might easily appear best to relegate it to a different category. 2 . &quot. there was no place for it in Aristo tle s famous division of the sciences into speculative. cannot establish the validity of the laws of motion. note). principle but it is not the choice of the will Logic provides us with rules that is determined by them. the intellect spontaneously obeys them. practical and cisely For by practical. 5. i. In the practical sciences.&quot. The function of a practical science is to determine the will to choose the right course. Hence the Peripatetic school regarded Logic not as a constitutive part of philosophy. c. He did not reckon Logic differs slightly from that of Aristotle. if the scientist be still doubtful whether causes. 1 Met. or are fictions of the mind. as we pointed out in the preceding section. His reasons are evident. it is idle to argue in the special sciences from effects to . in this following the division given by St. it is essential to us that it should be guided by adequate knowledge. Moreover. draAwiKa) as a science on a level with the other sciences..the of action is the choiceof the will (rj Trpoaipecris). either the right or the wrong. their to the tual The long scientific calculations relative phenomena of heat and light. Accordingly they gave to Aristotle s logical treatises the name of the Organon or Instrument. the truths of Mathematics have reference to objective And if Physics reality. This arrangement Thomas in Ethics I. but as the instrument. the inferior are. the son of Hermias. in his comment on the Categories. nothing can save the lower.APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT 297 In this hierarchy of sciences. if Metaphysics cannot defend the principle of contradiction and without the law of causality. which we term sciences. 1. tells us that the Peripatetic and Stoic schools were distinguished by the place 1 Ammonius . essentially dependent for their justification on the higher and more abstract. If the value of the higher science be impugned. by which we are able to attain science. seems to stand on such a different footing from them.. As soon as we grasp them.

the result of these processes. The former name contrasted them with Real Entities (entia realia].. which regulates the operations of the The which it. t. of those properties. intellect. Lib I. Cf. the Peripatetics regarded it as the instrument by which we reach it. (Migne. 63. and as made known to us in conclusions resulting from premisses. by which name were signified the actual substance and all those attributes. considers but as things expressed in concepts and in judgments. speculationi sua instrumenta.. Opusc.. viii. Thomas says. Trendelenburg.298 3. genus. 2. On this St. us of reality thus expressed. is the defined as science which Logic frequently simply treats of the ens rationis. sed quasi quoddam reductum ad earn. 74). p. istics. The Stoics held it to be a part of Philosophy. in Porph. The subject of the science is. . It would be erroneous to : with term the science of the operations of the mind for it does not in fact consider the actual operations the processes of conceiving. conversant. that it enables us to tread the difficult path of reasoning securely. Ar. It was explained to be the science which directs the opera this tions of the mind in the attainment of truth. which treats of assigned to Logic in their respective systems. and also as the science of the conceptual representation of the real The former definition indicates its scope as the order. 5. the characteristics which things It views things as possessed possess as thus expressed. Logica non continetur sub philosophia speculativa quasi principalis pars. P. When Logic is seen to be the science. The character term . judging. etc. prout ministrat &quot. ad. Elem. Log. middle- and it is through the knowledge it gives etc. 48.&quot. which things possess solely in virtue of their mental expression. St. reckons it as one of the speculative sciences. were termed by the ancient logicians Logical Entities (entia rationis} or Second Intentions (Ch. n). 2. as we have seen in the course of the foregoing pages. logical part. Comment. 64. possesses in the order of existence. col. Art. two definitions of Logic were offered. Augustine De Civ. At the commencement of work. predicate. L. which it In these writers. Dei. species. in virtue of which we term them subject. It and reasoning. i. Q. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Logic and Metaphysics. practical science. it is latter declares the subject-matter. also Boethius.

&quot. and can thus appear vested with the characteristics of the conceptual order. renders it enter on their study to be on their guard lest they should suppose that properties. Logic is no less universal in its reference. c. ita et Logici. seeing that 1 we possess our knowledge of things through &quot. affirmed the real existence of universal natures. Opusc. denied that even in thought one and the same nature could be repeated in a multiplicity of subjects. taking their stand on the fact that in the real order nothing can exist which is not individual. can also be an object of thought. they hold that things must needs exist under the same conditions in the conceptual order. recognizing the universality of the nature or essence as it is repre sented. IV.. . in An. : : : lect. Ens dupliciter dicitur scilicet naturae et rationis. in communi. quia nihil est in rerum natura de quo ratio non negotietur. because are so different. quod sicut in 4 Mctaph. 4 . 20. in so far as they are thought. in Met. lect. Ens autem rationis proprie dicitur de illis intentionibus quas ratio in rebus adinvenit sicut est intentio generis et speciei quae non inveniuntur in rerum natura. it at once appears that there is a parallelism between Metaphysics and Logic. and the attributes common to all things which are. De Natura Generis. so Logic the universal science of the con ceptual order are common to it deals with those The 1 things. The his tory of philosophy is full of errors arising from this con fusion of the real and the logical. Sciendum Thomas. 4. Cf. For physics the range of the intellect is unlimited. est ergo . jq...APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT 299 things as they exist in the conceptual order. Post. sed sequuntur actiones intellectus et rationis ct hujusmodi ens est subjectum Logicae et illud ens aequiparatur enti naturae. Cf. Logicus et Metaphysicus circa omnia Sicut enim Primi Philosophi est loqui de Ente operantur. essential for all who . the science which investigates principles of universal appli cation. dicitur. lest. As Metaphysics is : is the universal science of the conditions which real order. differenter tamen. I. The Empiricists. St. very fact that the provinces of these two sciences all and yet so closely parallel. Meta is the universal science of the real order. and whatever can exist. . which belong only to the thing as thought. . They are the universal sciences. Kant. existence in the real order involves certain definite con ditions. Plato. must belong to it as it exists in the real order and conversely.

in which the predicate notion expresses the nature of the thing. step between that age and this. is a sufficient testimony to the difficulty involved in an accurate analysis of the mental processes in their relation to the real. Yet. a revolution has taken place in European thought. in brought into the same category as they. The Breach with the Past. both real and possible. It also therefore is rightly termed philosophy. as all aware. with these with them not in deals dealing obligations. concerned with attributes which belong to all things. cannot be restricted in their range to it is Ethics. The science which treats of the moral obligations of a free self-determining agent. That thinkers such as these con found one order with another. The universality of Ethics is closely analogous to that of Logic. the Aristotelian system no longer finds was a permanent achievement .300 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC judgments. It must have seemed to philosophers in the golden age of Scholasticism. valid in all circumstances which the agent may be placed. that the analysis of the sciences into their main divisions. and to the marvellous acumen of the great Stagirite who laid so securely the foundations both of Logic and Metaphysics. taught that it is the act of judgment itself. the claim of Logic to be designated a branch of Philosophy is sufficiently manifest. it is evident that it is not one of those sciences which are but that some special sphere of being. totally different from that with which we are concerned in the sciences of the real. 4. In all the great seats of learning. a of the human mind are well not to be retraced. Here too we have to deal with an order of things. As soon as it is seen to be the science which deals with the representation of things in an intelligent subject. If it is the distinctive mark of Philosophy to be supreme in some department. of but as circumstances. save where the influence of the Catholic Church is pre ponderant. which confers on the phenomenon the nature we attribute to it. regard any particular general in laws of universal reference.

It might indeed appear at first sight. While the zealots of the New Learning adopted an enthusiasm for purity of for the attitude of aggressive antagonism to the old order. one member of a whole. and by the living interest of the works now first placed at their command. Scotus. They were captivated by the beauties of the ancient literature. many of the Scholastic doctors showed themselves equally . and treats of the same matters as the historical form has ever done from Aristotle through Aquinas. are by many now regarded as part of the same science. And the scholastic discussions which emulous students too often reduced to mere word-fencing. contempt which had been produced to meet the philosophers need of a language at once clear. that the science of Logic had survived even in those places. and the syllogism. Logic is but lastics. Suarez to the modern Scho But the similarity is deceptive. employs the same terminology. they had nothing but Schoolmen and their mediaeval Latinity. In their style. seemed far less attractive than the myths of Plato. and the fresh interest aroused in the civilizations of Greece and Rome. the judgment. The rise of the modern sects in philo sophy was inevitably followed by a new theory of reason ing in which every feature of the ancient science was Hence it seems advisable altered beyond recognition. a new set of subjects began to occupy men s minds. to say a little in regard to the history of the great change. in order to explain how it has come about that the sub jects treated of in this second portion of our work. flexible and competent to express the finer operations and results of thought. is to be found in the intellectual movement of the Renais sance period. where the rest of the philosophy had been forsaken : for to a large extent the form of the science popular in England and Germany during the nineteenth century. which treats of the concept. The chief cause of the downfall of Scholasticism. no part of which can stand with out the others.APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT 301 acceptance. With the revival of classical studies.

which offered them such a philosophy as this. The second influence of which we have spoken. since that period. Two of the most eminent. two currents of thought arose. was hardly worth defending. And a school. to Amongst various subsidiary causes tending still further weaken the position of Scholasticism. which has ceased to press forward into new fields. was gone. had it is true been ardent students of the natural sciences and no mistake could be greater than to imagine that tion of : in the universities of those days all scientific interest was dead. Eventually. is bound to become decadent and succumb to younger it may be inferior rivals. Thomas. to one or other of which we may assign almost every thinker who has. is 1 well think that such a cause When reached. drove many men of ability towards the opposite camp. might Conceptualism. had resolutely adopted all that was good in the novel ideas. . exercised 1 In 1425 the heads of the university of Cologne were called before the Elector to answer to the charge that they continued to teach the old-fashioned views of St. to the neglect of the more modern Conceptualism. for the time at least. in the course of that century. Albert the Great (1193-1280) and Roger Bacon (1214-1292). They regarded the New Learning in the light of a connatural foe.302 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC unconciliatory. was the popularity enjoyed in the mediaeval schools by doctrine The legitimate outcome of this Men trained in a Scholasticism Scepticism. and by their hostility to all innovation. Some but in the northern univer philosophy men must have sities the credit of Scholasticism. They did not imitate their great pre decessors of the thirteenth century. of mediaeval thinkers had cared but little for the cultiva any branch of learning save the traditional Meta physics and Theology. All confidence in it was lost. two may be In the first place the majority singled out for mention. But most of the Scholastics cared little for aught save the old paths. who when called to face the intellectual ferment occasioned by the intro duction of the Arabian philosophy. the beginning of the seventeenth century was men scarcely knew what : to believe.

&quot. that to it would be assigned the treatment of topics. was in the Novum Organum of Bacon . Though not himself an Idealist in the full sense. Logic. that. if there be no reality outside thought. which the Scholastics would not reckon as falling within its province. Idealism had its origin in Descartes (1596-1650). Neither of these two doctrines is compatible with any theory of Logic. It was inevitable that its boundaries would become very uncertain. as interpreted in an Idealist sense. In the hands of writers belonging to either of these schools. Logic. But Idealism denies the existence of the real. Yet before dealing with necessary to say something in regard to the views of Francis Bacon (1561-1626). an empiricist. in the sense in which Logic was under stood by the Aristotelian writers. as Empiricism does that of the conceptual order. as Professor Minto has well said. and add it it to incorporate scientific method with as a ne&quot. Though the subject is dealt with in idealist works. What is called Applied Logic With owes its incorporation into the treatises of the present day as an integral part of the science. These were Idealism and Empiricism.APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT 303 commanding influence in Europe. yet its treatment there is due to the influence exerted by Mill in establishing traditional Mill s limits for the science. With them. his system was based on suppositions which inevitably led to that doctrine. the ancient science of Logic could hardly avoid being roughly handled. it is was first made yet &quot. we are not now concerned. and on the other. For although. Logic was the science of the conceptual representation of the real. parts of it would be discarded as meaningless. And such a science is equally impossible. and our only form of knowledge is the perception by sense of concrete singulars.W wing to the Aristotelian building. to the influence of Mill. The philosophy of Locke (1632-1704) gave rise to the Empiricist school. if concepts are a figment. We cannot have a theory of the mode in which the mind represents the real order. on the one hand. it was by Mill that the attempt theory.

yellow. the famous Novum : Organum. he averred. The value of Bacon s Induction is intimately bound He up with certain philosophical views of his own. Its discovery would. Bacon. malleable to a certain extent. In the fifth book of his work De Augmentis Scientiarum he exposes a completely new system of Logic. he turned it to every kind of both philosophical and scientific. : Each of these simple natures depends. Of this new science he does not treat in the De Augmentis it was reserved for another volume. do for science what the discovery of the compass had done for navigation. gold unites the following natures is heavy. Francis Bacon lived at the very time 5. that it would put the intelligence of all men on an equality. he makes the loftiest claims. This defect he undertakes to remedy by For this method setting forth a new Inductive Method. But by Logic he signifies some himself capable of solving thing very different from the science his predecessors had known by that name. he holds. was of but little worth. useless he blames it especially for entirely no other Induction save that by simple enumeration. etc.304 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC that this undertaking was suggested. By its very title. Thus. etc. and that the time had come to supersede it by something better. That work has always been regarded as a landmark in the story of the revolt from Scholasticism. when the chaos of philosophical opinion was most com Endowed with an inteDigence naturally both plete. Memory holds to be recognizing The Scholastic Logic he as parts of Logic. and threw into strong relief his conviction that the Logic. which ever since the days of Cicero had been the groundwork of a liberal education. on a . Rhetoric and the Art . inquisitive and capacious.. believed every substance to be an aggregate of simple it natures. Its efficacy was such. the writer for his book with the Organon challenged comparison of Aristotle. as may be gathered from the fact that he reckons of Grammar. and believed problem all.

APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT 305 The certain special disposition of the component particles. and is termed the Form of that nature. and it be suggested that some particular internal char we acter x be it.g. which a yellow object exists without may be excluded from the list of Finally all forms but one are rejected. (6) instances of its absence. will enable us to into so transform it and substance. this is the object of our search. of yellowness. v. not a or c. The first step method then proceeds by a if series of exclusions. The is to draw up various tables containing respect instances of the presence of the nature which ively (a) is the object of inquiry. The aim of Induction is the Forms. than a direction to employ elimination in the discovery of laws of nature. that it has never been found of any service. we may say first. In regard to this method.). disposition of the particles may thus be regarded as the constitutive principle of a nature. in another heaviness. gold (II. This is his Inductive Method.. is a or & or c. yellowness. is in question &. When we know wherein discovery of these the Form consists. we shall be able to induce the simple nature corresponding to Thus an acquaintance with the it on other substances. logical process. Logically the process is the old and we know that disjunctive syllogism : The form It /. new The method is little more a was. No man of science has ever used it. a logical treatise x . and should we find case in which x occurs in the absence of yellowness or in x. we forthwith examine our any tables. In the Novum Organum Bacon prescribes what he Forms of unite them conceives to be the most suitable method for directing our observations and our experiments to the discovery of the Form. (c) instances in which it is present in varying degrees. etc. It has been fruitful of no discoveries. Thus are seeking to find the Form e. in fact. It is The Novum Organum is not. we know that x alternatives. it is not in any way. as Bacon maintained it Secondly.

he says. In these circumstances we may be fortunate enough to find an instance which absolutely excludes one alternative. Crucial Instance. thus establishing the other. to one or other of which the nature must be attributed. Logic became a science having for its primary object the proof of natural Like the older logicians. but not unimportant is function in the search for truth. 397) a sense quite other than theirs. but in a indeed are admitted Logic Their office is to secure subordinate position. The expression has passed into the language. but because it prescribes the methods by which we obtain evidence The formal laws of the traditional for the laws of nature. up the suggestion contained in In his hands. will occasionally occur. and when an experi ment shows one of two hypotheses to be false and thus estab lishes the truth of the other. clearly laid down in the Exami The doctrine [of Sir W. this way. . his 6. Hamilton] nation of Hamilton. which are applicable to thought generally abstractedly from particular matter. 36). they fulfil a subsidiary. has acquired sufficient note to claim separate ex In the process of exclusion by which the Form is planation. In his view. taking the metaphor from the cross-posts. which stand where two roads meet (Nov. discovered. into the science. that is. no other rules can be framed. purely us against inconsistency and self-contradiction.. Org. . II. This term employed by Bacon in describing method. that laws.306 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC There is in it no attempt to deal all. that with the assumes exception of the rules of Formal. it contri butes to this end. not because it deals with the general conditions of all intellectual representation. of Syllogistic Logic. the following case. This theory of Logic &quot. In . he tells us indeed. it is termed a Crucial Experiment. This he calls an Instantia Crucis. the attainment of Truth Logic is concerned with he use of this expression in but makes (Exam. Our choice will lie between two Forms only. p.. Mill. . that the problem which led the way towards set before and Bacon himself. . with the logical explanation of the mental act by which we pass from the individual instances to the universal on Induction at principle. Mill took the Novum Organum.

but with the theory set forth in the Examination It his of Hamilton. not in accordance with the sketch there given. . Mill terms this (p. subject with which Mill was principally concerned.&quot. and the rules of the traditional Logic. nor its attainment of any general test . and anything else called by the name. their Proof. which concern the conceptual No one can be blind to the importance of the order. But though this be so. and says of it. the search for objective truth. a Philosophy of Evidence and of the Investienquiry gation of Nature. . . can be only ancillary to &quot. . And a little further on. but primarily the Laws of Nature and &quot.APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT . Definition. does not admit of any rules. that if such a theory be possible. the theory and perhaps the doctrine of kinds : ProbabiHties of which are Then plainly conceived by Mill to be Laws of Nature. 1 It will be plain to those who have followed the fore going paragraphs. we find the science treated. account of the subject with which he is about to deal. Classifietc. : 1 Carveth Read.&quot. The highest Laws are the of all Axiom of the Syllogism. a science of the investigation of nature a branch of know ledge which relates to the real order. 307 that the study of resolving is an impossible one nature. 400). is true that in the introductory chapter to his Logic. is not the operations of the mind. . 7. which renders it abundantly clear that it was thus in fact that he understood its scope. such as Names and Naming. is more in harmony with the traditional view. Professor Carveth Read well says. in the First and Fourth Books there is much discussion of matters subsidiary to the discovery and proof of Laws. p. the Law of Causation with its derivative Canons of Experiment. this must be Logic /car e^o^/v.&quot. It appears to me that the subject of those immortal volumes. and here again facts and the order of Nature are the chief concern. namely cation. which are absolutely incompatible. namely. Theory of Logic. &quot.&quot. it. that Mill was here combining two things. yet in the work itself.

If the analysis of the sciences. 1 cine. though Mill speaks of such a theory of scientific as one.. it may be said that. In method his Logic. i to the novelty. in Met. 1 Cf. The outline of the so called. Logic properly method to be followed in the various sciences. II. 5. * Der in Gesellschaft von Adepten Sich in die schwarze Kiiche schloss. r. belongs in each case to the science to which it refers. To this ques tion. the with Reference has been made In Ch. and should be incorporated with it. It may possibly be asked of us. Das Widrige Faust. S. The subject was one which called for treatment. Sc. entitled Symbolic Logic. lect. His it were very great. Act i. he devotes a separate treatise to the Logic of the Moral Sciences. bolic Logician. which we have given. yet he can only do so by regarding it as concerned solely with the search for Physical Law. we have the Logic of Chemistry. And in the work of his disciple Bain. to obtain Of the Sym the solution of problems belonging to another. its Each science proceeds upon the method which peculiar subject-matter demands. His error lay in regard probably long this as one the and same science with the subject ing of our mental theory processes. pro- cedendi in omnibus Modus autem proprius singularium scien- tiarum. be correct. prescribing the method to be contributions to followed in all Science. and his work will rank as a classic.&quot. not with Logic. the Logic of Medi All this has no concern Logic of Mathematics. as of the alchemist in Faust. For it consists in nothing else than in the applica tion of principles belonging peculiarly to one science. the pursuit can lead to no result of any value..308 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC the methodology of the sciences. to what science could we on the principles of Scholastic philosophy refer the general theory of the methods of Science. Und nach unendlichen Recepten zusammengoss. He fused and fused by rule and recip6 Things which by nature are antagonistic. Logica tradit communem modum aliis scientiis. . we reply that there is and can be no such general theory of investigation. and had hitherto received inadequate attention at the hands of philosophers. in scientiis singulis circa principium tradi debet. in which mathematical methods are applied to terms and propositions. Indeed. Thomas.

e. . with natural phenomena. . and Mathematics is but the higher &quot. It is difficult to see that Symbolic Logic can lead to anything. though not perhaps in the direction in which he looked for it. Thus. p.APPLIED LOGIC AND THE LOGIC OF THOUGHT 309 Indeed there was a slight chance that an alchemist would obtain some solid result from his labours. The root of the evil lies in the confusion on the part of many men of great ability as to the true character both of Mathematics and Logic.&quot. The mathematician lives in a purely conceptual sphere. Professor Whetham writes in Recent Developments of Physical The science of Mathematics has nothing to do Science. development of Symbolic Logic. . . 33.g.

We are not considering what it is that justifies us in passing from the premisses of a syllogism to its conclusion. They are either static forms or dynamic The study of the former gives us the sciences activities. As we have already pointed out in the preceding chapter. which is attain that knowledge the condition of scientific : advance. electricity. that we shall be dealing in the following chapters. e.g. and how we must apply to these data our knowledge of Logic. and in general what may be termed the classificatory The are of sciences. light. i. chemistry.g. etc.CHAPTER XIX. They give us our data it is by their means that we win from Nature a knowledge of her laws. The Function of Observation and Experiment. . e. involves the consideration of the processes known as Observation and Experiment. We consider. It is in particular. not with a science of the con ceptual order. The latter give us the sciences of physical law. with special reference to the sub ject we are studying. OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT. in order science. to pass from them to the generalizations of This study is termed Methodology. of natural types. objects which Nature offers to our contemplation two kinds. or from the experience of one or two particular facts to a uni All that belongs to the sphere of Logic versal judgment. how we are to obtain our data. we are now concerned. For it is through them that we of natural phenomena. with the methods of what are termed the Natural Sciences. proper. heat. but with those of the real. The dis cussion of the general methods employed in these two great groups of sciences. systematic botany and zoology.

we know not. Why does the rainbow appear in the sky after the shower ? and why do the same pris matic colours play upon the waterfall ? How is sound transmitted to the ear. . that and the senses are but instruments of the observant mind. He cannot. There was needed a closer examination among the various ante cedents before the true cause was found.OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT Nature does not reveal her secrets readily. determining which of these antecedents the true cause. first apply his senses. is not the cause. Or we may find the data of an eliminative argument. But these do not act alone. He cannot look out on Nature with the dull gaze of vacancy. 2. which Nature process stands revealed to our rational and we recognize the relation of cause and effect connecting two phenomena. difficulty lies in is since that was an antecedent of the illness. for we have observed a case where insight. that Nature s We may at last find some case. in its absence the phenomenon nevertheless occurred. and light to the eye ? The threads of that mysterious web may be unravelled by diligent searching alone. is the true observer . that we stand in the midst We an ordered cosmos. even if he wishes. help in of Observation s secrets are detected. as though they were unintelligent machines. In what Observation consists. Observation is the application of our faculties to the accurate determin ation of natural phenomena. but what are the laws of that cosmos. . For long it was believed that the cause of the malaria was the poisonous air of the marshes. and then set to work to use his reason. there are many antecedents and the . It is the intelligence of man. Mere antecedence in time counts for for little in establishing a relation of cause and effect to every event. cesses are hidden 311 Her pro and full of to recognize from the first of see enough mysteries. It is by the and Experiment. and be able to assert that such and such an antecedent hitherto believed to be the cause. The faculties we employ immediately are our external senses. Man is essentially rational.

be that the phenomenon was such as their unaided were not capable of perceiving. must be free from infer Though the external senses are the instrument given to us by nature to observe the natural order. One of the most essential conditions of observation is that the observer should most carefully distinguish between the facts which his faculties reveal to him. The scientific observer knows that true observation. Many of the facts which we ordinarily speak of as facts of observation. merely because under circum stances in which they believed they would have seen it if it festly. a man may assert with confidence that he has seen his brother in the street. contain may be loosely called inference. Here. our observation is generally made in the light of some hypothesis. did exist. Again men have often asserted be. for example. a man resembling his brother in a notes. observe in order to reply to some question which has proposed itself to our mind. though intelligent. the judgment may well have been mistaken.312 It is for this PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC reason that observation is always and attention necessarily selective. they have failed to see it. Yet what he really saw was. Imagination filled in what few character that a thing does not exist. But the putting to ourselves of a question. but concentrates itself to take note of some one point. though it would be what more accurate to style it imagination. particular answer is the true one or not. Such errors are characteristic of those who are unversed in scientific It may faculties observation. mani the assertion is the conclusion of a hasty inference. are alike the work of the intelligence. and to see whether some In other words. and those which he infers. yet man s inventive power . If his observation was hastily made. Nor is this the only part played by Almost invariably. ential conclusions. The mind cannot fix its on the myriad aspects of reality which sense-perception presents to it. it may istic was lacking. and he unhesitatingly judged that this was his brother. we intelligence in Observation. and the suggestion of an answer. Thus.

It is impossible to &quot. and the degree of decomposition to which it (may be necessary to carry the mental analysis. which otherwise must have re mained undiscovered. Physically. 2. Here the effect continues to accumu late as long as exposure continues. should 1 necessary that the sense or senses be sound.lt. It is to this desire to find an explanation for things. however.. I. &quot. Thus many objects.1 rb irpCrrov ifpfavTO &amp. can.j&amp. afforded in photography.OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT registering facts outside the 313 has found means to obtain auxiliary instruments. It is not so. no mere excellence of the sense- faculty will make a competent it is observer. which to the naked eye are invisible. is as natural to the healthy mind. employed.lt.eu . set of practical rules to be followed in every The extent case of observation. we are unable to see the object An interesting example is it proceeds. As Mill has well said. indicate certain general conditions.gt. for the limits of sensibility have been reached. Rontgen-rays. however. etc. with the sensibility of the photographic plate.gt. to have an explanation of what we see. The im pression made by a ray of light on the retina of the eye.ro&amp. observation calls for the spirit of inquiry the desire to know the reason of things. In the intellect.i\o&amp. since it permits us to obtain records of number less astronomical phenomena. 1 The craving may.t&amp. Those who suffer from 6av/j. as is the appetite for food and exercise to the body. and after that time ceases to increase. c. This fact has proved of the utmost value in science. draw up a and minuteness of the observation which may be requisite. depend on the particular purpose in view We (III.d^fiv ol Met. physical and moral. To the same category of auxiliary instru ments belong microscopes. leave a permanent impression on whence the photographic plate. i).. which of observation demands in those who undertake These conditions are intellectual. of a second.lt. Conditions of Observation. 7. 5ti ykp rb &v6puwoi icai vvv Ka. capable of ken of immediate sense-perception. . microphones. that Aristotle rightly attributes the origin of science and philosophy. But when this occurs. 3. and often indeed does become atrophied. This spirit of inquiry the work it. c. reaches its maximum in about jVth. Hence when the action of the ray is too faint for it to become perceptible within that period.

Thus Arago. An. Some writers exaggerate the sphere. man and thus situated to be impartial in his study of facts. Post. i. for a . and has been deprived of it through illness or advancing years. nor can the tone-deaf distinguish sounds. 402). to refrain They have urged that it is his duty to regard all his beliefs and convictions. 98. within which the observer is bound to preserve this openness of mind. 1 Where. For the faculty of imagination enables him to reconstruct what they communicate to him. 2 The chief moral requisite. . Jevons truly remarks that easy to find persons who can with perfect fairness. whether it be welcome or unwel come. Indeed. c.it &quot. Yet if a man has once possessed the faculty. p. &quot. It requires great candour and openness of mind. from reading into them that which he wishes to see. register facts both for and against their own peculiar views No one comes to the task (Principles. . continued his researches into the polarization of light.. This condition is not one which it is is not easy to fulfil. . how ever. 2 Cf. p. there this mediate observation is impossible for the imagination is powerless to reproduce phenomena unlike to anything of which we have had experience. religious and 1 Rabier. Each investigator has opinions and beliefs of his own he desires that his beliefs may be confirmed. Logique. in many cases the observation is actually prompted it is made because the observer is by such a belief confident that it will confirm some cherished hypothesis. /. is impartiality. He may observe with the eyes of other men. in which the discrimination of colours is in question. 18. which observation demands. metaphysical. he is not wholly debarred from the work of the observer. Yet it is the first duty of the observer to accept the truth. after blindness befell him. the sense has never been possessed. of observation unbiassed.3H PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC colour-blindness cannot undertake observations. that he may not have to face the difficulty of seeking new solutions to problems he regards as solved. employing the eyes of others to aid him in his work.

