diff options
Diffstat (limited to '30866-h/30866-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 30866-h/30866-h.htm | 5334 |
1 files changed, 5334 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/30866-h/30866-h.htm b/30866-h/30866-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..62582b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/30866-h/30866-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,5334 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Analysis of Mr. Mill's System of Logic, by W. Stebbing, M.A. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + hr.smler { width: 10%; } + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 5px; border: none; } + + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + text-indent: 0px; + } /* page numbers */ + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smaller {font-size: smaller;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .right {text-align: right;} + .tbrk {margin-bottom: 2em;} + .mynote { background-color: #DDE; color: black; padding: .5em; margin-left: 20%; + margin-right: 20%; } /* colored box for notes at beginning of file */ + .mono {font-family: monospace;} + + .fnanchor { font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Analysis of Mr. Mill's System of Logic, by +William Stebbing + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Analysis of Mr. Mill's System of Logic + +Author: William Stebbing + +Release Date: January 6, 2010 [EBook #30866] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MILL'S LOGIC *** + + + + +Produced by David Clarke, Martin Pettit and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from images generously made available +by The Internet Archive/Million Book Project) + + + + + + +</pre> + + +<div class = "mynote"><p class="center">Transcriber's Note:<br /><br /> +Greek characters that may not display correctly in all browsers are followed by a transliteration.</p></div> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</a></span></p> + +<p class="tbrk"> </p> + +<h1>ANALYSIS</h1> + +<h3>OF</h3> + +<h1>MR. MILL'S SYSTEM OF LOGIC.</h1> + +<p class="tbrk"> </p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[Pg ii]</a></span></p> + +<h2>WORKS BY JOHN STUART MILL,<br />M.P. FOR WESTMINSTER.</h2> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<blockquote><p>A SYSTEM of LOGIC, RATIOCINATIVE and INDUCTIVE. Sixth Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 25<i>s.</i></p> + +<p>An EXAMINATION of SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON'S PHILOSOPHY, and of the +Principal Philosophical Questions discussed in his Writings. Third Edition, revised. 8vo. 14<i>s.</i></p> + +<p>PRINCIPLES of POLITICAL ECONOMY, with some of their Applications to +Social Philosophy. Sixth Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 30<i>s.</i></p> + +<p>PRINCIPLES of POLITICAL ECONOMY. By <span class="smcap">John Stuart Mill</span>, M.P. People's +Edition. Crown 8vo. 5<i>s.</i></p> + +<p>CONSIDERATIONS on REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. Third Edition. 8vo. 9<i>s.</i></p> + +<p>On REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. By <span class="smcap">John Stuart Mill</span>, M.P. People's +Edition. Crown 8vo. 2<i>s.</i></p> + +<p>On LIBERTY. Third Edition. Post 8vo. 7<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i></p> + +<p>On LIBERTY. By <span class="smcap">John Stuart Mill</span>, M.P. People's Edition. Crown 8vo. +1<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i></p> + +<p>DISSERTATIONS and DISCUSSIONS, POLITICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, and +HISTORICAL. Second Edition of <span class="smcap">Vols.</span> I. and II. price 24<i>s.</i>; <span class="smcap">Vol.</span> +III., price 12<i>s.</i></p> + +<p>INAUGURAL ADDRESS delivered to the University of St. Andrew's, Feb. +1, 1867. By <span class="smcap">John Stuart Mill</span>, M.P. Rector of the University. +Library Edition (the Second), post 8vo. 5<i>s.</i> People's Edition, crown 8vo. 1<i>s.</i></p> + +<p>UTILITARIANISM. Second Edition. 8vo. 5<i>s.</i></p> + +<p>THOUGHTS on PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Second Edition, with <span class="smcap">Supplement</span>. +8vo. 1<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i></p></blockquote> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<p class="center">London: LONGMANS and CO. Paternoster Row.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p> + +<h2>ANALYSIS</h2> + +<h3>OF</h3> + +<h1>MR. MILL'S SYSTEM OF LOGIC.</h1> + +<p class="tbrk"> </p> + +<h3>BY</h3> + +<h2>W. STEBBING, M.A.</h2> + +<h4>FELLOW OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD.</h4> + +<p class="tbrk"> </p> + +<h4><i>NEW EDITION.</i></h4> + +<p class="tbrk"> </p> + +<h4>LONDON:<br />LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.<br />1867.</h4> + +<p class="tbrk"> </p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[Pg iv]</a></span></p> + +<p class="tbrk"> </p> + +<p class="center">LONDON<br />PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO.<br />NEW-STREET SQUARE</p> + +<p class="tbrk"> </p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span></p> + +<h2>PREFACE</h2> + +<h4>TO</h4> + +<h3>THE SECOND EDITION.</h3> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<p>The author's aim has been to produce such a condensation of the original +work as may recall its contents to those who have read it, and may serve +those who are now reading it in the place of a full body of marginal +notes. Mr. Mill's conclusions on the true province and method of Logic +have a high substantive value, independent even of the arguments and +illustrations by which they are supported; and these conclusions may be +adequately, and, it is believed, with much practical utility, embodied +in an epitome. The processes of reasoning on which they depend, can, on +the other hand, be represented in outline only. But it is hoped that the +substance of every paragraph, necessary for the due comprehension of the +several<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a></span> steps by which the results have been reached, will be here +found at all events suggested.</p> + +<p>The author may be allowed to add, that Mr. Mill, before publication, +expressed a favourable opinion of the manner in which the work had been +executed. Without such commendation the volume would hardly have been +offered to the public.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">London:</span> <i>Dec. 21, 1865</i>.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<table class="tbrk" summary="CONTENTS"> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td class="right"><span class="smaller">PAGE</span></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="smcap">Introduction</span></td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> </td> + <td class="right"> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <th colspan="2">BOOK I.</th> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2" class="center">NAMES AND PROPOSITIONS.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="smaller">CHAP.</span></td> + <td class="right"></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> I.</span> On the Necessity of commencing with an Analysis of Language in Logic</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_3">3</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> II.</span> Names</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_3">3</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> III.</span> The Things denoted by Names</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> IV.</span> Propositions</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> V.</span> The Import of Propositions</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_19">19</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VI.</span> Propositions merely Verbal</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_24">24</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VII.</span> The Nature of Classification, and the Five Predicables</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_26">26</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VIII.</span> Definition</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_30">30</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> </td> + <td class="right"> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <th colspan="2">BOOK II.</th> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2" class="center">REASONING.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> I.</span> Inference, or Reasoning in General</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_35">35</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> II.</span> Ratiocination, or Syllogism</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_36">36</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> III.</span> The Functions and Logical Value of the Syllogism</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_39">39</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> IV.</span> Trains of Reasoning, and Deductive Sciences</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_43">43</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono">V. & VI.</span> Demonstration and Necessary Truths</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_46">46</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</a></span></td> + <td class="right"> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <th colspan="2">BOOK III.</th> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2" class="center">INDUCTION.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> I.</span> Preliminary Observations on Induction in general</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_53">53</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> II.</span> Inductions improperly so called</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_54">54</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> III.</span> The ground of Induction</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_57">57</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> IV.</span> Laws of Nature</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_58">58</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> V.</span> The Law of Universal Causation</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_60">60</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VI.</span> The Composition of Causes</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_66">66</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VII.</span> Observation and Experiment</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_67">67</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VIII.</span><span class="mono"> & Note to IX.</span> The Four Methods of Experimental Enquiry</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_69">69</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> X.</span> Plurality of Causes, and intermixture of Effects</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_73">73</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XI.</span> The Deductive Method</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_76">76</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XII.</span><span class="mono"> & XIII.</span> The Explanation and Examples of the Explanation of Laws of Nature</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_77">77</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XIV.</span> The Limits to the Explanation of Laws of Nature; and Hypotheses</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_79">79</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XV.</span> Progressive Effects, and continued Action of Causes</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_81">81</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XVI.</span> Empirical Laws</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_83">83</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XVII.</span> Chance, and its Elimination</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_85">85</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XVIII.</span> The Calculation of Chances</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XIX.</span> The Extension of Derivative Laws to Adjacent Cases</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_89">89</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XX.</span> Analogy</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_91">91</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XXI.</span> The Evidence of the Law of Universal Causation</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_92">92</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XXII.</span> Uniformities of Coexistence not dependent on Causation</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_94">94</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XXIII.</span> Approximate Generalisations, and Probable Evidence</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_96">96</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XXIV.</span> The remaining Laws of Nature</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_99">99</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XXV.</span> The grounds of Disbelief</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_103">103</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> </td> + <td class="right"> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <th colspan="2">BOOK IV.</th> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2" class="center">OPERATIONS SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> I.</span> Observation and Description</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_107">107</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> II.</span> Abstraction, or the Formation of Conceptions</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_108">108</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> III.</span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[Pg ix]</a></span> Naming as Subsidiary to Induction</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_111">111</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> IV.</span> The Requisites of a Philosophical Language, and the Principles of Definition</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_112">112</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> V.</span> The Natural History of the Variation in the Meaning of Terms</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_115">115</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VI.</span> Terminology and Nomenclature</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_117">117</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VII.</span> Classification, as Subsidiary to Induction</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_121">121</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VIII.</span> Classification by Series</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_124">124</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> </td> + <td class="right"> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <th colspan="2">BOOK V.</th> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2" class="center">FALLACIES.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> I.</span> Fallacies in general</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_127">127</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> II.</span> Classification of Fallacies</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_128">128</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> III.</span> Fallacies of Simple Inspection; or, à priori Fallacies</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_130">130</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> IV.</span> Fallacies of Observation</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_134">134</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> V.</span> Fallacies of Generalisation</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_137">137</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VI.</span> Fallacies of Ratiocination</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_141">141</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VII.</span> Fallacies of Confusion</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_143">143</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> </td> + <td class="right"> </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <th colspan="2">BOOK VI.</th> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2" class="center">ON THE LOGIC OF THE MORAL SCIENCES.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> I.</span> Introductory Remarks</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_148">148</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> II.</span> Liberty and Necessity</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_148">148</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> III.</span> There is, or may be, a Science of Human Nature</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_150">150</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> IV.</span> The Laws of Mind</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_151">151</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> V.</span> Ethology, or the Science of the Formation of Character</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_153">153</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VI.</span> General Considerations on the Social Science</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_155">155</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VII.</span> The Chemical, or Experimental, Method in the Social Science</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_156">156</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> VIII.</span> The Geometrical, or Abstract Method</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_157">157</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> IX.</span> The Physical, or Concrete Deductive Method</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_158">158</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> X.</span> The Inverse Deductive, or Historical Method</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_161">161</a></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="mono"> XI.</span> The Logic of Practice, or Art; including Morality and Policy</td> + <td class="right"><a href="#Page_165">165</a></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> + +<h2>ANALYSIS</h2> + +<h3>OF</h3> + +<h1>MILL'S LOGIC.</h1> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<h2>INTRODUCTION.</h2> + +<p>No adequate definition is possible till the properties of the thing to +be defined are known. Previously we can define only the scope of the +inquiry. Now, Logic has been considered as both the science of +reasoning, i.e. the analysis of the mental process when we reason, and +the art of reasoning, i.e. the rules for the process. The term +<i>reasoning</i>, however, is not wide enough. <i>Reasoning</i> means either +syllogising, or (and this is its truer sense) the drawing inferences +from assertions already admitted. But the Aristotelian or Scholastic +logicians included in Logic terms and propositions, and the Port Royal +logicians spoke of it as equivalent to the art of thinking. Even +popularly, accuracy of classification, and the extent of command over +premisses, are thought clearer signs of logical powers than accuracy of +deduction. On the other hand, the definition of logic as a 'science +treating of the operations of the understanding in the search of truth,' +though wide enough, would err through including truths known from +intuition; for, though doubtless many seeming intuitions are processes +of inference, questions as to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span> what facts are <i>real intuitions</i> belong +to Metaphysics, not to Logic.</p> + +<p>Logic is the science, not of Belief, but of Proof, or Evidence. Almost +all knowledge being matter of inference, the fields of Logic and of +Knowledge coincide; but the two differ in so far that Logic does not +find evidence, but only judges of it. All science is composed of data, +and conclusions thence: Logic shows what relations must subsist between +them. All inferential knowledge is true or not, according as the laws of +Logic have been obeyed or not. Logic is Bacon's <i>Ars Artium</i>, the +science of sciences. Genius sometimes employs laws unconsciously; but +only genius: as a rule, the advances of a science have been ever found +to be preceded by a fuller knowledge of the laws of Logic applicable to +it. Logic, then, may be described as the science of the operations of +the understanding which aid in the estimation of evidence. It includes +not only the process of proceeding from the known to the unknown, but, +as auxiliary thereto, Naming, Definition, and Classification. +Conception, Memory, and other like faculties, are not treated by it; but +it presupposes them. Our object, therefore, must be to analyse the +process of inference and the subsidiary operations, besides framing +canons to test any given evidence. We need not, however, carry the +analysis beyond what is necessary for the practical uses of Logic; for +one step in analysis is good without a second, and our purpose is simply +to see the difference between good and ill processes of inference. +Minuter analysis befits Metaphysics; though even that science, when +stepping beyond the interrogation of our consciousness, or rather of our +memory, is, as all other sciences, amenable to Logic.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p> + +<h2>BOOK I</h2> + +<h3>NAMES AND PROPOSITIONS.</h3> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> + +<h3>ON THE NECESSITY OF COMMENCING WITH AN ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE IN LOGIC.</h3> + +<p>The fact of Logic being a portion of the art of thinking, and of +thought's chief instrument being words, is one reason why we must first +inquire into the right use of words. But further, the import of +propositions cannot really be examined apart from that of words; and +(since whatever can be an object of belief assumes the form of a +proposition, and in propositions all truth and error lie) this is a +paramount reason why we must, as a preliminary, consider the import of +names, the neglecting which, and confining ourselves to things, would +indeed be to discard all past experience. The right method is, to take +men's classifications of things as shown by names, correcting them as we proceed.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> + +<h3>NAMES.</h3> + +<p>Hobbes's assertion that a name is a sign, not of a thing, but of our +conception of it, is untrue (unless he merely mean that the conception, +and not the thing itself, is imparted to the hearer); for we intend<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> by +a name, not only to make men conceive what we conceive, but to inform +them what we believe as to the things themselves.</p> + +<p>Names may be divided according to five principles of classification. The +<i>first</i> way of dividing them is into General (not as equivalent to +Collective) and Individual names; the <i>second</i>, into Concrete, i.e. the +names of objects, and Abstract, i.e. the names of attributes (though +Locke improperly extends the term to all names gained by abstraction, +that is, to all general names). An abstract name is sometimes general, +e.g. colour, and sometimes singular, e.g. milk-whiteness. It may be +objected to calling attributes abstract, that also concrete adjectives, +e.g. white, are attributes. But a word is the name of the things of +which it can be predicated. Hence, white is the name of all things so +coloured, given indeed because of the quality, but really the name of +the thing, and no more the name of the quality than are names generally, +since every one of them, if it signifies anything at all, must imply an attribute.</p> + +<p>The <i>third</i> division is into Connotative and Non-connotative (the latter +being wrongly called Absolute). By <i>connotative</i> are meant, not (as Mr. +James Mill explains it) words which, pointing directly to one thing, +tacitly refer to another, but words which denote a subject and imply an +attribute; while <i>non-connotatives</i> signify a subject only, or attribute +only. All concrete general names are connotative. They are also called +<i>denominative</i>, because the subject denoted receives a common name (e.g. +snow is named white) from the attribute connoted. Even some abstracts +are connotative, for attributes may have <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span>attributes ascribed to them, +and a word which denotes attributes may connote an attribute of them; +e.g. fault connotes hurtfulness. Proper names, on the other hand, though +concrete, are not connotative. They are merely distinguishing marks, +given perhaps originally for a reason, but, when once given, independent +of it, since the reason is proved to be no part of the sense of the word +by the fact that the name is still used when the reason is forgotten. +But other individual names are connotative. Some of these, viz. those +connoting some attribute or some set of attributes possessed by one +object only, e.g. Sun, God, are really general names, though happening +to be predicable only of a single object. But there are also real +connotative individual names, part of whose meaning is, that there +exists only one individual with the connoted attribute, e.g. The first +Emperor, The father of Socrates; and it is so with many-worded names, +made up of a general name limited by other words, e.g. The present Prime +Minister of England. In short, the meaning of all names, which have any +meaning, resides, not in what they denote, but in what they connote. +There perpetually, however, arises a difficulty of deciding how much +they do connote, that is, what difference in the object would make a +difference in the name. This vagueness comes from our learning the +connotation, through a rude generalisation and analysis, from the +objects denoted. Thus, men use a name without any precise reference to a +definite set of attributes, applying it to new objects on account of +superficial resemblance, so that at length all common meaning +disappears. Even scientific writers, from ignorance, or from the +aversion<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> which men at large feel to the use of new names, often force +old terms to express an ever-growing number of distinctions. But every +concrete general name should be given a definite connotation with the +least possible change in the denotation; and this is what is aimed at in +every definition of a general name already in use. But we must not +confound the use of names of indeterminate connotation, which is so +great an evil, with the employment, necessitated by the paucity of names +as compared with the demand, of the same words with different +connotations in different relations.</p> + +<p>A <i>fourth</i> division of names is into Positive and Negative. When the +positive is connotative, so is the corresponding negative, for the +non-possession of an attribute is itself an attribute. Names negative in +form, e.g. unpleasant, are often really positive; and others, e.g. idle, +sober, though seemingly positive, are really negative. Privatives are +names which are equivalent each to a positive and a negative name taken +together. They connote both the absence of certain attributes, and the +presence of others, whence the presence of the defaulting ones might +have been expected. Thus, blind would be applied only to a non-seeing +member of a seeing class.</p> + +<p>The <i>fifth</i> division is into Relative and (that we may economise the +term Absolute for an occasion when none other is available) Non-relative +names. Correlatives, when concrete, are of course connotative. A +relation arises from two individuals being concerned in the same series +of facts, so that the signification of neither name can be explained +except by mentioning another: and any two correlatives connote, not the +same attribute indeed, but just this series of facts, which is exactly +the same in both cases.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span></p><p>Some make a <i>sixth</i> division, viz. Univocals, i.e. names predicated of +different individuals in the same sense, and Æquivocals, i.e. names +predicated of different individuals in different senses. But these are +not two kinds of names, but only two modes of using them; for an +æquivocal name is two names accidentally coinciding in sound. An +intermediate case is that of a name used analogically or metaphorically, +that is, in two senses, one its primary, the other its secondary sense. +The not perceiving that such a word is really two has produced many fallacies.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER III.</h2> + +<h3>THE THINGS DENOTED BY NAMES.</h3> + +<p>Logic is the theory of Proof, and everything provable can be exhibited +as a proposition, propositions alone being objects of belief. Therefore, +the import of propositions, that is, the import of predication, must be +ascertained. But, as to make a proposition, i.e. to predicate, is to +assert one <i>thing</i> of another <i>thing</i>, the way to learn the import of +predication is, by discovering what are the <i>things</i> signified by names +which are capable of being subject or predicate. It was with this object +that Aristotle formed his Categories, i.e. an attempted enumeration of +all nameable things by the <i>summa genera</i> or highest predicates, one or +other of which must, he asserted, be predicable of everything. His, +however, is a rude catalogue, without philosophical analysis of the +rationale even of familiar distinctions. For instance,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> his Relation +properly includes Action, Passivity, and Local Situation, and also the +two categories of Position ποτἑ [Greek: pote] and ποὑ [Greek: pou], while the +difference between ποὑ [Greek: pou] and κεἱσθαι [Greek: keisthai] is only verbal, +and ἑχειν [Greek: echein] is not a <i>summum genus</i> at all. Besides—only +substantives and attributes being there considered—there is no category +for sensation and other mental states, since, though these may rightly +be placed, so far as they express their relation, if active, to their +objects, if passive to their causes, in the Categories of Actio and +Passio, the things, viz., the mental states, do not belong there.</p> + +<p>The absence of a well-defined concrete name answering to the abstract +<i>existence</i>, is one great obstacle to renewing Aristotle's attempt. The +words used for the purpose commonly denote substances only, though +attributes and feelings are equally existences. Even <i>being</i> is +inadequate, since it denotes only <i>some</i> existences, being used by +custom as synonymous with <i>substance</i>, both material and spiritual. That +is, it is applied to what excites feelings and has attributes, but not +to feelings and attributes themselves; and if we called extension, +virtue, &c., <i>beings</i>, we should be accused of believing in the Platonic +self-existing ideas, or Epicurus's sensible forms—in short, of deeming +attributes substances. To fill this gap, the abstract, <i>entity</i>, was +made into a concrete, equivalent to <i>being</i>. Yet even <i>entity</i> implies, +though not so much as <i>being</i>, the notion of substance. In fact, every +word originally connoting simply existence, gradually enlarges its +connotation to mean <i>separate</i> existence, i.e. existence freed from the +condition of belonging to a substance, so as to exclude<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> attributes and +feelings. Since, then, all the terms are ambiguous, that among them (and +the same principle applies to terms generally) will be employed here +which seems on each occasion to be <i>least</i> ambiguous: and terms will be +used even in improper senses, when these by familiar association convey +the proper meaning.