But our case is not so desperate. and that neither in philosophy nor in religion have we found any foothold on the rock of certainty. soit scientifiques. que nous considerons d ailleurs comme les olus justifies et les plus certaines. p. or else to prove by elimination that some particular ante cedent is not the cause. a man would lack intelli gence. 1 as the results of his observations this. dont lecons de la r6alit6 toutes les opinions. relation is to establish the existence of a causal between an antecedent and a consequent. Thus. and thus 1 &quot. not the former. then the supposition of contradictory evidence becomes an absurdity. For truth is consistent with itself. as they occur in Nature. that the conditions. who should propose to hold the principle of contra diction or of causality as open to revision. mais & tenir momentan6douteuses et susceptibles d etre redressees et corrigees par les philosophique. We have seen that the purpose 4. La doute la science ellc-meme. Experiment only differs from Observation. Were this so. not yet fully established. ne consiste pas a douter de de 1 esprit humain en gen6ral. is to may To hold such a view as is maintain that human knowledge upon the sand. 103. We must and what. Rabier. all intellectual effort would be futile indeed.&quot. 315 as liable to correction and revision prescribe. that the observer must be ready to relinquish. in so far as in Experiment we observe the phenomenon under conditions which have been artificially The necessity of this arises from the fact simplified. it may be. soit me taphysiques. both of Observation and of Experiment in the sciences of physical law. Both in the sphere of religion and in that of science.OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT scientific. Experiment. It is the latter alone. ni ment comme il s agit ici. . And when once absolute certainty has been attained. to confine ourselves to the natural order. Logique. is certain. were it not possible to produce this latter in circumstances carefully determined. We should therefore be at a loss to distinguish which of the many antecedents was the true cause of the phenomenon. soit religieuses. although supported by many facts. are extremely complex. distinguish between what is probable and. we are built in possession of irrefragable verities.

instrument does not in We do not speak of experimenting. position. it would have been difficult. and thus demonstrate to us that when the resistance of the air and other interfering influences are allowed for. but that a is always preceded that a particular antecedent always involves by A a particular consequent. and make our experiment to the end that we may know whether this supposition is correct or not. no experiment can take place. but of observing with a microscope. all bodies tend to the earth with equal rapidity.316 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC to exclude the supposition that any causes are operative. save those we are engaged in considering. and that this consequent never occurs except when the antecedent in question has preceded it. in which the two substances are placed in an exhausted receiver. it is not enough that the observer himself should be set in new and special circumstances. It is plain that without some method of simplifying the con ditions. A good example of such artificial simplification is afforded by the well-known guinea and feather experiment. An example is afforded by a series of of a scientific itself The mere use constitute an experiment. To make an experiment. and further that these new conditions should in some way modify its action. and indeed the history of science records not a few famous discoveries made by what may be called chance. . form. and allowed to fall from the top together. Experiment necessarily Unless we frame some sup requires an hypothesis. To experiment is to question Nature and our question must take some clearly defined . to obtain conclusive evidence of this truth. . In scientific investigation. it is not infrequently neces sary to make use of what is termed the Blind or Negative Experiment. It is requisite that the object observed be placed under new conditions. It will be seen that although Observation may take place without set purpose. They reach the bottom of the receiver at the same moment. This is an attempt to show that not only is A always followed by a. if not impossible.

in which the processes of Nature themselves produce special and determinate conditions. . from either side of the brain. This last part of the investi gation constituted the Negative Experiment. given. red-green had the lesion been in the brain. Natural Experiments. this could not have For each of the eyes is supplied with nerves occurred. Here the shadow cast upon the lunar disc shows us the shape of the earth. A Natural Experiment is 5.OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT 317 experiments which were undertaken in regard to the origin of the sleeping-sickness of Uganda. The affection is and cases have been known occasionally hereditary to occur. 6. in which the vision of one eye is normal. Such events have proved Astronomers of great importance in many sciences. yet if this microbe was not communicated to the blood. Royal Society. Another interesting example may be to It had long been visual perception. the nerves crossing each other in what is called the optic chiasma. p. so complete is its superiority from the 1 Proc. Relative Advantages of Observation and Experi ment. have all of us witnessed. The doubt was solved in the following manner. such as we their discoveries. 31. while the other suffered from blindness. relating whether the defect to which colour-blindness disputed was due. under which the phenomenon in question may be observed. were present. affords us a case in point. the disease never appeared. careful observations were first made which A series of appeared to establish that the disease was due to a certain microbe communicated to the blood by the bite of the tsetse fly. was in the eye itself or in the brain. in it was shown that even where all the other con ditions. which But a further series of experiments was undertaken. are indebted to these natural experiments for many of An eclipse of the moon. in which Experiment is possible. 1881. In all cases. which usually accompany the disease. 302. the name employed to denote those events. 1 . Now. there can be no room for comparison between it and Observation. vol.

. for instance. &quot. scientist is fortunate. writes was so sudden. We must be content to wait on Nature. (i) (3) to produce new phenomena of a hardly necessary to dwell on the importance varying the conditions of the phenomenon.). It was then as bright as Sirius. we must be content scientific in the fact that a vast Thus. under varying conditions. of the facts relating to the crystallization of bodies would have presented immense difficulties. had it been possible to study it only during the thunder storm.3i 8 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC lie Its limitations investigator s point of view.&quot. similar kind. the heavens. The advantages of to be found in the fact that Experiment over Observation are we are enabled by it (i) to produce. Outlines of Astronomy edit. which he was sure did not exist half an hour before. Few astronomers have been able Tycho Brahe to note the appearance of a temporary star at the very hour when it commenced to shine in This appearance of the star of 1572. and need not rely on like the reports of others. 602. had it not been in our power to reproduce It is of such phenomena experimentally. was surprised to find a group of country-people gazing at a star. one evening (nth November) from his laboreturning &quot. the great laboratory. as by her own methods she achieves her work in the to observe.&quot. p. A multitude of instances does 1 much (nth too to protect us Herschel. and was visible at 1 midday. (2) to simplify the conditions. number of Nature s processes cannot be imitated. and continued to increase till it surpassed Jupiter when brightest. that Tycho Brahe. In these cases. and to learn from her. ratory to his dwelling-house. we have no means of experimenting where geological and cosmic forces are concerned. a number of instances of the phenomenon we desire to investigate. Herschel. who has the opportunity of con ducting an observation himself. The science of elec tricity would probably never have emerged from infancy. The investigation. In the case of many phenomena.

having regard to the immense advantages possessed by experimental investi gation. ology it surprise . we have revealed to us a series of facts analogous indeed to those. Thus a simplification. We are thus able to control the phenomenon. (2) When of the As experiment helps us to simplify the conditions phenomenon. (3) A bell is struck in a vacuum. similar to those striking examples in recent scientific investigation. very similar to that of the guinea and stances that feather experiment. it enables us to exclude any circum may operate as interfering causes. It will not therefore us that the former group of sciences has advanced far more rapidly than the latter. heard.OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT against the tendency already mentioned leads us to see our own beliefs confirmed ( 319 3). Physics and Chemistry all admit of experiment to a very large extent. and to obtain certain knowledge instead of mere conjecture. are those in which the greatest progress has been made. in some one or other we find a crucial instance proving that we observe. Meteor trolled affords us can hardly be employed. These experiments of Of the production which Nature shews us. but which Nature uncon no opportunity of observing. Mechanics. As we should be led to expect. with which we are familiar. in the famous experiments by which Professor Dewar succeeded in liquefying and freezing oxygen. hydrogen and air. which facts by the we experiments are multiplied. the sciences in which this has been possible. In Anatomy. Physiology. provides us with a proof that the transmission of sound is due to vibration in the atmo sphere. are in error. and no sound is phenomena.

.CHAPTER XX. the effect may be due to accidental circumstances. is quite insuffi cient. the prescribing precise conditions under which we may be certain as to the existence of a general law. Again. but a number of other facts recorded in memory. i. in order to win from Nature the secret of her For to know the various ways in which the evi laws. dence of universal laws appears. it is possible to test the evidence of a deductive for in Deduction. is to know the methods of scientific inquiry. possible lay down fixed canons of evidence. But be cause it has occurred two or three times that a special sort of food has been hurtful to me. In such a case. METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY. when a subject of a different character is under consideration. the evidence is not the mere syllogism. For what is satisfactory evidence in one case. We be describing the manner in which scientists are accustomed to direct their observations and experi ments. singular fact from which I abstract the law. the whole of argument by a canon the evidence is contained in the two premisses of the In Induction. it is not to 4). If on two or three occasions I hear a wild bird of a certain kind give voice to a special song. Our purpose in this chapter is to describe the principal ways. I rightly conclude that there is a causal connexion between that species of bird and the song in question. The Four Experimental Methods. I should be rash in making an induction to a general law. some of them concerning the phenomenon about which the law is shall thus . As we have already said (Ch. 14. in which the evidence of a causal connexion manifests itself.

the methods he attempts to formulate are from a prac . isinglass.Sir D. the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree. He drew up elaborate canons for them. We cannot therefore dismiss them from our consideration.METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY enunciated. and we shall not deviate from that practice. The subject is usually discussed in relation to Mill s treatment. has been the object of much criticism. tical standpoint those employed in scientific investigation. fusible metal. Mill represents this method by a formula in which the capital letters stand for antecedents. his Methods with their An example is given in each case. and always found that the iridescent colours are the same. to lead. etc. 8. and finding the colours repeated upon the surface of the wax. We must endeavour to determine what is their true bearing on Induction. menon under investigation have only one circumstance in common. i). and circumstances. as they are often termed. phenomenon (III. take other impressions in balsam. then we may conclude that A is the cause of a. that though his analysis may be wrong. respective canons. he proceeded for consequents. The discussion 321 some concerning the surrounding of these Experimental Methods. Brewster accidentally took an impression from a piece of mother-of-pearl in a cement of resin and bee s-wax. the small letters Granted that the two instances may be symbolized respectively as ABC-abc. is in large measure due to the important place they hold in Mill s Logic. He thus proved Y . c. of Agreement. We give here in tabulated form. gum arabic. ADE-ade. illustrating the application of the I. &quot. Yet it should be borne in mind. and believed that they were so many His treatment distinct processes of inductive reasoning.. If two or more instances of the phenoCanon. The Method may be illustrated by the following example from Jevons. method in question : Method &quot. is the cause (or effect) of the given &quot. He doubtless took a mistaken view of them.

If an instance in which the phenomenon Canon. It is of course to be understood that the instances in : . it 8. may be con A is the cause of is A good example provided by the experiment referred to above. (Principles. the air is present in the receiver. while two or more instances in which it does not occur. or an indispensable part of : the cause of the &quot.a method Canon. 8. and the sound by a. and the removal of this antecedent is seen to involve the removal of the consequent a. The air is then removed by means of an air-pump. He holds it to be great extension and improvement of the method of Agreement. that one occurring only in the former circumstance in which alone the two instances differ is the effect. cluded that ABC-abc. Difference. 419). 4). c. and the striking of the bell is clearly Here the presence of the air is denoted by A. Formula. 2). p. and no sound is heard. under investigation occurs. or the cause. but * not as participating in the more cogent nature of the &quot.322 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is that the chemical nature of the substance of indifference. In the first instance. Method &quot. audible. Joint Method of Agreement and Difference. c. two or more instances in which the have only one circumstance in phenomenon common. BC-bc whence a. of the surface the real condition of II. (III. and an instance in which it does not occur. of &quot. have every circumstance in common the save one. phenomenon : (III. in which a bell is struck in a vacuum. is the effect or cause or an indispensable part of the cause of the phenomenon&quot. have nothing in common save the If occurs the circumstance in absence of that circumstance which alone the two sets of instances differ. a matter is and that the form such colours &quot. of Difference. This method is not reckoned by Mill as independent of the preceding ones.&quot. We are thus assured that the air must at least play an indispensable part in enabling us to hear. and as constituting a distinct method of proof.

It was estimated that in cultivated soil. And as far as could be detected. Welton gives this example in a slightly different connexion. a large of the number of observations were made as to the formation of mould on soil of different The development of mould and the apparent the objects on the surface. ADE-ade. were carefully sinking noted. To render the conclusion more certain. Formula. Manual. are of such a it due to any other cause but the circumstance in question. the one circumstance common to all alike was the presence of earthworms in great quantities in the surface soil. Mr. and provide a large amount of evidence for the conclusion that the action of the earth worms is causally related to the development of the mould. thus relevant to the subject under consideration. earthworms exist in sufficient number to give between seven-and-a-half to eighteen tons per acre of 1 castings Vide Welton. No formula is given by Mill. In illustration of the method. . whence we conclude that A is the cause of a. that were 323 which the phenomenon does not occur.METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY character. the growth of the mould was a feature common to all these instances. investigations. These two classes of observations are those contem plated by the canon. Welton ABC-abc. there would be good reason Unless the instances were to anticipate its appearance. A number of cases were also examined. in which there had been no increase of mould. The cases selected were thoroughly relevant. from excessive dryness. for the land observed was in the same districts as those which had provided the It was invariably found that either positive instances. Mr. 1 In : suggests the following CEO-ceo : these kinds. experi ments were undertaken to test the adequacy of the cause to produce the effect. the soil here contained no earthworms. they would afford no grounds for a conclusion of any kind. Notwithstanding the variety of circumstances. BDTA-bdm. or for some other reason. we may take the investi gations made by Darwin in regard to the influence of earthworms in the production of vegetable mould. 154.

ui The method may be illustrated by the discovery of Formula. In explaining his Method of Residues. and further that that ABC-abc are causally is the cause of a. to whose influence they must be attributed. c. in in any manner some par- . If it. Whatever phenomenon varies whenever another phenomenon varies Canon. which convinced the astronomer that yet another planet existed. and the residue of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents (III. strictly speaking. B of b. to seek its unknown cause. The point need not detain us : for we are not here concerned to vindicate the validity of Mill s formula. justified This conclusion was shown to be of Neptune. IV. certain ^antecedents. a further cause for the remainder must be sought. i- &quot. &quot. viz. but only to shew what modes of investigation his canons were intended to describe. (III.. .. connected. Method of Concomitant Variations. then we may conclude that C is the cause of c. they presented nevertheless certain residuary phenomena. When any part of a complete phenomenon is still unexplained by the causes which have been assigned. c. attribute the remaining consequent to the remaining antecedent.. are led by the presence of an unexplained element in the pheno menon we are considering. 8. &quot. those cases in which the agent C is an obscure circumstance not likely to have been 5).be known A the planet Neptune by Leverrier.j| produce the effect attributed to it. Method of Residues. he explicitly mentions as falling under it.llt-nl. Hence.324 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC every year! These results would yield a layer of mould from an inch to an inch-and-a-half in thickness every ten years. as is known by previous inductions to be the effect of &quot. it has been urged that Mill s canon is not applicable. &quot. Subduct from any phenomenon such part Canon.&quot. t i.5). Here the motions of Uranus provided the clue. perceived unless sought for&quot. by the subsequent discovery In cases such as this we do not. We &quot. 8. While their general features were such as the position of the planet in the solar system would prescribe. and that these cases should be regarded as exemplifying another rule. III. The cause is therefore fully adequate to .

lib. r ciM i vi ii- Ml &amp. .&amp. De Proprietatibus Elemeniorum.&quot. quod sequitur motum lunae. 8. phenomenon. A 2 BC~a 2 bc. and bases his conclusion on the principle that the concomitance of phenomena is indicative in of causal connexion. the atmosphere. Cf. ifi i rtli i- 1 iit. c. ad hoc quod posito aliqtto ponitur et destructo destruitur et hoc causatur ab ipso : sic autem videmus semper accessum maris poni et fieri quando luna 1 Albertus. p. 8. . It is in this manner that Albert the Great proves the causal influx of the moon on the tides. 325 is is either a cause or an effect of that connected with it through some fact c. involves the use of more than one of the methods. A 3 BC-a 3 bc whence AjBC-afic.t [. Meteor. 310.!!. he made a series of observations on the Puy-de-D6me In a similar in a way mercury barometer mountain. had been made by the Arabs and from them the knowledge had passed into Europe in the ninth century. ?i &amp. The discovery is that A between the moon on the one hand and the ebb and flow of the tide on the other.METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY ticular manner. argues the point against certain opponents of the theory. and is by no means so simple and straightforward a proceeding as these examples would . Albert of the connexion : one of his works. ii. 6). Welton : The following expression is given by Mr. . (III. ijii. . et tune debet sicut alia in quibus generantur vcnti et vapores spirituales fieri accessus et recessus per unum modum semper quia opera naturae sunt uno modo tamen ejus contrarium videmus. 1 : videbitur igitur causari ex motu lunae. 1 IM |1 Pascal showed that the column of is sustained by the weight of In 1648 at the suggestion of Descartes. cst. Contra moveretur mare qiaa spirat naturaliter. lib. : . Haldane.gt. secundam autem soctam quod si .gt.lt. tangit circulum hemisphaerii Scotus. J VM-. : we conclude causally related to a.i inn:! - lucn Further Illustrations of the Methods. it usually happens that the determination of a relation between cause and effect. case because of their simplicity. or of causation &quot. 2. Formula. q. Descartes. vull . The illus trations given in the last section Were selected in each In practice. lli. which conclusively established that the height of the mercury varied concomitantly with the different altitudes at which the observation was taken. however. . 2 IIMM! lo 2. l tract 2.!.

These experiments were. are those which form insoluble sulphates Vide Proc. 1906. considerable interest was aroused in some experiments made by Mr. 78. In order to test these results and discover whether Mr. Our drawn from an enquiry bearing on the alleged effect of radium in producing life. This point is of importance in considering the relation of the methods to Induction. 1 in the These three metals . In this section. with (b) A systematic examination followed of metallic salt. and it was seen that the rate and amount of growth did not correspond to the amount of radium present in the As radium salts are mainly composed of barium was salts. Butler Burke to test the effect of radio example is active substances on gelatin media. Royal Soc. lead and strontium were the only ones which resulted appearance of the growth. thought possible that the latter. These differed in their degree of purity. 20. . 1 (a) In the first place. might be the agent which produced the cells. a series of experiments was under taken by Mr. produced a growth which appeared identical sample. vol. negative instances in the methods of Concomitant Variations to and of Difference. They appear render it certain that radium was not the cause of the cells. It was found on experiment that barium salts without radium. It is these experiments which provide our example. it with that caused by the radium. as is easily seen. and not the former. containing a nucleus that they appeared to be highly organized bodies . . He found that as the result of their action certain bacteria-like cells were obtained. several samples of radium salts were used. and that after growing to a certain point. we give two instances of such scientific investigation. (i) Effect of radio-active substances first on gelatin media. they subdivided.326 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC lead us to suppose.. Burke was justified in supposing that living cells had been produced. It all kinds was found that those of barium. Douglas Rudge. and the con- Dec. In 1906.

between thirty and forty specimens of gelatin were tested. In the Beginning Les Origines. Vide Guibcrt. and that the growth was in all cases proportionate to the amount of sulphur in the water. Further. no growth appeared. of gelatin. etc. Method of Concomitant Variations but on this occasion. the result was not negative but positive. pp. from had been removed. Having regard to the evidence furnished by the pre vious experiments. and (2) that radium has no specific action in forming cells. It was found that if distilled water were employed. by Whitmarsh). It was shown (i) that the cells all which sulphuric acid form round a precipitate of insoluble sulphate. was that the developed round precipitates. c. (d) Finally. we give a short account of some experiments carried out by M.METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY elusion cells 327 suggested by the experiments. 138-141. and with three exceptions. (2) Possibility of spontaneous generation. the was again used . As our second instance. which were formed owing to the presence of sulphur in the medium. such as starch. of life in substances undergoing decomposition. ( : transl. was strenuously maintained by Pouchet and other scientists 1 . this last may be considered as an application of the Method of Difference. This group of experiments shows us the application of the Method of Agreement. with the result that no sign of growth manifested itself. experiments were made in gelatin. gum. the growth of the cell being dependent on the amount of sulphur present . The final result of the whole investigation was entirely to discredit the view that the phenomenon was in any sense a vital process. all proved to contain enough sulphuric acid to give a distinct preci pitate. . other forms of meat-culture (c) Instead were now tried. In this case. Pasteur in his famous investigations 1 The spontaneous development regarding this subject. fixity being given to them by various mucilaginous substances. 12 and Rabier s Logique.

no life would be developed. The flask was then allowed to cool but while it cooled the platinum tube was kept at its (a) He first filled liable to . a flask with a liquid known to be specially decomposition. but simply passed through a through cotton-wool stopper. The liquid in the flask was boiled. so as to ensure that the air which entered the flask should be free from all germs. the exclusion .3 28 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC and these experiments were undertaken by Pasteur in order to shew that if sufficient precautions were taken to exclude the germs which are so plentiful in the atmo sphere. of the Recourse was therefore had to another experiment. in which the stopper was not of wool. high temperature. It was urged that spontaneous generation might depend on the presence of certain conditions in the atmosphere. clusiveness the presence of germs in the air within Exception was however taken to the conis experiment. . might have some peculiar effect in rendering the liquid sterile. Further. The flask was then closed and it was found that no life whatever was developed in the liquid. namely. the platinum tube was heated red-hot. and at the same time. the flask. a similar experiment was made. The long curved neck of this flask was connected with a platinum tube which passed over a flame. common. (b) The air three cases is Here the method of agreement is exemplified. The effect was found to be the same. Here we appear to have an instance of the method For it seems that the sole circumstance this case from one in which decomposition distinguishing of difference. but of asbestos. with which the heating process had interfered. being an organic substance. The we have considered. and they have but one material circumstance in of vital germs. agree in so far that life produced in none of them. in order to preclude any objections on the score that cotton-wool. and no decomposition take place. admitted into the flask was not transmitted a red-hot tube. takes place.

enclosed in a flasks or none. M. no development of life took place. either all would have developed life. this time with blood obtained direct from the veins of healthy animals. became infected.METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY (c) 329 Yet first it is was It boiled. as was urged. Finally an especially interesting group of experi ments was made in the following manner. Pasteur made a fresh experiment. which readily decomposes. with air purified from vital germs. On one of the lower spurs of Mount Jura. their necks broken. . while nineteen remained free. not a flask escaped. boiling. if. five only out of twenty. Though blood is a substance. This final experiment as falling under the may of Method legitimately be reckoned Concomitant Variations. Had the development of life been due. not to the chance distribution of germs. decomposition set in in one case. so that it was as yet free from all contamination he exposed therefore . and the liquid exposed to the air. decomposition was due to germs floating in the air. took country. after all vital germs that might be contained in it. to be noted that in each case the liquid It might perhaps be said that this boiling had made spontaneous generation impossible. Where the flasks contained the same liquid. And on the Mer-de-glace. and were exposed to the same conditions. in which the ordinary sweeping and dusting of a household made the distribution of dust In the open air of the general. was just what might have been anticipated. was necessary to exclude this suggestion. It was found that the proportion of those in which putre faction took place to those which escaped. In a dwelling-room. Liquid was number of flasks. but to spontaneous generation. The necks of all these were sealed over a blow-pipe. it is difficult to see how such results could have been obtained. decomposition place in eight out of twenty flasks. This experiment may be regarded as completing the this blood to contact application of the (d) Method of Agreement. had been destroyed by The flasks were distributed in various places.

(2) Induction. We pass to our universal conclusion. Elimination must be carefully distinguished from Induction properly so called. They provide the data for (i) Eliminative Syllogisms. which of these it is. 14.330 3. in virtue of which the agent pro duces such and such an effect. assist us in this task. is due to that complexity of Nature. When are seeking to discover the cause of some fact. there is nothing The to indicate with certainty. when the intellect. This may be other wise expressed by saying that Induction is possible. which provides so many we difficulties to the scientific investigator. The Methods aid us in two ways. but when the mind also understands the relation uniting them. The question now arises as to how the Experimental Methods. but it is not Induction. when not only the complex elements which consti tute the phenomenon are perceived by the senses. It is of value as an ancil Its importance lary process. Induction is immediately dependent on the recognition by the intellect of a causal relation connecting two facts. For if some particular phenomenon it can be shewn (a) that in question is absent. apprehends the precise characteristic. then we know that it is not the cause at least not the complete and suffi cient cause of the fact. or (b) fact is present. or (c) that its variations bear present when the fact that it is absent when the is no relation to variations observed in the fact. application of the Methods enables us to eliminate many of these antecedents. it is often the case that while we have good reason to suppose the cause is one of several antecedents. They constitute in each case a prerequisite to the mental act. which we have been considering. by which we make an inference from the facts. that the act of of Nature. considering the facts revealed by sense. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC The Function of the Methods in proving a Law It was shewn in Ch. It is of course evident that in themselves the Methods are not logical processes. They are merely special ways of arranging our data. The arguments by which we .

. and the true cause has been dis covered in some factor that had been overlooked. The Methods provide us with the material not merely for Elimination. It is . that we shall no longer be bewildered by their complexity. is present is when a is absent. . ing essence of inductive remain &quot. and this so clearly that the mind shall affirm that a proceeds respect of its from A qua A. An argument drawn in Where this manner would remain for ever inconclusive. a process of eliminais the tion. are deductive syllogisms in Celarent : No /3 characteristic is which a. The lies reasoning. To quote some &quot. are first tabulated and then succes This sively eliminated until one only remains. &quot.. The facts will never show directly that if they draw that conclusion cause of x can you only This view show that nothing else is (Introd. says Mr. /3 is It has not the cause of a. is so to simplify our data. p. Joseph. The object that we have in view in them. they have often proved to be incorrect. words of Aristotle already cited (Ch. 4) : Not . but shall recognize the causal relation as it is exemplified in the individual case. The list of antece dents was defective. that is from A in being A and nothing else. 395). We must not merely eliminate those antecedents which are not the cause we must have positive grounds for assert that the effect ing proceeds from such and such a fact : &quot. conclusions have been based on such reasoning. and from no other. Our aim is to see A producing a. which present when a absent. but for Induction properly so called. is the cause of is a characteristic. then antecedent is declared to be the cause.METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY 331 reject these suggested causes. the antecedents among which the cause is to be looked for. in the use of our facts to disprove erroneous theories of causal connexion. we believe to be untenable.. that in a process consists essentially in Elimination valid Induction. /. 14. been maintained by some that the inductive .&quot.