</p> + +<p><i>Nameable things</i> are—I. Feelings or States of Consciousness.—A +feeling, being anything of which the mind is conscious, is synonymous +with <i>state of consciousness</i>. It is commonly confined to the sensations +and emotions, or to the emotions alone; but it is properly a genus, +having for species, Sensation, Emotion, Thought, and Volition. By +thought is meant all that we are internally conscious of when we think; +e.g. the idea of the sun, and not the sun itself, is a thought; and so, +not even an imaginary thing like a ghost, but only the idea of it, is a +thought. In like manner, a sensation differs both from the object +causing it, and the attribute ascribed to the object. Yet language +(except in the case of the sensations of hearing) has seldom provided +the sensations with separate names; so that we have to name the +sensation from the object or the attribute exciting it, though we might +<i>conceive</i> the sensation to exist, though it never actually does, +without an exciting cause. Again, another distinction has to be attended +to, viz. the difference between the sensation and the state of the +bodily organs, which is the physical agency producing it. This +distinction escapes notice partly by reason of the division of the +feelings into bodily and mental. But really there is no such division, +even sensations being states of the sentient<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> mind, and not of the body. +The difference, in fact, between sensations, thoughts, and emotions, is +only in the different agency producing the feeling; it being, in the +case of the sensations, a bodily, and, for the other two, a mental +state. Some suppose, after the sensation, in which, they say, the mind +is passive, a distinct active process called perception, which is the +direct recognition of an external object, as the cause of the sensation. +Probably, perceptions are simply cases of belief claiming to be +intuitive, i.e. free of external evidence. But, at any rate, any +question as to their nature is irrelevant to an inquiry like the +present, viz. how we get the non-original part of our knowledge. And so +also is the distinction in German metaphysics, between the mind's <i>acts</i> +and its passive <i>states</i>. Enough for us now that they are all states of the mind.</p> + +<p>II. Substances.—Logicians think they have defined substance and +attribute, when they have shown merely what difference the use of them +respectively makes in the grammar of a sentence. They say an attribute +must be an attribute <i>of</i> something, but that a substance is +self-existent (being followed, if a relative, by <i>of</i>, not <i>quâ</i> +substance, but <i>quâ</i> the relation). But this <i>of</i>, as distinguishing +attributes, itself needs explanation: besides, we can no more conceive a +substance independent of attributes, than an attribute independent of a +substance. Metaphysicians go deeper into the distinction than logicians. +Substances, most of them say, are either bodies or minds; and, of these, +a body is the external cause to which we ascribe sensations. Berkeley +and the Idealists, however, deny that there exists any cause of +sensations (except, indeed, a First Cause). They argue that the <i>whole</i> +of our notion<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> of a body consists of a number of our own or others' +sensations occurring together habitually (so that, the thought of one +being associated with the thought of the others, we get what Hartley and +Locke call a complex idea). They deny that a residuum would remain if +all the attributes were pared off; for that, though the sensations are +bound together by a law, the existence of a <i>substratum</i> is but one of +many forms of mentally realising the connection. And they ask how it +is,—since so long as the sensations occurred in the old order, we +should not miss such a <i>substratum</i>, supposing it to have once existed +<i>and to have perished</i>—that we can know it exists even now? Their +opponents used formerly to reply, that the uniform order of sensations +implies an external cause determining the law of the order; and that the +attributes <i>inhere</i> in this external cause or substratum, viz. matter. +But at last it was seen that the existence of matter could not be proved +by extrinsic evidence; consequently, now the answer to the idealist +argument simply is, that the belief in an external cause of sensations +is universal, and as intuitive as our knowledge of sensations +themselves. Even Kant allows this (notwithstanding his belief in the +existence of a universe of <i>things in themselves</i>, i.e. Noümena, as +contrasted with the mental representation of them, where the sensations, +he thinks, furnish the matter, and the laws of the mind, the form). +Brown even traced up to the sensations of touch, combined with the +sensations seated in the muscular frame, those very properties, viz., +extension and figure, which Reid referred to as proving that some +qualities must exist, not in the sensations, but<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> in the things +themselves, <i>since</i> they cannot possibly be copies of any impression on +the senses. We have, in truth, no right to consider a thing's sensible +qualities akin to its nature, unless we suppose an absurdity, viz. that +a cause must, as such, resemble its effects. In any case, the question +whether Ontology be a possible science, concerns, not Logic, but the +nature and laws of intuitive knowledge. And the question as to the +nature of Mind is as out of place here as that about Body. As body is +the unknown exciting cause of sensations, so mind, the other kind of +substance, is the unknown recipient both of the sensations and of all +the other feelings. Though I call a something <i>myself</i>, as distinct from +the series of feelings, the 'thread of consciousness,' yet this self +shows itself only through its capacity of feeling or being conscious; +and I can, with my present faculties, conceive the gaining no new +information but about as yet unknown faculties of feeling. In short, as +body is the unsentient cause of all feelings, so mind is the sentient +<i>subject</i> (in the German sense) of them, viz. that which feels them. +About this inner nature we know nothing, and Logic cares nothing.</p> + +<p>III. Attributes.—Qualities are the first class of attributes. Now, if +we know nothing about bodies but the sensations they excite, we can mean +nothing by the attributes of bodies but sensations. Against this it has +been urged that, though we know nothing of sensible objects except the +sensations, the quality which we ascribe on the <i>ground</i> of the +sensation may yet be a real hidden power or quality in the object, of +which the sensation is only the evidence. Seemingly, this doctrine +arises only from the tendency to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> suppose that there must be two +different things to answer to two names when not quite synonymous. +Quality and sensation are probably names for the same thing viewed in +different lights. The doctrine of an entity <i>per se</i>, called quality, is +a relic of the scholastic <i>occult causes</i>; the only intelligible cause +of sensation being the presence of the assemblage of phenomena, called +the <i>object</i>. Why the presence of the object causes the sensation, we +know not; and, granting an <i>occult cause</i>, we are still in the dark as +to how <i>that</i> produces the effect. However, the question belongs to +metaphysics; and it suits this doctrine, as well as the opposed one, to +say that a quality has for its <i>foundation</i> a sensation.</p> + +<p>Relations form the second class of attributes. In all cases of relation +there exists some fact into which the relatives enter as parties +concerned; and this is the <i>fundamentum relationis</i>. Whenever two things +are involved in some one fact, we may ascribe to them a relation +grounded on it, however general the fact may be. As, then, a quality is +an attribute based on the fact of a sensation, so a relation is an +attribute based on a fact into which two objects enter jointly. This +fact in both is always composed entirely of states of consciousness; and +this, whether it be complicated, as in many legal relations, or simple, +as in the relations expressed by <i>antecedent</i> and <i>consequent</i> and by +<i>simultaneous</i>, where the fact consists merely of the two things so +related, since the consciousness either of the succession or of the +simultaneousness of the two sensations which represent the things, is a +feeling not added to, but involved in <i>them</i>, being a condition under +which we must suppose things. And so, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span>likewise, with the relations of +likeness and unlikeness. The feeling of these sometimes cannot be +analysed, when the <i>fundamentum relationis</i> is, as in the case of two +simple sensations, e.g. two sensations of white, only the two sensations +themselves, the consequent feeling of their resemblance being, like that +of their succession or simultaneousness, apparently involved in the +sensations themselves. Sometimes, again, the likeness or unlikeness is +complex, and therefore can be analysed into simpler cases. In any case, +likeness or unlikeness must resolve itself into likeness or unlikeness +between states of our own or some other mind; and this, whether the +feeling of the resemblance or dissimilarity relate to bodies or to +attributes, since the former we know only through the sensations they +are supposed to excite, and the latter through the sensations on which +they are grounded. And so, again, when we say that two relations are +alike (one of the many senses of analogy), we simply assert resemblance +between the facts constituting the two <i>fundamenta relationis</i>. Several +relations, called by different names, are really cases of resemblance. +Thus, equality, i.e. the exact resemblance existing between things in +respect of their quantity, is often called identity.</p> + +<p>The <i>third</i> species of attributes is Quantity. The assertion of likeness +or unlikeness in quantity, as in quality, is always founded on a +likeness or unlikeness in the sensations excited. What the difference is +all who have had the sensations know, but it cannot be explained to +those who never had them.</p> + +<p>In fine, all the attributes classed under Quality and Quantity are the +powers bodies have of exciting certain<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> sensations. So, Relation +generally is but the power which an object has of joining its +correlative in producing the series of sensations, which is the only +sign of the existence of the fact on which they both are grounded. The +relations of succession and simultaneousness, indeed, are not based on +any fact (i.e. any feeling) distinct from the related objects. But these +relations are themselves states of consciousness; resemblance, for +example, being nothing but our feeling of resemblance: at least, we +ascribe these relations to objects or attributes simply because they +hold between the feelings which the objects excite and on which the +attributes are grounded. And as with the attributes of bodies, so also +those of minds are grounded on states of consciousness. Considered in +itself, we can predicate of a mind only the series of its own feelings: +e.g. by <i>devout</i> we mean that the feelings implied in that word form an +oft-recurring part of the series of feelings filling up the sentient +existence of that mind. Again, attributes may be ascribed to a mind as +to a body, as grounded on the thoughts or emotions (not the sensations, +for only bodies excite them) which it excites in others: e.g. when we +call a character admirable, we mean that it causes feelings in us of +admiration. Sometimes, under one word really two attributes are +predicated, one a state of the mind, the other of other minds affected +by thinking of it: e.g. He is generous. Sometimes, even bodies have the +attribute of producing an emotion: e.g. That statue is beautiful.</p> + +<p>The general result is, that there are three chief kinds of nameable +things:—1. Feelings distinct from the objects exciting and the organs +supposed to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span>convey them, and divisible into four classes, perceptions +being only a particular case of belief, which is itself a sort of +thought, while actions are only volitions followed by an effect. 2. +Substances, i.e. the unknown cause and the unknown recipient of our +sensations. 3. Attributes, subdivisible into Quality, Relation, +Quantity. Of these α ([Greek: a]) qualities, like substances, are known +only by the states of consciousness which they excite, and on which they +are based, and by which alone, though they are treated as a distinct +class, they can be described. β ([Greek: b]) Relations also, with four +exceptions, are based on some fact, i.e. a series of states of +consciousness. γ ([Greek: g]) Quantity is, in the same way, based on our +sensations. In short, all attributes are only our sensations and other +feelings, or something involved in them. We may, then, classify nameable +things thus:—1, Feelings; 2, Minds; 3, Bodies, together with the +properties whereby they are <i>popularly</i> (though the evidence is very +deficient) supposed to excite sensations; 4, the relations of Succession +and Coexistence, Likeness and Unlikeness, which subsist really only +between states of consciousness.</p> + +<p>These four classes are a substitute for Aristotle's abortive Categories. +As they comprise all nameable things, every fact is made up of them or +some of them; those that are called <i>subjective</i> facts being composed +wholly of feelings as such, and the <i>objective</i> facts, though composed +wholly or partly of substances and attributes, being grounded on +corresponding subjective facts.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<h3>PROPOSITIONS.</h3> + +<p>The copula is a mere sign of predication, though it is often confounded +with <i>to be</i>, the verb of existence (and that not merely by Greeks, but +even by moderns, whose larger experience how one word in one language +often answers to several in another, should have saved them from +thinking that things with a common name must have a common nature). The +<i>first</i> division of propositions is into Affirmative and Negative, the +copula in the latter being <i>is not</i>. Hobbes and others, by joining the +<i>not</i> to the predicate, made the latter what they call a <i>negative +name</i>. But as a negative name is one expressing the <i>absence</i> of an +attribute, we thus in fact merely deny its presence, and therefore the +affirmative guise these thinkers give to negative propositions is only a +fiction. Again, <i>modal</i> propositions cannot be reduced to the common +form by joining the modality to the predicate, and turning, e.g. The sun +<i>did</i> rise, into, The sun is a thing having risen; for the past time is +not a particular kind of rising, and it affects not the predicate, but +the predication, i.e. the applicability of the predicate to the subject. +There are, however, certain cases in which the qualification may be +detached from the copula; e.g. in such expressions as, <i>may be</i>, <i>is +perhaps</i>; for, then we really do not mean to assert anything about the +fact, but only about the state of our mind about it, so that it is not +the predication which is affected: e.g. Cæsar <i>may be</i> dead,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> may +properly be rendered, I am not sure that he is alive.</p> + +<p>The <i>second</i> division is into Simple and Complex. Several propositions +joined by a conjunction do not make a complex proposition. The +conjunction, so far from making the two one, adds another, as being an +abbreviation generally of an additional proposition: e.g. <i>and</i> is an +abbreviation of one additional proposition, viz. We must think of the +two together; while <i>but</i> is an abbreviation of two additional +propositions, viz. We must think of them together, and we must recollect +there is a contrast between them. But hypothetical propositions, i.e. +both disjunctives and conditionals, are true complex propositions, since +with several terms they contain but a single assertion. Thus, in, If the +Koran comes from God, Mahomet is God's prophet, we do not assert the +truth of either of the simple propositions therein contained (viz. the +Koran comes from God, and Mahomet is God's prophet), but only the +inferribility of one from the other. The only difference, then, between +a hypothetical and a categorical proposition, is that the former is +always an assertion about an assertion (though some categoricals are so +likewise; e.g. That the whole is greater than its parts, is an axiom). +Their conspicuous place in treatises on Logic arises from this attribute +which they predicate of a proposition (for a proposition, like other +things, has attributes), viz. its being an inference from something +else, being, with reference to Logic, its chief attribute.</p> + +<p>The <i>third</i> common division is into Universal, Particular, Indefinite, +and Singular. A proposition whose subject is an individual name, even if +not a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> proper name, is singular, e.g. The founder of Rome was killed. In +particular propositions, if the part of the class meant by the <i>some</i> +were specified, the proposition would become either singular, or +universal with a different subject including all the part. Indefinite in +Logic is a solecism like <i>doubtful gender</i> in grammar, for the speaker +must mean to make either a particular or a universal assertion.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER V.</h2> + +<h3>THE IMPORT OF PROPOSITIONS.</h3> + +<p>The object of an inquiry into the nature of propositions must be to +analyse, either, 1, the state of mind called belief, or 2, what is +believed. Philosophers have usually, but wrongly, thought the former, +i.e. an analysis of the act of judgment, the chief duty of Logic, +considering a proposition to consist in the denying or affirming one +<i>idea</i> of another. True, we must have the two ideas in the mind +together, in order to believe the assertion about the two <i>things</i>; but +so we must also in order to disbelieve it. True also, that besides the +putting the ideas together, there may be a mental process; but this has +nothing to do with the import of propositions, since they are assertions +about things, i.e. facts of external nature, not about the ideas of +them, i.e. facts in our mental history. Logic has suffered from stress +being laid on the relation between the ideas rather than the phenomena, +nature thus coming to be studied by logicians second-hand, that is to +say, as represented<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> in our minds. Our present object, therefore, must +be to investigate judgments, not judgment, and to inquire what it is +which we assert when we make a proposition.</p> + +<p>Hobbes (though he certainly often shows his belief that all propositions +are not merely about the meaning of words, and that general names are +given to things on account of their attributes) declares that what we +assert, is our belief that the subject and predicate are names of the +same thing. This is, indeed, a property of all true propositions, and +the only one true of all. But it is not the scientific definition of +propositions; for though the mere collocation which makes a proposition +a proposition, signifies only this, yet that <i>form</i>, combined with other +<i>matter</i>, conveys much more meaning. Hobbes's principle accounts <i>fully</i> +only for propositions where both terms are proper names. He applied it +to others, through attending, like all nominalists, to the denotation, +and not the connotation of words, holding them to be, like proper names, +mere marks put upon individuals. But when saying that, e.g. Socrates is +wise, is a true proposition, because of the conformity of import between +the terms, he should have asked himself why <i>Socrates</i> and <i>wise</i> are +names of the same person. He ought to have seen that they are given to +the same person, not because of the intention of the maker of each word, +but from the resemblance of their connotation, since a word means +properly certain attributes, and, only secondarily, objects denoted by +it. What we really assert, therefore, in a proposition, is, that where +we find certain attributes, we shall find a certain other one,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> which is +a question not of the meaning of names, but of the laws of nature.</p> + +<p>Another theory virtually identical with Hobbes's, is that commonly +received, which makes predication consist in referring things to a +<i>class</i>; that is (since a class is only an indefinite number of +individuals denoted by a general name), in viewing them as some of those +to be called by that general name. This view is the basis of the <i>dictum +de omni et nullo</i>, on which is supposed to rest the validity of all +reasoning. Such a theory is an example of ὑστερον πρὁτερον [Greek: hysteron proteron]: it +explains the cause by the effect, since the predicate cannot be known +for a class name which includes the subject, till several propositions +having it for predicate have been first assented to. This doctrine seems +to suppose all individuals to have been made into parcels, with the +common name outside; so that, to know if a general name can be +predicated correctly of the subject, we need only search the roll so +entitled. But the truth is, that general names are marks put, not upon +definite objects, but upon collections of objects ever fluctuating. We +may frame a class without knowing a single individual belonging to it: +the individual is placed in the class because the proposition is true; +the proposition is not made true by the individual being placed there.</p> + +<p>Analysis of different propositions shows what is the real import of +propositions not simply verbal. Thus, we find that even a proposition +with a proper name for subject, means to assert that an individual thing +has the attributes connoted by the predicate, the name being thought of +only as means for giving<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> information of a physical fact. This is still +more the case in propositions with connotative subjects. In these the +denoted objects are indicated by some of their attributes, and the +assertion really is, that the predicate's set of attributes constantly +accompanies the subject's set. But as every attribute is grounded on +some fact or phenomenon, a proposition, when asserting the attendance of +one or some attributes on others, really asserts simply the attendance +of one phenomenon on another; e.g. When we say Man is mortal, we mean +that where certain physical and moral facts called humanity are found, +there also will be found the physical and moral facts called death. But +analysis shows that propositions assert other things besides (although +this is indeed their ordinary import) this coexistence or sequence of +two phenomena, viz. two states of consciousness. Assertions in +propositions about those unknowable entities (<i>noümena</i>) which are the +hidden causes of phenomena, are made, indeed, only in virtue of the +knowable <i>phenomena</i>. Still, such propositions do, besides asserting the +sequence or coexistence of the phenomena, assert further the <i>existence</i> +of the noümena; and, moreover, in affirming the existence of a noümenon, +which is an unknowable <i>cause</i>, they assert <i>causation</i> also. Lastly, +propositions sometimes assert <i>resemblance</i> between two phenomena. It is +not true that, as some contend, every proposition whose predicate is a +general name affirms resemblance to the other members of the class; for +such propositions generally assert only the possession by the subject of +certain common peculiarities; and the assertion would be true though +there were no <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span>members of the class besides those denoted by the +subject. Nevertheless, <i>resemblance alone</i> is <i>sometimes</i> predicated. +Thus, when individuals are put into a class as belonging to it, not +absolutely, but rather than to any other, the assertion is, not that +they have the attributes connoted, but that they resemble those having +them more than they do other objects. So, again, <i>only resemblance</i> is +predicated, when, though the predicate is a class name, the class is +based on general unanalysable resemblance. The classes in question are +those of the simple feelings; the names of feelings being, like all +concrete general names, connotative, but only of a mere resemblance.</p> + +<p>In short, one of <i>five</i> things, viz. Existence, Coexistence (or, to be +more particular, Order in Place), Sequence (or, more particularly, Order +in Time, which comprises also the <i>mere fact of Coexistence</i>), +Causation, and Resemblance, is asserted or denied in every proposition. +This division is an exhaustive classification with respect to all things +that can be believed. Although only propositions with concrete terms +have been spoken of, it is equally the fact that, in propositions with +an abstract term or terms, we predicate one of these same <i>five</i> things. +There cannot be any difference in the import of these two classes of +propositions, since there is none in the import of their terms, for the +real signification of a concrete term resides in its connotation (so +that in a concrete proposition we really predicate an attribute), and +what the concrete term connotes forms the whole sense of the abstract. +Thus, all propositions with abstract terms can be turned into equivalent +ones with concrete, the new terms being either the names which connote<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> +the attributes, or names of the facts which are the <i>fundamenta</i> of the +attributes: e.g. Thoughtlessness is danger, is equivalent to, +Thoughtless actions (the <i>fundamentum</i>) are dangerous.</p> + +<p>Finally, as these <i>five</i> are the only things affirmable, so are they the +only things deniable.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER VI.</h2> + +<h3>PROPOSITIONS MERELY VERBAL.</h3> + +<p>The object of Logic is to find how propositions are to be proved. As +preliminary to this, it has been already shown that the Conceptualist +view of propositions, viz. that they assert a relation between two +ideas, and the Nominalist, that they assert agreement or disagreement +between the meanings of two names, are both wrong as general theories: +for that <i>generally</i> the import of propositions is, to affirm or deny +respecting a phenomenon, or its hidden source, one of five kinds of +facts. There is, however, a class of propositions which relate not to +matter of fact, but to the meaning of names, and which, therefore, as +names and their meanings are arbitrary, admit not of truth or falsity, +but only of agreement or disagreement with usage. These <i>verbal</i> +propositions are not only those in which both terms are proper names, +but also some, viz. <i>essential</i> propositions, thought to be more closely +related to things than any others. The Aristotelians' belief that +objects are made what they are called by the inherence of a certain +<i>general substance</i> in the individuals which get from it all their +essential <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>properties, prevented even Porphyry (though more reasonable +than the mediæval Realists) from seeing that the only difference between +altering a non-essential (or <i>accidental</i>) property, which, he says, +makes the thing ἁλλοἱον [Greek: alloion], and altering an essential one, which +makes it ἁλλο [Greek: allo] (i.e. a different thing), is, that the latter +change makes the object change its name. But even when it was no longer +believed that there are real entities answering to general terms, the +doctrine based upon it, viz. that a thing's essence is that without +which the thing could neither be, nor be conceived to be, was still +generally held, till Locke convinced most thinkers that the supposed +essences of classes are simply the significations of their <i>names</i>. Yet +even Locke supposed that, though the essences of classes are <i>nominal</i>, +<i>individuals</i> have <i>real</i> essences, which, though unknown, are the +causes of their sensible properties.</p> + +<p>An accidental proposition (i.e. in which a property not connoted by the +subject is predicated of it) tacitly asserts the existence of a thing +corresponding to the subject; otherwise, such a proposition, as it does +not explain the name, would assert nothing at all. But an essential +proposition (i.e. in which a property connoted by the subject is +predicated of it) is identical. The only use of such propositions is to +<i>define</i> words by unfolding the meaning involved in a name. When, as in +mathematics, important consequences seem to follow from them, such +really follow from the tacit assumption, through the ambiguity of the +copula, of the real existence of the <i>object</i> named.</p> + +<p>Accidental propositions include, 1, those with a proper name for +subject, since an individual has no<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> essence (although the schoolmen, +and rightly, according to their view of genera and species as entities +inhering in the individuals, attributed to the individual the essence of +his class); and, 2, all general or particular propositions in which the +predicate connotes any attribute not connoted by the subject. Accidental +propositions may be called <i>real</i>; they add to our knowledge. Their +import may be expressed (according as the attention is directed mainly, +either to what the proposition means, or to the way in which it is to be +used), either, by the formula: The attributes of the subject are always +(or never) accompanied by those signified by the predicate; or, by the +formula: The attributes of the subject are evidence, or a mark, of the +presence of those of the predicate. For the purposes of reasoning, since +propositions enter into <i>that</i>, not as ultimate results, but as means +for establishing other propositions, the latter formula is preferable.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER VII.</h2> + +<h3>THE NATURE OF CLASSIFICATION, AND THE FIVE PREDICABLES.</h3> + +<p>It is merely an accident when general names are names of classes of real +objects: e.g. The unity of God, in the Christian sense, and the +non-existence of the things called dragons, do not prevent those names +being general names. The using a name to connote attributes, turns the +things, whether real or imaginary, into a class. But, in predicating the +name, we predicate only the attributes; and even<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> when a name (as, e.g. +those in Cuvier's system) is introduced as a means of grouping certain +objects together, and not, as usually, as a means of predication, it +still signifies nothing but the possession of certain attributes.</p> + +<p>Classification (as resulting from the use of general language) is the +subject of the Aristotelians' Five Predicables, viz. <i>Genus</i>, <i>Species</i>, +<i>Differentia</i>, <i>Proprium</i>, <i>Accidens</i>. These are a division of general +names, not based on a distinction in their meaning, i.e. in the +attributes connoted, but on a distinction in the class denoted. They +express, not the meaning of the predicate itself, but its relation (a +varying one) to the subject. Commonly, the names of any two classes (or, +popularly, the classes themselves), one of which includes all the other +and more, are called respectively <i>genus</i> and <i>species</i>. But the +Aristotelians, i.e. the schoolmen, meant by <i>differences in kind</i> +(<i>genere</i> or <i>specie</i>) something which was in its nature (and not merely +with reference to the connotation of the name) distinct from +<i>differences</i> in the <i>accidents</i>. Now, it is the fact that, though a +fresh class may be founded on the smallest distinction in attributes, +yet that some classes have, to separate them from other classes, no +common attributes except those connoted by the name, while others have +innumerable common qualities (from which we have to select a few samples +for connotation) not referrible to a common source. The ends of language +and of classification would be subverted if the latter (not if the +former) sorts of <i>difference</i> were disregarded. Now, it was these only +that the Aristotelians called <i>kinds</i> (<i>genera</i> or <i>species</i>), holding +<i>differences</i> made up of <i>certain</i> and <i>definite</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> properties to be +<i>differences</i> in the <i>accidents</i> of things. In conformity with this +distinction—and it is a true one—any class, e.g. negro as opposed to +white man, may, according as physiology shall show the <i>differences</i> to +be infinite or finite, be discovered to be a distinct <i>kind</i> or +<i>species</i> (though not according to the naturalist's construction of +<i>species</i>, as including all descended from the same stock), or merely a +subdivision of the <i>kind</i> or <i>species</i>, Man. Among <i>kinds</i>, a <i>genus</i> is +a class divisible into other <i>kinds</i>, though it may be itself a species +in reference to higher <i>genera</i>; that which is not so divisible, is an +individual's <i>proximate kind</i> or <i>infima species</i> (<i>species +prædicabilis</i> and also <i>subjicibilis</i>), whose common properties must +include all the common properties of every other real <i>kind</i> to which +the individual can be referred.</p> + +<p>The Aristotelians said that the <i>differentia</i> must be of the <i>essence</i> +of the subject. They vaguely understood, indeed, by the <i>essence</i> of a +thing, that which makes it the <i>kind</i> of thing that it is. But, as a +<i>kind</i> is such from innumerable qualities not flowing from a common +source, logicians selected the qualities which make the thing be what it +is called, and termed these the essence, not merely of the <i>species</i>, +but, in the case of the <i>infima species</i>, of the individual also. Hence, +the distinction between the predicables, Differentia, Proprium, and +Accidens, is founded, not on the nature of things, but on the +connotation of names. The <i>specific difference</i> is that which must be +added to the connotation of the <i>genus</i> to complete the connotation of +the <i>species</i>. A <i>species</i> may have various <i>differences</i>, according to +the principle of the particular classification. A <i>kind</i>, and not<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> +merely a class, may be founded on any one of these, if there be a host +of properties behind, of which this one is the index, and not the +source. Sometimes a name has a technical as well as an ordinary +connotation (e.g. the name Man, in the Linnæan system, connotes a +certain number of incisor and canine teeth, instead of its usual +connotation of rationality and a certain general form); and then the +word is in fact ambiguous, i.e. two names. <i>Genus</i> and <i>Differentia</i> are +said to be of the essence; that is, the properties signified by them are +connoted by the name denoting the <i>species</i>. But both <i>proprium</i> and +<i>accidens</i> are said to be predicated of the species <i>accidentally</i>. A +proprium of the species, however, is predicated of the species +necessarily being an attribute, not indeed connoted by the name, but +following from an attribute connoted by it. It follows, either by way of +demonstration as a conclusion from premisses, or by way of causation as +effect from cause; but, in either case, <i>necessarily</i>. Inseparable +accidents, on the other hand, are attributes universal, so far as we +know, to the species (e.g. blackness to crows), but not <i>necessary</i>; +i.e. neither involved in the meaning of the name of the species, nor +following from attributes which are. Separable accidents do not belong +to all, or if to all, not at all times (e.g. the fact of being born, to +man), and sometimes are not constant even in the same individual (e.g. +to be hot or cold).</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER VIII.</h2> + +<h3>DEFINITION.</h3> + +<p>A definition is a proposition declaring either the special or the +ordinary meaning, i.e. in the case of connotative names, the +connotation, of a word. This may be effected by stating directly the +attributes connoted; but it is more usual to predicate of the subject of +definition one name of synonymous, or several which, when combined, are +of equivalent, connotation. So that, a definition of a name being thus +generally the sum total of the essential propositions which could be +framed with that name for subject, is really, as Condillac says, an +<i>analysis</i>. Even when a name connotes only a single attribute, it (and +also the corresponding abstract name itself) can yet be defined (in this +sense of being analysed or resolved into its elements) by declaring the +connotation of that attribute, whether, if it be a union of several +attributes (e.g. Humanity), by enumerating them, or, if only one (e.g. +Eloquence), by dissecting the fact which is its foundation. Even when +the fact which is the foundation of the attribute is a simple feeling, +and therefore incapable of analysis, still, if the simple feeling have a +name, the attribute and the object possessing it may be defined by +reference to the fact: e.g. a white object is definable as one exciting +the sensation of white; and whiteness, as the power of exciting that +sensation. The only names, abstract or concrete, incapable of analysis, +and therefore of definition, are proper names, as having no meaning, and +also the names of the simple feelings themselves,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> since these can be +explained only by the resemblance of the feelings to former feelings +called by the same or by an exactly synonymous name, which consequently +equally needs definition.</p> + +<p>Though the only accurate definition is one declaring all the facts +involved in the name, i.e. its connotation, men are usually satisfied +with anything which will serve as an index to its denotation, so as to +guard them from applying it inconsistently. This was the object of +logicians when they laid down that a species must be defined <i>per genus +et differentiam</i>, meaning by the <i>differentia one</i> attribute included in +the essence, i.e. in the connotation. And, in fact, one attribute, e.g. +in defining man, Rationality (Swift's Houyhnhms having not been as yet +discovered) often does sufficiently mark out the objects denoted. But, +besides that a definition of this kind ought, in order to be complete, +to be <i>per genus et differentias</i>, i.e. by <i>all</i> the connoted attributes +not implied in the name of the <i>genus</i>, still, even if all were given, a +<i>summum genus</i> could not be so defined, since it has no superior genus. +And for merely marking out the objects denoted, Description, in which +none of the connoted attributes are given, answers as well as logicians' +so-called <i>essential</i> definition. In Description, any one or a +combination of attributes may be given, the object being to make it +exactly coextensive with the name, so as to be predicable of the same +things. Such a description may be turned into an essential definition by +a change of the connotation (not the denotation) of the name; and, in +fact, thus are manufactured almost all scientific definitions, which, +being landmarks of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> classification, and not meant to declare the meaning +of the name (though, in fact, they do declare it in its new use), are +ever being modified (as is the definition of a science itself) with the +advance of knowledge. Thus, a technical definition helps to expound the +artificial classification from which it grows; but ordinary definition +cannot expound, as the Aristotelians fancied it could, the natural +classification of things, i.e. explain their division into <i>kinds</i>, and +the relations among the <i>kinds</i>: for the properties of every <i>kind</i> are +innumerable, and all that definition can do is to state the connotation of the name.</p> + +<p>Both these two modes, viz. the essential but incomplete Definition, and +the accidental, or Description, are imperfect; but the Realists' +distinction between definition of names and of things is quite +erroneous. Their doctrine is now exploded; but many propositions +consistent with it alone (e.g. that the science of geometry is deduced +from definitions) have been retained by Nominalists, such as Hobbes. +Really a definition, as such, cannot explain a thing's nature, being +merely an identical proposition explaining the meaning of a word. But +definitions of names <i>known to be names of really existing objects</i>, as +in geometry, include two propositions, one a definition and another a +postulate. The latter affirms the existence of a thing answering to the +name. The science is based on the postulates (whether they rest on +intuition or proof), for the demonstration appeals to them alone, and +not on the definitions, which indeed might, though at some cost of +brevity, be dispensed with entirely. It has been argued that, at<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> any +rate, definitions are premisses of science, <i>provided</i> they give such +meanings to terms as suit existing things: but even so, the inference +would obviously be from the existence, not of the name which means, but +of the thing which has the properties.</p> + +<p>One reason for the belief that demonstrative truths follow from the +definitions, not from the postulates, was because the postulates are +never quite true (though in reality so much of them is true as is true +of the conclusions). Philosophers, therefore, searching for something +more accurately true, surmised that definitions must be statements and +analyses, neither of words nor of things, as such, but of ideas; and +they supposed the subject-matter of all demonstrative sciences to be +abstractions of the mind. But even allowing this (though, in fact, the +mind cannot so abstract one property, e.g. length, from all others; it +only <i>attends</i> to the one exclusively), yet the conclusions would still +follow, not from the mere definitions, but from the postulates of the +real existence of the ideas.</p> + +<p>Definitions, in short, are of names, not things: yet they are not +therefore arbitrary; and to determine what <i>should be</i> the meaning of a +term, it is often necessary to look at the objects. The obscurity as to +the connotation arises through the objects being named before the +attributes (though it is from the latter that the concrete general terms +get their meaning), and through the same name being popularly applied to +different objects on the ground of general resemblance, without any +distinct perception of their common qualities, especially when these are +complex. The philosopher, indeed, uses general<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> names with a definite +connotation; but philosophers do not make language—it grows: so that, +by degrees, the same name often ceases to connote even general +resemblance. The object in remodelling language is to discover if the +things denoted have common qualities, i.e. if they form a class; and, if +they do not, to form one artificially for them. A language's rude +classifications often serve, when retouched, for philosophy. The +transitions in signification, which often go on till the different +members of the group seem to connote nought in common, indicate, at any +rate, a striking resemblance among the objects denoted, and are +frequently an index to a real connection; so that arguments turning +apparently on the double meaning of a term, may perhaps depend on the +connection of two ideas. To ascertain the link of connection, and to +procure for the name a distinct connotation, the resemblances of things +must be considered. Till the name has got a distinct connotation, it +cannot be defined. The philosopher chooses for his connotation of the +name the attributes most important, either directly, or as the +differentiæ leading to the most interesting propria. The enquiry into +the more hidden agreement on which these obvious agreements depend, +often itself arises under the guise of enquiries into the definition of a name.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span></p> + +<h2>BOOK II.</h2> + +<h3>REASONING.</h3> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> + +<h3>INFERENCE, OR REASONING IN GENERAL.</h3> + +<p>The preceding book treated, not of the proper subject of logic, viz. the +nature of proof, but of assertion. Assertions (as, e.g. definitions) +which relate to the meaning of words, are, since <i>that</i> is arbitrary, +incapable of truth or falsehood, and therefore of proof or disproof. But +there are assertions which are subjects for proof or disproof, viz. the +propositions (the real, and not the verbal) whose subject is some fact +of consciousness, or its hidden cause, about which is predicated, in the +affirmative or negative, one of five things, viz. existence, order in +place, order in time, causation, resemblance: in which, in short, it is +asserted, that some given subject does or does not possess some +attribute, or that two attributes, or sets of attributes, do or do not +(constantly or occasionally) coexist.</p> + +<p>A proposition not believed on its own evidence, but inferred from +another, is said to be <i>proved</i>; and this process of inferring, whether +syllogistically or not, is <i>reasoning</i>. But whenever, as in the +deduction of a particular from a universal, or, in Conversion, the +assertion in the new proposition is the same as the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> whole or part of +the assertion in the original proposition, the inference is only +apparent; and such processes, however useful for cultivating a habit of +detecting quickly the concealed identity of assertions, are not reasoning.</p> + +<p>Reasoning, or Inference, properly so called, is, 1, Induction, when a +proposition is inferred from another, which, whether particular or +general, is less general than itself; 2, Ratiocination, or Syllogism, +when a proposition is inferred from others equally or more general; 3, a +kind which falls under neither of these descriptions, yet is the basis of both.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> + +<h3>RATIOCINATION, OR SYLLOGISM.</h3> + +<p>The syllogistic figures are determined by the position of the middle +term. There are four, or, if the fourth be classed under the first, +three. But syllogisms in the other figures can be reduced to the first +by conversion. Such reduction may not indeed be necessary, for different +arguments are suited to different figures; the first figure, says +Lambert, being best adapted to the discovery or proof of the properties +of things; the second, of the distinctions between things; the third, of +instances and exceptions; the fourth, to the discovery or exclusion of +the different species of a genus. Still, as the premisses of the first +figure, got by reduction, are really the same as the original ones, and +as the only arguments of great scientific importance, viz. those in +which the conclusion is a universal affirmative, can be proved in the +first figure<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> alone, it is best to hold that the two elementary forms of +the first figure are the universal types, the one in affirmatives, the +other in negatives, of all correct ratiocination.</p> + +<p>The <i>dictum de omni et nullo</i>, viz. that whatever can be affirmed or +denied of a class can be affirmed or denied of everything included in +the class, which is a true account generalised of the constituent parts +of the syllogism in the first figure, was thought the basis of the +syllogistic theory. The fact is, that when universals were supposed to +have an independent objective existence, this dictum stated a supposed +law, viz. that the <i>substantia secunda</i> formed part of the properties of +each individual substance bearing the name. But, now that we know that a +class or universal is nothing but the individuals in the class, the +dictum is nothing but the identical proposition, that whatever is true +of certain objects is true of each of them, and, to mean anything, must +be considered, not as an axiom, but as a circuitous definition of the word <i>class</i>.</p> + +<p>It was the attempt to combine the nominalist view of the signification +of general terms with the retention of the dictum as the basis of all +reasoning, that led to the self-contradictory theories disguised under +the ultra-nominalism of Hobbes and Condillac, the ontology of the later +Kantians, and (in a less degree) the abstract ideas of Locke. It was +fancied that the process of inferring new truths was only the +substitution of one arbitrary sign for another; and Condillac even +described science as <i>une langue bien faite</i>. But language merely +enables us to remember and impart our thoughts; it strengthens, like an<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> +artificial memory, our power of thought, and is thought's powerful +instrument, but not its exclusive subject. If, indeed, propositions in a +syllogism did nothing but refer something to or exclude it from a class, +then certainly syllogisms might have the dictum for their basis, and +import only that the classification is consistent with itself. But such +is not the primary object of propositions (and it is on this account, as +well as because men will never be persuaded in common discourse to +<i>quantify</i> the predicate, that Mr. De Morgan's or Sir William Hamilton's +<i>quantification of the predicate</i> is a device of little value). What is +asserted in every proposition which conveys real knowledge, is a fact +dependent, not on artificial classification, but on the laws of nature; +and as ratiocination is a mode of gaining real knowledge, the principle +or law of all syllogisms, with propositions not purely verbal, must be, +for affirmative syllogisms, that; Things coexisting with the same thing +coexist with one another; and for negative, that; A thing coexisting +with another, with which a third thing does not coexist, does not +coexist with that third thing. But if (see <i>suprà</i>, p. 26) propositions +(and, of course, all combinations of them) be regarded, not +speculatively, as portions of our knowledge of nature, but as memoranda +for practical guidance, to enable us, when we know that a thing has one +of two attributes, to infer it has the other, these two axioms may be +translated into one, viz. Whatever has any mark has that which it is a +mark of; or, if both premisses are universal, Whatever is a mark of any +mark, is a mark of that of which this last is a mark.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER III.</h2> + +<h3>THE FUNCTIONS AND LOGICAL VALUE OF THE SYLLOGISM.</h3> + +<p>The question is, whether the syllogistic process is one of inference, +i.e. a process from the known to the unknown. Its assailants say, and +truly, that in every syllogism, considered as an argument to prove the +conclusion, there is a <i>petitio principii</i>; and Dr. Whately's defence of +it, that its object is to unfold assertions wrapped up and implied (i.e. +in fact, <i>asserted unconsciously</i>) in those with which we set out, +represents it as a sort of trap. Yet, though no reasoning from generals +to particulars can, as such, prove anything, the conclusion <i>is</i> a <i>bonâ +fide</i> inference, though not an inference from the general proposition. +The general proposition (i.e. in the first figure, the major premiss) +contains not only a record of many particular facts which we have +observed or inferred, but also instructions for making inferences in +unforeseen cases. Thus the inference is completed in the major premiss; +and the rest of the syllogism serves only to decipher, as it were, our own notes.</p> + +<p>Dr. Whately fails to make out that syllogising, i.e. reasoning from +generals to particulars, is the <i>only</i> mode of reasoning. No additional +evidence is gained by interpolating a general proposition, and therefore +we may, if we please, reason directly from the individual cases, since +it is on these alone that the general proposition, if made, would rest. +Indeed, thus are in fact drawn, as well the inferences of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> children and +savages, and of animals (which latter having no signs, can frame no +general propositions), as even those drawn by grown men generally, from +personal experience, and particularly the inferences of men of high +practical genius, who, not having been trained to generalise, can apply, +but not state, their principles of action. Even when we have general +propositions we need not use them. Thus Dugald Stewart showed that the +axioms need not be expressly adverted to in order to make good the +demonstrations in Euclid; though he held, inconsistently, that the +definitions must be. All general propositions, whether called axioms, or +definitions, or laws of nature, are merely abridged statements of the +particular facts, which, as occasion arises, we either think we may +proceed on as proved, or intend to assume.</p> + +<p>In short, all inference is from particulars to particulars; and general +propositions are both registers or memoranda of such former inferences, +and also short formulæ for making more. The major premiss is such a +formula; and the conclusion is an inference drawn, not from, but +according to that formula. The <i>actual</i> premisses are the particular +facts whence the general proposition was collected inductively; and the +syllogistic rules are to guide us in reading the register, so as to +ascertain what it was that we formerly thought might be inferred from +those facts. Even where ratiocination is independent of induction, as, +when we accept from a man of science the doctrine that all <span class="smaller">A</span> is <span class="smaller">B</span>; or +from a legislator, the law that all men shall do this or that, the +operation of drawing thence any particular conclusion is a process, not +of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> inference, but of interpretation. In fact, whether the premisses are +given by authority, or derived from our own (or predecessors') +observation, the object is always simply to interpret, by reference to +certain marks, an intention, whether that of the propounder of the +principle or enactment, or that which we or our predecessors had when we +framed the general proposition, so that we may draw no inferences that +were not <i>intended</i> to be drawn. We assent to the conclusion in a +syllogism on account of its consistency with what we interpret to have +been the intention of the framer of the major premiss, and not, as Dr. +Whately held, because the supposition of a false conclusion from the +premisses involves a contradiction, since, in fact, the denial, e.g. +that an individual now living will die, is not <i>in terms</i> contradictory +to the assertion that his ancestors and their contemporaries (to which +the general proposition, as a record of facts, really amounts) have all died.</p> + +<p>But the syllogistic form, though the process of inference, which there +always is when a syllogism is used, lies not in this form, but in the +act of generalisation, is yet a great collateral security for the +correctness of that generalisation. When all possible inferences from a +given set of particulars are thrown into one general expression (and, if +the particulars support one inference, they always will support an +indefinite number), we are more likely both to feel the need of weighing +carefully the sufficiency of the experience, and also, through seeing +that the general proposition would equally support some conclusion which +we <i>know</i> to be false, to detect any defect in the evidence, which, from +bias or negligence, we<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> might otherwise have overlooked. But the +syllogistic form, besides being useful (and, when the validity of the +reasoning is doubtful, even indispensable) for verifying arguments, has +the acknowledged merit of all general language, that it enables us to +make an induction once for all. We <i>can</i>, indeed, and in simple cases +habitually <i>do</i>, reason straight from particulars; but in cases at all +complicated, all but the most sagacious of men, and they also, unless +their experience readily supplied them with parallel instances, would be +as helpless as the brutes. The only counterbalancing danger is, that +general inferences from insufficient premisses may become hardened into +general maxims, and escape being confronted with the particulars.</p> + +<p>The major premiss is not really part of the argument. Brown saw that +there would be a <i>petitio principii</i> if it were. He, therefore, +contended that the conclusion in reasoning follows from the minor +premiss alone, thus suppressing the appeal to experience. He argued, +that to reason is merely to analyse our general notions or abstract +ideas, and that, <i>provided</i> that the relation between the two ideas, +e.g. of <i>man</i> and of <i>mortal</i>, has been first perceived, we can evolve +the one directly from the other. But (to waive the error that a +proposition relates to ideas instead of things), besides that this +<i>proviso</i> is itself a surrender of the doctrine that an argument +consists simply of the minor and the conclusion, the perception of the +relation between two ideas, one of which is not implied in the name of +the other, must obviously be the result, not of analysis, but of +experience. In fact, both the minor premiss, and also<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> the expression of +our former experience, must <i>both</i> be present in our reasonings, or the +conclusion will not follow. Thus, it appears that the universal type of +the reasoning process is: Certain individuals possess (as I or others +have observed) a given attribute; An individual resembles the former in +certain other attributes: Therefore (the conclusion, however, not being +conclusive from its form, as is the conclusion in a syllogism, but +requiring to be sanctioned by the canons of induction) he resembles them +also in the given attribute. But, though this, and not the syllogistic, +is the universal type of reasoning, yet the syllogistic process is a +useful test of inferences. It is expedient, <i>first</i>, to ascertain +generally what attributes are marks of a certain other attribute, so as, +subsequently, to have to consider, <i>secondly</i>, only whether any given +individuals have those former marks. Every process, then, by which +anything is inferred respecting an unobserved case, we will consider to +consist of both these last-mentioned processes. Both are equally +induction; but the name may be conveniently confined to the process of +establishing the general formula, while the interpretation of this will +be called 'Deduction.'</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<h3>TRAINS OF REASONING, AND DEDUCTIVE SCIENCES.</h3> + +<p>The minor premiss always asserts a resemblance between a new case and +cases previously known. When this resemblance is not obvious to the +senses,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> or ascertainable at once by direct observation, but is itself +matter of inference, the conclusion is the result of a train of +reasoning. However, even then the conclusion is really the result of +induction, the only difference being that there are two or more +inductions instead of one. The inference is still from particulars to +particulars, though drawn in conformity, not to one, but to several +formulæ. This need of several formulæ arises merely from the fact that +the marks by which we perceive that an inference can be drawn (and of +which marks the formulæ are records) happen to be recognisable, not +directly, but only through the medium of other marks, which were, by a +previous induction, collected to be marks of them.</p> + +<p>All reasoning, then, is induction: but the difficulties in sciences +often lie (as, e.g. in geometry, where the inductions are the simple +ones of which the axioms and a few definitions are the formulæ) not at +all in the inductions, but only in the formation of trains of reasoning +to prove the minors; that is, in so combining a few simple inductions as +to bring a new case, by means of one induction within which it evidently +falls, within others in which it cannot be directly seen to be included. +In proportion as this is more or less completely effected (that is, in +proportion as we are able to discover marks of marks), a science, though +always remaining inductive, tends to become also <i>deductive</i>, and, to +the same extent, to cease to be one of the <i>experimental</i> sciences, in +which, as still in chemistry, though no longer in mechanics, optics, +hydrostatics, acoustics, thermology, and astronomy, each generalisation +rests on a special induction, and the reasonings consist but of one step each.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span></p><p>An experimental science may become deductive by the mere progress of +experiment. The mere connecting together of a few detached +generalisations, or even the discovery of a great generalisation working +only in a limited sphere, as, e.g. the doctrine of chemical equivalents, +does not make a science deductive as a whole; but a science is thus +transformed when some comprehensive induction is discovered connecting +hosts of formerly isolated inductions, as, e.g. when Newton showed that +the motions of all the bodies in the solar system (though each motion +had been separately inferred and from separate marks) are all marks of +one like movement. Sciences have become deductive usually through its +being shown, either by deduction or by direct experiment, that the +varieties of some phenomenon in them uniformly attend upon those of a +better known phenomenon, e.g. every variety of sound, on a distinct +variety of oscillatory motion. The science of number has been the grand +agent in thus making sciences deductive. The truths of numbers are, +indeed, affirmable of all things only in respect of their quantity; but +since the variations of <i>quality</i> in various classes of phenomena have +(e.g. in mechanics and in astronomy) been found to correspond regularly +to variations of <i>quantity</i> in the same or some other phenomena, every +mathematical formula applicable to quantities so varying becomes a mark +of a corresponding general truth respecting the accompanying variations +in quality; and as the science of quantity is, so far as a science can +be, quite deductive, the theory of that special kind of qualities +becomes so likewise. It was thus that Descartes and Clairaut made +geometry,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> which was already partially deductive, still more so, by +pointing out the correspondence between geometrical and algebraical properties.