Post. all light substances upwards. &amp.. we induce the general conclusion that gold is dissolved by aqua regia. is the inductive process. the ancients judged that All heavy substances tend downwards. In such cases. c.fpo/J. Physics. c. after take a simple example. 4. J Such. 2. 1 1 . to . however. In certain cases.f&amp. dissolution. ) t i| rov opav. Previous to the application of the aqua regia. OI)K wj ei56res ryopifv. through knowledge which we should attain the universal. the effect It recognizes the its on the mind conclusion. a vast number only probable.* it appeared to them that the facts showed a spontaneous tendency in light substances to rise above the earth and they held that this motion must be caused by the lightness inherent in them.:.lt. Taken separately. and draws Without doubt.pvati. as they are in fact viewed when stored in the is memory of the observer. convincing. combined universal testimony to the causal influx. the evidence of causation is provided not by one. 31. It is applied.332 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC that the mere act of sight would give us scientific but sight would be the means. d\\ 21. not . when employing the Method of Difference.. ws tx VTf * T & Ka66\ov eV Kov&amp. TO 5t fiapu TO Kd.lt. and the senses dissolution taking place wherever the liquid The intellect does not set to work eliminating. 1 \ An. but by a series of observations. is there no show us reaches. but abstracts a general conclusion that gold as such is dissolved by aqua regia.poi&amp.ru.&quot.^v TO &vu &amp. 19.t6v .gt. case in point. Pascal s experiments as to the pressure of the atmosphere on the barometer furnish us with a. a series of such observa tions be viewed together. If. 1 fOTi Cf. IV.lt.. when before believe that We we the discovery of gravitation. I. each observation would have been insufficient for his conclusion. Arist. of our inductions are recognize one fact as determining another. I . eirei TO .. whereas in truth we have merely some fallible signs of causality..lt. We believe there is a relation of cause arid effect. imagination outruns observation.gt. Thus. as we saw in Ch. i I &amp.

but because at the suggestion of Of this character was the certain signs we imagine it. . the signs of causality. Our conclusion is not reached by eliminating those circumstances which are not the cause. But when we see the agent A produce such a. . the other circumstances remaining As we have the same. nor because. they are not an analysis of the circumstances.comppse* tfre ..&quot.is Canons. with such assistance as can be obtained from deduction.&quot. Here was a phenomenon which is one of though not an infallible sign. Mellone pro When the addition poses that the canon should run as follows &quot.. it is at least a description of the circumstances under which we are frequently stated. as distinguished from deduction.mind t . that agent.ble. posteriori. four methods. we do not believe that it is possible to make any canon. justified in &amp. while they are inductive. strictly speaking.avajla. which in the physical sciences best enable us to detect causal relations. but differentiated from it by the fact 4.METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY because 333 its existence is evident. Thus Dr.is the cause of the phenomenon. comparable to the syllogism. and say A is the cause of a. or its subtraction by the disappearance of a certain event. . of the agent is followed by the appearance. . which can be rigorously applied as a test of causation. are the only possible modes of experimental inquiry. we infer it. Mill s view of the very different from that which we have sought to present.lt. Resources of the human . not an criminative process. To him. we abstract the characteristics in question. proceeding from the general to the particular. harmonize with the account of the process we have offered. : &quot. drawing a universal conclusion. radium salt. he writes. Imagination did the It may be observed that the emendations suggested by various authors for the Method of Difference. of direct induction d These.&quot. error described in the last section in regard to the activity The cells arose on the application of the of radium. But though this may not be strictly speaking a canon. that syllogistic reasoning is deductive. They constitute so many independent canons of reasoning. . And the circum stances presuppose an abstractive. Criticism of Mill s Four Methods is . rest. The guiding us from the particular to the general.

relation A . a is constant. It should not prove to be the case. are based on the same law. his treatment of the subject has encountered.. it is found that the circumstance A alone is common to both instances. And . there is between these two no causal relation. is principally valid against this view of them. objected secondly. 8. that they are one may be and all based on the all same principle. In the two instances abc. ade.. particular brought under it. A . In the first place. &quot.. the reasoning of the methods as by Mill.. that circumstance is the cause of the phenomenon. for they can be present without it. The causal It causal relation.-.. All causal relations in Nature are constant. general principle is and is a case stated. because it can appear in their absence. in the Method of Difference. we show that neither B nor C causes a . If the canons can be shewn to be derived from one principle. those canons should be independent of one another. that when of two facts the one can appear without determining the presence of the other. c. Here a is shown not to be causally related to B or C or D or E. Similarly. that if there are really of four canons inductive reasoning. This be seen on an of an may analysis argument under the first is described deductive. A of the canons : of the phenomenon under found that one circumstance alone investigation. This is the principle of the Method of Agreement. they must be held to have for feited their claim to be so many distinct principles of Now the inductive canons one and all ratiocination. besides the phenomenon is common to both instances.334 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC for ascertaining the laws of the succession of phenoThe hostile criticism which mena (III. viz. in it is . 7). and of which we are about to recapitulate the chief points. in which the phenomenon a appears. a is a /. Wherever two instances A is the cause of a.

B. c. methods of elimina Under these circumstances. or vice versa. he tells us. the doctor may often have reason to doubt where and where the effect. it may be hard to say whether the nerves are responsible for the depression. Moreover. 8. so manifold are the links similar character.METHODS OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY acter. and a number of consequents of a in The canons Nature. and of the conse quents by a. appears that the patient is suffering from nervous breakdown. If. He tells us in so many words. there tion (III. further suppose an unreal state of things For they apparently proceed upon the assumption that we have a number of antecedents all clearly determined. symbols. In reality. the use of the same series of letters both for antecedents and conse to find the cause. c. would seem to indicate that we can detect at once which fact is antecedent. for instance. d is quite deceptive. and Difference are both. and which is consequent. and in another passage informs us that the Method of Conco mitant Variations may be identified either with the Method of Agreement or with that of Difference (III. The two chief methods. 4). that the Method of Residues is in truth a peculiar modification &quot. 22. how difficulties at once arose from the unexpected interaction of causes that had been over If Nature could really be represented by Mill s looked. 335 the reasoning of the other methods is of the same char Mill himself frankly recognizes their intimate connexion. it quents certainly conveys the impression. Again. This is frequently not the case. 3). b. and so complex the process of action and reaction. those of Agreement c. Thus. the employment of the large and small letters. can be no justification for enumerating four canons of reasoning. seen in the investigation as to the effects of radio-activity. that it can be . C. 5) . D. and is also a prey to mental depression. of the Method of Difference &quot. if a patient consults a doctor. We have. c. Induction would be a matter of little difficulty. that the representation of the antecedents by the symbols A. for example. (III. 8. which unite natural agents.

of little value as a criterion of valid reasoning. a may be caused by X. canon. .IM&amp.K till (H: h hilt . . the b which corresponds to B.lt. indeed conclude that but if the same effect A. which is always liable to frustration.lt. yet another objection may be raised. 1 HT. not by is A. A &amp. by diiferent the one from entirely that our guarantee judgment is than the one under examination. From the point of view of Mill s own philosophical His position. etc. . doctrine of the Plurality of Causes renders it impossible for him to regard the canons as valid methods of inferring universal judgments.hi-. We may in this instance a is caused can follow from causes the other.336 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC no very recondite problem to find the a which corresponds to A. we have no true for any other case In all other instances.v j -iac id i|iiu .no I .

to enable him to grasp something. The explanation may have special reference to the particular mind to which it is addressed. is new light thrown on the thing itself. when it is shewn to result from the operation of some wider law or laws. i. A law of nature is said to be explained. For we are pointing out . an individual fact is said to tree in a storm. Such are the explanations we give to children. when it is Explanation. Thus the motion of the moon round the earth was explained. It is with such explanations that we are concerned in this chapter. rendered it unable to withstand the stress to which it was exposed. but merely by illus trations and analogies familiar to the hearer. Thus we explain the fall of a Similarly. from which it can be deduced. But an explanation may be such as to give us a real insight In this case. There is indeed a sense in which. be explained. and the other circumstances. A thing rendered intelligible is when said to be explained. when we are able to point out the laws which have brought it about. This may be understood in two ways. by indicating the looseness of the soil. of which he has no experience. a into the nature of the fact explained.CHAPTER XXI. EXPLANATION. the mind acquires a facility to grasp it. when we explain an individual fact. and not simply on this or that mind. which in conjunction with the force of gravity. when it was proved to be due to the force we call terrestrial gravity. we are really explaining a law. which it did not possess before. It may not be intended to throw light on the nature of the thing itself.

in each relation. individuals. 1 in similar circumstances should It is manifest that this process must find a limit. though related one to the .. According to this a unit of which individual school. are so fully and exactly known. under stand Explanation somewhat differently. must follow from these conditions.&quot. oi6fj. 2 Welton.. Since every one of these relations is.338 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC a necessity of nature that every such tree situated how it is In each case.&quot. with exactly these details. in which the object is held to consist. . things are but parts which are complete in themselves. when we dSQi^ev rijv are acquainted with its cause. 1 Cf. An. Explanation is therefore the deter mination of the constitutive relations of the object or event. For the mind regards a thing as intelligible when it knows the cause which produced it. Nature is an organism it is not an organization formed of things. 4). ditions of every detail that not only a phenomenon of that general character. but just this very phenomenon. Manual. universal. 15. &quot. but for which no reason.e9a $TCLV alriav. the analysis of the event into its constitutive relations for by Explanation. shows us some aspect. By these writers no essential distinction is drawn between cause and condition. and in 2 exactly this amount. Post. in the sense of which we have spoken. We soon arrive at laws. These we must accept as ultimate. .&quot. can be assigned. I. we fall. which we cannot account for by bringing them under any law wider than themselves. of the reason the law or of the explain by assigning event. We believe ourselves to 159. is described as a process of Generalization we bring to light. some element which is common to other phenomena. c. Arist. They are truths made known to us by the testimony of experience. II. ewtirTaffdat. &quot. as conceived by the mind. a very different thing. but of a part by its whole. in which it agrees with many other &quot. . when the conditions. n. . who take the view that individual entities consist solely of relations (Ch. * Logicians of the Idealist school. Every relation present in a phenomenon. and ascertainment of necessary con Explanation is to them the A phenomenon is fully explained. The Explanation of the Idealist philosophers differs funda mentally from that described in the body of this section. Their Explanation is not explanation of an effect by its cause. The conditions in question are in fact the relations. . know a thing.

imagine. are what they are. In an organization. is is M. 1 &quot. is P must be simply convertible. If Nature is an organism of relations. must show that 4). because the units. Logical principles indicate to us the way in ceed. then Science begins with tasks that can be measured.. unless we have a correct idea of the In an organism. 339 This difference is crucial. explanation of any object or event. They must be understood. must employ regressive We which we must pro argument from the cause (Ch. We are given 5 is P. without Bosanquet. 12. P. We must not merely establish the proposition If M. if there things. We are thus enabled to form the syllogism is M : P . Science is impossible. but the reciprocal of If P then M. then P. This can only be done by showing that the phenomenon P proves the presence of the cause M. . on the other hand.EXPLANATION other. Ultimately. they are. the proposition All it. out of which it is composed. Logic. their connexion is due to some cause of effect to the We wider generality. Explanation has no term or limit. All our nor can we attain to the true explanations are provisional . the whole is what it is. . with which we are concerned. Explanation by Regressive Reasoning. till we have grasped alike the finite this scheme of things entire 1 . because the organism is what it is. For it is impossible to under and we cannot have stand a part save in its relation to a whole a correct idea of a part. and our object to prove that S is P. 2. We have said that the task of Explanation is to assign the reason of the law. But if and of truth. till we know and the be no radical difference between thought of both Nature is an organized manifold. because it is M. nay.&quot. before the whole can be understood. you all else may knowing rightly. In other words. not an organization of related things. and every step forward is a permanent acquisition Infinite. the parts arc what whole. p. 393. I. In other words. nothing can be known rightly. S S is M. till our mind s vision surveys the whole orders. as regards the antecedent and the consequent we are considering. of which it is a part.

and commencing with the cause. To take a simple case. we follow the route better suited for instruction. Scientific . P.-. The order of nature is followed 1 the effect the cause. show how it issues in respectively. application of of her greatest triumphs to the method. is used as the we middle term. Potassium floats in water. S 5 M. have a specific gravity less than that of water. Substances which float in water. float in water. We discover the cause by arguing from the effect. by prove Substances. Potassium floats in water. subsequently. . and not the effect. But when. n. is is P.-. A better example cannot 2 perhaps be found than one given by Professor Case the discovery made by Kepler that the path of the Science owes many this 1 On regressive reasoning from effect to cause. These two methods of reasoning were known to the ancients as the via inventionis and the via doctrinae the the method method of of discovery. the syllogism. we may thus assign the reason of the law that potassium floats in water. we wish to give a reasoned exposition to others. the effect. Potassium has a specific gravity less than that of In this in M water. p. instruction.340 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is present way we demonstrate that the agent every S. Potassium has a specific gravity less than that of water. is thus established. and so explain how it comes about that All 5 is P. 14. is In this form. c. The expressions scarcely need comment. may be restated M . Method. the cause. whose specific gravity is less than that of : water. in the form : by converting the major. When the conclusion 5 is M. . see Summa Totius Logicae.. Tract 2 9.

: Science did not spring suddenly into being at the close of the middle ages. has described it as an induction though it is clear that the task before Kepler was to explain a But a law. These observations revealed certain regular movements but what law governed these movements was not apparent.j. At last the clue was found. orbit of the planet Mars is an ellipse.were the hypotheses that he tested. not to generalize from particular facts. Kepler owed in large measure to Tycho Brahe. as it has exercised great influence on recent logical .EXPLANATION 34! planet Mars is an ellipse with the sun in one of the foci. Whewell. orbit of the planet Mars has such and such positions. .jj-vlli ). argument deserves careful attention for two reasons. and several erroneous accounts have been given of the reasoning involved. and he was able to deduce his conclusion in the following manner Such and such positions are the properties of an of the planet. It will be necessary for us to say something of this other view.. it has been misunderstood by recent logicians. The This .-. which formed the basis of the argu ment. For the major premiss in the reasoning of Kepler was a conclusion drawn from the theorems of Conic Sections and the science of Conies was an inheritance from the days of classical antiquity. :/. . as some writers would have us believe. A dif ferent account of Explanation is given by some logicians. The discoveries of the great scientists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were rendered possible by the labours of their predecessors. In the first place.&quot. : ellipse.. which is regarded as characterizing in an especial manner the modern era.(I . The . yet greater interest attaches to the argument in so far as it signalizes for us the intimate connexion between the science of the ancients and that Copernican astron omy. 3.]) .-. for example. Many. Explanation by Hypothetical Deduction. only to find that they did not agree with the facts. The observations.

These are all cases in which a Composition of Causes has resulted in Intermixture of effects (Ch. it appears as a special case of what he terms the Deductive Method. In his : Deduction the : account. and they are compared with P as manifested in experience. 2). by which we are enabled in certain cases to deter mine the laws governing complex phenomena. Explanation is achieved. Mill cites as cases in which the method is employed. or comparison of these conclusions (3) Verification with the facts of Nature. such problems as that of three bodies gravitating together. (2) explain the hypothesis being treated as a general principle from which conclusions are drawn. are of no avail. when the causes affecting range are known. at least approximately may be obtained for these problems by De duction. its velocity and Here Observation and Experiment But solutions. The conclusion in the Deductive Method. M ventured M they agree. 15. According to this theory. and that of the path of a projectile. not from a known law. an hypothesis it is desired is P The consequences of are then calculated by deduction. if is P. Thus. but from an hypothesis provisionally assumed. no less than that obtained from the hypothetical this process only in so far that . The application of the method supposes that we are acquainted with the various simple laws which combine to produce the complex result. This Deductive Method is a way. in regard to which we cannot apply Observation and Experiment. not by regressive reasoning from effects to causes. This view of Explanation is that held by Mill. Hypothetical Deduction he regards as differing from our deductive calculation is made. but by deduction from to explain the law 5 that may be due to a cause hypotheticaUy suggested. correct.342 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC speculation. to The process therefore consists of (1) The formation of an hypothesis law or fact under consideration. If it is found that . the hypothesis is : thereby confirmed. especially in England.

an error on A identified p. It can only be regarded as * 4 it is that worse mistake was to come. M . . . does not. our argument. we may have overlooked some contributory cause. 343 must be out this step. Mill quotes as one of the most notable discoveries we owe to the method of hypothetical deduction. discoveries were not made by it sive reasoning. He Mill s Hypothetical Deduction with Induction. terms Induction &quot. it is. it is evident. is true. we have the combina- . which starts from laws that govern the combination of qualities. Jevons Mill s part. Newton s conclusions in regard to the system of the universe. is no longer a hypothetical deduction. are logically worthless. The mere fact that the conclusions drawn from our hypothesis agree with the law we desire to explain. Hypothetical Deduction and Induction. and so vitiated our calculations. but by regres can scarcely be doubted that we owe this theory of Explanation to an erroneous analysis of Newton s argument. Deduction is the process. We have seen impossible to accept Hypothetical Deduction as a true account of Scientific Explanation. P is an effect which proves to account for P the presence of the cause M. In Induction. not all subsequent logicians have insisted on the absolute necessity of proving that the hypothesis proposed is the only one which will account Yet without this. but a strict regressive syllogism.the inverse operation of deduction&quot. hypothesis that there is no other hypothesis which will do so. Unfortunately. constitute a proof that we have discovered the cause of the law.. the conclusions obtained for the facts. But M . is cause sufficient Our major premiss is no longer. that not insists must we shew that the only rightly we shew accounts for the but must facts. We cannot argue If Hence Mill then P but P is true. logically analysed. (Princ. With verified by comparison with facts. M .EXPLANATION cause. and infers the combinations agreeing with these laws. 122). But he fails to observe that if we can attain certainty on this point. We shall show in a subsequent section that Newton s this method.

some attention square. and (3) verification. Hence the induc tive inference. found a wide acceptance. This is accomplished by hypothetical deduction. strange to say. vol. Any one of the five steps would of itself have been considered an important advance would have conferred distinction on the persons who made it. is based on the mathematical theory of probability. it is ordinarily possible to form rival hypotheses as to the laws governing the combina tions. Jevons s theory that in Hypothetical Deduction we have the true account of Induction. he holds. has. we have no ground for certainty as to the uniformity of nature. . . In this we propose to consider the method of proof by which Newton succeeded in establishing the universal section.&quot. of Inductive Sciences (3rd ed. 2. . Certainty. even had we accurately deter mined the law in question. and hold each of them to be of value in proportion to their probability. and our task is to determine the laws governing the combinations. can be reached by hypothetical deduction. p. Bosanquet and Welton may be men tioned among the adherents of this view. in so far as he bases inductive argument on the theory of probability. has been devoted to this subject. . Nor need we feel It has been justly said by Whewell surprised at this. Sigwart.). and the time to which it belonged. in the three stages of (i) forming the hypothesis. J &quot. The value of inductions regarding laws of nature is. It would be necessary to entertain all these rival hypotheses. All the five steps taken at once formed not a leap but a flight not an improvement but a metamorphosis not an epoch but a termination. in such a way that each hypothesis will give results approxi mating in some degree to the facts. that it was indisputably and incomparably the greatest scientific discovery ever made. . gravitation of matter according to the law of the inverse In most recent works on Logic. natural laws are constant but reason cannot justify our conviction that it must be so. as regards its validity. They part company however with Jevons. As far as we can see. . never more than probable. 1 Whewell. . To begin with. 136. 5. . Belief should never amount to certainty till the experiment has been tried.344 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC tions of qualities as our data. Hist. (2) deducing consequences. For this view. . they maintain. Moreover. Explanation as employed by Newton. there can be no logical justification.

in the sense in which we speak of the discovery of galvanic electricity. and that this force is identical with terrestrial gravity. of the RontgenThe work was essentially explanatory. of argon. Several eminent have misunderstood the nature of the reasoning. as we have already noted. The areas swept by lines drawn from the . another reason. Newton s arguments. It did not consist in the detection of some natural phenomenon never yet observed. The planets move in elliptical orbits round the sun in one of the foci. it will appear that the method employed regressive reasoning from facts to their causes. is in the inverse proportion to the square of their distances : that the earth also exerts such a force on the moon. facts in the first of the cases we are about to were those which are contained in Kepler s : The consider. was borne out by this greatest of which did not show how the account given of all explana is tory reasonings. : (1) that the force by which the planets are attracted to the sun. as we have described it in Of the five points into which Whewell divides the discoveries connected with gravitation. laws. viz. this great discovery was precisely of the kind with which we are now concerned. Our object here is to shew There for dealing with method employed by Newton is simply the 2.EXPLANATION 345 Moreover. logicians and on their erroneous interpretation have based a false theory of Explanation. viz. regressive method. Second law. we shall restrict our attention to the two which may be regarded as the that the principal. (2) In each case. and argues directly from these to the nature of the force was which (i) is necessary to produce them. the process. Newton takes the known motions of the heavenly bodies. First law. ment of Explanation might justly be held to be incom plete. A treat rays.

and by a radius drawn to a point describes about that : point areas proportional to the times of description. 2 had been surmised by several mathematicians an attractive force situated in the sun. But the complexity of the problem baffled Newton s genius triumphed their attempts at solution. . 2} (b) When the squares of the periodic times are as the cubes of the radii (i. will be the same as that employed in covering the shorter distance between C and D.e. i. over the obstacles. cor. The squares of these two periodic times are respectively i and 900. 6). It The squares of the periodic times are that as the cubes of the mean distances from the sun. the centripetal forces by which the bodies tend to the centre are inversely as the squares the radii and the converse of this proposition is also true (Princ. His proofs rest upon the three laws of motion. and acting accord ing to a law of inverse squares. is urged by a centripetal force to that point (Princ. Lib. the mean distance of Saturn is a little more than nine times the mean distance of the earth. the time employed by the planet to cover the distance between A and B. In other words. would account for these motions. The mean distance of the earth from the sun wi l therefore stand to the mean distance of Saturn from the sun as the cube root of r to the cube root of 900. are proportional to the times employed in the motion. 4. the times are proportional. i. The proof is given in the second proposition of Bk.. These he regarded as securely estab lished by induction. proved deductively two famous theorems in mechanics (a) Every body which moves in a curve. of the Principia.346 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC sun to the planet. the mean distance : from the central body). not to the distance covered. Then according to the law. prop. These conclusions provided him with all that was required to prove that the law of inverse squares governs the planets in regard of their motion towards the sun. : Thus the period of the earth s revolution round the sun is i year that of Saturn 30 years. For . The proposition is as follows : The 1 forces. Lib. 1 Third law. III. by which the planets are withheld from recti- The accompanying eABS 2 figure may be taken to represent the course of a planet round the sun and it may be supposed that the areas and CDS are equal. but to the areas swept by the imaginary lines. Basing his demonstrations on these he laws. prop. of ..

i. the distances (Princ. tions. When the squares of the periodic times are as the cubes of the radii.e. The The planets are urged by a centripetal force to the sun. Proof of part 2.e. It was this identifi also cation that caused us to see in the courses of the stars and the planets.. /. Lib. and by a radius drawn to a point describes about that point areas proportional to the times of description. to which I The translation of the proposition is that there given. the centripetal forces of the bodies will be inversely as the squares of the radii. when Newton shewed that the force which retains the moon in her orbit is one and the same with the force known to us as terrestrial gravity. Every body. But we must now consider the further step which was taken. Lib. which moves in a curve. i. am . prop. The squares 3rd law). see the treatment in Professor Case s lecture on under great obliga Scientific Method as a Mental Operation.. 6). by radii drawn to the sun. prop. 4. Cor. The centripetal forces of the planets tending to the sun are inversely as the squares of their distances from the sun. urged by a centripetal force to that point (Princ. is I. of the periodic times of the planets are as the cubes of their mean distances from the sun (Kepler s /. 1 (2) The demonstration we have just considered may be applied to the case of the moon in its relation to the earth. planets.EXPLANATION linear motion 347 . tend to the sun and these forces vary inversely as the squares of the distances from the sun. a manifestation of the very same pheno menon which we witness when a stone falls to the earth. the distances. 1 On this demonstration. Our data regarding its motion prove that it is subject to the law of inverse squares. 2). and retained in their orbits. describe areas proportional to the times of description (Kepler s 2nd law). i. Proof of part i.

it follows by the law of inverse squares. In order to test the worth of that hypothesis. The supposition that the force retaining the moon in her orbit was none other than terrestrial gravity. would leave her orbit. First Rule. may be thus summarized. and pass away into space at a tangent. moon from the centre of the earth may be taken as equal to sixty of the earth s radii. would not be 16 feet. were the moon close to the surface of the This earth. The importance of these rules to his argument will appear in what follows. Hence. Since bodies at the surface of the earth are at a distance of one radius from the centre. the pull which would be exerted. this new argument involves further presuppositions. Newton calculated that this amounted to very nearly 16 feet. This was easily susceptible of determination. Without the influence of the earth. the attractive force exerted by the earth on the moon in one minute. No more causes of natural things are to be admitted than such as are both true (verae). if the first law of motion be true. distance of the 2 The by which Newton shews . What then would it be in one second ? Galileo s discovery that the distances fallen by bodies vary as the will 1 These rules proof. and sufficient to explain the phenomena of these things. Second Rule. if such be the attraction at the distance at which the moon stands from the earth. And therefore natural effects of the same kind are to be referred as far as possible to the same causes. two of Newton s These are stated in the first Rules of Philosophizing^ which run as follows. The this. but 16 feet X 60*. were it close to the surface of the earth.348 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is In addition to what required in the proofs with which we have already dealt. Allowing for the law of inverse squares. it could be shewn that. the moon. presented itself to Newton as an hypothesis. is represented by the amount of deflection from the tangent during that period of time. is identical with the rate at which bodies are drawn to the earth by terrestrial gravity. it was necessary to know the precise amount of the force exerted on the moon by the earth. 2 Here then Newton be dealt with in the next section. that the fall of the moon in one minute. would be precisely 16 feet in one second.

&quot. The moon is a material body whose is fall to the earth of this character. he evidently the fundamental principles which reasoning of that treatise. and to be adequate to the effect 1 This gives us the following regressive syl (Rule i). . aequaliter evadit vi gravitatis apud nos. The Rules of Philosophizing Principia as to the system of the universe. Newton s Rules of Philosophizing. 4). . : logism Any material body which.). one that we know to be really operative in nature. namely that the force which the earth exerts upon the moon is none other than terrestrial gravity. The moon is is urged to the earth by gravity. (ibid. we may be confident that method to follow squares of the times. viz. When we reflect that these rules were drawn up by one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived. prop. and in reference to a series of reasonings which have influenced the thought of the whole human race. we are not intro : we account ducing any merely hypothetical agent it by a true cause. It must same cause. is urged to the earth by gravity. We therefore (Rule 2) be attributed to the gravity. si descendatur in superficiem terrae. in fact. the proof by which Newton establishes the second of those great discoveries to which we referred Such above.. ideoque (per regulam I ei II) est ilia ipsa vis quam nos gravitatein dicere solemus&quot. on commencing to fall to the earth. in the fall of the moon a phenomenon exactly similar to the fall of bodies at the earth s surface. Lib. through which the moon would fall in one second. 1 Propterea vis qua luna in orbe sua retinetur. intends to lay are. a preface the third part of Newton s the part in which he unfolds his conclusions down have governed the In them. /. They statement of what he held to be the true in Natural Philosophy. passes through a space equivalent to a fall of 16 feet in one second at the earth s surface.EXPLANATION 349 have applies his two rules to establish his proof. Ill. for For in thus explaining it. 6. shows that to find the distance fallen in one-sixtieth 2 This part of a minute. we must divide the distance fallen in a minute by 6o gives us 16 feet as the space. were it close to the surface of the earth (Principia.