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTERS V. <span class="smaller">AND</span> VI.</h2> + +<h3>DEMONSTRATION AND NECESSARY TRUTHS.</h3> + +<p>All sciences are based on induction; yet some, e.g. mathematics, and +commonly also those branches of natural philosophy which have been made +deductive through mathematics, are called Exact Sciences, and systems of +Necessary Truth. Now, their necessity, and even their alleged certainty, +are illusions. For the conclusions, e.g. of geometry, flow only +seemingly from the definitions (since from definitions, as such, only +propositions about the meaning of words can be deduced): really, they +flow from an implied assumption of the existence of real things +corresponding to the definitions. But, besides that the existence of +such things is not actual or possible consistently with the constitution +of the earth, neither can they even be <i>conceived</i> as existing. In fact, +geometrical points, lines, circles, and squares, are simply copies of +those in nature, to a part alone of which we choose to <i>attend</i>; and the +definitions are merely some of our first generalisations about these +natural objects, which being, though equally true of all, not exactly +true of any one, must, actually, when extended to cases where the error +would be appreciable (e.g. to lines of perceptible breadth), be +corrected by the joining to them of new propositions about the +aberration. The exact correspondence, then, between the facts<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> and those +first principles of geometry which are involved in the so-called +definitions, is a fiction, and is merely <i>supposed</i>. Geometry has, +indeed (what Dugald Stewart did not perceive), some first principles +which are true without any mixture of hypothesis, viz. the axioms, as +well those which are indemonstrable (e.g. Two straight lines cannot +enclose a space) as also the demonstrable ones; and so have all sciences +some exactly true general propositions: e.g. Mechanics has the first law +of motion. But, generally, the necessity of the conclusions in geometry +consists only in their following necessarily from certain <i>hypotheses</i>, +for which same reason the ancients styled the conclusions of all +deductive sciences <i>necessary</i>. That the hypotheses, which form part of +the premisses of geometry, must, as Dr. Whewell says, not be +arbitrary—that is, that in their positive part they are observed facts, +and only in their negative part hypothetical—happens simply because our +aim in geometry is to deduce conclusions which may be true of real +objects: for, when our object in reasoning is not to investigate, but to +illustrate truths, arbitrary hypotheses (e.g. the operation of British +political principles in Utopia) are quite legitimate.</p> + +<p>The ground of our belief in axioms is a disputed point, and one which, +through the belief arising too early to be traced by the believer's own +recollection, or by other persons' observation, cannot be settled by +reference to actual dates. The axioms are really only generalisations +from experience. Dr. Whewell, however, and others think that, though +suggested, they are not proved by experience, and that their truth is +recognised <i>à priori</i> by the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> constitution of the mind as soon as the +meaning of the proposition is understood. But this assumption of an <i>à +priori</i> recognition is gratuitous. It has never been shown that there is +anything in the facts inconsistent with the view that the recognition of +the truth of the axioms, however exceptionally complete and instant, +originates simply in experience, equally with the recognition of +ordinary physical generalisations. Thus, that we see a property of +geometrical forms to be true, without inspection of the material forms, +is fully explained by the capacity of geometrical forms of being painted +in the imagination with a distinctness equal to reality, and by the fact +that experience has informed us of that capacity; so that a conclusion +on the faith of the imaginary forms is really an induction from +observation. Then, again, there is nothing inconsistent with the theory +that we learn by experience the truth of the axioms, in the fact that +they are conceived by the mind as universally and necessarily true, that +is, that we cannot figure them to ourselves as being false. Our capacity +or incapacity of conceiving depends on our associations. Educated minds +can break up their associations more easily than the uneducated; but +even the former not entirely at will, even when, as is proved later, +they are erroneous. The Greeks, from ignorance of foreign languages, +believed in an inherent connection between names and things. Even Newton +imagined the existence of a subtle ether between the sun and bodies on +which it acts, because, like his rivals the Cartesians, he could not +conceive a body acting where it is not. Indeed, inconceivableness +depends so completely on<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> the accident of our mental habits, that it is +the essence of scientific triumphs to make the contraries of once +inconceivable views themselves appear inconceivable. For instance, +suppositions opposed even to laws so recently discovered as those of +chemical composition appear to Dr. Whewell himself to be inconceivable. +What wonder, then, that an acquired incapacity should be mistaken for a +natural one, when not merely (as in the attempt to conceive space or +time as finite) does experience afford no model on which to shape an +opposed conception, but when, as in geometry, we are unable even to call +up the geometrical ideas (which, being impressions of form, exactly +resemble, as has been already remarked, their prototypes), e.g. of two +straight lines, in order to try to conceive them inclosing a space, +without, by the very act, repeating the scientific experiment which +establishes the contrary.</p> + +<p>Since, then, the axioms and the misnamed definitions are but inductions +from experience, and since the definitions are only hypothetically true, +the deductive or demonstrative sciences—of which these axioms and +definitions form together the first principles—must really be +themselves inductive and hypothetical. Indeed, it is to the fact that +the results are thus only conditionally true, that the necessity and +certainty ascribed to demonstration are due.</p> + +<p>It is so even with the Science of Number, i.e. arithmetic and algebra. +But here the truth has been hidden through the errors of two opposite +schools; for while many held the truths in this science to be <i>à +priori</i>, others paradoxically considered them to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> be merely verbal, and +every process to be simply a succession of changes in terminology, by +which equivalent expressions are substituted one for another. The excuse +for such a theory as this latter was, that in arithmetic and algebra we +carry no ideas with us (not even, as in a geometrical demonstration, a +mental diagram) from the beginning, when the premisses are translated +into signs, till the end, when the conclusion is translated back into +things. But, though this is so, yet in every step of the calculation, +there is a real inference of facts from facts: but it is disguised by +the comprehensive nature of the induction, and the consequent generality +of the language. For numbers, though they must be numbers of something, +may be numbers of anything; and therefore, as we need not, when using an +algebraical symbol (which represents all numbers without distinction), +or an arithmetical number, picture to ourselves all that it stands for, +we may picture to ourselves (and this not as a sign of things, but as +being itself a thing) the number or symbol itself as conveniently as any +other single thing. That we are conscious of the numbers or symbols, in +their character of things, and not of mere signs, is shown by the fact +that our whole process of reasoning is carried on by predicating of them +the properties of things.</p> + +<p>Another reason why the propositions in arithmetic and algebra have been +thought merely verbal, is that they seem to be <i>identical</i> propositions. +But in 'Two pebbles and one pebble are equal to three pebbles,' equality +but not identity is affirmed; the subject and predicate, though names of +the same<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> objects, being names of them in different states, that is, as +producing different impressions on the senses. It is on such inductive +truths, resting on the evidence of sense, that the Science of Number is +based; and it is, therefore, like the other deductive sciences, an +inductive science. It is also, like them, hypothetical. Its inductions +are the definitions (which, as in geometry, assert a fact as well as +explain a name) of the numbers, and two axioms, viz. The sums of equals +are equal; the differences of equals are equal. These axioms, and +so-called definitions are themselves exactly, and not merely +hypothetically, true. Yet the conclusions are true only on the +assumption that, 1 = 1, i.e. that all the numbers are numbers of the +same or equal units. Otherwise, the certainty in arithmetical processes, +as in those of geometry or mechanics, is not <i>mathematical</i>, i.e. +unconditional certainty, but only certainty of inference. It is the +enquiry (which can be gone through once for all) into the inferences +which can be drawn from assumptions, which properly constitutes all +demonstrative science.</p> + +<p>New conclusions may be got as well from fictitious as from real +inductions; and this is even consciously done, viz. in the <i>reductio ad +absurdum</i>, in order to show the falsity of an assumption. It has even +been argued that all ratiocination rests, in the last resort, on this +process. But as this is itself syllogistic, it is useless, as a proof of +a syllogism, against a man who denies the validity of this kind of +reasoning process itself. Such a man cannot in fact be forced to a +contradiction in terms, but only to a contradiction, or rather an +infringement, of the fundamental maxim of ratiocination, viz. 'Whatever +has a mark, has<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> what it is a mark of;' and, since it is only by +admitting premisses, and yet rejecting a conclusion from them, that this +axiom is infringed, consequently nothing is <i>necessary</i> except the +connection between a conclusion and premisses.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span></p> + +<h2>BOOK III.</h2> + +<h3>INDUCTION.</h3> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> + +<h3>PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON INDUCTION IN GENERAL.</h3> + +<p>As all knowledge not intuitive comes exclusively from inductions, +induction is the main topic of Logic; and yet neither have +metaphysicians analysed this operation with a view to practice, nor, on +the other hand, have discoverers in physics cared to generalise the +methods they employed.</p> + +<p>Inferences are equally <i>inductive</i>, whether, as in science, which needs +its conclusions for record, not for instant use, they pass through the +intermediate stage of a general proposition (to which class Dr. Whewell, +without sanction from facts, or from the usage of Reid and Stewart, the +founders of modern English metaphysical terminology, limits the term +induction), or are drawn direct from particulars to a supposed parallel +case. Neither does it make any difference in the <i>character</i> of the +induction, whether the process be experiment or ratiocination, and +whether the object be to infer a general proposition or an individual +fact. That, in the latter case, the difficulty of the practical +enquiries, e.g. of a judge or an advocate, lies chiefly in selecting +from among all approved general propositions those inductions which suit +his<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> case (just as, even in deductive sciences, the ascertaining of the +inductions is easy, their combination to solve a problem hard) is not to +the point: the legitimacy of the inductions so selected must at all +events be tried by the same test as a new general truth in science. +Induction, then, may be treated here as though it were the operation of +discovering and proving general propositions; but this is so only +because the evidence which justifies an inference respecting one unknown +case, would justify a like inference about a whole class, and is really +only another form of the same process: because, in short, the logic of +science is the universal logic applicable to all human enquiries.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> + +<h3>INDUCTIONS IMPROPERLY SO CALLED.</h3> + +<p>Induction is the process by which what is true at certain times, or of +certain individuals, is inferred to be true in like circumstances at all +times, or of a whole class. There must be an inference from the known to +the unknown, and not merely from a less to a more general expression. +Consequently, there is no valid induction, 1, in those cases laid down +in the common works on Logic as the only perfect instances of induction, +viz. where what we affirm of the class has already been ascertained to +be true of each individual in it, and in which the seemingly general +proposition in the conclusion is simply a number of singular +propositions written in an abridged form;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> or, 2, when, as often in +mathematics, the conclusion, though really general, is a mere summing up +of the different propositions from which it is drawn (whether actually +ascertained, or, as in the case of the uncalculated terms of an +arithmetical series, when once its law is known, readily to be +understood); or, 3, when the several parts of a complex phenomenon, +which are only capable of being observed separately, have been pieced +together by one conception, and made, as it were, one fact represented +in a single proposition.</p> + +<p>Dr. Whewell sets out this last operation, which he terms the +<i>colligation of facts</i>, as induction, and even as the type of induction +generally. But, though induction is always colligation, or (as we may, +with equal accuracy, characterise such a general expression obtained by +abstraction simply connecting observed facts by means of common +characters) <i>description</i>, colligation, or description, as such, though +a necessary preparation for induction, is not induction. Induction +explains and predicts (and, as an incident of these powers, describes). +Different explanations collected by real induction from supposed +parallel cases (e.g. the Newtonian and the <i>Impact</i> doctrines as to the +motions of the heavenly bodies), or different predictions, i.e. +different determinations of the conditions under which similar facts may +be expected again to occur (e.g. the stating that the position of one +planet or satellite so as to overshadow another, and, on the other hand, +that the impending over mankind of some great calamity, is the condition +of an eclipse), cannot be true together. But, for a colligation to be +correct, it is enough that it enables the mind to represent to itself as +a whole all the separate facts ascertained at<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> a given time, so that +successive tentative descriptions of a phenomenon, got by guessing till +a guess is found which tallies with the facts, may, though conflicting +(e.g. the theories respecting the motions of the heavenly bodies), be +<i>all</i> correct <i>so far as they go</i>. Induction is proof, the inferring +something unobserved from something observed; and to provide a proper +test of proof is the special purpose of inductive logic. But colligation +simply sums up the facts observed, as seen under a new point of view. +Dr. Whewell contends that, besides the sum of the facts, colligation +introduces, as a principle of connection, a conception of the mind not +existing in the facts. But, in fact, it is only because this conception +is a copy of something in the facts, although our senses are too weak to +recognise it directly, that the facts are rightly classed under the +conception. The conception is often even got by abstraction from the +facts which it colligates; but also when it is a hypothesis, borrowed +from strange phenomena, it still is accepted as true only because found +actually, and as a fact, whatever the origin of the knowledge of the +fact, to fit and to describe as a whole the separate observations. Thus, +though Kepler's consequent inference that, <i>because</i> the orbit of a +planet is an ellipse, the planet would <i>continue</i> to revolve in that +same ellipse, was an induction, his previous application of the +conception of an ellipse, abstracted from other phenomena, to sum up his +direct observations of the successive positions occupied by the +different planets, and thus to describe their orbits, was no induction. +It altered only the <i>predicate</i>, changing—The successive places of, +e.g. Mars, are A, B, C, and so forth, into—The <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span>successive places of, +e.g. Mars, are points in an ellipse: whereas induction always widens the <i>subject</i>.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER III.</h2> + +<h3>THE GROUND OF INDUCTION.</h3> + +<p>Induction is generalisation from experience. It assumes, that whatever +is true in any one case, is true in all cases of a certain description, +whether past, present, or future (and not merely in future cases, as is +wrongly implied in the statement by Reid's and Stewart's school, that +the principle of induction is 'our intuitive conviction that the future +will resemble the past'). It assumes, in short, that the course of +nature is uniform, that is, that all things take place according to +general laws. But this general axiom of induction, though by it were +discovered the obscure laws of nature, is no explanation of the +inductive process, but is itself an induction (not, as some think, an +intuitive principle which experience <i>verifies</i> only), and is arrived at +after many separate phenomena have been first observed to take place +according to general laws. It does not, then, <i>prove</i> all other +inductions. But it is a <i>condition</i> of their proof. For any induction +can be turned into a syllogism by supplying a major premiss, viz. What +is true of this, that, &c. is true of the whole class; and the process +by which we arrive at this immediate major may be itself represented by +another syllogism or train of syllogisms, the major of the ultimate +syllogism, and which therefore is the warrant for the immediate<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> major, +being this axiom, viz. that there is uniformity, at all events, in the +class of phenomena to which the induction relates, and a uniformity +which, if not foreknown, may now be known.</p> + +<p>But though the course of nature is uniform, it is also infinitely +various. Hence there is no certainty in the induction in use with the +ancients, and all non-scientific men, and which Bacon attacked, viz. +'Inductio per enumerationem simplicem, ubi non reperitur instantia +contradictoria'—<i>unless</i>, as in a few cases, we must have known of the +contradictory instances if existing. The scientific theory of induction +alone can show why a general law of nature may sometimes, as when the +chemist first discovers the existence and properties of a before unknown +substance, be inferred from a single instance, and sometimes (e.g. the +blackness of all crows) not from a million.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<h3>LAWS OF NATURE.</h3> + +<p>The uniformity of the course of nature is a complex fact made up of all +the separate uniformities in respect to single phenomena. Each of these +separate uniformities, if it be not a mere case of and result from +others, is a law of nature; for, though <i>law</i> is used for any general +proposition expressing a uniformity, <i>law of nature</i> is restricted to +cases where it has been thought that a separate act of creative will is +necessary to account for the uniformity. Laws of nature, in the +aggregate, are the fewest general<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> propositions from which all the +uniformities in the universe might be deducted. Science is ever tending +to resolve one law into a higher. Thus, Kepler's three propositions, +since having been resolved by Newton into, and shown to be cases of the +three laws of motion, may be indeed called laws, but not laws of nature.</p> + +<p>Since every correct inductive generalisation is either a law of nature, +or a result from one, the problem of inductive logic is to unravel the +web of nature, tracing each thread separately, with the view, 1, of +ascertaining what are the <i>several</i> laws of nature, and, 2, of following +them into their results. But it is impossible to frame a scientific +method of induction, or test of inductions, unless, unlike Descartes, we +start with the hypothesis that some trustworthy inductions have been +already ascertained by man's involuntary observation. These spontaneous +generalisations must be revised; and the same principle which common +sense has employed to revise them, correcting the narrower by the wider +(for, in the end, experience must be its own test), serves also, only +made more precise, as the real type of scientific induction. As +preliminary to the employment of this test, nature must be surveyed, +that we may discover which are respectively the invariable and the +variable inductions at which man has already arrived unscientifically. +Then, by connecting these different ascertained inductions with one +another through ratiocination, they become mutually confirmative, the +strongest being made still stronger when bound up with the weaker, and +the weakest at least as strong as the weakest of those from which they +are deduced (as in the case of the Torricellian experiment) while those +leading deductively to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> incompatible consequences become each other's +test, showing that one must be given up (e.g. the old farmers' bad +induction that seed never throve if not sown during the increase of the +moon). It is because a survey of the uniformities ascertained to exist +in nature makes it clear that there are certain and universal +uniformities serving as premisses whence crowds of lower inductions may +be deduced, and so be raised to the same degree of certainty, that a +logic of induction is possible.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER V.</h2> + +<h3>THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL CAUSATION.</h3> + +<p>Phenomena in nature stand to each other in two relations, that of +simultaneity, and that of succession. On a knowledge of the truths +respecting the succession of facts depends our power of predicting and +influencing the future. The object, therefore, must be to find some law +of succession not liable to be defeated or suspended by any change of +circumstances, by being tested by, and deduced from which law, all other +uniformities of succession may be raised to equal certainty. Such a law +is not to be found in the class of laws of number or of space; for +though these are certain and universal, no laws except those of space +and number can be deduced from them by themselves (however important +<i>elements</i> they may be in the ascertainment of uniformities of +succession). But causation is such a law; and of this, moreover, all +cases of succession whatever are examples.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span></p><p>This <i>Law of Causation</i> implies no particular theory as to the ultimate +production of effects by <i>efficient</i> causes, but simply implies the +existence of an invariable order of succession (on our assurance of +which the validity of the canons of inductive logic depends) found by +observation, or, when not yet observed, believed, to obtain between an +invariable antecedent, i.e. the <i>physical</i> cause, and an invariable +consequent, the effect. This sequence is generally between a consequent +and the <i>sum</i> of several antecedents. The cause is really the sum total +of the conditions, positive and negative; the negative being stated as +one condition, the same always, viz. the absence of counteracting causes +(since one cause generally counteracts another by the same law whereby +it produces its own effects, and, therefore, the particular mode in +which it counteracts another may be classed under the positive causes). +But it is usual, even with men of science, to reserve the name <i>cause</i> +for an antecedent <i>event</i> which completes the assemblage of conditions, +and begins to exist immediately before the effect (e.g. in the case of +death from a fall, the slipping of the foot, and not the weight of the +body), and to style the permanent facts or <i>states</i>, which, though +existing immediately before, have also existed long previously, the +<i>conditions</i>. But indeed, popularly, any condition which the hearer is +least likely to be aware of, or which needs to be dwelt upon with +reference to the particular occasion, will be selected as the cause, +even a negative condition (e.g. the sentinel's absence from his post, as +the cause of a surprise), though from a mere negation no consequence can +really proceed.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> On the other hand, the object which is popularly +regarded as standing in the relation of <i>patient</i>, and as being the mere +theatre of the effect, is never styled <i>cause</i>, being included in the +phrase describing the effect, viz. as the object, of which the effect is +<i>a state</i>. But really these so-called <i>patients</i> are themselves agents, +and their properties are positive conditions of the effect. Thus, the +death of a man who has taken prussic acid is as directly the effect of +the organic properties of the man, i.e. the <i>patient</i>, as of the poison, +i.e. the <i>agent</i>.</p> + +<p>To be a cause, it is not enough that the sequence <i>has been</i> invariable. +Otherwise, night might be called the cause of day; whereas it is not +even a condition of it. Such relations of succession or coexistence, as +the succession of day and night (which Dr. Whewell contrasts as <i>laws of +phenomena</i> with <i>causes</i>, though, indeed, the latter also are laws of +phenomena, only more universal ones), result from the coexistence of +real causes. The causes themselves are followed by their effects, not +only invariably, but also <i>necessarily</i>, i.e. <i>unconditionally</i>, or +subject to none but negative conditions. <i>This</i> is material to the +notion of a cause. But another question is not material, viz. whether +causes <i>must</i> precede, or may, at times, be simultaneous with (they +certainly are never preceded by) their effects. In some, though not in +all cases, the causes do invariably continue <i>together with</i> their +effects, in accordance with the schools' dogma, <i>Cessante causâ, cessat +et effectus</i>; and the hypothesis that, in such cases, the effects are +produced <i>afresh</i> at each instant by their cause, is only a verbal +explanation. But the question<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> does not affect the theory of causation, +which remains intact, even if (in order to take in cases of simultaneity +of cause and effect) we have to define a cause, as the assemblage of +phenomena, which occurring, some other phenomenon invariably and +unconditionally commences, or has its origin.</p> + +<p>There exist certain original natural agents, called permanent causes +(some being objects, e.g. the earth, air, and sun; others, cycles of +events, e.g. the rotation of the earth), which together make up nature. +All other phenomena are immediate or remote effects of these causes. +Consequently, as the state of the universe at one instant is the +consequence of its state at the previous instant, a person (but only if +of more than human powers of calculation, and subject also to the +possibility of the order being changed by a new volition of a supreme +power) might predict the whole future order of the universe, if he knew +the original distribution of all the permanent causes, with the laws of +the succession between each of them and its different mutually +independent effects. But, in fact, the distribution of these permanent +causes, with the reason for the proportions in which they coexist, has +not been reduced to a law; and this is why the sequences or coexistences +among the effects of several of them together cannot rank as laws of +nature, though they are invariable while the causes coexist. For this +same reason (since the proximate causes are traceable ultimately to +permanent causes) there are no original and independent uniformities of +coexistence between effects of different (proximate) causes, though +there may be such between different effects of the same cause.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span></p><p>Some, and particularly Reid, have regarded man's voluntary agency as +the true type of causation and the exclusive source of the idea. The +facts of inanimate nature, they argue, exhibit only antecedence and +sequence, while in volition (and this would distinguish it from physical +causes) we are conscious, prior to experience, of power to produce +effects: volition, therefore, whether of men or of God, must be, they +contend, an efficient cause, and the only one, of all phenomena. But, in +fact, they bring no positive evidence to show that we could have known, +apart from experience, that the effect, e.g. the motion of the limbs, +would follow from the volition, or that a volition is more than a +physical cause. In lieu of positive evidence, they appeal to the +supposed conceivableness of the direct action of will on matter, and +inconceivableness of the direct action of matter on matter. But there is +no inherent law, to this effect, of the conceptive faculty: it is only +because our voluntary acts are, from the first, the most direct and +familiar to us of all cases of causation, that men, as is seen from the +structure of languages (e.g. their active and passive voices, and +impersonations of inanimate objects), get the <i>habit</i> of borrowing them +to explain other phenomena by a sort of original Fetichism. Even Reid +allows that there is a tendency to assume volition where it does not +exist, and that the belief in it has its sphere gradually limited, in +proportion as fixed laws of succession among external objects are discovered.</p> + +<p>This proneness to require the appearance of some necessary and natural +connection between the cause and its effect, i.e. some reason <i>per se</i> +why the one<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> should produce the other, has infected most theories of +causation. But the selection of the particular agency which is to make +the connection between the physical antecedent and its consequent seem +<i>conceivable</i>, has perpetually varied, since it depends on a person's +special habits of thought. Thus, the Greeks, Thales, Anaximenes, and +Pythagoras, thought respectively that water, air, or number is such an +agency explaining the production of physical effects. Many moderns, +again, have been unable to <i>conceive</i> the production of effects by +volition itself, without some intervening agency to connect it with +them. This medium, Leibnitz thought, was some <i>per se</i> efficient +physical antecedent; while the Cartesians imagined for the purpose the +theory of Occasional Causes, that is, supposed that God, not <i>quâ</i> mind, +or <i>quâ</i> volition, but <i>quâ</i> omnipotent, intervenes to connect the +volition and the motion: so far is the mind from being forced to think +the action of mind on matter more <i>natural</i> than that of matter on +matter. Those who believe volition to be an efficient cause are guilty +of exactly the same error as the Greeks, or Leibnitz or Descartes; that +is, of requiring an <i>explanation</i> of physical sequences by something +ἁνευ οὑ τὁ αἱτιον οὑκ ἁν ποτ εἱη αἱτιον [Greek: aneu hou to aition ouk an pot' eiê aition]. But they are guilty +of another error also, in inferring that volition, even if it is an +<i>efficient</i> cause of so peculiar a phenomenon as nervous action, must +therefore be the efficient cause of all other phenomena, though having +scarcely a single circumstance in common with them.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER VI.</h2> + +<h3>THE COMPOSITION OF CAUSES.</h3> + +<p>An effect is almost always the result of the concurrence of several +causes. When all have their full effect, precisely as if they had +operated <i>successively</i>, the joint effect (and it is not inconsistent to +give the name of <i>joint effect</i> even to the mutual obliteration of the +separate ones) may be <i>deduced</i> from the laws which govern the causes +when acting separately. Sciences in which, as in mechanics, this +principle, viz. the <i>composition of causes</i>, prevails, are deductive and +demonstrative. Phenomena, in effect, do generally follow this principle. +But in some classes, e.g. chemical, vital, and mental phenomena, the +laws of the elements when called on to work together, cease and give +place to others, so that the joint effect is not the sum of the separate +effects. Yet even here the more general principle is exemplified. For +the new <i>heteropathic</i> laws, besides that they never supersede <i>all</i> the +old laws (thus, The weight of a chemical compound is equal to the sum of +the weight of the elements), have been often found, especially in the +case of vital and mental phenomena, to enter <i>unaltered</i> into +composition with one another, so that complex facts may thus be +<i>deducible</i> from comparatively simple laws. It is even possible that, as +has been already partly effected by Dalton's law of definite +proportions, and the law of isomorphism, chemistry itself, which is now +the least deductive of sciences, may be made deductive, through the laws +of the combinations being ascertained to be, though<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> not compounded of +the laws of the separate agencies, yet derived from them according to a fixed principle.</p> + +<p>The proposition, that effects are proportional to their causes, is +sometimes laid down as an independent axiom of causation: it is really +only a particular case of the composition of causes; and it fails at the +same point as the latter principle, viz. when an addition does not +become compounded with the original cause, but the two together generate a new phenomenon.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER VII.</h2> + +<h3>OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT.</h3> + +<p>Since the whole of the present facts are the infallible result of the +whole of the past, so that if the prior state of the entire universe +could recur it would be followed by the present, the process of +ascertaining the relations of cause and effect is an analysis or +resolution of this complex uniformity into the simpler uniformities +which make it up. We must first mentally analyse the facts, not making +this analysis minuter than is needed for our object at the time, but at +the same time not regarding (as did the Greeks their verbal +classifications) a mental decomposition of facts as ultimate. When we +have thus succeeded in looking at any two successive chaotic masses (for +such nature keeps at each instant presenting to us) as so many distinct +antecedents and consequents, we must analyse the facts themselves, and +try, by varying the circumstances, to discover<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> which of the antecedents +and consequents (for many are always present together) are related to each other.</p> + +<p>Experiment and observation are the two instruments for thus varying the +circumstances. When the enquiry is, What are the effects of a given +cause? experiment is far the superior, since it enables us not merely to +produce many more and more opportune variations than nature, which is +not arranged on the plan of facilitating our studies, offers +spontaneously, but, what is a greater advantage, though one less +attended to, also to insulate the phenomenon by placing it among known +circumstances, which can be then infinitely varied by introducing a +succession of well-defined new ones.</p> + +<p>Observation cannot ascertain the effects of a given cause, because it +cannot, except in the simplest cases, discover what are the concomitant +circumstances; and therefore sciences in which experiment cannot be +used, either at all, as in astronomy, or commonly, as in mental and +social science, must be mainly deductive, not inductive. When, however, +the object is to discover causes by means of their effects, observation +alone is primarily available, since new effects could be artificially +produced only through their causes, and these are, in the supposed case, +unknown. But even then observation by itself cannot directly discover +causes, as appears from the case of zoology, which yet contains many +recognised uniformities. We have, indeed, ascertained a real uniformity +when we observe some one antecedent to be invariably found along with +the effects presented by nature. But it is only by reversing the +process, and <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>experimentally producing the effects by means of that +antecedent, that we can prove it to be unconditional, i.e. the cause.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER VIII. <span class="smcap">and Note to</span> CHAPTER IX.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></h2> + +<h3>THE FOUR METHODS OF EXPERIMENTAL ENQUIRY.</h3> + +<p>Five canons may be laid down as the principles of experimental enquiry. +The first is that of the Method of Agreement, viz.: <i>If two or more +instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one +circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the +circumstances agree is the cause or the effect of the given phenomenon.</i> +The second canon is that of the Method of Difference, viz.: <i>If an +instance in which the phenomenon occurs and an instance in which it does +not occur have every circumstance in common, save one, and that one +occurs only in the former, that one circumstance is the effect, or the +cause, or a necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon.</i></p> + +<p>These two are the simplest modes of singling out from the facts which +precede or follow a phenomenon, those with which it is connected by an +invariable law. Both are methods of elimination, their basis being, for +the method of agreement, that whatever can be eliminated <i>is not</i>, and +for that of difference, that whatever cannot be eliminated <i>is</i> +connected with the given phenomenon by a law. It is only, however,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> by +the method of difference, which is a method of artificial experiment +(and by experiment we can introduce into the pre-existing facts a change +perfectly definite), that we can, at least by direct experience, arrive +with certainty at causes. The method of agreement is chiefly useful as +preliminary to and suggestive of applications of the method of +difference, or as an inferior resource in its stead, when, as in the +case of many spontaneous operations of nature, we have no power of +producing the phenomenon.</p> + +<p>When we have power to produce the phenomenon, but only by the agency, +not of a single antecedent, but of a combination, the method of +agreement can be improved (though it is even then inferior to the direct +method of difference) by a double process being used, each proof being +independent and corroborative of the other. This may be called the +Indirect Method of Difference, or the Joint Method of Agreement and +Difference, and its canon will be: <i>If two or more instances in which +the phenomenon occurs have only one circumstance in common, while two or +more instances in which it does not occur have nothing in common save +the absence of that circumstance, the circumstance in which alone the +two sets of instances differ, is the effect, or the cause, or a +necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon.</i></p> + +<p>The fourth canon is that of the Method of Residues, viz.: <i>Subduct from +any phenomenon such part as is known by previous inductions to be the +effect of certain antecedents, and the residue of the phenomenon is the +effect of the remaining antecedents.</i> This method is a modification of +the method of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> difference, from which it differs in obtaining, of the +two required instances, only the positive instance, by observation or +experiment, but the negative, by deduction. Its certainty, therefore, in +any given case, is conditional on the previous inductions having been +obtained by the method of difference, and on there being in reality no +remaining antecedents <i>besides</i> those given as such.</p> + +<p>The fifth canon is that of the Method of Concomitant Variations, viz.: +<i>Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon +varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of that +phenomenon, or</i> (since they may be effects of a common cause) <i>is +connected with it through some fact of causation.</i> Through this method +alone can we find the laws of the permanent causes. For, though those of +the permanent causes whose influence is local may be escaped from by +changing the scene of the observation or experiment, many can neither be +excluded nor even kept isolated from each other; and, therefore, in such +cases, the method of difference, which requires a negative instance, and +that of agreement, which requires the different instances to agree only +in one circumstance, in order to prove causation, are (together with the +methods which are merely forms of these) equally inapplicable. But, +though many permanent antecedents insist on being always present, and +never present alone, yet we have the resource of making or finding +instances in which (the accompanying antecedents remaining unchanged) +their influence is <i>varied</i> and <i>modified</i>. This method can be used most +effectually when the variations of the cause are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> variations of +quantity; and then, if we know the absolute quantities of the cause and +the effect, we may affirm generally that, at least within our limits of +observation, the variations of the cause will be attended by similar +variations of the effect; it being a corollary from the principle of the +composition of causes, that more of the cause is followed by more of the +effect. This method is employed usually when the method of difference is +impossible; but it is also of use to determine according to what law the +quantity or different relations of an effect ascertained by the method +of difference follow those of the cause.</p> + +<p>These four methods are the only possible modes of experimental enquiry. +Dr. Whewell attacks them, first, on the ground (and the canon of +ratiocination was attacked on the same) that they assume the reduction +of an argument to formulæ, which (with the procuring the evidence) is +itself the chief difficulty. And this is in truth the case: but, to +reduce an argument to a particular form, we must first know what the +form is; and in showing us this, Inductive Logic does a service the +value of which is tested by the number of faulty inductions in vogue. +Dr. Whewell next implies a complaint that no discoveries have ever been +made by these four methods. But, as the analogous argument against the +syllogism was invalidated by applying equally as against all reasoning, +which must be reducible to syllogism, so this also falls by its own +generality, since, if true against these methods, it must be true +against all observation and experiment, since these must ever proceed by +one of the four. And, moreover, even if the four<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> methods were not +methods of discovery, as they are, they would yet be subjects for logic, +as being, at all events, the sole methods of Proof, which (unless Dr. +Whewell be correct in his view that inductions are simply conceptions +consistent with the facts they colligate) is the principal topic of logic.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Chap. IX. consists of 'Miscellaneous Examples of the Four +Methods,' which cannot be well represented in an abridged form.</p></div></div> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER X.</h2> + +<h3>PLURALITY OF CAUSES, AND INTERMIXTURE OF EFFECTS.</h3> + +<p>The difficulty in tracing the laws of nature arises chiefly from the +Intermixture of Effects, and from the Plurality of Causes. The +possibility of the latter in any given case—that is, the possibility +that the same effect may have been produced by different causes—makes +the Method of Agreement (when applied to positive instances) +inconclusive, if the instances are few; for that Method involves a tacit +supposition, that the same effect in different instances, which have +<i>one</i> common antecedent, must follow in all from the same cause, viz. +from their common antecedent. When the instances are varied and very +many (how many, it is for the Theory of Probability to consider), the +supposition, that the presence in all of the common antecedent may be +simply a coincidence, is rebutted; and this is the sole reason why mere +<i>number</i> of instances, differing only in immaterial points, is of any +value. As applied, indeed, to negative instances, i.e. to those +resembling each other in the absence of a certain circumstance, the +Method of Agreement<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> is not vitiated by Plurality of Causes. But the +negative premiss cannot generally be worked unless an affirmative be +joined with it: and then the Method is the Joint Method of Agreement and +Difference. Thus, to find the cause of Transparency, we do not enquire +in what circumstance the numberless <i>non</i>-transparent objects agree; but +we enquire, first, in what the few transparent ones agree; and then, +whether all the opaque do not agree in the <i>absence</i> of this circumstance.</p> + +<p>Not only may there be Plurality of Causes, the whole of the effect being +produced now by one, now by another antecedent; but there may also be +Intermixture of Effects, through the interference of different causes +with each other, so that part of the total effect is due to one, and +part to another cause. This latter contingency, which, more than all +else, complicates, the study of nature, does not affect the enquiry into +those (the exceptional) cases, where, as in chemistry, the total effect +is something quite different to the separate effects, and governed by +different laws. There the great problem is to discover, not the +properties, but the cause of the new phenomenon, i.e. the particular +conjunction of agents whence it results; which could indeed never be +ascertained by specific enquiry, were it not for the peculiarity, not of +all these cases (e.g. not of mental phenomena), but of many, viz. that +the heterogeneous effects of combined causes often reproduce, i.e. are +<i>transformed into</i> their causes (as, e.g. water into its components, +hydrogen and oxygen). The great difficulty is <i>not</i> there to discover +the properties of the new phenomenon itself, for these can be found by +experiment like the <i>simple</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> effects of any other cause; since, in this +class of cases the effects of the separate causes give place to a new +effect, and thereby cease to need consideration as separate effects. But +in the far larger class of cases, viz. when the total effect is the +exact sum of the separate effects of all the causes (the case of the +Composition of Causes), at no point may it be overlooked that the effect +is not simple but complex, the result of various separate causes, all of +which are always tending to produce the whole of their several natural +effects; having, it may be, their <i>effects</i> modified, disturbed, or even +prevented by each other, but always preserving their <i>action</i>, since +laws of causation cannot have exceptions.</p> + +<p>These complex effects must be investigated by <i>deducing</i> the law of the +effect from the laws of the separate causes on the combination of which +it depends. No inductive method is conclusive in such cases (e.g. in +physiology, or <i>à fortiori</i>, in politics and history), whether it be the +method of simple observation, which compares instances, whether positive +or negative, to see if they agree in the presence or the absence of one +common antecedent, or the empirical method, which proceeds by directly +trying different combinations (either made or found) of causes, and +watching what is the effect. Both are inconclusive; the former, because +an effect may be due to the concurrence of many causes, and the latter, +because we can rarely know what all the coexisting causes are; and still +more rarely whether a certain portion (if not all) of the total effect +is not due to these other causes, and not to the combination of causes +which we are observing.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER XI.</h2> + +<h3>THE DEDUCTIVE METHOD.</h3> + +<p>The deductive method is the main source of our knowledge of complex +phenomena, and the sole source of all the theories through which vast +and complicated facts have been embraced under a few simple laws. It +consists of processes of Induction, Ratiocination, and Verification. +First, by one of the four inductive methods, the simple laws (whence may +be <i>deduced</i> the complex) of each separate cause which shares in +producing the effect, must be first ascertained. This is difficult, when +the causes or rather tendencies cannot be observed singly. Such is the +case in physiology, since the different agencies which make up an +organized body cannot be separated without destroying the phenomenon; +consequently there our sole resource is to produce experimentally, or +find (as in the case of diseases), pathological instances in which only +one organ at a time is affected. Secondly, when the laws of the causes +have been found, we calculate the effect of any given combination of +them by ratiocination, which may have (though not necessarily) among its +premisses the theorems of the sciences of number and geometry. Lastly, +as it might happen that some of the many concurring agencies have been +unknown or overlooked, the conclusions of ratiocination must be +<i>verified</i>; that is, it must be explained why they do not, or shown that +they do, accord with <i>observed</i> cases of at least equal complexity, and +(which is the most effectual test) that the empirical laws and +uniformities, if any, arrived at by direct observation,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> can be deduced +from and so accounted for by them, as, e.g. Kepler's laws of the +celestial motions by Newton's theory.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTERS XII. <span class="smaller">AND</span> XIII.</h2> + +<h3>THE EXPLANATION AND EXAMPLES OF THE EXPLANATION OF LAWS OF NATURE.</h3> + +<p>The aim, in the deductive method, is either to discover the law of the +effect, or to account for it by <i>explaining</i> it, that is, by pointing +out some more general phenomenon (though often less familiar to us) of +which this is a case and a partial exemplification, or some laws of +causation which produce it by their joint or successive action. This +explanation may be made, either—1. By resolving the laws of the complex +effect into its elements, which consist as well of the separate laws of +the causes which share in producing it, as also of their collocation, +i.e. the fact that these separate laws have been so combined; or—2. By +resolving the law which connects two links, not proximate, in a chain of +causation, into the laws which connect each link with the intermediate +links; or—3. By the <i>subsumption</i> or gathering up of several laws under +one which amounts to the sum of them all, and which is the recognition +of the same sequence in different sets of instances. In the first two of +the processes, laws are resolved into others, which both extend to more +cases, i.e. are more <i>general</i>, and also, as being laws of nature, of +which the complex laws are but results, are more <i>certain</i>, i.e. more +<i>unconditional</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> and more <i>universally true</i>. In the third process, laws +are resolved into others which are indeed more <i>general</i>, but not more +<i>certain</i>, since they are in fact the same laws, and therefore, subject +to the same exceptions.</p> + +<p>Liebig's researches, e.g. into the Contagious Influence of Chemical +Action, and his Theory of Respiration, are among the finest examples, +since Newton's exposition of the law of gravitation, of the use of the +deductive method for <i>explanation</i>.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> But the method is as available +for explaining mental as physical facts. It is destined to predominate +in philosophy. Before Bacon's time deductions were accepted as +sufficient, when neither had the premisses been established by proper +canons of experimental enquiry, nor the results tested by verification +by specific experience. He therefore changed the method of the sciences +from deductive to experimental. But, now that the principles of +deduction are better understood, it is rapidly reverting from +experimental to deductive. Only it must not be supposed that the +inductive part of the process is yet complete. Probably, few of the +great generalisations fitted to be the premisses for future deductions +will be found among truths now known. Some, doubtless, are yet unthought +of; others known only as laws of some limited class of facts, as +electricity once was. They will probably appear first in the shape of +hypotheses, needing to be tested by canons of legitimate induction.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTE:</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> These, and other illustrations in chap. xiii., cannot be +usefully represented in an abridged form.</p></div></div> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER XIV.</h2> + +<h3>THE LIMITS TO THE EXPLANATION OF LAWS OF NATURE. HYPOTHESES.</h3> + +<p>The constant tendency of science, operating by the Deductive Method, is +to resolve all laws, even those which once seemed ultimate and not +derivative, into others still more general. But no process of +<i>resolving</i> will ever reduce the number of ultimate laws below the +number of those varieties of our feelings which are distinguishable in +quality, and not merely in quantity or degree. The <i>ideal</i> limit of the +explanation of natural phenomena is to show that each of these ultimate +facts has (since the differences in the different cases of it affect our +sensations as differences in degree only, and not in quality) only one +sort of cause or mode of production; and that all the seemingly +different modes of production or causes of it are resolvable into one. +But <i>practically</i> this limit is never attained. Thus, though various +laws of Causes of Motion have been resolved into others (e.g. the fall +of bodies to the earth, and the motions of the planets, into the one law +of mutual attraction), many causes of it remain still unresolved and distinct.</p> + +<p>Hypotheses are made for the sake of this resolving and explaining of +laws. When we do not <i>know</i> of any more general laws into which to +resolve an uniformity, we then (either on no or on insufficient +evidence) <i>suppose</i> some, imagining either causes (as, e.g. Descartes +did the Vortices), or the laws of their operation (as did Newton +respecting the planetary central force); but we never feign both cause +and law. The use of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> a hypothesis is to enable us to apply the Deductive +Method before the laws of the causes have been ascertained by Induction. +In those cases where a false law could not have led to a true result (as +was the case with Newton's hypothesis as to the law of the Attractive +force) the third part of the process in the Deductive Method, viz. +Verification, which shows that the results deduced are true, amounts to +a complete induction, and one conforming to the canon of the Method of +Difference. But this is the case only when either the cause is known to +be one given agent (and only its law is unknown), or to be one of +several given agents.</p> + +<p>An assumed cause, on the other hand, cannot be accepted as true simply +<i>because</i> it explains the phenomena (since two conflicting hypotheses +often do this even originally, or, as Dr. Whewell himself allows, may at +any rate by modifications be made to do it); nor <i>because</i> it moreover +leads to the prediction of other results which turn out true (since this +shows only what was indeed apparent already from its agreement with the +old facts, viz. that the phenomena are governed by laws partially +identical with the laws of other causes); nor <i>because</i> we cannot +imagine any other hypothesis which will account for the facts (since +there may be causes unknown to our present experience which will equally +account for them). The utility of such assumptions <i>of causes</i> depends +on their being, in their own nature, <i>capable</i> (as Descartes' Vortices +were not, though possibly the Luminiferous Ether may be) of being, at +some time or other, proved directly by independent evidence to be the +causes. And this was, perhaps, all that Newton meant<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> by his <i>veræ +causæ</i>, which alone, he said, may be assigned as causes of phenomena. +Assumptions of causes, which fulfil this condition, are, in science, +even indispensable, with a view both to experimental inquiry, and still +more to the application of the Deductive Method. They may be accepted, +not indeed, as Dr. Whewell thinks they may be, as proof, but as +suggesting a line of experiment and observation which may result in +proof. And this is actually the method used by practical men for +eliciting the truth from involved statements. They first extemporise, +from a few of the particulars, a rude theory of the mode in which the +event happened; and then keep altering it to square with the rest of the +facts, which they review one by one.</p> + +<p>The attempting, as in Geology, to conjecture, in conformity with known +laws, in what former collocations of known agents (though <i>not</i> known to +have been formerly present) individual existing facts may have +originated, is not Hypothesis but Induction; for then we do not +<i>suppose</i> causes, but legitimately infer from known effects to unknown +causes. Of this nature was Laplace's theory, whether weak or not, as to +the origin of the earth and planets.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER XV.</h2> + +<h3>PROGRESSIVE EFFECTS, AND CONTINUED ACTION OF CAUSES.</h3> + +<p>Sometimes a complex effect results, not (as has been supposed in the +last four chapters) from several, but from <i>one</i> law. The following is the way.</p> + +<p>Some effects are instantaneous (e.g. some <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span>sensations), and are +prolonged only by the prolongation of the causes; others are in their +own nature permanent. In some cases of the latter class, the original is +also the proximate cause (e.g. Exposure to moist air is both the +original and the proximate cause of iron rust). But in others of the +same class, the permanency of the effect is only the permanency of a +series of changes. Thus, e.g. in cases of Motion, the original force is +only the <i>remote</i> cause of any link (after the very first) in the +series; and the motion immediately preceding it, being itself a compound +of the original force and any retarding agent, is its <i>proximate</i> cause. +When the original cause is permanent as well as the effect (e.g. Suppose +a continuance of the iron's exposure to moist air), we get a progressive +series of effects arising from the cause's accumulating influence; and +the sum of these effects amounts exactly to what a number of +successively introduced similar causes would have produced. Such cases +fall under the head of Composition of Causes, with this peculiarity, +that, as the causes (to regard them as plural) do not come into play all +at once, the effect at each instant is the sum of the effects only of +the then acting causes, and the result will appear as an ascending +series. Each addition in such case takes place according to a fixed law +(equal quantities in equal times); and therefore it can be computed +deductively. Even when, as is sometimes the case, a cause is at once +permanent and progressive (as, e.g. the sun, by its position becoming +more vertical, increases the heat in summer) so that the quantities +added are unequal, the effect is still progressive, resulting from its +cause's continuance and progressiveness combined.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span></p><p>In <i>all</i> cases whatever of progressive effects, the succession not +merely between the cause and the effect, but also between the first and +latter stages of the effect, is uniform. Hence, from the invariable +sequence of two terms (e.g. Spring and Summer) in a series going through +any continued and uniform process of variation, we do not presume that +one is the cause and the others the effect, but rather that the whole +series is an effect.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER XVI.</h2> + +<h3>EMPIRICAL LAWS.</h3> + +<p>Empirical laws are derivative laws, of which the derivation is not +known. They are observed uniformities, which we compare with the result +of any deduction to verify it; but of which the <i>why</i>, and also the +limits, are unrevealed, through their being, though resolvable, not yet +resolved into the simpler laws. They depend usually, not solely on the +ultimate laws into which they are resolvable; but on those, together +with an ultimate fact, viz. the mode of coexistence of some of the +component elements of the universe. Hence their untrustworthiness for +scientific purposes; for, till they have been resolved (and then a +derivative law ceases to be empirical), we cannot know whether they +result from the different effects of one cause, or from effects of +different causes; that is, whether they depend on laws, or on laws and a +collocation. And if they thus depend on a collocation, they can be +received as true only within the limits of time and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> space, and also +circumstance, in which they have been observed, since the mode of the +collocation of the permanent causes is not reducible to a law, there +being no principle known to us as governing the distribution and +relative proportions of the primæval natural agents.