&quot. kind are to be referred as far as possible to the same causes. it cannot be regarded as an essential attribute of material though. of motion themselves. as follows : Rule I. adds. &quot. This must be granted.&quot. respiration in man and beast : the fall of stones in Europe and America : light in the fire on our hearth and in the sun : the reflexion of light on the earth A qualities of bodies that can neither be increased nor diminished in intensity. &quot. and mobility of all bodies. And therefore natural effects of the same Rule II. (In a somewhat lengthy comment. substance. until other phenomena occur. and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments. by which they are made more accurate or are rendered &quot. collected subject to exceptions.350 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC They are they merit the most careful consideration. Newton points out that it is on these grounds that we infer the extension. and to employ more means when less will serve would be to act in vain : for Nature is simple. and in the planets. are to be regarded as belonging to all bodies whatever. and sufficient to explain the phenomena of those things. And this. lest conclusions based on induction be denied in favour of hypotheses. propositions Induction from phenomena are to be regarded by as exactly true or as very nearly true. and is not prodigal in unnecessary causes. Those Rule HI. as it is In experimental philosophy. . and the laws hardness.No more causes of natural things are to be admitted than such as are both true. Further. s for instance.) Rule IV. // is a saying of the philosophers that Nature does nothing in vain. he is the foundation of all [Natural] Philosophy.&quot. an induction of this kind will enable us to conclude that gravity belongs to every particle of matter . impenetrability. capable of increase and diminution. notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses. &quot.&quot.

unless we know that this cause is a true cause. Clerk Maxwell. that finality and purpose rule the whole natural order. To ensure this. should be free from the least suspicion of being based on hypotheses. . says Newton. /ni^re . c. it is inadmissible to attribute to Nature what would be a mark not of reason but of unreason. aTroXaVei rCiv dva. . Thomas. is derived from Aristotle. We can no longer assert that such and such motions on the part of the moon furnish a proof that it is swayed by gravity. Natura non agit aliquid superflue. If 6. If its truth be denied. then Nature does nothing in vain. De Anima. Then. De Verbo Intellectus. first 351 By connexion with each be considered together. The principle is fundamental in Newton s argument. They are in fact rules to ensure that the doctrines advanced and the conclusions attained in Natural Philosophy. and is of fre 1 It is grounded quent occurrence in Scholastic philosophy. &quot. his reasoning loses all conclusiveness. Hence. 13. nothing that is necessary . They may what must be considered one of the strangest of two rules stand in close mistakes.yKa.EXPLANATION The other. S. The principle. III. actually existing in nature. It becomes perfectly 1 Arist. and the examples indicate the use which Newton intends to make of it as to the motions of the moon in regard to the earth. for Nature is not prodigal in unnecessary causes. we must never assert that a phenomenon proceeds from any cause. Hence the second rule follows as a corollary of the first. indeed. and omits Cf. these rules are frequently described as stating the conditions requisite to a valid hypothesis. and those of the planets in regard to the sun. we may do so. ovv fi-f^re nTjStv 17 0i5crts iroie? fj. 9. &quot. to to choose the more complicated say that it would be poor scientific taste of two equally well balanced scientific conceptions. It would be con to sound to suppose that there are trary philosophy two natural forces each destined to produce precisely the same effect. to which he makes appeal as the basis of the first rule. It would seem to have been the perception of this truth which led another great scientist. Opusc.iwv. and is such as would produce the effect.dT-rjv. on the evident fact that reason is everywhere apparent in the world..

is beginning. . difficult of things by the method of Anainvestigation &quot. that the cogency of the great argument depends. tion by induction argument from effects to causes whether deduction by Synthesis. These two rules should be compared with the following In Natural Philosophy the passage from the Optics. have any weight. by how much the induc- conclusions : is the more general. It is on the foundation afforded by this Aristotelian principle proof is thetical. ments and Observation be no demonstration of general lysis. 1 By Analysis. he urges. All we can say is that gravitation would be capable of accounting And with this. Against such inductive conclusions. no objections based on mere hypotheses. 1 ought ever to precede the method of Composition. . 25. Ch. with special reference to the matter dealt with in the treatise he rule. taken away. can. the keystone of the whole for them. and in drawing general conclusions from them by way of Induction. . i. 2 yet it is the best way of arguing that the nature of things admits of. Newton signifies all or regressive : . 2 Demonstration is here used in its technical sense of syllogistic proof from first principles of admitted certainty. and may be looked upon as so much the stronger. but such as are taken from experience or other certain truths.352 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC reasonable to attribute them to another cause. and admitting of no objection against the conclusions. the conclusion may be pronounced But if at any time afterwards any excepgenerally. In the third he claims the right of inferring universal propo sitions as to corporeal substance by induction from experience. the argument from causes to their effects. And if no exception occur from phenomena. The reasoning becomes hypo and Newton s boast that his philosophy does not consist of hypotheses becomes empty verbiage. The third and fourth rules summarize Newton s view as to the true starting point in all our reasonings on physical science. For hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental philoAnd although the arguing from Experisophy. The terms are more fully explained below. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observation.

Most assuredly it was not the hypothetical deduction attributed to him by recent logicians. . per rationes aeternorum temporalia disponimus. 1 The only difference between this passage on the one hand and the rules on the other. lies in the fact that in the Optics Newton is dealing with physical science in general. grounded on rigorous reasoning The legitimacy from facts to their causes. De Potentiis Animae. p. The passage may be compared with the following from St. 1721). he Later . Uno modo secundum viam inventionis. while in the rules he speaks only of the inductions which shew that some attribute is to be reckoned among the It is by such properties of all corporeal substance. employed by this greatest of scientific discoverers was none other than that recognized by the Scholastic philo sophers. the true work he of the Natural Philosopher. holds. Optics. the rules.&quot.&quot. 380 (3rd edit.EXPLANATION 353 tion shall occur from experiments. Ista autem duo objecta scilicet temporalia et aeterna comparantur ad cognitionem nostram dupliciter. . . 28. To labour feign at this &quot. . et sic temporales sunt nobis via deAlio modo per viam resolutionis et judicii. Introduction. he regards as evident. says. and to deduce causes from effects till we come to the very first cause. c. 6. all . Opusc. is. inductions that the laws of motion are established. &quot. which certainly is not mechanical. on whose truth depends the value of his whole physical of the principles expressed in system. 3 Newton.&quot. Qy. And if these be granted. AA . see Pemberton s View of Newton s 2 . et sic veniendi in aeterna. 1 Philosophy (1728). 8 On Newton s Rules of Philosophizing. a valid science is possible. 40. for hypotheses the whereas explaining things mechanically main business of Natural Philosophy is to argue from phenomena without feigning hypotheses. it may then begin to be pronounced with such exceptions as occur. . 2 It will be evident from these citations that the method philosophers. . Newton. 22-25. Optics. Thomas.

may be imagined. Hypothesis. unless he hazards an hypothesis. a Nov. and presence in varying degrees. HYPOTHESIS. VI. to ask himself The first task of the investigator what various hypotheses. Ethics. which can be communicated in a code of rules. The laws of nature would on the application of this method reveal themselves. as we a a gift which have seen. is a provisional or tentative Discovery is No man is likely to distinguish the almost entirely dependent on hypothesis. 34.. and then by observation and experiment forces Nature to declare whether his hypo thesis is is correct or not. In other i. to leave to Our method of discovering the sciences is such as the acuteness and strength of wit. He believed. &quot. hypothesis is a supposition made with evidence for recognized as insufficient. 6r. An words an hypothesis explanation. 1 The method of investigation advocated by Francis Bacon dispensed with hypotheses. The peculiar insight. and indeed rather to level 354 wit and intellect. Logic can teach no art of making suitable hypotheses. in themselves possible. . that to employ tables of presence. and all men s minds stand on the same level. would provide a royal road to discovery. law which lies hidden behind the complex phenomena of experience. Post. I. which are capable of account ing for the phenomena. 10.. c. Org. Aristotle s account of evaroxia. but not one gift.. which enables a is man to seize on the clue to Nature s secrets. may be cultivated. An. absence. little I.CHAPTER XXII. c. 2 Hypotheses 1 Cf.&quot. in order to account some fact or some law known to be real.

Descriptive Hypotheses. Such a mode of colligating the facts. Hypotheses are employed in science for another purpose. to be possessed with a feverish &quot. When a number of facts relating to a certain subject have been gathered together. To this hypotheses are but means and instru ments. sometimes for years.HYPOTHESIS . The aim of all investigation is the discovery of truth. greatest forcibly Pasteur in his address to his colleagues at the inaugura tion of the Institut Pasteur writes as follows For the investigator it is the hardest ordeal which he can be asked to face.&quot. no part of the scientist s task is more important than the rigid testing of suggested hypotheses. and yet to impose silence on himself for days. even though it should hardly seem likely that this hypothesis will be found to represent the actual truth. Yet notwithstanding the important role played by hypotheses in discovery. as to accept it as true before he can say with certainty that his evidence is such as to exclude every other supposition. enables us to describe them in terms of a coherent system. The scientist must not be so captivated by the ingenuity of his hypothesis. and . as it has been termed. : make it known. whilst seeking to destroy those very conclusions. and the true explanation of the facts is still to seek. The have insisted on discoverers this truth. he has been followed by certain extreme empiricists. besides that we have just considered. But it need scarcely be pointed out that to suppose a registra is tion of facts will enable us to dispense with hypotheses. as though one were to suppose that the invention of the rule and compasses would enable us to dispense with genius in the architect. it is often useful to group them round some hypothesis. and the accuracy with which it appears to explain the phenomena. for weeks. and only permitting himself to proclaim his discovery when all desire to the adverse hypotheses have been exhausted. to believe that he has discovered a great scientific truth. 355 have no place in his system and in this opinion.

Thomas that at some future time other supposition is Yet it served a useful purpose. Ueberweg. immo ne verisimiles &quot. Such is the Electron theory of matter.&quot. give up our prephysical philosophers. sed sufficit hoc unum. 134. Sicut in astrologia ponitur ratio excenticorum et epicyclorum ex hoc quod.356 j^UivJi PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC may is afford us a basis for deductions relating to future of the order in question. phenomena afforded A good instance by the Ptolemaic hypothesis in regard to the heavenly bodies.. hac positione fact a. 2 Neque vero necesse est eas hypotheses esse veras. I. Many The view discussed in 3 and 4 of the preceding chapter tends not a little to confuse hypotheses of this kind with Mill justly pointed out established truths of science. Copernicus.tva. assisting expressly calls attention to the fact it may be discovered that some better able to account for the facts. possunt salvari apparentia sensibilia circa motus coelestes : . Yet because the deductions from Fresnel s undulatory theory of light are in accord with facts. quia etiam forte alia positione factS salvari possunt. It may be noted also that Andreas Osiander. Ad aliquam rem dupliciUno modo ad probandum sufficienter aliquam radicem ter inducitur ratio.We are asked by it and all that it involves. in the letter which he wrote by way of preface to the work of Copernicus. Jevons tells us that we must needs accept &quot. quidem. sed quae radici jam positae ostendat congruere consequentes effectus. The expression salrare apparentia sensibilia is the Latin equivalent for trd^nv ra &amp. is the Atomic theory of Dalton. Art..ivbfj.pa. exhibeant. ad. De Revolutionibus. 6). and to believe that interstellar space is 1 St. . Alio modo inducitur ratio non quae sufficienter probet radicem. i. St. Such. p.. si calculum observationibus congruentem I. 2. Cf. for instance. The ancients were well aware that the system of cycles and epicycles was but an hypo thesis. . Summa Theol. but only to be ways of representing facts. . : non tamen ratio haec est sufficienter probans. reminds the reader that the hypotheses of astronomers are not necessarily asserted to be true by those who 3 propose them.lt. to he writes. possessions. 1 many generations of astronomers in framing their calculations. 14.&quot. &quot. as true. theories in modern physics are of this character. Q. that there is no reason why a false hypothesis should not afford deductions agreeing in a surprising way witli facts (Logic. Thomas. c. III. which in the last few years has won for itself considerable popularity. 32.

seu mechanicae. p. . in accordance with which bodies act. hypothesis vocanda est et hypotheses. Origin of Hypothesis.&quot. &quot.. . or in an analogy. This may be illustrated by one or two instances of hypothesis. seu qualitatum occultarum. . impulsusvel proPrincipia may be compared. seu metaphysicae. 515). though hypothetical. is that they are such as to render this a convenient. It is no more than the observed phenomena of heat and light force The observed us to accept (Principles. . Hypotheses. With this passage. of distinguishing between the established truths of science and mere hypotheses. of the Voces autem attractionis. phenomena of heat and light force us to nothing of the kind. and bids us not regard the term as indicating any theory as to the manner for which bodies are urged one towards another he has not been able to discover from the phenomena. which we have already had See the Scholium generate at the end of the Principia.HYPOTHESIS filled 357 with something immensely more solid and harder We live and move without appreciable resistance through this medium. Quid enim ex phaenomenis non deducitur. pensionis cujuscunque in centrum. seu physicae.. he says in a famous passage. the cause of their gravitation. immensely harder and more solid than adamant. is thesis to be The source of an hypo found either in an induction based on grounds which are recognized as only probable. et hypotheses non fingo. method of representing the facts. indifferenter et pro se mutuo usurpo has vires non physice sed mathematice tantum considerando. Newton again and again points out the importance than steel. in Part I. He employs the word as a mathematician to signify the mechanical law. &quot. attraction in . in philosophia experimentali locum non habent. And for this reason. the following words from Definition VIII. have no place among the conclusions he pro poses for our acceptance hypotheses non fingo. Rationem vero gravitatis proprietatum ex phaenomenis nondum potui deducere. he refuses to hazard any conjecture as to the cause of gravity.&quot. Unde caveat lector ne per hujusmodi voces cogitet me speciem vel modum actionis causamve aut rationem physicam alicubi dennire vel centris (quae sunt puncta si forte aut centra trahere aut mathematica) vires vere et physice tribuere : : vires centrorum esse dixero. All that can be said. 1 2. 1 harum : &quot. .

Their value must depend on the perspicacity and in sight of the investigator. in its power to raise Steam may be possessed There is of no essential difference . depends not on a knowledge of rules. was a The induction. The hypothesis. that striation is the cause of the phenomenon. unless the important in relation some universal concept. in detecting which attributes are likely to be causally connected. is a probable induction. however. but on native intelligence. Steam resembles these agencies a kettle-lid. both striated and both iridescent. data before him were clearly rapid two objects. Analogical hypotheses are no in less frequent. Such to fact : was Newton s hypothesis in regard the moon Bodies near the surface of the earth are under the influence of gravity. to distinguish between what is import ant and unimportant in any regard. The moon may be under the influence of gravity. The same re mark also applies to hypotheses based on induction. 16. was that possibly occasion to consider. . The power. An analogical hypothesis will prove character on which to the attribute to it is based is whose presence we conclude. Brewster observed on the bee s-wax. between the two modes as we have seen (Ch. the basis of every analogy motive power. Such too was James Watt s hypothesis as to the motive force of steam : Ordinary agencies employed to raise weights do so by the exercise of motive power. by which the two in classes S t and S a are brought together valueless. 6). his mother-of-pearl is that iridescence caused hypothesis by striation. in so far as it of the tends towards the earth. The moon resembles bodies near the surface earth.35$ PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC D. and on acquaintance with the matter in hand. of arriving at hypotheses for. the colours of Sir When striated objects as such are iridescent. which presented itself.

it fails to fulfil the very purpose for which it exists. to take an instance in point. The consequences first inferred must agree with the no comment. facts of observation. we should have to admit that contraction and expansion are simple facts. The following are the conditions as proposed by Jevons (Princ. unless it is from such that we are able to deduce the phenomena it. The re quisites of a valid hypothesis have been variously formu lated. it has seemed to some thinkers that the Atomic theory is beset with so many difficulties. must not be understood to mean that the cause supposed must always act in accordance with laws. Professor Poynting well remarks on this subject : we believed that a piece of matter is as continuous as it seems to the eye. facts like any others. of whose existence we have positive evidence. and that though con tinuous. it is capable of contraction and expansion. p. Thus. All that is necessary is that it should not violate a law. and the inference of con sequences capable of comparison with the results of observation. (2) It must not of mind. 359 Conditions of a Legitimate Hypothesis.HYPOTHESIS 3. The second rule that the hypothesis must not conflict with any known law of nature or of mind. (3) conflict with any laws of nature or which we hold to be true. the hypothesis proposes for our acceptance a phenomenon subject to a law quite unlike those with which we are familiar. with which we are familiar.. The of these conditions needs The sole object of an hypothesis is to suggest a cause capable of accounting for the facts before us. Here.If . which acts in a manner to which we have no known parallel. This &quot. 511). that it would be preferable to adopt the view that matter is continuous. Hence. Yet it cannot on that ground. (1) The hypothesis must allow of the application of deductive reasoning. be dismissed as an impossible supposition. We may be forced sometimes to posit a cause.

An 1 hypothesis in regard to natural law. must be explicable. is less than that which is luminous when the planet is more remote. which it has when not the case. any fact which so far stands by itself and is unlike others. which subsequently prove to be true. of most remote. is an d priori way of dealing with Nature. and that the contrary is absurd. 2 The seeming contradiction was removed. by bringing our so-called 1 explanations to nought.&quot. his In the same way. The portion which is luminous when the planet is near the earth. when Galileo through his telescope saw that Venus passes through moon-like phases. This. Yet apparently inexplicable difficulty did not prevent the acceptance of the Copernican theory by many of the most cultivated minds. 4 . Such was the case in regard to the heliocentric theory. To say that any simple fact. but its luminous part only. Law and Life in the Hibbert Journal. this tends in an especial manner to confirm it. is It is evident that an hypothesis acquires more and more pro bability in proportion to the number of facts which it explains and that if it leads to the prediction of facts. states that this is an insuperable objection to the acceptance of Copernicus s theory regarded as an account of the actual facts. as to leave no perplexities. Physical is further greatly comI. . Vol. which prima facie appear to contradict and of which no explanation can as yet be suggested. when nearest to the earth. explanation to excess. It seemed to demand facts that the planet Venus. this course. as unintelligible and absurd. and that what we see is not the whole area of the planet. when first proposed by Copernicus. Andreas Osiander in the prefatory letter before alluded to. must have a hidden likeness. in that it leaves contraction and expansion unexThis appears to me to be carrying the passion for plained. should appear to be of sixteen times the size. Riicker in British Association address at Glasgow. even though some remain. the third rule must not be so strictly interpreted as to signify that the consequences inferred from the proposed hypothesis must so agree with all the facts.. it.360 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC supposition was characterized by Principal Sir A. p. which she may at any time resent and refute. It may well be that we are justified in accepting an hypothesis on the ground of its evident reasonableness. 728 (1903).

not relate to the cause of the phenomenon. and so to demonstrate the truth of the other. Different terms to designate different kinds of hypotheses. employed when we are able by the test of a decisive experiment. speak. 5) to the expression Experi- mentum Crucis. since all 361 it is recognize characteristic complex processes of Nature. If an hypothesis suffices to explain a vast variety of phenomena by a single simple law. The . to exclude one of two rival hypotheses. Such too was Pascal s hypothesis referring the rise of the mercury column to atmospheric pressure. or to what we regard as the agent. We have already explained meaning of a Descriptive Hypothesis. the formula. Mendelejeff s famous hypothesis that the properties of the elements would be found to vary peri odically as their atomic weights.HYPOTHESIS mended by of the its simplicity. In this category we may also reckon the ancient hypothesis that meteoric stones were due to the activity of terrestrial volcanoes. of these are as follows : The most important of This expression is used (1) Hypothesis when the hypothesis relates to the agent. the conj ecture that the courses of the planets orbits were determined by a force varying according to the law of inverse squares. but to the law governing its operation. before he was fortunate enough to light on the true explanation. Often our supposition does (2) Hypothesis of Law. belongs to the same class. which expresses it. Thus when Pasteur was led to the belief that fermentation was caused by yeast-cells. 18. These are termed hypotheses of law. his supposition was an hypothesis of cause. simplex veri sigilhtm. so to Cause. Such were also the nineteen different hypotheses made by Kepler as to the orbit of Mars. was an hypothesis of law. are employed Various Kinds of Hypotheses. On this point something has already been said in reference to Newton s first Rule of Philosophizing (Ch. 22. 4. (3) at length the Working Hypothesis. that alone affords an argument that we have detected the plan followed by the Supreme Reason to Whom the order of the universe is due. Until Newton established his proofs. that they are governed by wide and simple laws. 6). producing the phenomenon under consideration. Attention has been called (Ch.

So too the divergence of opinion between two schools may be marked by the fact that the same doctrine is by the one termed a theory. for which it should provide an explanation. and to be no longer open to question. Sometimes it is extended to in clude whatever has been proved to be real. but assign other significa tions to the terms in question. There are however certain scientific writers who do not adhere to this distinction. Thus we find writers use Theory of Gravitation. Such expressions as the theory of Evolution and the evolutionary hypothesis. and on the conviction of the investi gator that will it will need large modifications.362 PK1NCIPLES OF LOGIC expression Working Hypothesis is used when it is desired to lay special stress on the provisional character of the assumption. by the other an hypothesis. indicate clearly enough the tendency of the work in which they occur. Theory theory : Hypothesis : Fact. In physical science the terms and hypothesis are employed in contrast to each other. the expression . The term theory is ordinarily understood to signify that the sug gested explanation is held to have been satisfactorily proved. The term Fact is sometimes restricted to signify the particular concrete facts of experience. and in this sense can be used of a theory whose truth has been established. before it be found satisfactorily to account for all the facts. not Hypothesis of Gravitation.

and then by exact quantitative methods the precise : form of that ellipse was ascertained. precise &quot. says Lord Kelvin. . for instance. The laws of light demand quantitative those of zoology are purely qualitative. In natural required. as that the wave-length of the red line in the spectrum of cadmium is the i.553. coveries of science have been the reward of accurate measurement.&quot. ELIMINATION OF CHANCE. It is not. of course. Measurement. the qualitative character of the earth s motion as an ellipse round the sun was first established. as much a law of nature that dogs are carnivorous. : XXIII. laws. Thus in chemistry the nature of the elements is tative determination composing a compound is first discovered the accurate determination of the precise amount of each element is a subsequent stage.i64th part of a metre. &quot. long-continued labour in the minute sifting of numerical results. and patient. Somewhat similarly in the science of astronomy. seems to the non-scientific imagination. It is. expression It should be noted that in those sciences in which : measurement employed.&quot. the case that all laws are capable of quantita tive expression. In a treatise which has for its subject the general methods employed in the discovery of physical laws. the stage of accurate quanti is always an advance on an earlier in which period investigation was concerned with quality alone.CHAPTER QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION i. a less lofty and dignified work than the looking for But nearly all the grandest dissomething new. ascertainment of many quantitative determination is the Accurate and minute measurement.

The conditions under which it is carried out.553. they decline the task and we find that the reports as to an object. As regards spatial measurement. * Thus Langley s bolometer can detect a change of temperature of one hundred-millionth of a degree C. 1906=1. and To take the measure of a magnitude is to determine the relation it bears to some other quantity. though capable of far more accurate measurement than the unaided senses. them to ascertain something which transcends these limits. when the latter is observed in dry air at the temperature of 15 C.364 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC of something must be said as to the nature measurement. etc. minutes. relate now. But they Moreover. millimetre. but to millionths of a millimetre.. of mercury at o C. 1 For temporal measurement the standard is the period constituted by the earth s revolution on its axis.D. 1 What is the metre ? The standard metre is a piece of metal preserved at Paris.g. which originally was intended to represent precisely the one-millionth part of the earth s quadrant. 2 But this does but push the difficulty one stage further back. are at variance with each To ensure accuracy. which we have adopted as a standard. at the epoch A. the standard quantity for scientific as to the conditions affecting it. instruments have been other. In the first place it depends in the last resort on sense-perception. still exist. We have e. not to their object When we force : millimetres. forbid us : to hope for perfect accuracy. no guarantee that it will not change by age through the settling down of its component molecules. An artificial standard of this kind has however certain inconveniences. The act of comparison is beset by great difficulties. of the normal hydrogenscale at a pressure of 760 mm. the centimetre. devised. the day this being subdivided into hours. which enable us to determine magnitudes many thousand times finer than the finest sense can perceive. The senses are to a certain but : trustworthy they demand that point should be proportioned to their powers. given by the same sense on different occasions. the instruments themselves. it is true. .164 times the wave-length of the red line in the spectrum of cadmium. By a metre is understood a piece of metal whose length at o C. Hence the scien tific world has adopted a natural standard. purposes is the metre and its subdivisions. involve imperfections of their own. seconds. All measurement is an act of comparison. The discrepancies.

whence errors in our observation arise. In most cases. is of vital moment to know constructing the laws It is said that the longitu as to the expansion of metals. It is when man seeks to satisfy his desire to know. these are not the only sources. at which the accuracy attained suffices for the needs of the navigating and that point is far short of absolute perfection. we may mention not only the limitations of sense and the problem that he discovers presented by changes of temperature. The law exactly. And. greater exactitude may be required. and may be safely dis . It is also impossible so to fit the parts of the mechanism together. For the practical needs of life. but further. it ceases to be of any importance in regard to the purpose in hand. nothing is lacking to us. would duction of compensations for temperature into a naval chronometer demands a delicacy of adjustment very different from that which is supposed in building a bridge. The intro racy. to the engineer who it is an iron bridge. There may also be some . the strain involved would rapidly prove fatal to the most solid structure. . regarded. how endless is the task of unravelling the secrets of Nature. and in optical investigations the difficulties which arise through refraction. dinal expansion in the Forth bridge is such as to amount to a difference of seven feet between the summer and the winter measurement. the enquiry into a law of nature has and when an element relation to some special purpose of error is very minute. Thus. Unless space is allowed for such expansion. To enumerate but a few among the sources of error with which he has to reckon. But it is sufficient for the bridge-builder to attain a certain degree of accu To determine the law with greater precision. For other kinds of work. officer of expansion must be determined far more Yet even here there is a point. for him be but lost labour.QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION 365 Metal contracts and expands with variations in the temperature. the impossibility of securing perfect rigidity in the instru ment. as we shall shortly show. as to ensure the perfect working of the instrument.

testimony. reason prescribes rected. Thus allowance may at once be made for any slight idiosyncrasies of a particular and in the case of those observers whose instrument personal equation is constant. in illustration. But we must now show why the mean of a number of experi ments is to be regarded as equivalently their combined . we examine the case of a particular cause of error. By the word mean we do not here signify simply the average or arith It is not always practicable to avail our metic mean. which . namely If we consider the nature of sensesense-perception. by which name we denote the deviations from accuracy caused by anything in the personality of the observer. The inaccuracy. it It tends equally is indifferent as to excess or defect. in which after various observations have been taken as to the position of a star. to mistakes on either side. Finally. but each places the star in a position slightly different from that indicated others. perception in the abstract.366 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC unsuspected electrical or magnetic influence exercising a disturbing effect. the way in which the mean must be determined. viewed as a cause of error in the measurement of a magnitude. the calculated results are found to be at variance. it is clear that. They may approximate closely. there is always the personal equation. The reason for this will be seen. and adopt this as a nearer approximation to the truth than any of the separate measurements. In the next section. What then is the investigator to adopt ? His first be to eliminate by calculation all errors of must step which he has cognizance. this can similarly be cor When this has been done. by the This course may fairly be said to be the normal case when is delicate quantitative determination in question. and every effort has been made to ensure absolute exactitude in each. The effect of such disturbing causes is well illustrated by the case. we shall discuss selves of this. that he should take the mean of his observations. if.

QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION characterizes its 367 tendency inability to of testimony. excess and defect at least at the end of an infinite series. the mean of these observa tions will give us as near an approximation to the true magnitude as error. To suppose otherwise to imagine that the term of the whole process would be inequality is to suppose an effect without a cause. In proportion as the number competent observers increases. and reliable observa tions are multiplied. if there is good reason to regard them as equally reliable. the mean error will grow less and less. Methods of Approximation. * 2. They are indifferent to excess The observations taken in a particular state : of the temperature may perhaps tend to exaggeration but there will also be days on which the error will be in of the opposite direction. Now we may or defect. But a wide divergence cannot arise in the manner indicated. tending to a ratio of equality. so there should be a corresponding approximation to absolute accuracy. investigators at once reject any measurement which differs widely from the testimony of the others. It is found in practice that the experimental error of measure ments. Small discrepancies are explicable. safely hold that the various sources of which we are unable to eliminate independently. are of this character. mean of 81 observations will be 3 times less than the error of 9 observations. Either the observation was carelessly made. But this involves that when very many observations of a magnitude have been taken. In the collation of experiments. Hence it follows that as the number of observations is increased. it will be more convenient to speak of the two as . There are two ways in which the mean of a number of observations may be found. These are (i) the method of means. whose mean is taken. or in some way the conditions must have been different. but from the the senses to attain perfect exactitude. As the term mean has by custom been assigned to one of these two methods. it is possible for us to obtain. arises not from any special exaggerate or to diminish. varies inversely as the square root of the number of obser Thus the error contained in the vations. (2) the method of least squares.