</p> + +<p>Uniformities cannot be proved by the Method of Agreement alone to be +laws of causation; they must be tested by the Method of Difference, or +explained deductively. But laws of causation themselves are either +ultimate or derivative. Signs, previous to actual proof by <i>resolution</i> +of them, of their being derivative, are, either that we can <i>surmise</i> +the existence of a link between the known antecedent and the consequent, +as e.g. in the laws of chemical action; or, that the antecedent is some +very complex fact, the effects of which are probably (since most complex +cases fall under the Composition of Causes) compounded of the effects of +its different elements. But the laws which, though laws of causation, +are thus presumably derivative laws only, need, equally with the +uniformities which are not known to be laws of causation at all, to be +explained by deduction (which they then in turn verify), and are less +<i>certain</i> than when they have been resolved into the ultimate laws. +Consequently they come under the definition of Empirical Laws, equally +with uniformities not known to be laws of causation. However, the latter +are far more <i>uncertain</i>; for as, till they are resolved, we cannot tell +on how many collocations, as well as laws, they may not depend, we must +not rely on them beyond the exact limits in which the observations were +made. Therefore, the name <i>Empirical Laws</i> will generally be confined +here to these.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER XVII.</h2> + +<h3>CHANCE, AND ITS ELIMINATION.</h3> + +<p>Empirical laws are certain only in those limits within which they have +been <i>observed</i> to be true. But, even within those limits, the +connection of two phenomena may, as the same effect may be produced by +several different causes, be due to Chance; that is, it may, though +being, as all facts must be, the result of some law, be a coincidence +whence, simply because we do not know all the circumstances, <i>we</i> have +no ground to infer an uniformity. When neither Deduction, nor the Method +of Difference, can be applied, the only way of inferring that +coincidences are not casual, is by observing the frequency of their +occurrence, not their absolute frequency, but whether they occur <i>more</i> +often than chance would (that is, more often than the positive frequency +of the phenomena would) account for. If, in such cases, we could ascend +to the causes of the two phenomena, we should find at some stage some +cause or causes common to both. Till we can do this, the fact of the +connection between them is only an empirical law; but still it is a law.</p> + +<p>Sometimes an effect is the result partly of chance, and partly of law: +viz. when the total effect is the result partly of the effects of casual +conjunctions of causes, and partly of the effects of some constant cause +which they blend with and modify. This is a case of Composition of +Causes. The object being to find <i>how much</i> of the result is +attributable to a given<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> constant cause, the only resource, when the +variable causes cannot be wholly excluded from the experiment, is to +ascertain what is the effect of all of <i>them</i> taken together, and then +to eliminate this, which is the casual part of the effect, in reckoning +up the results. If the results of frequent experiments, in which the +constant cause is kept invariable, oscillate round one point, that +average or middle point is due to the constant cause, and the variable +remainder to chance; that is, to causes the coexistence of which with +the constant cause was merely casual. The test of the sufficiency of +such an induction is, whether or not an increase in the number of +experiments materially alters the average.</p> + +<p>We can thus discover not merely <i>how much</i> of the effect, but even +whether <i>any</i> part of it whatever is due to a constant cause, when this +latter is so uninfluential as otherwise to escape notice (e.g. the +loading of dice). This case of the Elimination of Chance is called <i>The +discovery of a residual phenomenon by eliminating the effects of chance.</i></p> + +<p>The mathematical doctrine of chances, or Theory of Probabilities, +considers what deviation from the average chance by itself can possibly +occasion in some number of instances smaller than is required for a fair average.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER XVIII.</h2> + +<h3>THE CALCULATION OF CHANCES.</h3> + +<p>In order to calculate chances, we must know that of several events one, +and no more, must happen, and also not know, or have any reason to +suspect, which of them that one will be. Thus, with the simple knowledge +that the issue must be one of a certain number of possibilities, we +<i>may</i> conclude that one supposition is most probable <i>to us</i>. For this +purpose it is not <i>necessary</i> that specific experience or reason should +have also proved the occurrence of each of the several events to be, as +a fact, equally frequent. For, the probability of an event is not a +quality of the event (since every event is in itself certain), but is +merely a name for the degree of ground <i>we</i> have, with our present +evidence, for expecting it. Thus, if we know that a box contains red, +white, and black balls, though we do not know in what proportions they +are mingled, we have numerically appreciable grounds for considering the +probability to be two to one against any one colour. Our judgment may +indeed be said in this case to rest on the experience we have of the +laws governing the frequency of occurrence of the different cases; but +such experience is universal and axiomatic, and not specific experience +about a particular event. Except, however, in games of chance, the +purpose of which requires ignorance, such specific experience can +generally be, and should be gained. And a slight improvement in the data +profits more than the most elaborate application of the calculus of +probabilities to the bare original data,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> e.g. to such data, when we are +calculating the credibility of a witness, as the proportion, even if it +could be verified, between the number of true and of erroneous +statements a man, <i>quâ</i> man, may be supposed to make during his life. +Before applying the Doctrine of Chance, therefore, we should lay a +foundation for an evaluation of the chances by gaining positive +knowledge of the facts. Hence, though not a <i>necessary</i>, yet a most +usual condition for calculating the probability of a fact is, that we +should possess a <i>specific</i> knowledge of the proportion which the cases +in which facts of the particular sort occur bear to the cases in which +they do not occur.</p> + +<p>Inferences drawn correctly according to the Doctrine of Chances depend +ultimately on causation. This is clearest, when, as sometimes, the +probability of an event is deduced from the frequency of the occurrence +of the causes. When its probability is calculated by merely counting and +comparing the number of cases in which it has occurred with those in +which it has not, the law, being arrived at by the Method of Agreement, +is only empirical. But even when, as indeed generally, the numerical +data are obtained in the latter way (since usually we can judge of the +frequency of the causes only through the medium of the empirical law, +which is based on the frequency of the effects), still then, too, the +inference really depends on causation alone. Thus, an actuary infers +from his tables that, of any hundred living persons under like +conditions, five will reach a given age, not simply because that +proportion have reached it in times past, but because that fact shows +the existence there of a particular proportion between<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> the <i>causes</i> +which shorten and the causes which prolong life to the given extent.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER XIX.</h2> + +<h3>THE EXTENSION OF DERIVATIVE LAWS TO ADJACENT CASES.</h3> + +<p>Derivative laws are inferior to ultimate laws, both in the extent of the +propositions, and in their degree of certainty within that extent. In +particular, the uniformities of coexistence and sequence which obtain +between effects depending on different primæval causes, vary along with +any variation in the collocation of these causes. Even when the +derivative uniformity is between different effects of the same cause, it +cannot be trusted to, since one or more of the effects may be producible +by another cause also. The effects, even, of derivative laws of +<i>causation</i> (resulting, i.e. the laws, from the combination of several +causes) are not independent of collocations; for, though laws of +causation, whether ultimate or derivative, are themselves universal, +being fulfilled even when counteracted, the peculiar probability of the +latter kind of laws of causation being counteracted (as compared with +ultimate laws, which are liable to frustration only from one set of +counteracting causes) is fatal to the universality of the derivative +uniformities made up of the sequences or coexistences of their effects; +and, therefore, such derivative uniformities as the latter are to be +relied on only when the collocations are known not to have changed.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span></p><p>Derivative laws, not causative, may certainly be extended beyond the +limits of observation, but only to cases <i>adjacent</i> in time. Thus, we +may not predict that the sun will rise this day 20,000 years, but we can +predict that it will rise to-morrow, on the ground that it has risen +every day for the last 5,000 years. The latter prediction is lawful, +<i>because</i>, while we know the causes on which its rising depends, we +know, also, that there has existed hitherto no perceptible cause to +counteract them; and that it is opposed to experience that a cause +imperceptible for so long should start into immensity in a day. If the +uniformity is empirical only, that is, if we do not know the causes, and +if we infer that they remain uncounteracted from their effects alone, we +still can extend the law to adjacent cases, but only to cases still more +closely adjacent in time; since we can know neither whether changes in +these unknown causes may not have occurred, nor whether there may not +exist now an adverse cause capable after a time of counteracting them.</p> + +<p>An empirical law cannot generally be extended, in reference to <i>Place</i>, +even to adjacent cases (since there is no uniformity in the collocations +of primæval causes). Such an extension is lawful only if the new cases +are <i>presumably</i> within the influence of the same individual causes, +even though unknown. When, however, the causes are known, and the +conjunction of the effects is deducible from laws of the causes, the +derivative uniformity may be extended over a wider space, and with less +abatement for the chance of counteracting causes.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER XX.</h2> + +<h3>ANALOGY.</h3> + +<p>One of the many meanings of <i>Analogy</i> is, Resemblance of Relations. The +value of an analogical argument in this sense depends on the showing +that, on the common circumstance which is the <i>fundamentum relationis</i>, +the rest of the circumstances of the case depend. But, generally, <i>to +argue from analogy</i> signifies to infer from resemblance in some points +(not necessarily in <i>relations</i>) resemblance in others. Induction does +the same: but analogy differs from induction in not requiring the +previous proof, by comparison of instances, of the invariable +conjunction between the known and the unknown properties; though it +requires that the latter should not have been ascertained to be +<i>unconnected</i> with the common properties.</p> + +<p>If a fair proportion of the properties of the two cases are known, every +resemblance affords ground for expecting an indefinite number of other +resemblances, among which the property in question may perhaps be found. +On the other hand, every dissimilarity will lead us to expect that the +two cases differ in an indefinite number of properties, including, +perhaps, the one in question. These dissimilarities may even be such as +would, in regard to one of the two cases, imply the absence of that +property; and then every resemblance, as showing that the two cases have +a similar nature, is even a reason for presuming against the presence of +that property. Hence, the value of an analogical argument depends<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> on +the extent of ascertained resemblance as compared, first, with the +amount of ascertained difference, and next, with the extent of the +unexplored region of unascertained properties.</p> + +<p>The conclusions of analogy are not of direct use, unless when the case +to which we reason is a case <i>adjacent</i>, not, as before, in time or +place, but in <i>circumstances</i>. Even then a complete induction should be +sought after. But the great value of analogy, even when faint, in +science, is that it may suggest observations and experiments, with a +view to establishing positive scientific truths, for which, however, the +hypotheses based on analogies must never be mistaken.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER XXI.</h2> + +<h3>THE EVIDENCE OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL CAUSATION.</h3> + +<p>The validity of all the four inductive methods depends on our assuming +that there is a cause for every event. The belief in this, i.e. in the +law of universal causation, some affirm, is an instinct which needs no +warrant other than all men's disposition to believe it; and they argue +that to demand evidence of it is to appeal to the intellect from the +intellect. But, though there is no appeal from the faculties all +together, there may be from one to another: and, as belief is not proof +(for it may be generated by association of ideas as well as by +evidence), a case of belief does require to be proved by an appeal to +something else, viz. to the faculties of sense and consciousness.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span></p><p>The law of universal causation is, in fact, a generalisation from many +partial uniformities of sequence. Consequently, like these, which cannot +have been arrived at by any strict inductive method (for all such +methods presuppose the law of causation itself), it must itself be based +on inductions <i>per simplicem enumerationem</i>, that is, generalisations of +observed facts, from the mere absence of any known instances to the +contrary. This unscientific process is, it is true, usually delusive; +but only because, and in proportion as, the subject-matter of the +observation is limited in extent. Its results, whenever the number of +coincidences is too large for chance to explain, are empirical laws. +These are ordinarily true only within certain limits of time, place, and +circumstance, since, beyond these, there may be different collocations +or counteracting agencies. But the subject-matter of the law of +universal causation is so diffused that there is no time, place, or set +of circumstances, at least within the portion of the universe within our +observation, and adjacent cases, but must prove the law to be either +true or false. It has, in fact, never been found to be false, but in +ever increasing multitudes of cases to be true; and phenomena, even +when, from their rarity or inaccessibility, or the number of modifying +causes, they are not reducible <i>universally</i> to any law, yet <i>in some +instances</i> do conform to this. Thus, it may be regarded as coextensive +with all human experience, at which point the distinction between +empirical laws and laws of nature vanishes. Formerly, indeed, it was +only a very high probability; but, with our modern experience, it is, +practically, absolutely certain, and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> it confirms the particular laws of +causation, whence itself was drawn, when there seem to be exceptions to +them. All narrower inductions got by simple enumeration are unsafe, +till, by the application to them of the four methods, the supposition of +their falsity is shown to contradict <i>this</i> law, though it was itself +arrived at by simple enumeration.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER XXII.</h2> + +<h3>UNIFORMITIES OF COEXISTENCE NOT DEPENDENT ON CAUSATION.</h3> + +<p>Besides uniformities of succession, which always depend on causation, +there are uniformities of coexistence. These also, whenever the +coexisting phenomena are effects of causes, whether of one common cause +or of several different causes, depend on the laws of their cause or +causes; and, till resolved into these laws, are mere empirical laws. But +there are some uniformities of coexistence, viz. those between the +ultimate properties of <i>kinds</i>, which do not depend on causation, and +therefore seem entitled to be classed as a peculiar sort of laws of +nature. As, however, the presumption always is (except in the case of +those <i>kinds</i> which are called <i>simple substances</i> or elementary natural +agents), that a thing's properties really depend on causes though not +traced, and we <i>never</i> can be certain that they do not; we cannot safely +claim (though it <i>may</i> be an ultimate truth) higher certainty than that +of an empirical law for any generalisation about coexistence, that is to +say<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> (since <i>kinds</i> are known to us only by their properties, and, +consequently, all assertions about them are assertions about the +coexistence of something with those properties), about the properties of <i>kinds</i>.</p> + +<p>Besides, no rigorous inductive system can be applied to the uniformities +of coexistence, since there is no general axiom related to them, as is +the law of causation to those of succession, to serve as a basis for +such a system. Thus, Bacon's practical applications of his method +failed, from his supposing that we can have previous certainty that a +property must have an invariable coexistent (as it must have an +invariable antecedent), which he called its form. He ought to have seen +that his great logical instrument, elimination, is inapplicable to +coexistences, since things, which agree in having certain apparently +ultimate properties, often agree in nothing else; even the properties +which (e.g. Hotness) are effects of causes, generally being not +connected with the ultimate resemblances or diversities in the objects, +but depending on some outward circumstance.</p> + +<p>Our only substitute for an universal law of coexistence is the ancients' +induction <i>per enumerationem simplicem ubi non reperitur instantia +contradictoria</i>, that is, the improbability that an exception, if any +existed, could have hitherto remained unobserved. But the certainty thus +arrived at can be only that of an empirical law, true within the limits +of the observations. For the coexistent property must be either a +property of the <i>kind</i>, or an accident, that is, something due to an +extrinsic cause, and not to the <i>kind</i> (whose own indigenous properties +are always the same). And the ancients'<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> class of induction can only +prove that <i>within given limits</i>, either (in the latter case) one +common, though unknown, cause has always been operating, or (in the +former case) that no new <i>kind</i> of the object has <i>as yet</i> or <i>by us</i> +been discovered.</p> + +<p>The evidence is, of course (with respect both to the derivative and the +ultimate uniformities of coexistence), stronger in proportion as the law +is more general; for the greater the amount of experience from which it +is derived, the more probable is it that counteracting causes, or that +exceptions, if any, would have presented themselves. Consequently, it +needs more evidence to establish an exception to a very general, than to +a special, empirical law. And common usage agrees with this principle. +Still, even the greater generalisations, when not based on connection by +causation, are delusive, unless grounded on a separate examination of +<i>each</i> of the included <i>infimæ species</i>, though certainly there is a +probability (no more) that a sort of parallelism will be found in the +properties of different kinds; and that their degree of unlikeness in +one respect bears some proportion to their unlikeness in others.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER XXIII.</h2> + +<h3>APPROXIMATE GENERALISATIONS, AND PROBABLE EVIDENCE.</h3> + +<p>The inferences called <i>probable</i> rest on approximate generalisations. +Such generalisations, besides the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> inferior assurance with which they +can be applied to individual cases, are <i>generally</i> almost useless as +premisses in a deduction; and therefore in <i>Science</i> they are valuable +chiefly as steps towards universal truths, the discovery of which is its +proper end. But in <i>practice</i> we are forced to use them—1, when we have +no others, in consequence of not knowing what general property +distinguishes the portion of the class which have the attribute +predicated, from the portion which have it not (though it is true that +we can, in such a case, usually obtain a collection of exactly true +propositions by subdividing the class into smaller classes); and, 2, +when we <i>do</i> know this, but cannot examine whether that general property +is present or not in the individual case; that is, when (as usually in +<i>moral</i> inquiries) we could get universal majors, but not minors to +correspond to them. In any case an approximate generalisation can never +be more than an empirical law. Its authority, however, is less when it +composes the whole of our knowledge of the subject, than when it is +merely the most available form of our knowledge for practical guidance, +and the causes, or some certain mark of the attribute predicated, being +known to us as well as the effects, the proposition can be tested by our +trying to deduce it from the causes or mark. Thus, our belief that most +Scotchmen can read, rests on our knowledge, not merely that most +Scotchmen that we have known about could read, but also that most have +been at efficient schools.</p> + +<p>Either a single approximate generalisation may be applied to an +individual instance, or several to the same instance. In the former +case, the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span>proposition, as stating a general average, must be applied +only to average cases; it is, therefore, generally useless for guidance +in affairs which do not concern large numbers, and simply supplies, as +it were, the first term in a series of approximations. In the latter +case, when two or more approximations (not connected with each other) +are <i>separately</i> applicable to the instance, it is said that two (or +more) <i>probabilities are joined by addition</i>, or, that there is a +<i>self-corroborative chain</i> of evidence. Its type is: Most A are B; most +C are B; this is both an A and a C; therefore it is probably a B. On the +other hand, when the subsequent approximation or approximations is or +are applicable only by virtue of the application of the first, this is +joining two (or more) probabilities, <i>by way of Deduction</i>, which +produces a <i>self-infirmative chain</i>; and the type is: Most A are B; most +C are A; this is a C; therefore it is probably an A; therefore it is +probably a B. As, in the former case, the probability increases at each +step, so, in the latter, it progressively dwindles. It is measured by +the probability arising from the first of the propositions, abated in +the ratio of that arising from the subsequent; and the error of the +conclusion amounts to the aggregate of the errors of all the premisses.</p> + +<p>In two classes of cases (exceptions which prove the rule) approximate +can be employed in deduction as usefully as complete generalisations. +Thus, first, we stop at them sometimes, from the inconvenience, not the +impossibility, of going further; and, by adding provisos, we might +change the approximate into an universal proposition; the sum of the +provisos being<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> then the sum of the errors liable to affect the +conclusion. Secondly, they are used in Social Science with reference to +masses with <i>absolute</i> certainty, even without the addition of such +provisos. Although the premisses in the Moral and Social Sciences are +only probable, these sciences differ from the exact only in that we +cannot decipher so many of the laws, and not in the conclusions that we +do arrive at being less scientific or trustworthy.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER XXIV.</h2> + +<h3>THE REMAINING LAWS OF NATURE.</h3> + +<p>There are, we have seen, five facts, one of which every proposition must +assert, viz. Existence, Order in Place, Order in Time, Causation, and +Resemblance. Causation is not fundamentally different from Coexistence +and Sequence, which are the two modes of Order in Time. They have been +already discussed. Of the rest, Existence, if of things in themselves, +is a topic for Metaphysics, Logic regarding the existence of <i>phenomena</i> +only; and as this, when it is not perceived directly, is proved by +proving that the unknown phenomenon is connected by <i>succession or +coexistence</i> with some known phenomenon, the fact of Existence is not +amenable to any <i>peculiar</i> inductive principles. There remain +Resemblance and Order in Place.</p> + +<p>As for Resemblance, Locke indeed, and, in a more unqualified way, his +school, asserted that all reasoning is simply a comparison of two ideas +by means of a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> third, and that knowledge is only the perception of the +agreement or disagreement, that is, the resemblance or dissimilarity, of +two ideas: they did not perceive, besides erring in supposing ideas, and +not the phenomena themselves, to be the subjects of reasoning, that it +is only sometimes (as, particularly, in the sciences of Quantity and +Extension) that the agreement or disagreement of two things is the one +thing to be established. Reasonings, however, about <i>Resemblances</i>, +whenever the two things cannot be directly compared by the virtually +simultaneous application of our faculties to each, do agree with Locke's +account of reasoning; being, in fact, simply such a comparison of two +things through the medium of a third. There are laws or formulæ for +guiding the comparison; but the only ones which do not come under the +principles of Induction already discussed, are the mathematical axioms +of Equality, Inequality, and Proportionality, and the theorems based on +them. For these, which are true of all phenomena, or, at least, without +distinction of origin, have no connection with laws of Causation, +whereas all other theorems asserting resemblance have, being true only +of special phenomena originating in a certain way, and the resemblances +between which phenomena must be derived from, or be identical with, the +laws of their causes.</p> + +<p>In respect to Order in Place, as well as in respect to Resemblance, some +mathematical truths are the only general propositions which, as being +independent of Causation, require separate consideration. Such are +certain geometrical laws, through which, from the position of certain +points, lines, or spaces, we infer<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> the position of others, without any +reference to their physical causes, or to their special nature, except +as regards position or magnitude. There is no other peculiarity as +respects Order in Place. For, the Order in Place of effects is of course +a mere consequence of the laws of their causes; and, as for primæval +causes, in <i>their</i> Order in Place, called their <i>collocation</i>, no +uniformities are traceable.</p> + +<p>Hence, only the methods of Mathematics remain to be investigated; and +they are partly discussed in the Second Book. The directly inductive +truths of Mathematics are few: being, first, certain propositions about +existence, tacitly involved in the so-called definitions; and secondly, +the axioms, to which latter, though resting only on induction, <i>per +simplicem enumerationem</i>, there could never have been even any apparent +exceptions. Thus, every arithmetical calculation rests (and this is what +makes Arithmetic the type of a deductive science) on the evidence of the +axiom: The sums of equals are equals (which is coextensive with nature +itself)—combined with the definitions of the numbers, which are +severally made up of the explanation of the name, which connotes the way +in which the particular agglomeration is composed, and of the assertion +of a fact, viz. the physical property so connoted.</p> + +<p>The propositions of Arithmetic affirm the modes of formation of given +numbers, and are true of all things under the condition of being divided +in a particular way. Algebraical propositions, on the other hand, affirm +the equivalence of different modes of formation of numbers generally, +and are true of all things under condition of being divided in <i>any</i> way.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span></p><p>Though the laws of Extension are not, like those of Number, remote from +visual and tactual imagination, Geometry has not commonly been +recognised as a strictly physical science. The reason is, first, the +possibility of collecting its facts as effectually from the ideas as +from the objects; and secondly, the illusion that its ideal data are not +mere hypotheses, like those in now deductive physical sciences, but a +peculiar class of realities, and that therefore its conclusions are +<i>exceptionally</i> demonstrative. Really, all geometrical theorems are laws +of external nature. They might have been got by generalising from actual +comparison and measurement; only, that it was found practicable to +deduce them from a few obviously true general laws, viz. The sums of +equals are equals; things equal to the same thing are equal to one +another (which two belong to the Science of Number also); and, thirdly +(what is no merely verbal definition, though it has been so called): +Lines, surfaces, solid spaces, which can be so applied to one another as +to coincide, are equal. The rest of the premisses of Geometry consist of +the so-called definitions, which assert, together with one or more +properties, the real existence of objects corresponding to the names to +be defined. The reason why the premisses are so few, and why Geometry is +thus almost entirely deductive, is, that all questions of position and +figure, that is, of quality, may be resolved into questions of quantity +or magnitude, and so Geometry may be reduced to the one problem of the +measurement of magnitudes; that is, to the finding the equalities between them.</p> + +<p>Mathematical principles can be applied to other<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span> sciences. All causes +operate according to mathematical laws; an effect being ever dependent +on the quantity or a function of the agent, and generally on its +position too. Mathematical principles cannot, indeed, as M. Comte has +well explained, be usefully applied to physical questions, whenever the +causes are either too inaccessible for their numerical laws to be +ascertained, or are too complex for <i>us</i> to compute the effect, or are +ever fluctuating. And, in proportion as physical questions cease to be +abstract and hypothetical, mathematical solutions of them become +imperfect. But the great value of mathematical training is, that we +learn to use its <i>method</i> (which is the most perfect type of the +Deductive Method), that is, we learn to employ the laws of simpler +phenomena to explain and predict those of the more complex.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER XXV.</h2> + +<h3>THE GROUNDS OF DISBELIEF.</h3> + +<p>The result of examining evidence is not always belief, or even +suspension of judgment, but is sometimes positive disbelief. This can +ensue only when the affirmative evidence does not amount to full proof, +but is based on some approximate generalisation. In such cases, if the +negative evidence consist of a stronger, though still only an +approximate, generalisation, we think the fact improbable, and +disbelieve it provisionally; but if of a complete generalisation based +on a rigorous induction, it is disbelieved by us totally, and thought +impossible. Hence, Hume declared miracles incredible, as being, he +considered, contrary<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> to a complete induction. Now, it is true that <i>in +the absence of any adequate counteracting cause</i>, a fact contrary to a +complete induction is incredible, whatever evidence it may be grounded +on; unless, indeed, the evidence go to prove the supposed law +inconsistent with some better established one. But when a miracle is +asserted, the presence of an adequate counteracting cause <i>is</i> asserted, +viz. a direct interposition of an act of the will of a Being having +power over nature. Therefore, all that Hume proved is, that we cannot +believe in a miracle unless we believe in the power, and <i>the will</i>, of +the Deity to interfere with existing causes by introducing new ones; and +that, in default of such belief, not the most satisfactory evidence of +our senses or of testimony can hinder us from holding a seeming miracle +to be merely the result of some unknown natural cause. The argument of +Dr. Campbell and others against Hume, however, is untenable, viz. that, +as we do not disbelieve an alleged fact (which may be something +conforming to the uniform course of experience) merely because the +chances are against it, therefore we need never disbelieve any fact +supported by credible testimony (even if contrary to the uniform course +of experience). But this is to confound <i>improbability before the fact</i>, +which is <i>not</i> always a ground for disbelief, with <i>improbability after +the fact</i>, which always is.</p> + +<p>Facts which conflict with special laws of causation are only improbable +before the fact; that is, our disbelief depends on the improbability +that there could have been present, without our knowledge, at the time +and place of the event, an adequate counteracting cause. So, too, with +facts which conflict with<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> the properties of <i>kinds</i> (which are +uniformities of mere coexistence not proved to be dependent on +causation), that is, facts which assert the existence of a new <i>kind</i>; +such facts we disbelieve only if, the generalisation being sufficiently +comprehensive, some properties are said to have been found in the +supposed new <i>kind</i> disjoined from others which always have been known +to accompany them. When the assertion would amount, if admitted, only to +the existence of an unknown cause or an anomalous <i>kind</i>, +<i>unconformable</i>, but, as Hume puts it, <i>not contrary</i> to experience, in +circumstances so little explored, that it is credible hitherto unknown +things may there be found, and when prejudice cannot have tempted to the +assertion, one ought neither to admit nor to reject the testimony, but +to suspend judgment till it be confirmed or disproved from other +sources. Only facts, then, which are contradictory to the laws of +Number, Extension, and Universal Causation (since these know no +counteraction or anomaly), or to laws nearly as general, are improbable +after, as well as before the fact, and only these we should term +<i>absolutely impossible</i>, calling other facts <i>improbable</i> only, or, at +most, <i>impossible in the circumstances of the case</i>.</p> + +<p>Between these two species of improbabilities lie <i>coincidences</i>; that +is, combinations of chances presenting some unexpected regularity +assimilating them in so far to the results of law. It was thought by +d'Alembert that, though regular combinations are as probable as others +according to the mathematical theory, some physical law prevents them +from occurring so often. Now, stronger testimony<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> may indeed be needed +to support the assertion of such a combination as, e.g. ten successive +throws of sixes at dice, because such a regular series is more likely +than an irregular series to be the result of design; and because even +the desire to excite wonder is likely to tempt men to assert the +occurrence falsely, though this probability must be estimated afresh in +every instance. But though such a series <i>seems</i> peculiarly improbable, +it is only because the comparison is tacitly made, not between it and +any one particular previously fixed series of throws, but between all +regular and all irregular successions taken together. The fact is not in +itself more improbable; and no stronger evidence is needed to give it +credibility, apart from the reasons above mentioned, than in the case of ordinary events.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span></p> + +<h2>BOOK IV.</h2> + +<h3>OPERATIONS SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION.</h3> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> + +<h3>OBSERVATION AND DESCRIPTION.</h3> + +<p>The mental process which Logic deals with, viz. the investigation of +truth by means of evidence, is always a process of Induction. Since +Induction is simply the extension to a class of something observed to be +true of certain members of it, Observation is the first preliminary to +it. It is, therefore, right to consider, not indeed how or what to +observe (for this belongs to the art of Education), but under what +conditions observation is to be relied on. The sole condition is, that +the supposed observation should really be an observation, and not an +inference, whereas it is usually a compound of both, there being, in our +propositions, besides observation which relates only to the sensations, +an inference from the sensations to the objects themselves. Thus +so-called errors of sense are only erroneous inferences from sense. The +sensations themselves must be genuine; but, as they generally arise on a +certain arrangement of outward objects being present to the organs, we, +as though by instinct, infer this arrangement even when not existing. +The sole object, then, of the logic of observation, is to separate the +inferences from observation from the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> observations themselves, the only +thing really observed by the mind (to waive the metaphysical problem as +to the <i>perception</i> of objects) being its own feelings or states of +consciousness, outward, viz. Sensations, and inward, viz. Thoughts, +Emotions, and Volitions.</p> + +<p>As in the simplest observation much is inference, so, in describing an +observed fact, we not merely describe the fact, but are always forced to +class it, affirming the resemblance, in regard of whatever is the ground +of the name being given, between it and all other things denoted by the +name. The resemblance is sometimes perceived by direct comparison of the +objects together; sometimes (as, e.g. in the description of the earth's +figure as globular and so forth) it is inferred through intermediate +marks, i.e. deductively. When a hypothesis is made (e.g. by Kepler, as +to the figure of the earth's orbit), and then verified by comparison +with actual observations, Dr. Whewell calls the process Colligation of +Facts by appropriate Conceptions, and affirms it to be the whole of +Induction. But this also is only description, being really the ordinary +process of ascertaining resemblance by a comparison of phenomena; and, +though subsidiary to Induction, it is not itself Induction at all.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> + +<h3>ABSTRACTION, OR THE FORMATION OF CONCEPTIONS.</h3> + +<h3><i>This Chapter is a digression.</i></h3> + +<p>Abstract Ideas, that is, General Conceptions, certainly do exist, +however Metaphysics may decide as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> to their composition. They +<i>represent</i> in our minds the whole classes of things called by the +general names; and, being implied in the mental operation whereby +classes are formed, viz. in the comparison of phenomena, to ascertain in +what they agree, cannot be dispensed with in induction, since such a +comparison is a necessary preliminary to an induction, and more than two +objects cannot well be compared without a type, in which capacity conceptions serve.</p> + +<p>But, though implied in the comparison, it does not follow that, as Dr. +Whewell supposes, they must have existed in the mind prior to +comparison. Sometimes, but only sometimes, they are pre-existent to the +comparison of the particular facts in question, being, as was Kepler's +hypothesis of an ellipse, familiar conceptions borrowed from different +facts, and <i>superinduced</i>, to use Dr. Whewell's expression, on the facts +in question. But even such conceptions are the results of former +comparisons of individual facts. And much more commonly (and these are +the more difficult cases in science) conceptions are not pre-existent +even in this sense; but they have to be got (e.g. the Idea of Polarity) +by abstraction, that is, by comparison, from among the very phenomena +which they afterwards serve to arrange, or, as Dr. Whewell says, to +<i>connect</i>. They seem to be pre-existent; but this is only because the +mind keeps ever forming conceptions from the facts, which at the time +are before it, and then tentatively applies these conceptions (which it +is always remodelling, dropping some which are found not to suit +after-found facts, and generalising others by a further effort of +abstraction) as types of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span> comparison for phenomena subsequently +presented to it; so that, being found in these later stages of the +comparison already in the mind, they appear in the character simply of +types, and not as being also themselves results of comparison. Really +they are always both; and the term <i>comparison</i> expresses as well their +origin as (and this far more exactly than to <i>connect</i> or to +<i>superinduce</i>) their function.</p> + +<p>Dr. Whewell says that conceptions must be <i>appropriate</i> and <i>clear</i>. +They must, indeed, be appropriate relatively to the purpose in view (for +appropriateness is only relative); but they cannot avoid being +appropriate (though one may be more so than another) if our comparison +of the objects has led to a conception corresponding to any real +agreement in the facts: the ancients' and schoolmen's conceptions were +often absolutely inappropriate, because grounded on only apparent +agreement. So, again, they must be <i>clear</i> in the following sense; that +is to say, a <i>sufficient number</i> of facts must have been <i>carefully +observed</i>, and accurately <i>remembered</i>. It is also a condition (and one +implied in the latter qualities) of clearness, that the conception +should be <i>determinate</i>, that is, that we should know precisely what +agreements we include in it, and never vary the connotation except consciously.</p> + +<p>Activity, carefulness, and accuracy in the observing and comparing +faculties are therefore needed; the first quality to produce +appropriateness, and the latter two, clearness. Moreover, <i>scientific +imagination</i>, i.e. the faculty of mentally arranging known elements into +new combinations, is necessary for forming true conceptions; and the +mind should be stored with<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> previously acquired conceptions, kindred to +the subject of inquiry, since a comparison of the facts themselves often +fails to suggest the principle of their agreement; just as, in seeking +for anything lost, we often have to ask ourselves in what places it may +be hid, that we may search for it there.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER III.</h2> + +<h3>NAMING AS SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION.</h3> + +<p>As reasoning is from particulars to particulars, and consists simply in +recognising one fact as a mark of another, or a mark of a mark of +another, the only necessary conditions of the exertion of the reasoning +power are senses, to perceive that two facts are conjoined; and +association, as the law by which one of the two facts raises up the idea +of the other. The existence of artificial signs is not a third +<i>necessary</i> condition. It is only, however, the rudest inductions (and +of such even brutes are capable) that can be made without language or +other artificial signs. Without such we could avail ourselves but little +of the experience of others; and (except in cases involving our intenser +sensations or emotions) of none of our own long past experience. It is +only through the medium of such permanent signs that we can register +uniformities; and the existence of uniformities is necessary to justify +an inference, even in a single case, and they can be ascertained once for all.</p> + +<p>General names are not, as some have argued, a mere contrivance to +economise words. For, if there<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> were a name for every individual object, +but no general names, we could not record one uniformity, or the result +of a single comparison. To effect this, all indeed, that are +<i>indispensable</i>, are the abstract names of attributes; but, in fact, men +have always given general names to objects also.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<h3>THE REQUISITES OF A PHILOSOPHICAL LANGUAGE, AND THE PRINCIPLES OF DEFINITION.</h3> + +<p>Concrete general names (and the meaning of abstract names depends on the +concrete) should have a fixed and knowable connotation. This is easy +enough when, as in the case of new technical names, we choose the +connotation for ourselves; but it is hard when, as generally happens +with names in common use, the same name has been applied to different +objects, from only a vague feeling of resemblance. For, then, after a +time, general propositions are made, in which predicates are applied to +those names; and these propositions make up a loose connotation for the +class name, which, and the abstract at about this same period formed +from it, are consequently never understood by two people, or by the same +person at different times, in the same way. The logician has to fix this +fluctuating connotation, but so that the name may, if possible, still +<i>denote</i> the things of which it is currently affirmed. To effect this +double object (which is called, though improperly, defining <i>not the +name but the thing</i>), he must select from the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> attributes in which the +denoted objects agree, choosing, as the common properties are always +many, and, in a <i>kind</i>, innumerable, those which are familiarly +predicated of the class, and out of them, if possible, or otherwise, +even in preference to them, the ones on which depend, or which are the +best marks of, those thus familiarly predicated. To do this +successfully, presumes a knowledge of all the common properties of the +class, and the relations between them of causation and dependence. Hence +the discussion of non-verbal definitions (which Dr. Whewell calls the +Explication of Conceptions) is part of the business of discovery. Hence, +too, disputes in science have often assumed the form of a battle of +definitions; such definitions being not arbitrary, but made with a view +to some tacitly assumed principle needing expression.</p> + +<p>We ought, if possible, to define in consonance with the denotation. But +sometimes this is impossible, through the name having accumulated +<i>transitive</i> applications, in its gradual extension from one object, in +relation to which it connotes one property, to another which resembles +the former, but in quite a different attribute. These <i>transitive</i> +applications, even when found to correspond in different languages, may +have arisen, not from any common quality in the objects, but from some +association of ideas founded on the common nature and condition of +mankind. When the association is so natural and habitual as to become +virtually indissoluble, the <i>transitive</i> meanings are apt to coalesce in +one complex conception; and every new transition becomes a more +comprehensive generalisation of the term in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> question. In such cases the +ancients and schoolmen did not suspect, what otherwise they carefully +watched for, viz. ambiguities: not Plato, though his Comparisons and +Abstractions preparatory to Induction are perfect; not even Bacon, in +his speculations on Heat. Hence have sprung the various vain attempts to +trace a common idea in all the uses of a word, such as <i>Cause</i> +(Efficient, Material, Formal, and Final <i>Cause</i>), <i>the Good</i>, <i>the Fit</i>.</p> + +<p>When a term is applied to many different objects agreeing <i>all</i> only in +<i>one</i> quality (e.g. things <i>beautiful</i>, in <i>agreeableness</i>), though +<i>most</i> agree in something besides, it is better to exclude part of the +denotation than of the connotation, however indistinct: else language +ceases to keep alive old experience, alien perhaps to present +tendencies. In any case, words are always in danger of losing part of +their connotation. For, just one or two out of a complex cluster of +ideas, and sometimes merely the look or sound of the word itself, is +often all that is absolutely necessary for the suggesting another set of +ideas to continue the process of thought; and consequently, some +metaphysicians have even fancied that all reasoning is but the +mechanical use of terms according to a certain form. If persons be not +of active imaginations, the only antidote against the propensity to let +slip the connotation of names, is the habit of predicating of them the +properties connoted; though even the propositions themselves, as may be +seen from the way in which maxims of Religion, Ethics, and Politics are +used, are often repeated merely mechanically, not being questioned, but +also not being felt. Much of our knowledge recorded in words is ever<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> +oscillating between its tendency, in consequence of different +generations attending exclusively to different properties in names, to +become partially dormant, and the counter-efforts of individuals, at +times, to revive it by tracing the forgotten properties historically in +the almost mechanically repeated formulas of propositions; and, when +they have been there rediscovered, promulgating them, not as +discoveries, but with authority as what men still profess to believe. +The danger is, lest the formula itself be dismissed by clear-headed +narrow-minded logicians, and the connotation fixed by them (in order +that the denotation may be extended) in accordance with the present use +of the term. Then, if the truths be at any time rediscovered, the +prejudice is against them as novelties. The <i>selfish</i> theory of morals +partly fell because the inconsistency of received formulas with it +prompted a reconsideration of its basis. What would have been the result +if the formulas attaching odium to selfishness, praise to +self-sacrifice, had been dismissed, if this indeed had been possible! +Language, in short, is the depositary of all experience, which, being +the inheritance of posterity, we have a right to vary, but none to +curtail. We may improve the conclusions of our ancestors; we should not +let drop any of their premisses; we may alter a word's connotation; but +we must not destroy part of it.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER V.</h2> + +<h3>THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE VARIATION IN THE MEANING OF TERMS.</h3> + +<p>The connotation of names shifts not only by reason of gradual +inattention to some of the common properties,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> which, if language were +ruled by convention alone, would be in their entirety both the perpetual +and the sole constituents of the connotation; but also from the +incorporation in the connotation, in addition to these, and often, +finally, to the <i>exclusion</i> of them altogether, of other circumstances +at first only casually associated with it. These collateral associations +are the cause why there are so few exact synonymes; and why the +dictionary meaning, or Definition, is so bad a guide to its uses, as +compared with its history, since the latter explains the law of the +succession by showing the causes which determined the successive uses.</p> + +<p>Two counter-movements are always going on in language. One is +generalisation, by which words are ever losing part of their +connotation, and becoming more general. This arises, partly from men, +such as historians and travellers, using words, especially those +expressing complicated mental and social facts strange to them, in a +loose sense, in ignorance of the true connotation; partly, from known +things multiplying faster than names for them; partly, also, from the +wish to give people some notion of a new object by reference to a known +thing resembling it however slightly. The other movement is +specialisation; and by it words (even the same words which, as, e.g. +<i>pagan</i> and <i>villain</i>, later get generalised in a new direction) are +ever taking a fresh connotation, through their denotation being +diminished. Specialisations often occur even in scientific nomenclature, +a word which expressed general characters becoming confined to a +specific substance in which these characters are predominant. So it is +when any<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> set of persons has to think of one species oftener than of any +other contained in the genus: e.g. some sportsmen mean partridges by the +term <i>birds</i>. But, as ideas of our pleasures and pains and their +supposed causes, cling, most of all, by association to what they have +been once connected with, the great source of specialisation is the +addition of the ideas of agreeableness or painfulness, and approbation +or censure, to the connotation. And hence arises the fallacy of +<i>question-begging</i> names referred to later on.</p> + +<p>It is the business of logicians not to ignore, for they cannot prevent, +transformations of terms in common use, but to trace and embody them, +and men's half unconscious reasons for them, in distinct definitions.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER VI.</h2> + +<h3>TERMINOLOGY AND NOMENCLATURE.</h3> + +<p>Not only must words have a fixed and knowable meaning; but also, no +important meaning should be without its word: that is, there should be a +name for everything which we have often to make assertions about. There +should be, therefore, first, names suited to describe all the individual +facts; secondly, a name for every important common property detected by +comparing those facts; and, thirdly, a name for every <i>kind</i>.</p> + +<p>First, it conduces to brevity and clearness to have separate names for +the oft-recurring combinations of feelings; but, as these can be defined +without reference back to the feelings themselves, it is <i>enough</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> for a +<i>descriptive</i> terminology, if there be a name for every variety of +elementary feeling, since none of these can be defined, or indicated to +a person, except either by his having the sensation itself, or being +referred through a known mark to his remembrance of it. The meaning of +the name when given to a feeling is fixed, in the first instance, by +convention, and must be associated <i>immediately</i>, not through the usage +of ordinary language, with the feeling, so that it may at once recall +the latter. But even among the elementary feelings, those purely mental, +and also sensations, such as those from disease, the identity of which +in different persons cannot be determined, cannot be exactly +<i>described</i>. It is only the impressions on the outward senses, or those +inward feelings connected uniformly with outward objects (and, +consequently, sciences, such as botany, conversant with outward +objects), which are susceptible of an exact descriptive language.</p> + +<p>Secondly, there must also be a separate name for every important common +property recognised through that comparison of observed instances which +is preparatory to induction (including names for the classes which we +artificially construct in virtue of those properties). For, although a +definition would often convey the meaning, both time and space are +saved, perspicuity promoted, and the attention excited and concentrated, +by giving a brief and compact name to each of the new <i>general +conceptions</i>, as Dr. Whewell calls them, that is, the new results of +abstraction. Thenceforward the name nails down and clenches the +unfamiliar combination of ideas, and suggests its own definition.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span></p><p>Thirdly, as, besides the artificial classes which are marked out from +neighbouring classes by definite properties to be arrived at by +abstraction, there are classes, viz. <i>kinds</i>, distinguished severally by +an unknown multitude of independent properties (and about which classes +therefore many assertions will be made), there must be a name for every +<i>kind</i>. That is, besides a terminology, there must be a nomenclature, +i.e. a collection of the names of all the lowest <i>kinds</i>, or <i>infimæ +species</i>. The Linnæan arrangements of plants and animals, and the French +of chemistry, are nomenclatures. The peculiarity of a name which belongs +to a nomenclature is, not that its meaning resides in its denotation +instead of its connotation (for it resides in its connotation, like that +of other concrete general names); but that, besides connoting certain +attributes which its definition explains, it also connotes that these +attributes are distinctive of a <i>kind</i>; and this fact its definition cannot explain.</p> + +<p>A philosophical language, then, must possess, first, precision, and next +(the subject of the present chapter), completeness. Some have argued +that, in addition, names are fitted for the purposes of thought in +proportion as they approximate to mere symbols in compactness, through +meaninglessness, and capability of use as counters without reference to +the various objects which, though utterly different, they may thus at +different times equally well represent. Such are, indeed, the qualities +enabling us to employ the figures of arithmetic and the symbols of +algebra perfectly mechanically according to general technical rules. +But, in the first place, in our direct inductions,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span> at all events, +depending as they do on our perception of the particulars of the +agreement and difference of the phenomena, we could never dispense with +a distinct mental image of the latter. Further, even in deduction, +though a syllogism is conclusive from its mere form, if the terms are +unambiguous, yet the <i>practical</i> validity of the reasoning depends on +the hypothesis that no counteracting cause has interfered with the truth +of the premisses. We can assure ourselves of this only by studying the +phenomena at every step. For it is only in geometry and algebra that +there is no danger from the Composition of Causes, or the superseding of +one set of laws by another; and that, therefore, the propositions are +categorically true. In sciences in general, then, the object should be, +so far from keeping individualising peculiarities out of sight, to +contrive the greatest possible obstacles to a merely mechanical use of +language: we should carefully keep alive a consciousness of its meaning, +by referring, by aid of derivation and the analogies between the ideas +of the roots and the derivatives, to the origin of words; and as words, +however philosophically constructed, are always tending, like coins, to +have their inscription worn off, we should be ever stamping them afresh. +This we shall effect, if we contemplate habitually, not the <i>formulas</i> +which record the laws of the phenomena (for, if so, the formulas will +themselves progressively lose their meaning), but the phenomena whence +the laws were collected; and we must conceive these phenomena in the +concrete, and clothe them in circumstances.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER VII.</h2> + +<h3>CLASSIFICATION, AS SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION.</h3> + +<p>Every name which connotes an attribute thereby divides, but only +incidentally, all things, known and unknown, real and imagined, into two +classes, viz. those which have, and those which have not the attribute. +But sometimes the naming itself is but the secondary and subsidiary, and +the classification, the primary object. The general problem of such +classification is, to provide that things shall be thought of in such +groups, and the groups in such an order, as will best promote the +remembrance and ascertainment of their laws. Its subjects are <i>real +things</i> exclusively, but <i>all</i> real things, since, to place one object +in a group, we ought to know the divisions of nature at large.</p> + +<p>Any property may be the basis for a classification; but those best +suited are properties which are causes, or, next, as the cause of a +class's chief peculiarities seldom serves as its diagnostic, any effect +which is a sure mark both of the cause and of the other effects. Only a +classification so grounded is scientific; the same also is not technical +or artificial, but natural, and emphatically <i>natural</i> (as compared with +classifications in an inferior degree also <i>natural</i>, which are based on +properties important with reference to the reasoner's special practical +objects), when the classification is based on those properties which +would most impress one who knew all the properties, but was not +interested particularly in any one. Further, it is a great +recommendation of a classification, that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> it groups together things of +like general aspect; but this is not a <i>sine quâ non</i>: a group may be +<i>natural</i> even if based on very <i>unobvious</i> properties, provided these +are marks of many other properties, though certainly then there should +be also some more obvious property to act as a mark of the unobvious +ones which form the real basis.