Such a case is infrequent. they would adopt the plan of attributing to the first of these the weight of three observa This would give tions. + P. so the mean error must constantly no longer have the same right to disregard the decrease. we will suppose q to be the square root of P. of the q series. We shall describe these two methods separately. . .i . is The method one observation has been made under especially favourable circumstances. as we of Least Squares. greatly increased the relative amount of error in that series.368 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Methods of Approximation rather than as Methods of deter mining the mean. have The Method of Means. and these are denoted respectively by P v P2 P3 and P t the mean will be represented . a. as for instance the length of a line. and our observa tions consist of two series. and a second relating That our illus to a magnitude q.lt.?. we may suppose a case where plexity is involved. which is some function of P. By squaring the values of q. . series P and those we have We We . objection to this rough-and-ready way of calculating.. according to our supposition. greater com For instance. a parity between the errors of the (ii) Method said. . in proportion to their assumed value. There is. This method the simple plan of taking of Means. only applicable when we are dealing with a The sum single magnitude. of the observed measurements is taken. by the formula. The two series may be represented respectively by Pv P2 P3 Pn and q v q 2 q3 .&amp. If. +P3 + 2P2 = 6. susceptible of various modifications. 4- Thus. and a third under somewhat unsatisfactory conditions. They are but it will appear that distinguished for practical purposes . one relating to P. and we have reason How are we to to regard each series as of equal reliability. P.. . One way undoubtedly would be to take deal with such a case ? the squares of the values of q. tration may be a simple one. which justify us in supposing that as the number of our observations increases. the (i) first of the two is Method really a simple case of the second. and thus have destroyed the parity between the two sets of values. is the average. . - + P 2 + P. another under less favourable. ^P i as a formula . we are engaged in determining a magnitude P. As a rule. and then find the arithmetic mean But there is a serious of the P and q series in combination. . Thus if four observations have been made as to the length of a line P. investigators are accustomed to attribute weight to their obser vations. for instance. and is divided by the number of the observations. and to the second the weight of two. have not in this way secured a body of equally reliable values. can only be applied when we are dealing with a single magnitude.

It is a pro and even when the arithmetic perty of the mean generically . If instead of taking the mean. 2 + 2 2 ). Hence. It will be observed that this characteristic belongs to the arith metic mean itself. we shall find the sum of the squares on the new residuals will exceed 8. But more usually. 1 Thus. which stands in that relation to the two series. 12. the least : An algebraic process enables us to assign the particu possible. though how they are connected we of the squares the three numbers 8. we have the value which makes the sum of the squares on the residuals the least possible. 10. the sum on the residuals (i. In the average or arithmetic mean of two or more numbers. wherever calculations demanding great precision are in question. whose mean is 10. 2 2 they will be 3 + 1 = 10. viz. service. and take the squares of the quantities by which that value differs from the original numbers. though as yet it has not been so explained. We means establish a relation of cause and effect between two phenomena. now claims our attention.ELIMINATION OF CHANCE 369 residuals. It merely serves to show the presence of an Empirical Law. we can adopt this more general of Means is rightly termed a special case Another method sometimes usefully in employed discovering and determining a law of nature. it is advisable to employ another method which is mathematically superior. and it denotes an observed uniformity between phenomena. of the of no The Method Method of Least Squares. be it above or below. as in this section. of Chance. 1 But it is not a property of the arithmetic mean as such. is with good reason believed to be a derivative capable of explanation by being brought under some more universal law. Thus if we take the number 9. Chance. It is termed the Elimination 3. cannot by its which law. which we see to be connected. is 8. If we choose any other value than the mean. lar value of P. if we take B B . a restricted signification is given to it. mean would be method. as those quantities are called by which our measure ments differ from the mean. is used with some variety of meaning. The scope of this method is limited. the sum of these squares will be greater than the sum of the squares of the residuals given by the mean. This consists in discovering that value which makes the sum of the squares of the residuals. we select a number either above or below it. It is sometimes employed to signify any law of nature. This term empirical law. the Method of Least Squares.

it will be well to state clearly what is is meant &quot. as I of his. Thus an old if I visit London. The term Chance may in say. chance element in our and to a real experience corresponds since is that gained by saying everything has nothing are. imperfect X X X as of great importance to us for it is not infre in the first a true law of nature. If we rately. and therefore facts not but of different causes. in our intelligence. is . I do not regard Chance as a positive I entity. by Chance. but may be a result directly intended by a superior cause. conjunctures. that two or more phenomena &quot. he writes. Knowledge of these empirical laws. friend. They are not effects as the agent of its own nature tends to pro . 17. to which a cause. : &quot. question. that but they are not connected for : us rationally.. however.3/0 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC not. to whose causality the meeting was due. . . In doing so. and of of laws connected by any law (Logic. there can be no such thing as chance. be borne in mind that casual in regard of this or that particular cause. as ignorant of my presence in the metropolis. It should. accurately defined by Mill. &quot. or whether condition enabling A to produce Y of all this we are ignorant.&quot. that it was outside the scope of either of the two causal series needed to bring it about. But that under certain conditions is the cause of Y. discovering stage quently Before proceeding to the discussion of the method in it is.&quot. casual. that is. and there unexpectedly meet who was simply signify that the event was a coincidence. what is . . We are conjoined by chance meaning that they are no way related by causation. then consider the causal series in this universe sepa many of the events that take place are. know is. I attribute the meeting to chance. We observe is followed by Y. They in our experience are connected for us empirically. c. . in fact. 2). Hence. Facts conjoined by chance are separately the effect of causes. or whether they are both whether is a necessary effects proceeding from A. in such duce relation to the separate series. III. And again.

each without the knowledge of the other. Their meeting But as far as they are concerned.. to which its various stages were all This suggests how in our lives coincidences may. but that on coming to rest. Bain. grew out of its own independent series of causes.). On the subject of Chance. cf. . to for from the box Here. Hence. they present such and such faces. if considered in relation to an overruling Provi dence.. The physical action of the player may in a true sense be held to be the reason not only that dice fell from the box. The meaning we attach it. Thomas. The par i. any particular 1 face turned up. remarks that none but the superstitious could have seen any connexion between the death of Oliver Cromwell and the storm which. a matter of indifference. which we have been In this case. was planned. to the master. is but very little removed from the sense. the action was solely directed to ejecting the dice it bore. is ticular instance selected . Art. But the objection involves apetitio for it implicitly denies the existence of a principii First Cause.ELIMINATION OF CHANCE 371 the two causes in question are subordinate. when he was Each event. and that is all that should be directed. we do not Summa Theol. be directly intended. expiring. we regard as our own particular result. St. burst over London. Yet the player does not attribute this latter effect to himself. the result is not due discussing. They concurred in time. This point has been illustrated by the case of a master. because his action in throwing was not designed to produce that In general. . III. 1. he urges. 9. to Chance. no relation to . 116. . to a coincidence. it is the result in view of which the action is. casual. attrii. to the same place. . and c. and constitute the true term of a chain of causality. only those effects which we designed our action to produce. Q. who de spatches two servants on different errands. 1 said concerning them (Logic. and does not concern us. the result of a throw at dice. who disposes and orders all finite and subordinate causes. when we attribute example. when dealing with this subject. it is true. and could bear.

due to the presence of a bias within the die ? We know that if the die is perfectly normal the figure six should appear on the average but once in six throws. not verified. the reason which convinces us that the result is not casual.372 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC ill bute the good or success of the throw to ourselves. is after all a Is it well illustrated by the case. owing to what are termed counteracting causes. The cases in which X is followed by Y. their connexion will not be stable. On the other hand. We as casual. . there is something amiss. that it enables us to allow for a number of cases in which. since to the true determination of a magnitude. The method it is die six. If then it turns up. is identical with that of the Method of Agreement. then we are justified in supposing that there is valid evidence for the existence of a causal connexion. employed shows a marked tendency to turn up the number the question naturally suggests itself whether the face. The Elimination of Chance is a method by which we show that the conjunc tion between two circumstances is not casual. But it is peculiar to the Elimination of Chance. It is based on the principle that if two events are connected by chance alone. The principle. is the same as that on which we relied to of a shew that we are justified in adopting the mean number of measurements as the nearest approach For. In a case like this. the antecedent appearing without is the law is the consequent. Elimination of Chance. we may justly conclude that appearance of that of the throw. in for the detection of loaded dice. which If a purely casual result not a direct and natural result of the action. it 4. it will be seen. that they must be connected in virtue of some law. will be balanced by other cases in which it appears without Y. if one event accompanies the other in a way that cannot be attributed to mere chance. just as we regard the unlocked regard for meeting with a friend as casual. not once in every six throws. but three times in every four.

and determines by the aid of its calculus how far it is in any degree probable that his results may be erroneous. To that subject. No impossibility is involved in the supposition that in the first four throws with a perfectly normal die. in that case too. is finite. twenty or thirty throws. Even when a proposition is not be valid motives for giving a definite measure of rational credence to it. the proportion be greatly above the due average.373 in the case of a normal die. In this case we say that the proposition is more or less probable . which would render us certain that excess and defect must have attained equality. not infinite. There also we calculate from a limited number of measurements. which we can adduce as How are we to decide evidence. our next section must be devoted. It is only after an infinite series that we can count on attaining a ratio of equality between the number of times that sult. each face has appeared. and by the probability of the proposition we understand the measure of rational credence due to it In the mathematical theory of probability. there may . Probability. certain. Now every series of experiments. our action in throwing has no natural tendency to turn up one face more than another. Hence. the six should appear three times. numerals 5. Yet here we are met with a difficulty. to suppose a great preponderance in favour of a special re would be to suppose an effect with no adequate cause. that the excess over the proper average. It is evident that the point we have raised has an important bearing on the question of the adoption of the mean measurement. and not from the infinite series. or is it possible to obtain some scientific determination of the question ? This problem has been dealt with in the mathematical theory of Probability. is such as to Must this decision be left to the postulate a cause ? after of sixes should and that rough estimates of common-sense. the investigator employs the theory of Probability.

our credence is denoted by a fraction corresponding to the 1 The question may indeed suggest weight of the motive. is designated as possible. Hence the probability of the proposition that the six will appear. Where the motives are such as to lead us to give it a probable assent. Let us suppose that in regard to the population of England at the present epoch. extending over many years. I may have good grounds . that he will live another decade. In such a case. though we are able to affirm with confidence that a particular proposition will be true in regard to a definite proportion of member them. are 5 against its appear ance and but i in favour. reliable statistics. What is the proper subject-matter of the theory of Probability ? There are certain classes of events. is reckoned as probable. its probability being expressed by a fraction corresponding to such motives as it can claim. we have no doubts that this will hold good but of the population as a whole in the near future we should not venture to assert of any particular indi vidual who is now twenty-five years old. As it is ordinarily used. . live to be thirty-five. is . certitude as to its falsehood by zero. yet we cannot affirm this proposition of any of the class taken separately. What happens but seldom. we only term probable that which happens more often than it does not. Certi tude as to the truth of a proposition is denoted by unity. such that. whether it is possible thus to measure motives. Victor fraction toujours inferieure a i. differs somewhat What from its customary use.374 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC are employed to denote the measure of credence. itself. shew us that from every thousand men of twenty-five years of age. ninety per cent. It is perhaps. But in mathematics even that which is barely possible. not as probable. for the present best answered by our old illustration of the dice. Here the motives which influ ence our expectation of the six. Similarly. has been said will have shown that the meaning of the term probability as here employed. 1 La probability est done une Baudot in the article Probabilite M. in the Nouveau Dictionnaire des Sciences.

where England cannot venture to predict of any special five autumn will be among the where our knowledge regarding events fine or the rainy ones. Otherwise. Thus. If we were not convinced that the proportion of deaths to survivals between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five was the result of definite laws. our knowledge is of a very restricted kind. human we select. we take the class Englishmen between twenty-five and thirty-five. it supposes a certain ignorance as its condition. it . we should have certainty. which the cause within be one though number of in a certain be such that course. it is that causes exist producing certain results according to a definite law. Even when we hold that. within which they operate.ELIMINATION OF CHANCE for believing that in the coming of every seven will. we should have no ground for believing that this proportion would be maintained. and see what is the proportion of the cases. But day. except on the ground of some law. We cannot argue from past to future. in the part of 375 be wet. in which the event occurs. but these causes are so com plex as to elude any attempt to track their operation in Our only resource is to take some class. . each face of the die will appear an equal number of times. and estimate what is the proportion of cases. not probability. in which the causes that are it The class actually destroy it. to those in which does not occur. Although probability is thus based on definite data. It will be observed that the probability of an event hostile to life. be noticed. whether It is I it days out I live. which will continue to produce the same result under similar conditions. from the known to the unknown. that probability has its place. is of this character. To an for to omniscient Being. Now two it will special We know detail. we do so relying on the principle that no event can take place without a sufficient reason. based on the existence of law. Secondly. that our knowledge here has features. of cases the effect is not produced. there can be no probability such a one the law governing each cause would be known. in the long run. must. In the first place. operates.

his survival to the age of thirty-five or his death previous to it. knows that he is a worker in a factory. we mean that we view the class in question as divided into ten parts. are 9 to I. But in rela tion to our principle of enumeration. when the die is thrown. As regards the fact that a person is an Englishman of five and twenty. This question will be answered if we consider what is involved in the expression of probability as a fraction. we say that the probability an English man of twenty-five will survive to be thirty-five. and five.. just . is often not the same as its probability to another. is y9^. there is an equal likelihood of each alternative. have now explained in outline the meaning of probability. It remains to We . we regard it as equally likely that any one of the faces may appear. we in no sense deny that in every case the event is determined by its own causes. When. In considering the alternatives as as equally likely. and one to those who die. The former case deals with the chances of the man. the chances of his living to be thirtythat may say Some one who is better informed. in so far as he is an Englishman the latter with his chances. nine of which belong to the survivors. where the pro that he portion of those who survive to be thirty-five. of a man concerning whom I only know I is an Englishman twenty-five years of age. for instance. in so far as he is a worker at such and such a trade. in what sense we regard the probability of an event as the chances of that event. The reason of this divergence lies simply in the fact that the data are gathered in relation to different classes. But as nine of the alternatives are the same. may say that his chances are but 4 to i. and shewn what are the cases in which we can discover by a mathematical calculus. Thus. We consider these ten parts as representing ten alternatives of equal likelihood.376 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC to one person. is a casual result. is only 80 per cent. the measure of credence which a proposition claims. It may perhaps be asked. the chance in favour of that event is ^.

Crofton. Britan. where the prob theorem. . The famous mathematician James Bernouilli (1654-1705) proposed to himself to determine within what limits in a large number of trials. Further. ideally probable number. it is probable that the white ball will -i?- .300. is Yet it must be owned that though other. the prob be exactly realized is but remote. supposons que la probability d unevenement soit p et qu on fasse /x fois l 6cart epreuves successives. number It of trials. . The following Theoreme : article Probabilite &quot. will 1 on which the occurrence agrees with the laws of prob 8 grow less and less. pendant lesquelles 1 evenement se produit est la difference positive ou negative pp m. ability of the event in each trial is f he showed that the odds are 1. the ratio number of deviations to the number of occasions ability.ELIMINATION OF CHANCE point out 377 how this calculus can assist us to determine with accuracy the point at which the repeated conjunction of two events affords conclusive evidence of causal connexion. the result actually obtained ability that it number more probable than any will approximate to the ideally most probable result. Vide article on Probability is in Encycl. 1 to a need hardly be said that such a probability amounts moral certainty. vol. Ainsi.500 trials. in which we have to draw a ball from a bag containing three white balls and two black. difficult problem occupied his thoughts during twenty years. D6finissons d abord ce qu on nomme in. as the of the number of trials is multiplied. Let us take a case.841 times. (gth edit. s 19. . shall not exceed -^ of the will This . the 14. The chances of drawing a white ball are and if a large number TV trials be made.000 to i that in 25. 769) by 2 Prof. Victor Baudot s the Nouveau Dictionnaire des Sciences. replacing after each trial the ball chosen. p. the account of Bernouilli theorem in M. de Jacques Bernouilli. and not less than that is that the deviation from 15. -4040 la probability p qu on ait face est J. and his solution of it is known as Bernouilli s In a case such as the above. ou lance 4040 fois une piece en 1 air.819. done up -2020 ecart m : /u. iN appear this - - times. the event shall occur not more than 15.

mais la difference de ces deux nombres.&quot. il 4 un moment ou 1 un des deux adversaires sera ruine il est vrai que le rapport du nombre des parties gagnees par chaque joueur au nombre des parties perdues par le mme tend vers i quand on joue indefiniment. not quantitative. A loaded die gives. fois. but there is a law of connexion (or of repugnance) at work. and if is evident. au premier abord. this clearly from Philosophical Probability the probability with which we are concerned when judging as to the Where this value of various hypotheses (Ch.048 fois. et c est la ce qui ruine 1 un des joueurs. certain limits will not be overstepped. 1 ecart absolu devient au contraire de plus en grand. . it is true. It chapter remains to add a few words. it is discovered that the result is totally at variance with our mathematical estimate. But we cannot apply mathematical methods to deter mine the quantitative rneasure that expresses that rela tion.000 on dira que 1 ecart est 28 si elle se montrait Si Le theoreme de Bernouilli revient a ceci ou fait tin nombre indefiniment croissant d epreuves 1 ecart est infiniment II faut bien remarquer que c est petit par rapport au nombre des epreuves. arrivera . 1 grandit aussi de plus en plus. 3). But there comes a point at which after a certain number of trials. The comparison is qualitative. it would be detected at once. very irregular results.378: PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC The bearing of this upon the elimination of chance If we are able to say that in a definite number of trials. a pile ou face. . Cette derniere remarque fait comprendre certains resultats qui peuvent paraitre. in question we estimate the relative degree of rational credence to be attached to two suggested explanations. and that the very act of throwing must tend to turn that face uppermost. 1 ecart serait 20. in order to distinguish it Philosophical Probability. is si 2. the mathematician is able to say that the appearances of the six exceed the limits of mere chance. We are manifestly not dealing with events conjoined only by chance. contraires a 1 evidence Pierre et Paul jouent. 1 enjeu est chaque fois de i franc : . the relative number of whose conjunctures is determinable on mathematical principles. We have been dealing in with Mathematical Probability alone. face se montre 2. and so defeat its own purpose. : 1 ecart relatif qui tend vers zero. 22. sans jamais se lasser. then it becomes clear that we were mistaken in our view as to the nature of the case. Were it not so.

We have indeed no means of measuring values such as these numerically. le probabilite philosophique differe essentiellement de mathematique. Iln ya lieu ni nombrer les lois possibles. Mais d autre part. by its intrinsic reasonableness. . et qui donne. 1 la probabilite : Philosophiques. ni de les echelonner comme des grandeurs. is question in the one case as in the other.&quot. mais en soi et par sa nature propre. la symmetric. from mathematical probability in that resemblance of the as much out of the But its it differs known causes. when degree is estimated by the character of the explanation suggested and this is judged by the ability of the hypothesis to account for the facts.ELIMINATION OF CHANCE and it is 379 only where quantity is is concerned that numerical calculation possible. l elgance et la beaute. nor range them in a quantitative scale according to the 1 But degree of reason and harmony they manifest. a la conception theorique des phenomenes. Philosophical probability resembles mathematical prob ability in that it rests on the principle that similar con junctions of events demand a cause or law governing them and accounting of independent for them. dans les degres divers. A. We cannot determine the number of possible laws which might account for the facts. Cournot in Franck s Dictionnaire des Sciences &quot. par rapport a cette propri6te de forme qui constitue leur degre de simplicite. the To suppose a series causes. can affirm without hesitation that of two alternative explanations the one is more probable than the other. by the analogy it bears to other : events is real and not imaginary. en ce qu elle n est pas reductible en nombres non point a cause de 1 imperfection actuelle de nos connaissances dans la science de nombres. numerical is the scientist calculation although impossible.

differ in some measure from those we make use of in physical science. Systematic Botany and Systematic Zoology. 19. the To the first group belong. i. and the application of the Mendelism. . mammals. seem to point to a far greater em principles called after him ployment of Experimental Methods in these sciences in the future. The successful investigator is he who can best devise and best conduct his experiments. em ployed in this group of sciences. for instance. He seeks to establish neces sary and invariable connexions between attribute and attribute. CLASSIFICATION. which deals with the distribution of animals and plants into their genera and species. Here. The methods. amphibians and fishes is characterized by certain definite properties peculiar to the class in and found in each and every member of the without exception. Classification. birds. Observation is in the other. that is. 1 It is on Observaquestion. The relative importance of Observation and Experiment in the one group. has played a smaller part. reptiles. hitherto at least. the portion. and those which deal with her dynamic activities. i) natural sciences into two groups distinguished those which deal primarily with the static forms of Nature. the object which the investigator sets before himself is the knowledge of natural laws. is almost the direct converse of what it In the physical sciences. unaided by Experiment can do comparatively little. just as in the physical sciences. Experiment. Thus it is which teaches us that each the science of Systematic Zoology of the general types.CHAPTER XXIV. however. of the sciences of Botany and Zoology. We have already (Ch. In the sciences deal ing with Nature s stable forms. class 1 The discoveries of Abbot Gregor Mendel.

il points de vue faut prealablement 6valner. et pour le dccouvrir. the method of Classification. 1 we have already noticed. however. et qui generalise par M. Thus they are not infrequently simply termed the Classificatory Sciences. de Jussieu a le premier degage. not confined to the Natural Classifications of which The exigencies of practical life often demand that should form Artificial Classifications. as : identical. there corresponds The concept in the conceptual order a logical division. until the logical unit. Whenever we have spoken. que M. of Classification is The work to their natural or as it is usually termed. It is a method subservient to speculative science. their natural to co-ordination and sub species according Hence the object which we propose to ordination. The term Classification is. with which we are concerned in this chapter. it is In Classification. to which its own is akin. It recognizes that there is working Classi in Nature an intelligence. Natural Classification. according to group individuals and to group the species. Cuvier a renouvele la face des sciences naturelles. is reached. 1 importance relative des diverses parties des objets. To this classification of the individuals. ourselves in this Scientific fication is far from being.CLASSIFICATION tion. . the reason. and these again into subordinate species. which pervades the whole creation. we deal with the real order : the concrete individuals whom we classify. They are correlative. Classifi By many cation has been confused with Logical Division. the ultima species. is the knowledge of the order which Nature offers to our contemplation. the harmony. is altogether proper to those sciences. Franck. Art. we we 1 Cf. the logical whole is divided by the addi of the genus tion of differentiae into its species. In the natural grouping of the classes. the one to the other they are not writers. the mind contemplates the unity. Les classifications dites naturelles ne nous laissent pas le choix entre plusieurs il n y en a qu un seul qui soit vrai. Classification. . as some describe it. de la subordination des caracteres. 381 that investigators have had principally to rely. merely an aid to the attainment of practical ends. Dictionnaire des Sciences Philosophiques. avec le concours de 1 experience et du raisonneTel est le principe meiit. Further.

382 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC of individual objects. in We may individuals. are of two kinds. Before dealing with Natural Classifications. as for instance. according to the purpose which a man has in hand. in which men of different races find some means and colours. The cases. are distributed into twenty-six groups according to the place which the their first letter of holds in the alphabet. noting how completely they differ from those which form the proper subject of this chapter. Artificial Classification. some of them famous for their virtue. Hence. and some for their crimes. he will select a different attribute as the ground of his classification and the same group of objects will be found variously Thus the same collection classified by different men. by an artist according to the . which we employ Artificial Classifications. various schools of art or according to the individual artists whose work was found in the collection. 2. and its different modifications must be sufficiently dis tinct to enable us to assign each individual to one and one only of the subordinate classes. adapted to its purpose name . The arrangement may be wholly arbitrary. be concerned with a limited number of The classification of the words in a par(i) . which we desire to consult. A more artificial system could hardly have been selected. provided that it fulfil two conditions. by a print-dealer according to market value. we must of classifying them. Any attribute whatever Artificial Classifi may be chosen to serve as the basis of an It must cation. be common to the whole group of objects to be classified. which need to be carefully distinguished. have to deal with a great number if we are to avoid complete bewilderment. of engravings might be classified by an historian according to the events represented. it will be well to consider shortly these Artificial Classifications. Yet it is well for our aim is not speculative. It is that we may without diffi culty be able to find any particular biographical notice. that of a bio graphical dictionary. but purely practical.

In the second case of which we have spoken. automobiles.CLASSIFICATION 383 ticular language. perplexities of the natural system have been such as to baffle their efforts to arrange the classes. etc. police force. when the In such cases. but which in all else are remote from each other and it relegates to widely divergent classes. we often find it convenient not to select a characteristic which the objects already possess. the members confer a characteristic for this very purpose. even though it is based. distribution rightly : are closely allied. species which are connected by the sole fact that they have the same number of stamens and pistils. of the pictures in a gallery. Investigators have had recourse to these classifications. as the basis of classification. The rely on some famous Linnaean system of botany affords us the classical In this system. In the first of these cases. the instance of such classification. We affix an artificial mark to each member of the class. of the auto mobiles in a given region. Yet such a classification is only of temporary value. will serve as instances. and then wherever we may its we is recognize chance to come across any individual. as we have stated. Or individuals to be classified may be (2) the number of This occurs. but ourselves to unlimited. species which in the natural order than is afforded is by this single characteristic. they have judged an artificial system It at least enables us to assign a definite place to each member of the group in virtue of distinctive and easily recognizable marks. we must natural characteristic. place in our classification. when we are dealing with all of some natural class. The method familiar to us in its application to the army. perforce various species of plants are arranged in genera accord ing to the number of stamens and pistils they possess. the natural classification better than chaos. Even for the practical end in question. on a natural characteristic. It brings together into a common genus. . and irrespective of any other similarity or dissimilarity Such a termed artificial.

384 is PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC most convenient. for instance. reptiles. It is true that the birds. as The aim of Scientific Classification we have group individuals according to and to group the species according to their natural co-ordination and subordination. What artificial as far the ficial arrangement. that it is impossible to affirm a universal proposition about any determinate group. We is destitute of all solid species to this consider propose question in the present section. depends entirely on the existence of a fundamental tenet with many men doctrine of Yet it is species. fishes ? riddles of natural classification are many. and in the long run the arti system is discarded in its favour. amphibians. could assign such distinctive class-marks are afforded by the classification of phanerogamous plants into dicotyledons. that a vast number members of the animal and vegetable kingdoms the at are. 3. conifers and cycads. minuteness of these resemblances is often extraordinary. by which. of science that the natural foundation. present epoch of the world s history. thus understood. or of vertebrates into mammals. the types in of the question involve. They are not a mere assemblage of individuals. But it is never theless the case that natural classes display conspicuous and characteristic features. evident that Classification. but a multitude of the most detailed character The istics. better than by any other attribute we might it select. should be or not. It is would be idle to discuss how species classified. Natural Species. all of them so different the one from the other. On the contrary. to their natural species. not only certain broad notes of resem blance. It is already noted. monocotyledons. The Doctrine of is. were it dubious whether they exist It a manifest fact of experience. distributed in types. . common to every member of the class. we may assign to each object a determinate place in the group to which belongs. To these we shall advert in a subsequent section.

exhibits unmistakeable tendencies to vary. . while the pair of tail feathers next to the outer ones. istics. The conclusion seems forced upon us that the complicated system of characteristics. Never assuredly did human skill more It makes accurately reproduce the simplest of designs. . Gerard. which the members of the class approximate more or less roughly. some of them lacking some of the character and some lacking others. the matter not less but more astonishing that the bird web.. but the process of development. and of reproduction. . 1 J. with a of narrow half-collar oil-green between this and the the quill feathers of his wing chestnut of his back narrow of the a have each edging of greyish-white I will ..CLASSIFICATION This point &quot. 70. are repeated generation after generation without change. . have each a narrow white outer margin and a triangular patch on the inner is . grey head and nape. What &quot. In every type they manifest themselves through the whole of the organism. are the same in each individual. .J. and some white. is that of the outward form. wing coverts. l The similarities are not merely external. of which the type consists. constitutes in each case a morphological The type is not merely an average standard. and as far as our experience reaches.. not merely structure is is it identical in all the the case that morphological members of the class . and one row some are always black. of metamorphosis when such occurs. S. Science and Scientists. p. : take a bird which every one must know Every cock Chaffinch has a black a bluish and forehead. . to unity. These characteristics unite to form a whole. is it that holds such tendencies in check ? . CC . : black at the base with a white tip to the inner primaries have each a white each feather patch at the base of the outer web. Moreover. the Chaffinch..Not 385 is well brought out in the following passage so mysterious as the similarity of character. and each such whole is a closed system in itself. but equally wonderful.

is of indefinite . that there through an accumulation of small changes breaks in no Nature s are chain that species are a of the Professor Ray Lankester figment imagination. At the present time. the apparent species s being marked out. orders and classes. and in the susceptible for the weaker and less efficient forms existence. due to the impress of different types. The characteristics which mark the different birds and beasts. produced : : by Darwin &quot. in which the only existences are individuals. The more recent followers of Darwin admit that the principle of Natural Selection. the exist ence of separate species is denied. They are merely the record of this long battle. they are agreed they are unanimous in holding that what seem to us to be distinct types. Natural Selection alone the phenomena. thus describes the effect as he conceives it. There is no such thing as type. struggle have been extirpated. According to the teach ing of the founder of the school. Notwithstanding the weight of these facts.386 Biologically PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC as well as morphologically the type is a unity. is insufficient to account for Each of the more eminent among them : has a different theory as to the true explanation of our present classes. the manifold forms of animal and plant life now existing owe their origin to life Animal and plant variation. Hence it is impos sible to give an account of it which shall be both brief. have all arisen from a common stem. as had been thought. Origin of Species : Universal opinion has been brought to the position that species as well as genera. are the subjective expressions of a vast ramifying pedigree. the stronger and better-equipped alone have survived. however. not by any distributive . On one point. the theory of Evolution has been deve loped along several different lines. and at the same time complete. Class merges into class and there are no abrupt transitions in the scale of living beings. as a view now entirely superseded by the doctrine of Evolution as enunciated by Darwin and so widely accepted since his day. are not.

de Vries. tends to prove that the transition need not take place by the accumulation of numberless small differences. one of the most competent German authorities The world of organic : &quot.&quot. genera. are question as The point at to the manner in which they originated. at the present day as also the past. Wasmann s conclusion is the more interesting inasmuch as he adheres to the view that our present species originated by evolution. orders. families. phyla. 1903.&quot. 805. issue is a different one. To this effect we may cite some words of Fr. life. Notwithstanding popularity the Darwinian hypothesis still enjoys in certain schools of thought. constitutes on the contrary a well ordered system of species. of a chaos of minute variations.. Die Mvtationstheorie. classes. in virtue of which it possesses : certain characteristics common to every individual of species. but may be sudden and abrupt. Now those species.CLASSIFICATION law. Zoology. p. p. has recently shown that such experience as we possess regarding the origin of classes by descent. . though not in the manner suggested by Darwin.. Wasmann. a Fr. Die moderne Biologie und die Entwcklungstheorie (3rd ed. each of which is a morpho who maintain the existence in no way concerned with the of distinct logical in each and biological is whether there member unity in the sense explained not a real objective principle present of the type. 316. 24. 3 He himself discovered among some escape 1 * * Encycl. vol. certainly does not consist as the Darwinian form of the theory of evolution would have us in believe It . botanist Another investigator of the first rank. . (gth ed. .). it may be said without hesitation that the that the which weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the existence of such types. Art. Brit. namely whether at the present time there do not exist types. . involving the production of a new type in the full sense of the word. the Dutch H.). 387 but by the purely non-significant operation of 1 human experience.

that in certain cases. depends on the personal predilection of the As instances in point. The difficulty indicated has been met are closely allied. our attention is systematist. which is the mark of the true species as distinguished from the mere variety. than appear in the instances observed by de Vries. labour to distinguish the types. while a fourth The willows. and is content with only 20. that in some genera there is found a series of transitional forms so complex and various that the number of species into which they are divided in any system. are said to afford examples of the in more than one way. It has yet to be shewn that in the genera in question this task is impossible. When the species of any genus : same state of things. and there is moreover considerable within the limits of the different species. calcareous sponges. Others meet the objection in a different manner. It is we are now called to the fact that the of hieracium number of German species (hawk-weed) has been fixed by one author at 300. by a third at 52.388 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC specimens of Oenothera Lamarckiana (the large-flowered evening primrose) several novel forms which displayed that persistency in their characteristics. and determine the defini tion of each. and reply that it proves no more than that hitherto the species constituting the genera in question. variability their separation is necessarily attended with great diffi In such cases. by another at 106. brambles. and that we may . it must be a matter of prolonged culty. have not yet been distinguished. urged as a conclusive objection to the doctrine defending. Wasmann contends that in the animal and plant world there are classes in which the formation of new species is not yet at an end. the development of new types pro duces a greater variety of transitional forms. This he believes is fairly clear in the case of many plants such as hieracium and he claims that his own investigations and rubus dinarda show that it is true of some at the regarding He considers moreover least among the lower animals.

according to their The of species systematic ordering natural relationships is rendered possible by the fact that the numerous char acteristics which constitute the type. we enumerate the characteristics present in a bos taurus one of our ordinary domestic cattle. a large or multipled stomach. it is patent that some are proper to the species taurus they are not found in the other bovinac but in the bos taurus alone. 1 Cuvier. of &quot. of course. says indicate molar teeth with flat crowns. the &quot. and a great number of relations of the same kind. ire Lefon. but that while identically up It is not. Hoofs on the feet. which are distinctive of the mammal as such and some which are common to . others. iv.CLASSIFICATION 389 not eventually succeed in determining a precise and definite boundary between species and The solution of this problem may be species. t. series of properties which distinguish every such are connected one with the other in such wise. e. of species 4. a very long alimentary canal. We it are not concerned with the question whether natural It is enough for our purpose. the case that of notes . 1 Similarly. If for instance. Natural Classification. an animal is a mere that. just as the characteristics of the ungulata are thus determined by their mutual relation. Art.&quot. left to scientists. There are some. i. grade that from one of these properties we may argue to the The presence Cuvier. and that we have thus a ground for classifications based not on the non-significant operations of human well-ordered system experience/ but on Nature s own species are universal.g. all vertebrates. Lemons d Anatonue comparce. . Others belong to all the bovinac others again are qualities of every ruminant.&quot. all ruminants are agglutination the same to a certain point. the general features of the carnivora and other orders are no less rigidly connected. have a hierarchical order among themselves. and genera. : . if be admitted that they exist even within a limited range.

It is generic. The properties which distinguish the lower grades are subordinate to those which mark the higher. which are the most fundamental in the structure of the animal. the bovinae possess corresponding peculiarities of another ruminants are doubtless distinguished by characters that are genericatty alike.390 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC the oves have a few additional notes of one description. the investi gator. Those pro perties are the most important. on the other hand. the characteristics of the mammal are more fundamental in the structure of the animal. It is often said that our classifications must be based on the relative import ance of properties. but none of them embraces the whole of that class. are more fundamental than those which it possesses as a bos. than those which belong to it as ruminant those which mark it as a ruminant. is one of subordina tion between the grades. . If. . This will explain what is meant by the term important as : applied to some characteristic. They. are incompatible with any other animal form than that of the mammalia. The general character of mammal is compatible with any of these modes. The importance of a property depends on the position it holds among the characteristics. specific form the general type is realized. considered in their natural subordination. for example. Yet both are for expressed in the common concept of ruminant the concept admits of. Hence. the actualization of that general type is different in every detail. he knows that the digestive system of the animal must have been realized in one out of a few clearly distinct modes. can detect a feature proper to the mammalia as such. and does not inform us in what ruminants. But though the general type of an ox and a sheep. Each of them is found only among the mammals. ulterior determina tion. The who is examining some fossil. hierarchical order described. All is the same. in so far as they are kind. and which thus exercise a determining influence on the greatest number of characteristics. The stomach of a sheep is not like the stomach of an ox. and demands.

The school of Linnaeus sought it in an ascending scale of classification riddles. which are those usually given for the work of natural classification. the more important should (2) be the attributes by which it is constituted. and so that the distance of one group from another may be an indication of the amount of their dissimilarity. 10. In regard to natural classes. 2) define by properties. is still in dispute. . This is especially the case at both extremities of the great scale. definitions are Distinctive Definitions. The higher the group. When we and have. Manual. 1 It must not be supposed that the is classification of the natural orders a simple matter. by a careful so far as experiment is possible. organization : de Jussieu and Welton. (1) All groups should be so constituted as to differ from each other by a multitude of attributes. there much that is profoundly obscure. 61. The the lower animals presents manifold the great principle which determines the whole hierarchical subordination. secured the true definitions. the classi by experiment. and which seems destined to baffle the most earnest seekers after truth. as we have Our already noticed (Ch. Both genus and differentia contain an indefinitely large series of notes . (3) The Classification should be graduated. we know how Nature has distributed fication is achieved process of observation. nor have we any means of knowing when we have exhausted the properties of any class.CLASSIFICATION 391 The different grades of properties will enable us to frame the definitions. of And greater complexity 1 of Cf. on which the attainment of the classification depends. While certain main is outlines are easily recognizable. : the real order into its classes. we must. The preceding considerations will justify the following rules. so that the groups with most affinity should be nearest together.

qui a mieux a faire apparement. while many of its properties would to a place among the Primates. Thus. s accomode pas. Our system may be admirably suited for a large part of the animal or vegetable world but there will always be some classes. (2) The same property animal s is of different value at different stages of the lose Sometimes. if judged by their embryonic characters. 1 entitle it la On ne peut pas demander a la science de nous montrer dans la plan de Nature unc nettete de divisions. The examples which follow are drawn from M. 211. m. which characterize certain great divisions of the animal kingdom Darwin.392 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Cuvier believed it to lie in the different types of ana tomical structure. Moreover. in mam mals. the Ascidians or Sea-squirts are assimilated to the Vertebrates under now the frequently common denomination of Cordata. which foil the systematizer. une inflexibilite de lignes. On grounds such as these. which seem to . organs life-history. the same organ is often found to possess very different values. The natural order is too complex and too various to fit into our schemata. which are characteristic of different species. while the nature of the integument is of high importance among fishes. which would place it among the lowest mammals. demand a totally well. one or two of the difficulties. . dont nous nous accomoderions fort sans doute. the dental formula is an important pioperty. p. mais dont la Nature. In the parallel class of fishes. but of little or none among mammals. it is relatively of no value. Nature refuses to be bound by our hard and fast lines. Rabier s work. which are indispensable during the embryonic stage. the Sloth has a dental formula. Thus. 1 (1) In co-ordinate classes. some animals. (3) The same animal may possess organs. Further. Rabier. in the laws : of descent. have a claim to be ranked in a class from which in their maturity they would be far distant. determining the character of many other attributes. to indicate It may be different arrangement. even where most progress has been made. their value when it attains maturity.

To these [species] are added as a sort of appendix. and which are yet more closely connected with it than any it. while they agree with the rest almost as much as they agree with one another. form the genus. generally in small number. &quot. and are arranged about it.. 1 Mill. This Classification by Series is. : (see Mill. he entitles Classification by Series he holds that the Natural Classifications of the animal and vegetable kingdoms should conform to this type. by which Mill de^ig- . : &quot. as will best conduce to the remembrance and ascertainment of their laws (IV. .&quot. 3).CLASSIFICATION 393 This inability of ours to make a final scheme coinciding exactly with Nature s plan. these characters. he urges. and yet must be reckoned as belonging to it. of It is species which agree in possessing all these characters. deviating from it in various Thus a genus may consist directions. of several species which approach very near the type.. as we have understood it. All the species which have a greater affinity with this type-species than with any other. We must classify A type is an example of any class. 1 This view of Classification finds expression in the terms Classifications for General Purposes and Classifications for Special Purposes. species of a genus. &quot. as possess nearly all the properties selected and which. We have regarded the attainment of a Natural Classification as an end desirable in itself since in such a classi : . To it is an operation sub merely a means that things shall be sidiary to induction. such other species. no general pro whereas position of any kind could be asserted about the class other&quot.. The truth that every genus or family is framed with distinct reference to certain characters. is here used fication by Type. which give us the definition of the class. as will be seen. thought of in such groups . and of while there may which the claim to a place with it is obvious be other species which straggle further from this central knot. for instance a by type. classification is &quot. and in various degrees. and is composed first and principally. : . To : classifications are chiefly valuable in so far as in them we is. Classification of Series. 7. IV. i). * Mill devotes a chapter to what 5. . . c. something quite distinct from Natural Classification. attain he says.. which is considered as eminently possessing the character of that class. &quot. classify by definition for there will always be classes which fall outside our definition of the genus.. do not resemble in an equal degree any other group 4) (IV. in a different sense from that in which we have been employing We cannot. however.&quot. 7. &quot. which provides. c. led Whewell to advance his theory of Classi The term type. fication we possess speculative knowledge of the real order. as he rightly holds. . c. and laws of Nature. to general truths &quot. 7. this theory Mill objects that if classifications were framed not by definitions but by these exemplar-types.

assist us in discovering the laws of animal life. and will arrange the other It should not however be thought species in a descending scale. and terminating with those that exhibit This method of arrangement is required. according to the degree in which they exhibit it. least &quot. and regards as of considerable importance.. i). quisites of a classification. the object of a systematic classification of animals. (IV. such a classification involves that all the species are to be drawn up in a linear progression. Natural.394 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC is Thus. But it may be doubted whether possesses the value he attaches to it. properly speaking. that we are enabled to apply the Method of Concomitant Variations. are. beginning with those that exhibit most of it. These terms are preferred by many logicians who. so that the arrangement would be best compared to the disposition of objects at various distances from one centre. 8. intended to aid in the to re The two study of any he tells us. (i) that it should embrace every class of things in which that phenomenon is found. and (2) that phenomenon. on the ground that there are no fixed species. Many of the subordinate classes would probably be equidistant from the leading type. nates Natural and Artificial Classifications respectively. . c. should &quot. it arrange those kinds in a series. It follows that a Natural Classification of animals will place man as the example of life in its highest degree. and observe what phenomena vary in the same ratio as the one under consideration. deny that any classification is. because it is in this way it it Mill attributes this portion of his theory to Comte.

it may pass from the property to the . sion of a law. from the law to the fact exempli or on fying the law. compositiva and methodus rcsolutiva. from the essence to the property the other hand. There are two ways in which the mind can acquire It may attain it by scientific knowledge. It is a question. Two separate subjects are. its We consequent. One essence. Yet we have reserved the more formal anticipated. 1 The reader will see that the distinction 1 The Scholastic logicians employ also the synonymous terms methodus Vide Goudin. it must needs use. that in it we know not merely the fact. consideration for the present chapter. Logica. the effect of a cause. knowledge the antecedent to to antecedent. For it is characteristic of science. but view the fact as the expres the reason of the fact. In the present section we are concerned solely with the first of these. passing from the cause to the effect.CHAPTER XXV. METHOD. from particular events to universal laws. . Prae. proper portion . and (2) the general rules which should guide forms part of : us in the arrangement of our arguments. Scientific Method. which. of these ways. Quaest. belongs to the first part of this work matter of the to the has been section. strictly speak and some ing. Some treatment of Method most works on Logic. included under the common (i) the different ways in which designation of Method scientific knowledge can be attained and presented to the mind. i. or from consequent These two ways are known respectively as Synthesis and Analysis. In order to possess of this we must either have passed from kind. however.

sed quia ledge. sunt nota secundum se et secundurn propriam naturam. Thomas warns us not to imagine he^means that Nature possesses a faculty of know Non ergo dicit nota naturae. Vide e. There is. not because we have grasped the truth of the we are merely retracing the steps principle first this is : when we employ we have previously travelled along the via inventionis well-known Scholastic distinction between things which are better known to us (notiora quoad nos) and things which are better known to Nature (notiora l To us concrete Naturae. (Ch. we bring to light a law i we pass from the complex individuals to the simple universal type. notiora simpliciter) culars the object of sense-perception are better than universals . a perfection in the method of Syn thesis. Knowledge when the mind grasps first the truth of In principles.&quot. 2). while the universals which are . Ch. 21. 2). 2. For in classi fying. Every act of Natural is thus an analytic process. it is true. c.. is in itself more knowable than the material objects of sense. 4. the conceptual order with the real. St.396 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC between them is based on the same principle as that between Progressive and Regressive Reasoning (Ch. I. S. such reasoning. that we must discover universal laws from effects. Induction : for by Induction we argue from facts to laws 3 from particular of deductive Classification events to the universal principle. Post. i. &quot. : the synthetic method in exposition. . we trace the same path as Nature. more on Ana For our lysis knowledge begins from the concrete particular. and from them reasons to their results.g. 12. Thomas in Phys. 4. finds its ideal. This will explain the parti known intelli- 1 The distinction Is Aristotle s. quia natura cognoscat ea. lect. Even science inevitably depends But human than on Synthesis. The logical process is in full harmony with the ontological.. It is from singular objects perceived by sense. 21. Analysis embraces not merely Regressive Deduction but further. I. we must pass to their causes. The scope of Synthesis and Analysis is how ever somewhat wider than that between the two forms argument. That which is the object of the intelligence. which is lacking in that of Analysis. An.

1 nobis dum naturam quod bus. 4. faculties give us an insight into the nature of spatial extension and figure. : sicut accidit in mathematicis. Hence. sicut accidit in naturali- . Mathematics employs the and the other sciences make use of analytical method Geometrical problems are not infrequently synthesis. Quandoque autera id quod est magis notum quoad nos.[Post. are involved analytic reasoning. Mathematics. In Synthesis. where the composition of causes is involved. matics is This regressive method in Mathe the original sense of the word Analysis. and argue from experiments of the laboThomas in An. sciences can be treated synthetically.&quot. such that in this case it is connatural to the intellect to reason from principles to their necessary Our consequences. The problem is sup and we trace step by step what principles in its successful solution. Non enim aliquid potest fieri notum nisi per id quod est magis notum nobis. and one alone. as we have already said. i use of Synthesis in the natural sciences in certain cases. est etiam magis notum simpliciter et secunCf. non est notius simpliciter. viz. It was employed by the Greek mathematicians with this signification. In some measure indeed. which Synthesis is the native process of the mind. We can however employ the con verse method. . and deduce the solution from these principles. /. what is better known to Nature. . Item quandoque id est notius quoad nos. are is 397 better known to Nature.. follow the path of Nature herself. we reach the principles which are notiora Naturae. in which starting from things which are nobis notiora. in we There is one science. Here the complexity of the operative con ditions is such as to render analytic reasoning almost out of the question. lect. Here. We make Jevons supplies a good example in regard to the nature of storms.. just in the measure that we can apply Mathematics to those the solution of problems in the other sciences. . St. 1 is at the same time also better known to us. .METHOD gible to reason. dealt with by posed solved. Analysis the method. If this process leads us at last to principles known to be true. &quot. we are able to reverse the reasoning.

then as such and such an individual. 207). . . Tr. Goudin. all that we &quot. wind. c 2. Baynes in 2 He however Modus ordinatus procedendi understands Method as : .) for proving it to others when it is already known (Part IV. Putting together synthetically from the sciences of chemistry. Method has been defined as a systematic manner of carrying on the search applied to truth. signifying solely Analysis and Synthesis. either for the discovering of truth when we are ignorant of it. I. Lessons. quod est in potentia est prius tempore. yet in our knowledge of the concrete particular itself. ^J Ex In omni Cf. . I.. The Port Royal definition is as follows The art of disposing well a series of many thoughts. We have been dealing with the mental process. lect.e. Such a definition might indeed be it Method as explained in the last section 2 might signify the two systems of Analysis and Synthesis. Post. Unde in generatione nostrae scientiae prius est cognoscere magis commune 1 istis est . of which we have been treating. Chemical analysis deals with the real order. lastly The Methodic Pursuit of Truth. p. 1 2. man. there is first a transition from the more general to the less general. lightning. with analysis as practised e. mechanics and electricity. I. 6. Thus we see an object at a distance.g. c. understood in that sense. we are able to explain what takes place in a thunderstorm far more completely than we could do by merely observing storm (Elem. Various lists of such rules have been drawn up by different authors.. Cognitio . quam minus commune. in chemistry. also St. cloud and in a &quot. I. advertendum. . what takes place The student will be careful not to confuse the logical analysis. or s trans. Jevons has well remarked that it is quite impossible No general direc to frame prescriptions of this kind. then as animal. tions can possibly be given for the arrangement of things This point is treated fully by Albertus Magnus. An. But it may also be taken to signify the general rules. we which by pass from a result to its principles. for : which should guide us in the arrangement of our reason and in more recent times the term has often been ings . Though the concrete particular is better known to us than is the abstract universal. 4.398 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC ratory to what takes place on a larger scale in the atmo sphere. know of air. Phys. autem generis est quasi potentials in comparatione ad cognitionem speciei. veritatis inquisitione. Thomas. and recognize it first as substance. enim generatione.

of which it supposes expert knowledge. The separate parts should be connected by suitable transitions.METHOD 399 which require an infinite variety of arrangement. The separate parts should agree with each other. In brief. 4. As an example of the treatment accorded to the subject from this point of view. Nothing should be treated save what is suitable to the subject or purpose. The Cartesians it that as the a Scholastics. of were possible to obtain it. These steps are. relevancy. where we are told that in every 1. as follows : (i) To form a perfectly definite and consistent idea of what the problem really is then to develop the Mathematics of the and to establish a mathesubject in hand as far as possible : : . It has been taken to mean the method of successful scientific research. 3. completeness. they nothing part Logic. if it What we to distinguish what Since Mill included the general theory of scientific research in Logic. C. harmony. The student will observe that these so-called rules Method are merely what common-sense prescribes in the case of any end which must be attained by the employ ment of various means. we may notice the article on Scientific Method in Baldwin s Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology. The author of the article Prof. need. 2. No useful purpose. was to be gained by attempting to treat it. is guidance is wanting and what is redundant : and this would depend on the particular matter in hand. Peirce in regard to those sciences which have reached the nomological stage in which universal laws are known. in brief. can be served by such rules as we find in Aldrich s Logic. dis tinguishes five steps in the work of scientific research. They would be as appropriate in the case of a watch-maker as they are to the logician. and continuity must be observed. Method has ceased to signify simply the general rules of argument. as he rightly urges. S. brought reproach against In had omitted this of fact. argument we propound : Nothing should be wanting or redundant.

Observation is followed by the framing of an hypothesis. be noticed that Prof. the stu dent should reform his metaphysics. particular branch of Mathematics subject in hand. if the subject be a broad one. Although it is impos sible to prescribe precisely for the systematic ordering of our thoughts in the attainment of truth. is Logically Metaphysics must take the Then follows as the basis of all science. (4) The enquiry into the laws of the phenomena constitutes the fourth of the This is commenced by a careful observation tage. without think. and student. (5) Finally the law of the phenomena once made out. which But these. first of reforming his place. we satisfactory. They are an essential preliminary to the methodic enquiry into together with the applicable to the As regards this investigation. the attainment of truth is largely . essential importance in all scientific questions. On the correct use of terms. Peirce s method is none other than that explanation by hypo thetical deduction.400 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC matical method appropriate to the particular problem. the phenomenon under part. and the manner in which analogous subjects have been treated. if it be one which admits of exact treatment. Philosophic Terminology. 3- 3. and a verification of the hypothesis by a comparison of its results with the facts. who equipped himself for the task by the requisite knowledge of the question. Metaphysics are. which we have considered in Ch. the instrument and the support of thought. for every science in Mathematics as a requisite quantity concerned. The as steps here prescribed cannot. of But a has embarked on a scientific problem. (2) To consider the methodeutic of the research in hand. phenomena themselves. which expresses it. should be supposed known. be regarded doubt. yet some such general rules may be given for the use of language. it re mains to measure with precision the values of the coefficients in the equation. the deduction of the results which would follow from the hypothesis suggested. (3) In the third place. can hardly be advised at that stage to embark on the somewhat vague task Metaphysics. it essential will 21.

if we employ terms insufficiently defined. on the contrary. may our aware of the error without and the result being in the run be may long complete intellectual confusion. were a signal merit of the mediaeval schools. To take an example from the history of philosophy. PP . face with a score of different systems and the termin Nor is this a mere matter ology of each is different. in : three rules. . employ a term properly applicable to something else. it is impossible to overestimate the harm caused by Kant s restriction of the term Analytic proposition to those judgments alone. 401 This is. is in speaking of some object that : cognizable by sense. we deal with abstractions myself. we are face to degree. in which the predicate is part of the intension of the subject. This terminology. and lightened the labour of the student in no small In these days. the case in philosophy. the intension of which we conceive but vaguely. dicate a property of the subject. and I can hardly mislead But in philosophy. priate term. and its make philosophic precision in regard to the definition of each term. were thrown into the common class of Synthetic propositions. In almost every case. involved as its consequence. and judgments depending on the experience of sense. of considerable importance for the student (1) To employ the most commonly accepted terms in their (2) arise. The employment of an inappro from sense. most commonly accepted meanings. is It will and The foregoing considerations may be summed up need scarcely be pointed out that similar ill effects ensue. If. Where any doubt as to the meaning of a term can to define carefully and in points of great import : ance to use of technical terms. above all. remote introduce a wrong idea into the mind. The completeness of the Scholastic terminology. that judgments in which the pre I . a change of terminology of words. but the thing in question I may confuse my hearers is present to my imagination. (3) Never to employ a term to which he cannot assign a precise and clearly-defined meaning.METHOD dependent.

&quot. to the knowledge of the more complex assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects. does much &quot. For. which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence. to fix our views. not meriting serious attention. in his Discourse 4. It will be well for the student to remember that few things contribute more to confusion of thought than a careless employment of the terminology belonging to different schools. and render clear thinking an impossibility to himself. He may. and since then have been cited by so many writers. on Method (Part 2). as he tells us. Never to accept anything for true which I do not know to be such that is. What at first sight appears a mere verbal technicality. The terms of a particular school its embody thought. that by com mencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know. By such a selection. They run as follows I. : . more over. III. to involve a fundamental cleavage of doctrine. To conduct my thoughts in such order. which is frequently of far-reaching importance. To divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible. Words. by which. is found. he little contemplates. than what is presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as : : to exclude all grounds of doubt. Hamilton. Descartes Rules of Method.402 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC betokens a real difference in regard to some philosophic tenet. They enable * Descartes. and as it were. &quot. he may commit himself to inconsistent views. on a closer view. just as the popular beliefs of a nation are largely determined by words and phrases that are in vogue. we may find ourselves committed to the defence of the fortresses that school has erected. I may ascend by little and little. step by step. says Sir W. are the fortresses of thought. us to realise our dominion over what we have already overrun in thought. These were embodied in the Port Royal Logic. By employing the terminology of a particular school. and as may be necessary for its adequate solution. II. unconsciously mould his opinions in a fashion. that it seems advisable to make some mention of them. gives four general rules of method. he believed it would be possible to arrive at the knowledge of whatever lay within the compass of his powers.&quot. to comprise nothing more in my judgment. so too the terminology we employ.

if e. the first absolute the second. The absolute are incapable of further resolution every such object is a simple nature. such as that the whole is greater than its part. a fixed order should be assigned them in the : .g. do not stand in a relation of antece dence and sequence. simple natures Thus. The next step will be to proceed from the simple to the com to deduce. Once presented to the mind.&quot. were dis and relative. an examination of the circumstances will convince us that the concerned. These truths are known by intellectual intuition. In every case to make enumerations so complete.METHOD 403 IV. The absolute tinguished by Descartes into relative can be known only by resolution into the absolute. and reviews so general. qual and unequal. Nothing may be admitted save what is derived from them. The objects. : mind (Rule 3). in which proposition plex follows proposition in logical sequence. It is remarkable that those logicians. of the three pairs of correlatives cause and effect. which is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the Cartesian philosophy. No induction is needed to establish these truths. When we undertake the examination of some phenomenon with a view to its explanation. will show us that we possess an intuitive knowledge of its nature (Rule 2). they are immediately recognized as true for they possess the infallible criterium of truth clearness and distinct ness. axiomatic truths. scientific research. A scrutiny of our simple nature conception of light. For are irresolvable. and which none now would care to defend. unity and multiplicity. that I may be assured that nothing is omitted. which the human intellect can know. we must analyse its circumstances. absolute are also absolute objects of knowledge. where there is a break in the chain . in each case is relative. however. who have cited these rules with approval. is light itself. The separate sciences. it is on them that all science must be based. Further. For instance. From time We shall come to time. they embody a particular method of ing. . More over. it is not to be imagined that the whole of knowledge can be connected in one great concatenation. till we discover the simple nature on which it depends. appear to assume they were intended to be simply common-sense prescriptions as to the conduct of reason As a matter of fact. and is of its own essence. knowable. There our division stops. Hence. our analysis or our synthesis will fail us. the object proposed is the refraction of light. and thus shares in their clearness and distinctness (Rule i). the phenomena of nature from our intuitive knowledge of these primary truths. to a point. by a synthetic process. But even where truths do not admit of being arranged in con nected sequence.

such suppositions even in mathematics.404 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC between the simple nature and the phenomenon under considera tion. System must be brought into the The ideal before us should be nothing less than a vast sciences. All the known phenomena of a similar kind must be enumerated. I &quot. to find in general the of all that or first causes is or can be in the world. stars and earth. and then all the conclusions we have deduced from them will possess demonstrative value. and by a consideration of them. if it be frankly stated that the principle is a supposition. minerals and some other things of the kind. who has created it. To his mind the systematization of knowledge was of the first im portance. our aim should be to achieve a complete deductive proof from a series 1 Discourse on Method. first and most ordinary effects that could be deduced from these and it appears to me that in this way I have found causes heavens. more allied to Analogy than to what we term Induction. vast and various the works of many authors. This was the method by which Descartes hoped to establish the whole of science on a mathematical basis. he solves the question by an appeal to what takes place when the sun s rays strike a glass ball (Rule 4). and all the truths constituting it are deductively proved from certain first principles. and without educing them from any other source than from certain germs of truths naturally existing In the second place. fire. for instance. he writes. 6.&quot. has not been demonstrated from the primary truths on which the science is based. : * It was probably due to 5. Pt. and though apparently correct. No harm will be done by this. I examined what were the in our minds. principles without taking into consideration for this end anything but God himself. The knowledge possessed by the human race. Such is Euclid s assumption that two straight lines cannot have a common segment. when Descartes is discussing the phenomena of the rainbow. the influence of Descartes writings on Method. There are. water. Nevertheless. Not improbably a way will afterwards be found of proving these suppositions. at a slightly later date. and by which he believed he had solved the principal problems of natural philo at issue. we must have recourse to the process called by Descartes Enumeration or Induction. It is. and even on the earth. To this ideal. . we cannot indeed shall often be compelled to rely hope perfectly to attain. sophy. Then. Leibniz s Views on Method. he but it is unorganized and dispersed in urges. 1 &quot. have essayed. in which every science is repre sented. : Encyclopedia of knowledge. is. We on some principle which is not self-evident. air. we shall be able to determine the point Thus. but which we have good reason to suppose true. however. he holds.&quot. turned his attention to this subject. that Leibniz.

21. aut explicauda est. ut sit vel identica. et Analyst Universali (ed. 7. ut in identicis. hand.&quot. he assures us.. Nouveaux 3 Cf. those primary principles which cannot be proved. in abstractis scilicet neque ab experimento pendentibus. were the sciences thus systematized. . 2 This method must. connexio enim praedicati cum subjecto aut per se patet. cc. proofs resting on such a criterion. Erdmann. The ultimate criterion must be identical principles. quod fit resolutione terminorum. of course. 295).METHOD of definitions. he considers. 405 1 by identical principles. from first principles and from established This method of discovery would be as simple as are the processes of Arith metic or Algebra. though it be little 1 cultivated. . was true. This art already exists. 12. 8 See Preceptes pour avancer les sciences. it would be possible to indicate the way to develop the conclusions deducible facts. vol. p. Atque hoc unicum summumque est veritatis criterium. proof . But although . Gerhardt. Itaque cujuscunque veritatis reddi potest ratio. 165. 8 35) defines Leibniz (Monadology. the noblest object of our faculties. one who is versed in the matter in deductively. Moreover. . p. To postulate is whose truth established If possible. Descartes. identical propositions as &quot. as soon as he should have secured sufficient examples to make its value evident. be applicable in different degrees In Physics it can hardly be applied to different sciences. vrill probably be able to judge with some accuracy as to the properties likely to belong to a substance. it is suited in the highest degree to moral science. ed. In a calculus of this kind lies the ultimate perfection of Art of Dis covery (I art d inventer). we cannot hope to demonstrate their properties Yet even here. and indeed have no need of whose opposite involves an express contradiction. for. the application of this method to the physical sciences presents special difficulties. since we are ignorant regarding the essential natures of material substances. identical principles should be dis covered even for axioms. his intention to demon strate the feasibility of this method. is to beg the question. vel ad identicas revocabilis. It was. De Synthcsi Essais. IV. erred in holding that whatever he saw clearly.

.

courteously accorded to me by the 1 responsible authorities.C. To what extent : (c) A machine for combating fallacy. Stationery Office. II. Discuss the various attempted definitions (not descriptions) of Logic. (L. (L. M. (C. Inter.I. I. 2nd year Hon. Mods. 1902. Examine the following statements as to the province or function of Logic (a) The science not of Truth but of Consistency.) 4. L=London. 1904. this operation in the formation of the Logical Of what importance Concept ? I is 1 For leave to print questions drawn from Indian Civil Service papers ndebted to the Controller of H. am .) 5. 1907.) Distinguish between (a) the conceptualist and nominalist methods of treating Logic. Arts. Inter. (O. : The numbering chapters. 1903. I. (b) The science of the operations of the understanding which are subservient to the estimation of evidence. is (6) thought 2.C. EXERCISE i.D. ? How may they with reference to What are (a) ? the three parts of logical doctrine be named with reference to language. Arts.U. =Royal University of Ireland.D. G=Glasgow. R. with which you are acquainted. of the exercises corresponds to that of the EXERCISE 1 . and comment upon other ways of expressing the same or a related distinction. The source is indicated in each case by an initial letter O=Oxford.) Logic concerned with language ? What are the respective provinces of (i) Logic. Discuss the validity of the distinction between Formal and Material Logic. C=Cambridge. (b) Logical and psychological laws of thought.S.=Indian Civil Service.M. For the per mission to print them here.C. T. Explain the nature of Abstraction. (T. (3) Psych ology ? 3. Prev. Indian Civil Service.QUESTIONS ON LOGIC THESE questions for the most part are taken from papers set at one or other of the universities of Great Britain or Ireland. my thanks are due.) 6. 1905. or in the examinations for H. (2) Grammar.=Dublin.

) 10. (b) between Positive and Negative Terms. V&quot. 1906. (O. illustrating your explanation by a discussion of the logical charac teristics of the following terms The University of London. Fallacy. Explain the significance of the logical copula. Mods.) terms ? The notion of such terms has been denied. 1906. Discuss the distinctions (a) between Collective and Distribu tive . (L. Explain the division of terms into (a) Univocal. Define Term. What is meant by Infinite : tention. Illustrate your discussion by examining the following statements : All the plays of Shakespeare cannot be read in a day. 1. 1906. tive (6) tive Popocatapetl is a Non-Connota only so long as we do not know what the Mexicans mean by the word. &quot. : . (L. Mods. Matr. How can it be defended ? 9.Sc.) The Connotation of a name consists of the qualities on ac 5. Consider the distinction of Connotative and Non-Connotative names in the light of these propositions. (a) What do you Is the longest river in the world ? understand by a Non-Connotative term ? Connotative or Non-Connota &quot. count of which the name was given. Arts. Mods.) Explain concisely the distinction (a) between General and Singular Terms (b) between Concrete and Abstract Terms 3. 1907.) 4. 1904.) 6. . Judgment is an act of division rather than an act of Comment on &quot. synthesis. Iron.&quot. Consider carefully the distinction between Concrete and Abstract terms. Judgment consists in comparing together two notions or ideas of objects derived from simple apprehension. 8. Analogous (6) Terms of First Intention. Equivocal. so as to ascertain whether they agree or differ. Prev. The Connotation of a name consists of the qualities implied in actual discourse. Sound. Judgment is a synthesis of two concepts. Any one who is not industrious must be accounted (C. 1905. term to (O. Terms of Second In vary inversely. EXERCISE III. Under which head (if under either) would you class Adjectives ? (O.) 7. B. Concept and illustrate from a logical point of view the process of forming a concept. (L. Inter. Logic. 2. 1904. Explain and criticise the view that Extension and Intension : Examine the following us. 3.408 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC understand by a Phantasm ? : What do you tasm differ ? How does a Phan from a Concept 2. . Is every General term the name of a class ? Give your reasons. idle. these statements.

1907. 6. Prev.) . 1905. : (c) No admittance except on business. he sometimes hits the mark. (L. Arts.) Explain the distinction between Complex and Compound Propositions.) Reduce to logical form (a) The older we are the more experienced we become.) hypothetical EXERCISE IV. Set a thief to catch a thief. : 9. Members alone can vote. 1906. and show its importance.) 10. 4. in a logical judg : ment Express the following sentences in logical form When a man aims blindly.S. (d) (b) (c) Few men really know their own mind. (iii) No (iv) Many a flower is born to blush unseen. and indicate carefully the relation you take to hold between notions. 1904. (L.C. Contrast this system with that intro duced by Kant. (i) want.QUESTIONS ON LOGIC 409 Critically examine this view. M.) What is the 8. 1905. In what sense ? if any are Universal Categorical judgments ^I. Define Exclusive and Exceptive propositions. (v) A few sailors were saved. (G. 1903. Inter. 1. Inter. (C.) Discuss the significance for logical purposes of the distinction between Analytic and Synthetic Judgments. (L. Arts. (L. Give a brief account of Modal propositions as understood in the traditional Logic. (b) Any one but an idiot would believe it. (d) Any answer is not good enough. What ? is the exact meaning of &quot. Children alone are admitted. between them ? Express the following (3) propositions in logical form (a) The only man in the house was the landlord. Prev. if any. (vi) Men alone can be members of Parliament. Give the sense of each of the following sentences in such a way as to (1) (2) show its logical is quantity and quality : No news good news.) 5.C. 1901. 2nd year Hon. 1904. (ii) Few men get all they Scotsmen need apply. Define a Law of Thought : and explain how it is possible for a law of thought to be violated. judgments and inferences. (T. 1902. (C. Arts. Matr. some &quot.A.D. logical relation.) 7. Inter. One of the commonest of stupid misstatements is that all our public monuments are bad. 11.

S.e. (a) Contradiction tion. the use of circles in Logic legitimate ? (O. 5. it is urged. yet both are false. 7. Hon.) by Aristotle. Ethiopians) are (a) : : : : not black. Arts. (b) the truth of its sub-contrary. is erroneous. select. 1905.) 3. 1904. Mods.D. (a) Men are mortal Some swans are black. Subcontrary propositions cannot both be false. Law of Thought independent stated Are the principles of Contradiction and Excluded Middle as (I. Discuss the claim of the Law of Identity to be a of the Principle of Contradiction. Show that the principle of Contradiction does not apply (R. (L. the laws of Identity.C. Europeans) are black. 1903. Discuss. are.C. Discuss the logical significance of the laws of Identity.e. Mill rejects two common theories as to the Law of Contra diction and substitutes Jhis own. 1906. Arts. The two propositions. particular propositions of opposite Examine the argument.) * 7.I. Give reasons for [preferring the form you ^4. 2nd Arts. 1908. State. It has been asserted that the rule. (T. (c) All swans are white (L. What do you take to be the ground of validity of the laws of Contradiction and Excluded Middle ? Notice briefly any other theories regarding this subject with which you may be acquainted. Some men (i. what 4. Matr. -2nd year Hon.) 2. Inter.U. Half the flock perished of the : pest. EXERCISE V. Con and Excluded Middle. 5.410 2. All except the idle have a right to the means of life. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC tradiction.) 6. Inter. giving examples with 5 and can be asserted as to the truth of a proposition from to sub-contraries. P : the falsity of its contrary. (b) All swans are white No swans are white. . Some men (i. Discuss the character of the following oppositions Men are not mortal. quality. Contradiction and Excluded Middle. for the following propositions Caius said that it was all up with the army. (L. Assign contradictory and (where possible) contrary forms Dead men alone tell no tales. Is capable of fulfilment ? 3. What are the desiderata in a perfect system of diagrammatic Representation ? How far does Euler s system fail to realize these requirements ? Is the task of finding an ideally perfect scheme 1.) (c) the falsity of its subalternate. 1904. (b) is the most perfect form of logical opposi Explain this.) used for terms. 1901. Enunciate in the form that seems to you most appropriate to the Science of Logic. true without exception ? * 6.

Enumerate and illustrate the several forms of Immediate Inference. (2) Some insects only are industrious. 1906.U. 4. if any. 1901. If any proposition cannot be inferred from the first. 1903. (C. (a) Define Obversion and point out the principle on which this form of inference is based. giv ing in each case a brief justification of the process. (6) State the logical relation.I.) What is inferred in Conversion is not properly something else than the convertend. Is this so ? Explain what is meant by Immediate Inference. 1.) the Immediate Inferences which may be drawn In from the proposition. znd Arts. 6. 2nd Arts.U. and All not-5 is P. dicate very briefly the peculiarities of each inference you draw. and All not-P is S. (R. (L. 7. (d) Not all is gold that glitters.) 5. Converse Relation .I. : of : . B. (b) Some who are well educated are credulous and the converse of the obverse of (c) Where there is smoke there is fire . (c) All not-5 is P. 1904.I. Any one who is not good Is unwise.Sc.QUESTIONS ON LOGIC EXERCISE VI. (ii) (iil) (iv) He who Is good is not unwise. A tortoise is an animal. (L. Hon. Added Determinants .) 3.) Define Conversion and Ob version. : : (R. that holds between the first of the following propositions and each of the others. 411 and give an example of each Define Immediate Inference the following Inference by Subalternation Conversion Contraposition . Find the obverse of the converse of (a) None but the brave deserve the fair . (b) All not-5 is P. . say whether it is consistent with it or not. 2nd Arts. Mods. Matr. None but the brave deserve the fair. 1896.- .) 2. 1896. 1904. and if pos sible give in each case the converse of the contrapositive (1) Only ants are really industrious. (6) Examine the following inference Therefore an unusually swift tortoise is an unusually swift animal. Prev. but the same thing. (i) Good men alone are wise. Investigate the formal relations between (a) All S is P. and state how many valid kinds might be included within the range of Formal Logic. (3) No leaves are other than white. No unwise men are good. and consider to what extent they give us new truth.U. : : (O.) 8. Mention all (R. (a) Express the following in strict logical form. and All 5 is not-P.

S. 4. M. To say that all A is B. unwise men are good. * 6. M. Discuss. (C. * 8. What Set are the Predicables ? Exemplify by reference to the (G. when referred to the real universe of discourse are seen to be significant and true. 9. as an or an E or an / or an O proposition. 1902. State and discuss the doctrine of the quantification of the predicate.) * 3. (c) The attribute of mortality constantly accompanies the : attribute of humanity.S. M. 1902. down with explanation Mods.&quot. Which view 1 .) A Show how a statement may be expressed formally EXERCISE VII. Does this change of form involve any material change of meaning. (b) Every man possesses the attribute of mortality. 1907. triangle.A. (I. 1905. 1906. (G. Inter. 5.) Discuss the various interpretations of the logical proposition implied by the following modes of expressing the judgment All men are mortal (a) Men=men mortals.A. Prev. &quot.U. but that fail to be of the class B. 1895. Arts. 1906.4i2 (v) (vi) PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC Not It is all false that all good men are wise. affect the doctrine of the Predicables ? (O. (G. Discuss this statement.) General Propositions assert a relation between classes. word 2. seems to you preferable. How must the belief or disbelief in the existence of real kinds in nature. M. How would you show that the denial ? (G. Explain what is is subject in judgment meant by the assertion that the ultimate Reality as a whole. and 2.) . why ? (L. explaining what kind of propositions appears to you to be most truly existential.) of a denial amounts (I.) EXERCISE VIII. 1.) to an affirmation 10. What is meant by &quot.I. 1907.) 3. 1906. 1903.A. propositions which in reference to the universe of sensible experience would be meaningless.Many Discuss this statement.A. Mods.) * 7.&quot. is in fact merely to assert that the real world contains no objects that are A s. (O. the import of Propositions ? State various views which logicians have held on this subject.) the heads of predicables.C.C. 2nd Arts. 1902. and that universal propositions do not imply the existence of their subjects. and is its application of any practical value in Logic ? (R. Critically examine the view that particular propositions do.

2nd Arts. 1. The person approaching is Callias ? How far are 5. and of their place (O. 1906. Mods. 4.) troversy bear. Enumerate the ten Categories. Distinguish carefully between the Categories as a part of fully logical 4. 7. Inter. and how ? * 10. Give some account of the Categories. 1905.Upon what questions in Logic does the con (O. on the question EXERCISE X. 1. Arts. and carefully explain any technical terms that you use in your statement. (L. The distinction between nominal and real definitions cannot . Universalia ante rem.) separable and Inseparable. understand by Predicamental lines ? Discuss their 5. Comment critically with examples on (a) the distinction between nominal and real definition. Mods. (R. Mods. &quot. State the most important rules of definition. What do you understand by Moderate Realism ? Distin guish it carefully from Platonic Realism on the one hand and Conceptualism on the other. and distinguish them care with examples. * 9. 2. 1907. or names are the object of Definition. concepts. Indicate and exemplify the methods by which we form definitions.. (6) the distinction between the defin able and the undefinable.) EXERCISE IX. What do you and as a part of metaphysical doctrine. Contrast the Aristotelian Categories with any other system with which you may be acquainted.QUESTIONS ON LOGIC 4. 1906. and discuss.U. (O. 1908. doctrine of the Predicables ? Is the principle defensible in the light of such a proposition as. Universalia post rem. (O. 1907. Discuss the question whether things. connexion with the logical analysis of science. Explain Mods. Explain and comment on the distinction of Accidents into (O.) Logic. Explain briefly how the doctrine of the Categories throws of the Import of Propositions. light * 6.I. Shew why as a part of logical doctrine the Aristotelian system is to be preferred.) State the meaning of Definition. Mods. Explain the nature of the Controversy between Nominal ism and Realism. in 2. 413 all The individual substance is the ultimate subject of What bearing has this principle on the Porphyrian predication. What do you suppose to have been the (O. 1906.) 3. 1908. Can Porphyry s fivefold division of the Predicables be shewn to be exhaustive ? * 8.) they distinguishable ? 6.) origin and purpose of the list ? 3. Mods. Give an account of Property and Accident.

Distinguish Logical Division from division of other kinds. Comment on the division of man into rational and animal . Give an illustration in which one and only one of the rules 4. : division. Mods. Explain the expressions fundamentum divisionis. 12. (L.&quot. the proximate genus and differentia should be given but no proprium or accidens ? (C. division per se. Hon. cross(b) : and the theory . .414 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC be maintained. accidens. is violated. Can this position be sustained ? (O. Why is it in defining a species.I. timber and mortar and soul of the soul into intellect and will. 2nd Arts. Distinguish the necessity of the consequence from the neces Does Logic in any department attempt sity of the consequent.) 5. 1905. must we distinguish between ordinary definition and scientific definition ? Are Genetic definitions properly called definitions ? (R. To what chief defects is Logical Division liable ? be obviated by the process of Dichotomy ? (O.) 10. Can they 9. EXERCISE XL the expression 1. (2) A contrapositive is the converse of the obverse. to secure both ? (R. Explain the nature of Logical Division. Consider carefully the following definitions (1) Light is a mode of motion. Does the middle-term of a syllogism always hold that relation to its extremes which the name implies ? Is the expression under stood in the same sense by all logicians ? 2. 1905. 11. (a) Discuss the connexion between the theory of definition of the predicables. 2nd Arts. and IEO is never . 1905.) 3.) 8.I. 1904. Explain the meaning of middle-term.Sc. Prev. (L. B. division per when they Explain carefully what the Scholastic philosophers meant said that all men are such kin virtue of a common humanity.U. (3) A woman is a creature who cannot reason and who pokes the fire from the top. 1905.) (a) How is it that EIO is always valid.) 6. Give the rules of quality and of distribution. which are necessary and sufficient for securing the validity of a syllogistic argument. In an examination into the nature of definition. of Socrates into body of a house into stone. division by dichotomy. and indicate care fully the relations between logical part and logical whole. Give examples showing the importance of defining the tech nical terms of a science. 1904.U. Hon. Mods. Malr. 1903. No definition is ever intended to explain the nature of a thing.) 7.

(R.&quot.) 9. Matr. 1902. 1906. and how far does it alter the character of an argument ? Illustrate your answer by con structing and reducing syllogisms in Cesare and Disamis.U. Arts.) 5.I. 8. Examine this. if 415 the difference between ? them is one of mere order of premisses (6) Determine the rules of the third figure. Reduce the following.) 12 Resolve some short example of a geometrical demonstration [e. 1905. Assuming the general rules is ? (R. Inter. (L. or the arguments involved in them to syllogistic form. 2nd Arts. Inter. Why can an O proposition occur as a major premiss only in Fig. of the syllogism. 6.U. Arts. 1 EXERCISE XII. 1905. 1902). 7. indicating major and minor premiss] in each case. (a) Why does p never occur in the first syllable of any named mood ? Has it the same meaning in Darapti and in Bramantip ? the conclusion must be nega (b) Why is it that in all figures and tive if the minor premiss be negative the conclusion .I. B. and showing what axioms or (L. 3. Hon.U. deduce that OA O (L. &quot. in Fig. State the dictum de omni et nullo. 1904. Hon. B. and enumerate fully the characteristics of that figure. and explain with illustrations the reasons which make it illicit.Sc. and prove from it the (L.Sc. What is the object of Reduction. 1906. What is indirectly.) 10. (R. the conclusion must be particular.g.I. 2nd Arts. Define illicit process. 3. stating figure and mood if valid : and fallacy if invalid (a) : All living things are interesting. 3. 1901. and some interesting . Hon. and as a minor only * 1 1 . (O.) 4.) Critically consider various ways in which the ultimate principle of syllogistic inference has been formulated. (L. 1905. Prove that if the middle-term of a syllogism be twice distri buted.) the moods of the first figure can be directly or indirectly reduced to Barbara. Mods. is not A if the major term be subject ? &quot. -2nd Arts. &quot. Matr. &quot. 2 Show that all .U. 1. (L. 2nd Arts. 1901. &quot.U. 1905. (R. 2.) the special use of the second figure of the syllogism ? Construct an example of a real argument (not in letters) in one Reduce Baroco both directly and of the moods of this figure. (R.I. 6] into its constituent syllogisms. Prove that nothing can logically be inferred from two parti cular premisses.I.) special rules of the first figure. 1903.) only possible in Fig.QUESTIONS ON LOGIC valid. Euclid I. 2nd Arts.In no case can a syllogism with two singular premisses be viewed as a genuine syllogistic or deductive inference.) previous propositions are introduced and how.

10. B.D.I. 1903. (b) Therefore some living things are No guest is unwelcome. 1906. For as I take it. Hence since some guests have not been introduced. : by the same principles as the categorical syllogism. he lieth not.) Discuss the question whether the reasoning of the hypothetico-categorical syllogism is mediate or immediate. 1904.) syllogism ? 7. 1904.) All reasoning is from universals to particulars. Matr.A. 1904.) The theory that a hypothetical proposition cannot be 3. misses. 1904. Hon. 1901. State in general and criticise Mill s theory of the syllogism. (L. (T. Mods. (b) Now for the poet. (R. 2nd year Hon. beautiful.U. examine Express the following arguments in syllogistic form. : (R.) 9. and their validity from a logical point of view Freedom means power to do or to forbear from doing (a) any particular act. yet because he telleth them not for true.) The problem of inference is something of a paradox for ^.I. it follows that the welcome have not in all cases been introduced. 1901. Hon. On what grounds and with what justice has superiority been attributed to the first figure of the syllogism ? Should a fourth figure be recognized ? (O. : yf6.4i 6 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC things are beautiful. the question whether the will is free is an unmeaning one therefore the only proper question is whether a man (not his will) : : is free. Give the chief forms of argument involving hypothetical or and examine whether they are governed disjunctive propositions 1.U. Hon. The latter may be expressed without . does not apply to the 2.) : 5. Critically EXERCISE XIII. Inter. What is the bearing of these two theories on the doctrine of the (O.C. to lie fore never lieth. All reasoning is from particulars to particulars. upon preference and since the will is merely the power of preference.) examine the opinion that there are other forms of Notice any views on this inference besides syllogistic reasoning. hypothetical syllogism.C. we have not got inference unless the conclusion is (a) in the pre Examine this statement.8. (b) outside the premisses. Arts. point defended by recent writers. satisfactorily reduced to categorical form. 2nd Arts. : and there is to affirm that to be true which is false but the poet never affirmeth therefore though he recount things not true. (T. (L. Mods. 2nd year Hon.D. he affirmeth nothing.

(b) of rebutting a dilemma. 2.) In a dis : Explain and discuss the following assertion junctive proposition the positing of one assertion does not warrant the sublating of the other. by which from Con particular facts we pass to the knowledge of a universal law. modus ponens in Fig. and illustrate your definition.I. What are the essential characteristics of the Dilemma ? How many different kinds of Dilemma are recognized ? Give an example (in symbols) of each. 1905. 1905. by a typical example of causa tion as determined by experiment.) E E . 1906. with illustrations. 1906. Inter. science by examples taken from any of the Natural Sciences.) : 8. 2nd Arts. Arts.&quot. Explain and illustrate the nature of Induction and its relation Illustrate the importance of both processes in to Deduction.) arguments. 1905. 1904. 1. Indicate the most common sources of fallacy in dilemmatic (L. Given that through satisfying the examiners or through payment of a fee.U. (a) has both satisfied the examiners and paid his fees ? (b) &quot. 417 alteration. (O. M. Mods.) 9. 2nd Arts.QUESTIONS ON LOGIC material Fig. : X X (L. investigation. 4. Arts. EXERCISE XIV.I.) what Science understands by the Cause of an event. (R. 1907. 1906. Explain which is often used fallaciously.U. as it is used in inductive (G. what conclusions can be drawn from the following has neither satisfied the examiners nor paid his fees.) 3. because we often overlook one of the possible alternatives. Inter. Give a concrete example of the dilem ma to illustrate your remarks. 1906. sider to what extent and for what reasons the multiplication of instances is necessary to the formation of a valid induction. Matr. modus tollens in Discuss and illustrate these statements. Discuss the logical value (a) of constructing. 4. (R. Mods.) If a student is a man.I. &quot.U. (O.&quot. What is the relation of the scientific conception of Cause to the conception of Cause as the sum-total of the conditions on the occurrence of which the event depends ? Can you account for the divergence between the scientific and the popular views as to the Cause ? (L. 2nd Arts. Hon. What ? syllogism 5. (R. 2 Define precisely . Inter. Arts.) proof would you offer of the rules of the hypothetical Give concrete examples in illustration of the rules. Describe carefully the inductive process. though the sublating of one posits the other. (L. 1902.A. he gains his degree either 6. Analyse the conception of Cause.) A dilemma is a complex hypothetical argument x 7. i.

(R. 1906. and if so. The final good of man is to be realized amine the following only in virtuous action. 2nd Arts. sorites . 5. 1903. and prove them briefly. Is there a parity between the function of the dictum de omni In deduction. What are its dangers ? .) &quot. as an inductive process.A. (G. Examine the claims of a Perfect Induction (O. &quot. 1908. 1906. Describe the Inductive Syllogism of Aristotle. M . No inference is possible unless a general ment has been made in the background. * 5&amp. Mods.C. (O. State the rules of the Sorites.) EXERCISE XV. .) How far 7. State precisely what you understand by Is it capable of proof. &quot.&quot. unless the will be also right and the Tightness of will depends on ordered habits of the soul. Estimate the logical value and the practical utility of the argument and state whether in your opinion it is rightly termed an inductive : argument.) * 8.D. That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a pro position and implies no more contradiction. 4. 1906. Discuss Mill s view that the principle of the uniformity of Nature is arrived at by Induction. Explain with examples the Aristotelian Enthymeme. M. &quot. of what kind ? nature. But action will not be right and virtuous. Define the conception of Cause as used in Science. 1905. than the affirmation that it will rise &quot. (b) of plurality of effects ? (L. (L.4i 8 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC State and examine the grounds on which the following state : 5. 4.A 1907. B. : The contrary M.U.&quot. epichirema. Inter. Is a plurality of causes possible ? Cessante causa. 1904.) Explain and illustrate the nature of analogical reasoning. Arts.A. 1905. What is meant by the assertion of certain logicians that is a more correct term than the Uni the Unity of Nature ? formity of Nature Critically examine the doctrine presup posed by the former of these expressions. : 2. 7. Comment on the following &quot. &quot.I. M. 3. Hon. EXERCISE XVI. and give a (T. because it can never imply a contradiction. Consider carefully the relation of the principle of the Uni formity of Nature to the inductive process. 1.) symbolical example of each.) proposition 6. cessat effectus.v i. 2nd year Hon. and that again springs from right : : general principles. to be regarded Mods. (G.gt. 1905.A.Sc.) Explain. is the conception consistent with the admission (a) of plurality of causes. be somewhere (G.) (G. Ex 3.) of every matter of fact is still possible. Define polysyllogism. &quot. (Hums). and the principle of Uniformity In Induction ? the uniformity of 2. 6.

1903. 2nd Arts. -2nd Arts.QUESTIONS ON LOGIC 5. : (b) (c) (d) Socrates is a man Cleon is not Socrates therefore Cleon is not a man.) 6. B. Mods.) 6. &quot. Under what conditions can we infer causal connexion be tween two phenomena on the ground of the observed frequency of their concurrence ? Illustrate the fallacies incident to such inference. can become a slave.&quot. 1905. How far does Mill recognize this ? How is the precept to be carried out ? (O. 3. and distinguish a fallacy from a false belief. Railways are never ill-managed. of your divisions.Sc.) 2. 5. (O. Explain the distinction between logical and material fallacies. because every one is born with all : : his original rights. because no one from being a (R. gical argument syllogistic ? (R. 1906. (O. Consider the following Counsel : There was no written agreement for the sale of this (e) : No one carpet. you don t have a written agreement when you buy a loaf.) person can become a thing. Mods.I. Classify the fallacies which are incident to Formal Reasoning. 2nd Arts. (L.U.I.) three of the following inferences metaphor metaphor is poetry therefore slang : : : poetry.) Define the term Fallacy as employed in Logic. : Examine and name (a) Slang is is (R. Aristotle is a word of four syllables Aristotle is acute therefore acute is a word of four syllables. Inter. No one is born a slave. and not merely count them. and give one example under each 4. 8.I. 1906.) EXERCISE XVII.) recognized fallacies. A dido secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter (and the converse). 1902. Composition. Mods. 1906. Plaintiff : Well. : t cover a floor with a loaf. (O. and name any fallacies they may contain (a) Ill-managed business is unprofitable. illustrating by some of the most conspicuous examples of each Counsel You don Plaintiff : kind.In Analogy we must weigh the points of agreement. : . 1901. Arts. (L. Division. 1904. : Explain and cipii. illustrate the following fallacies Petitio prinIgnoratio Elenchi. 419 Is the analo Distinguish between Induction and Analogy. Test the following arguments. Therefore all railways are profitable. Neither do you eat a carpet.U.) 7.U. 1906. Mods. Illustrate from current controversies any of the commonly 1.

) of Logic aims at being not the Physics but the Ethics Thought (Sigwart). for every man has a right to inculcate his opinions. ment.I. What special view on this subject is implied by the use of the word Organon as a name for Aristotle s logical treatises ? Arithmetic and its fundamental principles are independent 4. &quot. do we owe to the influence of Bacon ? How far is the novel element a legitimate development of the principles of the science ? EXERCISE XIX.I. and Metaphysics.) 2.420 (6) PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC A vacuum is objects. 2nd Arts. Hon. 6. 1896. 2. but cannot (O.) Write out the principal heads of one or more celebrated classifications of Fallacies.U. How far does this description seem to you appropriate (G. 1905. and why is experiment 4. 7. (L. When &quot. Discuss the relation between Logic historical references. 1901. How far have they a claim to absolute validity ? Notice any systems which seem to you to have violated one or other of them. 1904.) Experiment differ from Observation ? Is the difference fundamental ? Show the dependence of Observation far does How .) prove causation. Arts. (R. What important features of Logic as it is at present taught.C. B.) Discuss the position of Logic among the Sciences. 3. Logic has been described as a machine for combating fal 9.A. 5. 1904.S. Discuss this statement. : if there is nothing between The governor of a country ought not to be blamed for using his influence to further his religious views. Observation and Experiment (supposing no aid from deduction) can ascertain sequences and coexistences.&quot. explaining the terms employed. 3.) 10.) EXERCISE XVIII. Discuss this state &quot. Examine. Quidquid existit est singulars. Discuss these two Scholastic principles. 1902. Mathematics. ? (L. Scientia est de un-iver- salibus. 1905. they (c) impossible for must touch. 1905. What do you hold to be the essentials of a truly scientific 1. Inter. &quot.U. lacy. Mods. &quot. -znd Arts. ? M. giving (I. has Observation more advantages than Experiment ? Experiment usually more advantageous than Observ ation ? (R.&quot. Hon. 1. Physics.&quot. of our experiences and the order of the world. (L.A. Consider critically the Aristotelian division of Philosophy into Metaphysics. Matr.

Mods. and give a concrete example. 1908.) 10.) 3.I.I. Inter.) Analyse and describe in logical terms the method by which any important discovery of recent years was made. while the would Inductive Logic proceed to investigate the upon character of any one of the following (a) climate. 2nd Arts. 1904. (O. 1905. . Inter. Method of Agreement requires many Method of Difference is satisfied with one precise experiment. Examine and explain Mill s view that Plurality of Causes renders the Method of Agreement uncertain. Distinguish carefully between the Method of Difference and the Method of Residues.) 9.) EXERCISE XX.) 6. The Plurality of Causes must be considered as something which actually occurs in Nature. Arts. 1905. How far does the validity of any of the Inductive Methods depend on the possibility of expressing Cause and Effect qu an titively ? (O. Explain why the instances. examples of cases where its application is extremely profitable. Arts. Explain the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference.) 11. Mods.) Give 2. Mods. Can the Method of Residues be fairly considered inductive in character ? (O. Inter.U. Explain the Method of Concomitant Variations. 1904.) 7. How influence : &quot. 1906. Arts. duction. Explain and discuss this statement. Mods. Mods.) is What of the senses the logical character of the appeal to the testimony witness to the ? Does this testimony really bear ? motion of the sun relatively to the earth (L. (c) an artistic profession ? (O. Mods.) 4. and which as often as it occurs. (L. (O. 1907. 12.) (O. 1906. 1906. 1906. 1906. 2nd Arts. What does Mill mean by Cause adequate for the discovery of causes ? How far are in his Mods. (O. ought to be capable of being discovered by the methods of in 8. Arts. and inference. 1905.QUESTIONS ON LOGIC on previous knowledge. Inter. Mods. On what presuppositions What are its defects and its is the former method applicable utility in scientific discovery ? (L.) his methods own sense of the word ? (O. 421 it in what sense always involves (L.&quot.U. 1905. and point out the limitations attending its use.) 5. (b) athletics. 5. (R. 1. Show exactly how Mill s Method of Agreement differs from ? Simple Enumeration. Why is the Method of Agreement of little value. as compared with the Method of Difference ? (R. 1906.

) 2. . Show that a rejected hypothesis need not necessarily have been fruitless. 4. (O. Consider these statements. is &quot. 1904. Examine and illustrate the characteristics of (L.&quot.) Hypothesis as a conscious process of scientific investigation. to Induction. this.Sc. Distinguish the different processes included in or subservient and discuss the relations of Induction to Description. Arts. Science never explains she only reduces complex events to simple ones of the same kind.) 4.) law as em 3.S. Men are now cured of their passion for Hypotheses 5.) Induction is 5. B. &quot. (C. Inter. Hypothesis is induction looked at from the inside. tripos. Inter. 1905.&quot. The object of Science is explanation. 1901. 2nd Arts. 1903. and Explanation. Prev. &quot. 1906. the object of Explanation ? Describe and illustrate its principal forms. Mods. What &quot. Indicate carefully the meaning of the term ployed in natural science. 1903. Inter. 1906. and show in what way each is deductive. Sc. Hypothesis. 1.U. (L.) 1.) 6.&quot. as when she deals with certain phe nomena of magnetism by supposing every ultimate unit of the substance to act as if it were a magnet.C. but to explain them. (C. Mor. A truly universal law is not a demonstrable truth. an hypothesis ? How is an hypothesis verified ? Which of the empirical methods is fruitful in hypotheses ? Which might be fruitfully used for verification of an hypothesis ? (R. What different views of the nature and function of hypothesis are represented by these statements ? (I. Arts. Comment on the following All knowledge is founded ulti mately on Induction.) 7. Illustrate the use of hypothesis in scientific explanation. Arts. Mods. Hypothesis of Law. 1905. 1907. (Hume). (L. : : EXERCISE XXII.422 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC EXERCISE XXI. The secondary application of the Deductive Method is not to prove laws of phenomena. : &quot.) (L. Bring out the full meaning of the dictum that the Inverse of Deduction. Comment on the phrase Hypotheses non fingo as employed by Newton and explain the expression vera causa. all reasoning on Deduction. Distinguish between empirical laws. Discuss 1906. Hypothesis of Cause.I. Enumerate the different kinds of explanation recognized by Mill. : laws of nature.) Working hypo Explain and comment on the expressions thesis. What is 2. 3. (O. and ultimate laws.

Arts. which in the dusk can see.&quot. of Discovery.) 5. 423 Explain the importance of Measurement in inductive investi Notice the circumstances which principally contribute gation. does it follow that induction should be based on the theory of Probability ? (L. Explain the expressions Illustrate : Method Method of Instruction.&quot. to There is no such thing as Chance. to render Measurement a task of difficulty. Inter. Classification ? Explain and Artificial Classifications. absolutely free from doubt. 1. probability. by examples the practical importance of this distinction. 3. 3. XXV. and the signification which the words possess in the physical sciences on the other ? The human intellect was well compared by the Schoolmen 3. to the eye of the owl. There is no such thing as Chance. we should rightly attribute to Providence. Does either of them contain an adequate account of Chance ? 4. 2. Discuss these statements. What we attribute to Chance.QUESTIONS ON LOGIC EXERCISE XXIII. Determine the province of the theory of Probability in in If it be admitted that no result of inductive reasoning is duction. Illustrate by examples. 2. 1 . EXERCISE XXIV. To attribute an event Chance is merely a way of saying that we are ignorant of its cause. 1905. . Explain what Is meant by the doctrine of philosophical &quot. Give the rules of Classification and notice the chief diffi culties which attend the task of establishing a valid Classification. determination &quot. In what senses have the terms Analysis and Synthesis been employed by writers on Logic ? Is there anything common to these senses on one hand. What do you hold to be the relation between Logical Division and 4. Carefully consider the statement that accurate quantitative is the ultimate stage in the establishment of every scientific theory. but is blinded by the brighter light of day. 2. noticing the of each. and Classification by Series EXERCISE 1. Not without reason did they &quot. * 5. Discuss the value of Natural Classification as a scientific : method. What ? between Natural and purpose and characteristics objections have been felt by some in admitting illustrate the distinction this distinction What is meant by Classification by ? Type.

4. How far can it be said that the attainment of truth in philo sophy. What is to be *j. To what extent is it possible to prescribe rules for the meth odic conduct of our thought in the pursuit of truth ? Examine critically familiar.424 PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC to distinguish between those things which are better known Nature. Briefly explain Leibniz s theory of Method. thought regarding his views on Identical propositions ? .&quot. Show that they no longer can be regarded as possessing any philosophical value. depends on the employment of an accurate philosophic terminology ? *6. and those which are better known to us. Give Descartes Rules of Method. any such scheme of rules with which you may be 5. Discuss.

Simple. 39 their metaphysical Categories. 127 Accidents. composi combina plurality . 389 . 222 tion of causes. their logical aspect. 255 elimination 369 chance. 246 Axioms. 30 Action. 243 . 165 Collective terms. 24. Joint mining cause. 246 of causes. Analytically-formed 157 Antecedent. 15 Conceptualist view of Logic. 116 Assertoric propositions. 109 Complex conception. 106 false analogy. 8 . 138 Added Determinants. 64 Apodictic propositions. their relation to science. . predicates. 19 Categorical proposition. 156 Causes. 23 Collective use of term. 275 ad dictum Canon of syllogism. 393 : by series. aspect. . 296 Artificial Classification. 137. 246 Chains of reasoning. 275 Abstract terms. 274 Accidents. . Fallacy of. 277 Argumentum a silentio. 142 . 103 Complex propositions. 322 Amphibology. 38 Compartmental view. of Analysis.INDEX OF SUBJECTS A dicto simpliciter quid. 3 Approximation. sification. Mill s cate Kant s categories. cause in esse method of. Fallacy of. 270 Compound effects. 367 Argumentwn ad hominem. 269 Analogous terms. 392 Co-division. 23 Abstraction.. Logical. cation. 377 425 Compound propositions. Concept of. 60 Apprehension. 246 tion of causes. classification by . 35 Analogy. 53n Being. . 393 difficulties incident to classifi cation. Category of. 56 ^Esthetics. 272 Accident. 358 286 . type. 148 Causal definitions. 16 Accent. 259. Adversative propositions. Fallacy of. 138 Categorematic words. doctrine of the four. 147 . 56 Comprehension. 60 Attribute. etc. 279 Arithmetical quantity. Methods of. 6 Affirmative propositions. 3. Chance. 46 Agreement. 395 Analytic propositions. gories. 321 Agreement and difference. 382 Artificial Division. 220 deter . 22 Concept. 372 Class-inclusion view. 145 . 70 Bernouilli s theorem. as a classification of 144 . 32 Absolute and qualified statement. . cessat effectus. 55 Composition and division. . 187 secundwn Absolute terms. Real. 51 definitions. and cause in fieri. 391 . Method of. 102 Capacity and incapacity. 162 Classification. 157 definition of cause. 247 Cessante causa. 380 artificial clas natural classi 382 rules of classifi fication. 3 Attributive view.

90 Contrary terms. 93 of. . 109. Differentia. Epichirema. 64. 207 Disposition. 171 sequence. 22 Extremes. 221 . Concomitant variations. 38 Division. 33 Crucial instance. de reciproco. 342 various kinds Definition. . 57 Existence. 86. 98 Equivocal terms. 171 Fallacy. False Cause. i. 337 by hypothe reasoning. 255 Equational view. . 317 Experimental methods. de exemplo. 57 Extension. various kinds of division. limits of definition. 1 152. 253 . 324 Concrete terms. 66 Connotation. 69 Contradictory Opposition. 209 Discretive propositions. 123 Essential definitions. 320 by regressive Explanation. 1 86 fourth figure. 267 . 132 3. 26 Connotative terms. . dis Conclusion. natural ex periment. 284 Conjunctive propositions. 169 Deductive Method. 362 Figure. Aristotelian 188. Contrary Opposition. 316. 242 Conditional propositions. Fallacy of. 315 experiment. 66 Confusion. . 35 Equivocation. 73 Exclusive propositions. 89 Contradictory terms. 86. 161 . 30 Denotation. Mill s. 26 tical deduction. 56 Correlatives. 306 Deduction. Newtonian Desitive propositions. Diagrammatic representation. 103 . 166 Dictum de omni et nullo. 341 . 279 Contradiction. 24 of. 1 50 . 293 Euler s circles. Fallacies rules of division. 56 . Enthymeme. 187 Dictum de diverse. 159 Denominatives. 280 Fact. 93 modal con Consequence. list definition of. no. 177 of the figures. 170 INDEX OF SUBJECTS Disjunctive propositions. 339 . nition. 268 Essence. 97 Converse relation. 322 excepto. 252 enthymeme. 77 Dichotomy. Method of. Method of. Principle of. positive and negative conditions. 113 Experientia. 170 Consequent. 267 . 146 Copulative propositions. 1 90 de . division by dichotomy. 23 Condition. 191 . 165 1 1 . 344 Exponible propositions. 123 Dilemma. 64. 138 Distinctive definitions. of definition. 66 68 . Implication of. 65 junctive syllogisms. 5. 138 rules Figures of syllogism. 104 Consequent. 282 190. . Principle of. 59 rules of defi negative Experiment. 37 Contraposition. . 155 Ethics. 310. 233 Copula. 154 Distribution of terms. Mill s of. 222 explanation. 57. 195 Enumerative judgments. 191 Difference. 57 Determining cause. 78 Exceptive propositions. 5. 37 Aristotle s proof Conversion. Eduction. 100 . 57 Excluded Middle. 146 Equipollence. Fallacy of.426 Conceptualism. 40. 264 Aristotle s list of. 190. 1 79 superiority of fig. 256 Episyllogism. 81 Distributive use of term.

definitions of. no. 138 . 38 Mathematical reasoning. 120 Hypothetical Syllogisms. 173 middle. 170. 359 of hypothesis. 155 of Logic. origin of hypo conditions of valid various kinds hypothesis. . 2 sions of. Mill s. 178 tern moods. 71 Ignoratio Elenchi. 138 tative habit. other than syllogistic. 200 Infinite terms. 1 3 14 Logic and Metaphysics. 1 2 . various senses 68 . Doctrine of. First Modal consequence. 296 Metaphysical necessity. Principle of. 402 Leibniz on method. 246 Inverse method. Illicit process Mai-observation. analysis of judg Natural classification. 7 . 338 Generalization. 182 . 175 Mnemonic lines. 364** Middle term. ence. 6. prop. 308 . 363 Means. Method of. Inference. 285 175 Many questions. 343 Inversion. 163 of. ment. divi Logic. Major. 389 Natural division. . Modern Logic. 354. descriptive hy pothesis. Sym Genus. Illicit process of. 369 laws. . 34 Intermixture of effects. 21 Generalization. Important characters. 404 Methodic conduct of thought. 174 Minor. 199 Mathematical truths. 281 Many-worded terms. scope of Logic. 273 First Intention. 67 ultimate empirical law. 42 3 . 12. 215 perfect and im perfect induction. 182 thought. 101 Name.. 203 Hypothesis. 3. 386 Negative terms. laws of General terms. 228 . 40 Heteropathic effects. 275 Implication of existence. 38 gic. Formal Logic. 181 . immediate inferences infer 92 . 8 1 1 history Scholastic Logic. 341 Hypothetical propositions. Hamilton s postulate. Fallacies of. 4 Ground. 34 Forma totius. . 162 Natural selection. 238 Measurement. 49 Induction. 58 Moods of syllogism. 104 Modal propositions. 12 quali Hegelian Logic. 31 .. 19 Judgment. 398 . 32 Intension. 338 Least squares. . Inductive Transcendental Lo Logic. 57 Indesignate propositions. truth of hypoth. 113 . 369 derivative laws. 368 . 119 Habit. 298 Logical use of terms. . i. method of. Category of. bolic Logic. 395 of method. 119. Identity. prop. their neces their nature. 3 . 1 3 . 22 Intention. 295n sity.INDEX OF SUBJECTS Figure of Speech. 361 357 . 63 import of hypoth. . . . 49 Genetic definitions. 20 Material use of term. . Generic propositions. 3 a science or an art. . 310 Metre. 368 Metaphysics. Fundamental syllogisms. . 238 Descartes rules Method. 321 Inductive syllogism. . ambiguous undistributed middle. 355 thesis. 246 Hypothetical deduction. Logical Whole and Part. 231 Inductive methods. Fallacy of. 390 Inceptive propositions. Methodology. I58n 427 of the term. Law. subal and Second. 284 5 . 124 Grammar.

50 reduction to logical form. Category of. 6. 257 . 20 21 terms. 31 Posture. Quantity of propositions. Category of. 256 Progressive syllogisms. 324 Rules of Philosophizing. Square of. 56 Repugnant Concepts. relation of premisses to conclusion. 194 Relation. Fallacies 284 . of. 133 ated realism. Exagger Paradox. 235 Physics. 284 Obversion. definition. Single-worded terms. 98 Omitted determinants. 123 Ratiocination. 285 Observation. specu lative and regulative sciences. Passive. s. ostensive reduction. 293 Place. . Aristotelian. 144 Second Intentions. Property. 267 Paralogism. 137 Question. 259 doctrine of natural Species. 34 Simple inspection. . 39 . 384 . Mathematical. 6 Quality of propositions. 108 Quantitative determination. 137 Quality. 46 s Rules of Philosophizing. 32 Remotive propositions. Singular singular propositions. 297 J . Realist view of Logic. 38 Realism. Fallacies of. 165 Particular proposition. 256 Regressive syllogisms. Logical. Category of. 152 Real use of term. 122 Sorites. 135 . 296 as a Opposition. fourfold . 46 Quantity. 3. 15 Philosophy. 138 Relative terms.428 INDEX OF SUBJECTS Prosyllogism. Method of. 8 Non-connotative terms. Regressive reasoning. 373 philosophical probability. Fallacies of. 108 Predicative View. 5. 46 Quality. 255 Porphyry. 138 Predicables of Porphyry. 5 Quantification of. subjective part. 206 . 290 . 21 . Category of. Science. Tree of. 284 Opposition of terms. reduction of hypothetical 184 propositions. 88 . 36 Real definition. 31 Probability. 170. 133 Nominalist view of Logic. Newton 349 121 . 152 Psychology. Category of. Aristotle s Predicables. 105 Premisses. 60 Progressive reasoning. definition of. 255 Newton 349 Negative propositions. 194 Proper names. 18 Residues. Moderate. logical analysis of the sciences. 24 Non-observation. 47 of. 290 Physical necessity. 126 Proposition. 138 Quantification of predicate. 182 tion. 102 Ontology. 184. 8 Passion. 267 Goclenian sorites. 267 Part. 131 Predicate. 278 Quiddity. 363 Nominal Nominalism. scheme of propositions. . 378 Problematic propositions. Category Petitio principii. 163 . 310 Observation. Phantasm. 3. 61 species. 3 Indirect reduc Reduction. 85 means of inference. 138 Polysyllogisms. 138 278 Reasoning. 49 Sophism. 2 93 practical sciences. 189 Privative terms. 129 Positive terms.

85 Subalternate. . 3. 35 1 1 1 igon Syncategorematic words. 362 Time. propositions. 2^n Subjective part. 172 syllogism. 165 Substance. 218. 395 340 Synthetic propositions. 24. 20 3. I Uniformity of Nature. 23 . 18 . Subject of predication. 235 Unity of Nature. 85 Subcontrary opposition. 207 syllogismus expo. 248 Universal concepts. 132 Universal terms. 16 . 279 Via doctrinae and via inventionis. Suppositio. 138 Trilemma. Logical. 182 Subalternant. primary and secondary substances. universal and reflex universals. Univocal terms. . 163 . . . 195 logism.INDEX OF SUBJECTS Strengthened syllogisms. direct . 88 Subaltern moods. Vicious circle. 137. 87 Subdivision. Terminology. 37 of rules 3. Synthesis. 228 hypothetical syl logism. 164 429 definitions. Synthetically-formed 157 Terms. 19 sitorius. 21 . 209 Truth. 203 disjunctive syllo gism. Syllogism. 46 Universe of discourse. validity of inductive syl syllogism. subject of inhesion. 1 34 controversy on universals. Category of. 30 category of substance. 169. 2$n . 182 Subaltern opposition. 122 Substantial terms. divisions of terms. 5. 209 Theory. 401 Tetralernma. 51 Whole.

142*1. 152**.S. 377 Baynes. Alexander of Aphrodisias. 333 J. 13. 2307* Gerard. 1 1 1 Bain. 7 of. S. O. 76. 167 7. 224** Jevons. 115 Champeaux. Mr. Prof. H. 10. Huxley. 132*1. 135 Avicenna. 58. Cte. vii Hermise. vii 1 Mansel. 132*1. Dr. Antoine. 164*1. 1 Albertus Magnus. 200. that no useful pur . 201. 192. viii. 103*1. 66. 92. 234 Vorges. William Condillac. 54. 148. 74. 302. 389 278. 39811 Berkeley. 232*1. 163*1. J. Cournot. 69. T. 12. 142 Wulf. 347?. 46. S. 340 Kant... 385 Goudin. iiiw. ioo. 304 Bailie. 88. xi Descartes. 176. 98*1. Janet. 168. Sir W. J.. 192*1. 399 Galen. S. 61. 75.INDEX OF NAMES OF AUTHORS CITED AND REFERRED TO IN THE WORK. 10. 74*1.. 268. 82 Leibniz. 271 Brentano. 191*?. Bradley. J. Joseph. 109. S. Francis. 108. P. 175. 72. A. 9. 167. 245. Mellone. vii. io6. 297*? Antonius Andreae.. 31. 98*?.. 98.. 205. 53. 63*1. 343. 8. 222. St. 39 5 n. 402 Diderot. Louis. Victor. Maurus. 71. ix. 35. 132*1 Herbart. 314. 76. xi.. gn. 377 Boethius.... 321. are not contained in frequent. S. 66.F. 339. 266. 344 53*1. 7. HIM. 129*1 Silvester. 176*1 398n Green.. 19.J. 147*1. 398*1 Aldrich. 54. IOOM. 233. 257*1 117. 272?! Regnon. Paul. 293*2 Hegel. 374. 12. 176*1 Bosanquet. 54. J. 61. 187*1. 324. O. vii. Hobbes. 356 Joannes a Sto Thoma. 187*1 201. Mr. 60. 14 de de de de Morgan. 55. 133*1 245 35. Prof. 29874 Averroes. 258 Bacon. i62. Cardinal. 13.. 71 Lotze. 13. St.. 65. 404 Locke. 135 Ammonius Hamilton. 117 Cajetan. 73 Augustine. 308 Baudot. 222*1. 135. 13. Thomas Aquinas and this list. 135. 58. 205. 248 Grotius. 277 Bernouilli. The references to them in the work are so pose would have been served by including them. 108. 205 Keynes... 13571 Lambert. 73. Mill The names of Aristotle. inn. 132*1. 45 Case. 143*1. 379 Cuvier.

1037*. 344 309 Whewell. Dr. John. 307 Rodier. C. viii Peirce. 72 Pascal. 2907?. Dr.. J. William of. Prof. 15771. 39271 von Hartmann. 344-353. 12. 387 Watts. T. 41. 360 Pringle-Pattison.INDEX OF NAMES Mercier. 31571. 386 Read. 356 Parmenides. 108. Carveth.. 258n Welton. 15171. William. 294 Porphyry. 217. I35n.. 344 Spencer.. 83.. F. 73 Themistius. 19271.. 14471 Petrus Hispanus. Prof.. 120. 18771. 14671 Sidgwick. S. 166.. Whetham. Valla. H. M. 35. 73. 116 Versorius Parisiensis. 41 Wallace. 29271 12. 344 Prof. 260. Poynting. 29571 Wundt. M. 14... igin Newton. 341.. 41 Theophrastus. vii inn. i6in Rabier... 72. i8i Sidgwick. Prof. Ray-Lankester. 399 Pesch. M.. A. 234 ... 9. Mr. J. 121 Ueberweg. Laurentiua. 291 Sigwart. 178. 13271 Shyreswood. 32371. S. Lord. 9 Scotus. Cardinal. Prof. Archbp.. 220 Trendelenburg. 27872. S. 140 Wasmann. H. Zeno the Stoic. in. 192 Thomson. Prof. Sanderson. C. 357 Ockham. 17. 298 Osiander. Prof. 35671 12271. 258 Venn. i88w Pythagoras.. 192*1 Picavet. Andreas. i8m.. 17. 13 Suarez. 11471 Schiller. 15 in 431 Monboddo.. xii Plato.

.

.

.

Made by LIBRARY BUREAU . Ref. Acme Under Library Card Pocket Pat.UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY Do re not move the card from this Pocket. &quot.&quot. Index File.