</p> + +<p>As the first principle of <i>natural</i> classification is that the classes +must be so formed that the objects composing each may have as many +properties in common as possible to serve as predicates, all <i>kinds</i> +should have places among the <i>natural</i> groups, since the common +properties of <i>kinds</i>, and, therefore, the general assertions that can +be made about them, are innumerable. But <i>kinds</i> are too few to make up +the whole of a classification: other classes also may be eminently +<i>natural</i>, though marked out from each other only by a definite number +of properties. Of neither sort of <i>natural</i> groups is Dr. Whewell's +theory <i>strictly</i> true, viz. that every <i>natural</i> group is not +determined by definition, that is, by definite characters which can be +expressed in words, but is fixed by Type. He explains that a type is an +example of any class, for instance, a species of a genus, which +possesses all the characters and properties of the genus in a marked +way; that round this type-species are grouped all the other species, +which, though deviating from it in various directions and degrees, yet +are of closer affinity to it than to the centre of any other group; and +that this is the reason why propositions about <i>natural</i> groups so often +state matters as being true not in all cases, but only in most. Now, +there is a truth, but only a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> partial truth, in this doctrine. It is +this: in forming <i>natural</i> groups, species which want certain of the +class-characters, some one, and others another, are classed with those +(the majority) that have them all, because they are more like (that is, +in fact, have more of the common characters of) that particular group +than of any other. On account of the feeling of vagueness hence +engendered, we certainly, in deciding if an object belong to the group, +do generally (and <i>must</i>, when the classification is made expressly with +a view to a special inductive enquiry) refer mentally, not as a +substitute for, but in illustration of the definition of the group, to +some standard specimen which has <i>all</i> the characters well developed. +But not the less, therefore, are all <i>natural</i>, equally with all +artificial, groups framed with distinct reference to certain definite +characters. In the case of <i>kinds</i>, a few characters are chosen as marks +of the rest. In the case of other <i>natural</i> groups, the formation of the +larger groups, into which we collect the <i>infimæ species</i>, is suggested +indeed by resemblance to types (since we form each such larger group +round a selected <i>kind</i> which serves as its exemplar); but the group +itself, when formed, is determined by definite characters.</p> + +<p>Class names should by the mode of their construction help those who have +learnt about the thing, to remember it, and those who have not learnt, +now to learn, by being merely told the name. This is best effected, in +the case of <i>kinds</i>, when the word indicates by its very formation the +properties it connotes. But this is seldom possible. For, though a +<i>kind</i>-name connotes not all the <i>kind</i>-properties, but some only<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> which +serve as sure marks of the rest, even these have been found too many to +be included conveniently in a name (except in Elementary Chemistry, +where every compound substance has one distinctive index-property, viz. +the chemical composition). A subsidiary resource is to point out the +<i>kind's</i> nearest natural affinities. For instance, in the binary +Nomenclature of Botany and of Zoology, the name of every species +consists of the name of the <i>natural</i> group next above, with a word +added expressive of some quality in the nature or mode of discovery, or +what not, of the particular species itself. By this device (obtaining at +present only in Botany and Zoology), as well is the expression, in the +name, of many of the <i>kind's characters</i> secured, as the use of names +economised, and the memory relieved. Except for some such plan, what +hope of naming the 60,000 known species of Plants?</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER VIII.</h2> + +<h3>CLASSIFICATION BY SERIES.</h3> + +<p>The object of Classification generally is to bring our ideas of objects +into the order best fitted for prosecuting inductive enquiries into the +laws of the phenomena generally. But a Classification which aims at +facilitating an inductive enquiry into the laws of some special +phenomenon, must be based on that phenomenon itself. The requisites of +such a classification are, first, the bringing into one class all +<i>kinds</i> of things which exhibit the phenomenon; next,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> the arranging +them in a <i>series</i>, according to the degrees in which they exhibit it. +Such a classification has been largely applied in Comparative Anatomy +and Physiology (and these alone), since there has been found a +recognisable difference in the degree in which animals possess one main +phenomenon, viz. Animal Life.</p> + +<p>This arrangement of the instances, whence the law is to be collected, in +a series, is that which is always implied in and is a condition of <i>any</i> +application of the method, viz. that of Concomitant Variations, which +must be used when conjoined circumstances cannot easily be separated by +experiment. But sometimes (and it is so in Zoology) the law of the +subject of the special enquiry (e.g. Animal Life) has such influence +over the general character of the objects, that all other differences +among them seem mere modifications of it; and then the classification +required for the special purpose becomes the determining principle of +the classification of the same objects for general purposes.</p> + +<p>To recognise the identity of phenomena which thus differ only in degree, +we must assume a type-species. This will be that <i>kind</i> which has the +class-properties in their greatest intensity (and, therefore, most +easily studied with all their effects); and we must conceive the other +varieties as instances of degeneracy from that type.</p> + +<p>The divisions of the series must be determined by the principles of +<i>natural</i> grouping in general (that is, in effect, by natural affinity); +in subordination, however, to the principle of a natural series; that +is, in the same group must not be placed things<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span> which ought to occupy +different points of the general scale.</p> + +<p>Zoology affords the only <i>complete</i> example of the true principles of +rational classification, whether as to the formation of groups or of +series. Yet the same principles are applicable to all cases (to art and +business as well as science) where the various parts of a wide subject +have to be brought into mental co-ordination.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span></p> + +<h2>BOOK V.</h2> + +<h3>FALLACIES.</h3> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> + +<h3>FALLACIES IN GENERAL.</h3> + +<p>The habit of reasoning well is the only complete safeguard against +reasoning ill, that is, against drawing conclusions with insufficient +evidence, a practice which the various contradictory opinions, +particularly about the phenomena relating to Man, show to be even now +common, and that too among the most enlightened. But, to be able to +explain an error is a necessary condition of seeing the truth; for, +'Contrariorum eadem est Scientia.' Consequently, a work on Logic must +classify Fallacies, that is, the varieties of Apparent Evidence; for +they <i>can</i> be classified, though not in respect of their negative +quality of being either not evidence at all, or inconclusive, yet in +respect of the positive property they have of <i>appearing</i> to be evidence.</p> + +<p>As Logic has been here treated as embracing the whole reasoning process, +so it must notice the fallacies incident to any part of it (not to +Ratiocination merely), whether arising from faulty Induction, or from +faulty Ratiocination, or from dispensing wholly with either or both of +them. It does not treat of errors from negligence, or from inexpertness +in using<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> right methods, nor does it treat of errors from moral causes, +viz. Indifference to truth, or Bias by our wishes or our fears; for the +moral causes are but the <i>remote</i> and <i>predisposing</i>, not the <i>exciting</i> +causes of opinions; and therefore inferences from them, since they must +always involve the intellectual operation of admitting insufficient +evidence as sufficient, really come under a classification of the things +which wrongly <i>appear</i> evidence to the <i>understanding</i>.</p> + +<p>Fallacies may be arranged, with reference either to the cause which +makes them (erroneously) appear evidence, or to the particular kind of +evidence they simulate. The following classification is grounded on both +these considerations jointly.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> + +<h3>CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES.</h3> + +<p>The business of Logic is, not to enumerate false opinions, but to +enquire what property in the facts led to them, that is, what +peculiarity of relation between two facts made us suppose them +habitually conjoined or disjoined, and thus regard the presence or +absence of the one as evidence of that of the other. For every such +property in the facts, or our mode of considering them, there is a +corresponding class of Fallacies.</p> + +<p>As the supposed habitual connexion or repugnance of two facts may be +admitted, either as a self-evident and axiomatic truth, or as itself an +inference, the first great division is into Fallacies of Simple +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span>Inspection or <i>à priori</i> Fallacies, and Fallacies, of Inference. But +there is also an intermediate class. For, sometimes an inference is +erroneous through our not conceiving what our premisses precisely are, +and from our therefore substituting new premisses for the old, or a new +conclusion for the one we undertook to prove; and this is called the +Fallacy of Confusion. Under this head, indeed, of Fallacies of +Confusion, might strictly be brought almost any fallacy, though falling +also under some other head: for, some of the links in an argument, +especially if sophistical, are sure to be suppressed; and, it being left +doubtful which is the proposition to be supplied, we can seldom tell +with certainty under <i>which</i> class the fallacy absolutely comes. It is, +however, convenient to reserve the name <i>Fallacy of Confusion</i> for cases +where Confusion is the <i>sole</i> cause of the error.</p> + +<p>Cases, then, where there is more or less ground for the error in <i>the +nature of the apparent evidence itself</i>, the evidence being assumed to +be of a certain sort, and a false conclusion being drawn from it, may be +classed as Fallacies of Inference. According as the apparent evidence +consists of particular facts, or of foregone generalisations, we call +the errors Fallacies of Induction or of Deduction. Each of these +classes, again, may be subdivided into two species, according as the +apparent evidence is either false, or, though true, inconclusive. Such +subdivisions of the Fallacy of Induction are respectively called, in the +former case, Fallacies of Observation (including cases where the facts +are not directly observed, but inferred), and, in the latter, Fallacies +of Generalisation. Among Fallacies of Deduction, those which proceed<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> on +false premisses have no specific name, for they must fall under one of +the other heads of Fallacies; but those, the premisses of which, though +true, do not support the conclusion, compose a subdivision, which may be +specified as Fallacies of Ratiocination.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER III.</h2> + +<h3>FALLACIES OF SIMPLE INSPECTION; OR, À PRIORI FALLACIES.</h3> + +<p>There must be some <i>à priori</i> knowledge, some propositions to be +received without proof; for there cannot be a chain suspended from +nothing. What these are is disputed, one school recognising as ultimate +premisses only the facts of our subjective consciousness, e.g. +Sensations, while Ontologists hold that the mind intuitively, and not +through experience, recognises as realities other existences, e.g. +Substances, which are suggested by, though not inferrible from, those +facts of consciousness. But, as both schools, in fact, allow that the +mind infers the <i>reality</i> from the <i>idea</i> of a thing, and that it may do +this unduly, there results a class of Fallacies resting on the tacit +assumption that the objects in nature have the same order as our ideas +of them. Hence not only arose the vulgar belief that facts which make us +think of an event are omens foreboding (e.g. lucky or unlucky names), or +even causing its occurrence; but even men of science both did and do +fall into this Fallacy. The following dogmas express the different forms +of this error:—</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span></p><p>1. α [Greek: a]. <i>Things which we cannot help thinking of together must +coexist</i>; thus Descartes held that, because existence is involved +(though really only by the thinker himself) in the idea of a geometrical +figure, a thing like the idea must exist. β [Greek: b]. <i>Whatever is +inconceivable is false.</i> The latter proposition has been defended by +drawing a distinction between the principle, and its possibly wrong +application to facts, e.g. to Antipodes; but how can we ever know that +it has been rightly applied? Coleridge, again, has distinguished between +the unimaginable, which he thinks may possibly be true, and the +inconceivable, which he thinks cannot be; but Antipodes were imaginable +at the same period when they were inconceivable. In fact, as even to +Newton it seemed inconceivable, that a thing should act where it is not +(e.g. that the sun should act upon the earth without the medium of an +ether), simply because his mind was not familiar with the idea, so it +<i>may</i> be with <i>our</i> incapability (if not, indeed, resulting merely from +our limited faculties) of <i>conceiving</i>, e.g. that matter cannot think; +that space is infinite; that <i>ex nihilo nihil fit</i>. Leibnitz's tenet +that all <i>natural</i> phenomena must be explicable <i>à priori</i>, and the +further assumption by some that Nature always acts by the simplest, i.e. +by the most easily conceivable means (and that, therefore, e.g. the +heavenly bodies have a circular movement), exhibit vividly this Fallacy +of Simple Inspection.</p> + +<p>2. <i>Whatever can be thought of apart, or has a separate name, exists +apart as a separate entity</i>, e.g. Nature, Time, qualities, as e.g. +Whiteness, and, worst of all, the Substantiæ Secundæ. Mysticism is this<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> +habit of ascribing objective existence to the subjective creations of +the mind, and reasoning from them to the things themselves.</p> + +<p>3. <i>A fact must follow a certain law, because we see no reason for its +deviating from it in one way rather than in another.</i> This, which is the +same as the Principle of the Sufficient Reason, has been used to prove +the Law of Inertia (the very point to be proved, viz. that only external +force can be a sufficient reason for motion <i>in a particular direction</i>, +being assumed), and also the First Law of Motion, the argument being, in +the latter case, that a moving body, if it do <i>not</i> continue of itself +to move uniformly in a straight line, must deviate right or left, and +that there is <i>no reason</i> for its going one way more than the other: to +which the answer is, that, apart from experience, we could not know +whether or not there were a reason. Geometers often fall into this Fallacy.</p> + +<p>4. <i>The differences in nature must correspond to our received +distinctions</i> (in names and classifications). Thus, the Greeks thought +that, by determining the meanings of words, they ascertained facts. +Aristotle usually starts with 'We say thus or thus.' So, with the +<i>Doctrine of Contrarieties</i>, in which the Pythagoreans and others +assumed that oppositions in language imply similar ones in nature. +Hence, too, the ancient belief in the essential difference between the +laws of things terrestrial and things celestial, and in man's +incapability of imitating nature's works. Bacon's error (which vitiates +his inductive system) was analogous, in looking (either through his +eagerness for practical results, or a lingering belief that causes were +the sole object of philosophy) for the cause<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span> of given effects rather +than the effects of a given cause. Hence sprang his tacit assumption +(and that in enquiries into the causes of a thing's sensible qualities, +where it was especially fatal), that in all cases, e.g. of heat or cold, +the <i>forma</i>, or set of conditions, is <i>one</i> thing. A similar notion, +viz. that each property of gold, as of other things, has its one +<i>forma</i>, produced the belief in Alchemy.</p> + +<p>5. The conditions of a phenomenon often do resemble the phenomenon +itself, e.g. in cases of Motion, Contagion, Feelings; but it is a +Fallacy to suppose that <i>they must or probably will</i>. By this fancied +law men guided their conjectures. Thus, the <i>Doctrine of Signatures</i> +was, that substances showed their uses as medicines by external +resemblance, either to their supposed effect, or to the disease. So, the +Cartesians, and even Leibnitz, argued, that nothing physical but +previous motion could account for motion, explaining the human body's +voluntary motions by Nervous Vibrations or by Animal Spirits. Hence, +too, the inference that there is a correspondence between the physical +qualities of the cause, and like or like-named ones, either of the +phenomenon (e.g. between sharp particles and a sharp taste), or of its +effects (e.g. between the redness of Mars, and fire and slaughter as +results of that planet's influence). In metaphysics, the Epicureans' +doctrine of <i>species sensibiles</i>, and the moderns' of <i>perception +through ideas</i>, arose from this fallacy (combined with another, viz. +that a thing cannot act where it is not). Again, the conditions of a +thing are sometimes spoken of even as though they were the thing itself. +Thus, in the Novum Organon, heat (i.e. really the conditions of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> +feeling of it) is called a kind of motion; and Darwin, in his Zoonomia, +after describing <i>idea</i> as a kind of <i>notion of external things</i>, +defines it as <i>a motion of the fibres</i>. Cousin says: 'Tout ce qui est +vrai de l'effet est vrai de la cause,' though, the reverse <i>might</i> be +true; and Coleridge affirms, as <i>an evident truth</i>, that mind and +matter, as having no common property, cannot act on each other. The same +fallacy led Leibnitz to his <i>pre-established harmony</i>, and Malebranche +to his <i>occasional causes</i>. So, Cicero argues that mental pleasures, if +arising from the bodily, could not, as they do, exceed their cause; and +Descartes, that the Efficient Cause must have all the perfections of the +effect. Conversely Descartes, too, and persons who assail, e.g. the +Principle of Population by reference to Divine benevolence (thus +implying that, because God is perfect, therefore what <i>they</i> think +perfection must obtain in nature), assume that effects must resemble their causes.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<h3>FALLACIES OF OBSERVATION.</h3> + +<p>A fallacy of Observation (the first of the three fallacies of Proof) may +be either negative or positive.</p> + +<p>1. The former, which is called Non-observation, is a case, not of a +positive mis-estimate of evidence, or of the proper faculties (whether +the senses or reason) not having been employed, but simply of the +non-employment of any of the faculties. It arises α ([Greek: a]) from +neglect of instances. Sometimes this is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> when there is a stronger motive +to remember the instances on the one side, and the observers have +neglected the principle of the Elimination of Chance. Hence (the mind, +as Bacon says, being more moved by affirmative than by negative +instances) the belief in predictions, e.g. about the weather, because +they occasionally turn out correct; and the credit of the proverb, that +'Fortune favours fools,' since the cases of a wise man's success through +luck are forgotten in his more numerous successes through genius. But a +preconceived opinion is the <i>chief</i> cause why opposing instances are +overlooked. Hence originate the errors about physical facts (e.g. of +Copernicus's foes, and friends, too, about the falling stone), and <i>à +fortiori</i>, on moral, social, and religious subjects, where yet stronger +feelings are involved.</p> + +<p>The fallacy of Non-observation may occur β ([Greek: b]) from neglect, not +of the material instances wholly, but of some material facts in them, +e.g. in cases of cures by quack remedies (such as Kenelm Digby's +'sympathetic powder'), of some attendant fact (as exclusion of air from +a wound, rest, regimen, and the like) which really worked the cure. +Sometimes the neglected fact is one ascertainable, not by the senses, +but by reasoning, which has been overlooked. Thus, Cousin's argument +that, if the sole end of punishment were to prevent crime by +intimidating intending criminals, the punishment of the innocent, +indiscriminately with the guilty, would have the same effect, ignores +the fact that the innocent would then be equally intimidated, and so the +punishment would be of no use as an example to criminals. So, in +Political Economy, where the effects of a cause often consist of two +sets<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> of phenomena, the one obvious, the other deeper under the surface, +and exactly contrary, the latter is often neglected. This was why the +rapidly spent capital of the prodigal was supposed formerly to employ +more labour than the invested savings of the parsimonious, and the +purchase of native goods to encourage native industry more than the +purchase of foreign.</p> + +<p>2. The error in Mal-observation, which is the <i>positive</i> kind of +Mis-observation, is not the overlooking facts, but the seeing them +wrong. It arises from mistaking what is in fact inference (as much +<i>must</i> be, whenever we try to observe or to describe) for perception, +which is infallible evidence of what is really perceived. The +Anti-Copernicans, when they appealed to common sense, made this mistake. +So do untrained persons generally in describing facts, especially +natural phenomena (e.g. apothecaries and nurses in stating symptoms), +and that, too, in proportion to their ignorance. We might expect this, +since usually the actual perceptions of the senses (e.g. the colour and +extension) are not of interest, except as marks whence to draw +inferences about something else (e.g. about the body, to which these +qualities belong). Painters, therefore, to know what the sensation +actually was, have to go through a special training. But this confusion +of inference with perception is still more likely in highly abstract +subjects; and, consequently, in these, mere, and often false inferences, +have continually been regarded as intuitive judgments.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER V.</h2> + +<h3>FALLACIES OF GENERALISATION.</h3> + +<p>This class includes whatever errors of generalisation are not mere +blunders, but arise from some wrong general conception of the inductive +process. Only a few kinds can be noted. 1. Under this Fallacy come +generalisations which <i>cannot</i> be established by experience, e.g. +inferences from the order in the Solar System to other and unknown parts +of the universe; and also, except when a particular effect would +contradict either the laws of number and extension, or the universal law +of causality, all inferences from the fact that <i>we</i> have never known of +a particular effect to its impossibility. 2. Those generalisations also +are fallacious which resolve, either, as in early Greece, all things +into one element, or, as often in modern times, impressions on the +senses, differing in quality, and not merely in degree, into the same; +e.g. heat, light, and (through vibrations) sensation, into motion; +mental, into nervous states; and vital phenomena, into mechanical or +chemical processes. In these theories, one fact has its laws applied to +another. It may possibly be a condition of that other; but even then the +mode in which the new fact is actually produced would have to be +explained by its own law, and not by that of the condition. 3. Again, +generalisations got by Simple Enumeration, fall under this Fallacy. That +sort of Induction 'precariò concludit,' says Bacon, 'et periculo +exponitur ab instantiâ contradictoriâ, ... ex his tantummodò quæ præsto +sunt pronuncians.' The ancients used it; and in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> questions relating to +man and society, it is still employed by <i>practical</i> men. By it men +arrived at the various examples of the formula, <i>Whatsoever has never +been</i> (e.g. a State without artificial distinctions of rank; negroes as +civilised as the white race) <i>will never be</i>; which, being inductions +without elimination, could at most form the ground only of the lowest +empirical laws. Higher empirical laws can be got, when a phenomenon +presents (as no negation can) a series of regular gradations, since +something may then be inferred from the observed as to the unobservable +terms of the series. Such is the law of man's necessary progression, in +contradiction to the above formula. But even this better generalisation +is similarly, though not as grossly, fallacious as the preceding, when, +though not itself a cause, but only a summary expression for the general +result of all the causes, it is accepted as <i>the</i> law of human changes, +past and even future. So, empirical generalisations, from present to +past time, and from the character of one nation to that of another, are +similarly fallacious when employed as causal laws. 4. This Fallacy +occurs, not only when an empirical is confounded with a causal law, but +when causation is inferred improperly. The mistake sometimes lies in +inferring <i>à posteriori</i> that one fact must be the cause of another +(e.g. the National Debt, or some special institution, of England's +prosperity), because of their casual conjunction; at other times, in +assuming <i>à priori</i> that one of several coexisting agents is the sole +cause, and then deducing the effects from it exclusively. The latter is +properly False Theory. It has been exemplified in medicine by the +tracing of all diseases by one school, to viscidity<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> of the blood, by +another, to the presence of some acid or alkali, and, in politics, by +the assumption that some special form of government or society is +absolutely good. 5. In False Analogies (which fall under this Fallacy) +there is no pretence of a conclusive induction. The argument from +Analogy is the inferring, in the absence of evidence either way, that an +object resembles a second object in one point, because it is seen to +resemble it in another point, which either is not known to be connected +with the first by causation (as, that the planets must be inhabited +because they obey the same astronomical laws with the earth, which is), +or which is known to be, not, indeed, its cause or its effect, but +either one of a set of conditions, which together are its cause, or an +occasional effect of its cause. Now, persons (usually from poverty, not +from luxuriance, of imagination) often overrate the weight of true +analogies; but the fallacy specially consists in inferring resemblance +in one point from resemblance in another, when the evidence is not only +not in favour of, but even positively against the connection of the two +by way of causation. It is so in the argument in favour of absolutism, +on the ground of its resemblance to paternal government in the one point +of irresponsibility, as though the assumed benefits of paternal rule +flowed from this quality. Similarly fallacious are the inferences, +through analogies, from the liability to decay of bodies natural to that +of bodies politic; from the supposed need of a <i>primum mobile</i> in nature +to that of an irresponsible power in a state; and from the effects of a +decrease of a country's corn to the effects of a decrease of its gold +(the utility of which, but not of corn, depends on its<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> value, and its +value on its scarcity). Such, also, were the Pythagorean inferences that +there is a music of the spheres, because the intervals between the +planets have the same proportion as the divisions of the monochord; and, +again, that the movements of the stars as being <i>divine</i> must be +regular, because so are those even of orderly <i>men</i>. So, Aristotle and +other ancients supposed perfection to obtain in all natural facts, +because it appeared to exist in some; and so, the Stoics tried to prove +the equality of all crimes by reference to various similes and metaphors +(as, that the man held half an inch below the surface will be drowned as +certainly as the man at the bottom of the sea; and that want of skill is +shown as much in steering a straw-laden boat as a treasure galleon on to +the rocks). But, in fact, the connection by causation between the known +and the inferred resemblance, which is <i>assumed</i> by these metaphors, is +the very thing which they are brought to prove. The real use of such +cases of analogy as metaphors is that they serve, not as an argument, +but as an assertion that one exists. Though they cannot prove, they +sometimes suggest the proof, and point to a case in which the same +grounds for a conclusion have been found adequate. Such are d'Alembert's +classification of successful politicians as either eagles or serpents; +and the statement, as an argument for education, that, in waste land +weeds will spring up; and such is <i>not</i> Bacon's inference from the +levity of floating straw to the worthlessness of the <i>extant</i> scientific +works of the ancients.</p> + +<p>The great source of fallacious generalisation is bad classification, by +which things with no, or no important, common properties, are grouped +together.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> Worst is it, when a word which commonly signifies some +definite fact is applied to other facts only slightly similar. Bacon +(who has himself thus erred in his enquiries into heat) specifies, as +examples of this, the various applications (got, by unscientific +abstraction, from the original sense) of the word 'wet,' to flame, air, +dust, and glass, as well as to water. The application by Plato, +Aristotle, and other ancients, of the terms Generation, Corruption, and +κἱνησις [Greek: kinêsis] to many heterogeneous phenomena, with a mixture of the +ideas belonging to them severally, caused many perplexities, which may +be noticed under Fallacies of Confusion.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER VI.</h2> + +<h3>FALLACIES OF RATIOCINATION.</h3> + +<p>These fallacies (to which the name <i>Fallacy</i> is commonly applied +exclusively) would generally be detected if the arguments were set out +formally; and the value of the syllogistic rules is, that they force the +reasoner to be aware what it is that he is really asserting. The +frequent errors in processes such as Conversion and Opposition, which +are in appearance, though not in reality, inferences from premisses, may +for convenience be here referred to. Such are the simple conversion of +an universal affirmative; the corresponding error in a hypothetical +proposition of inferring the truth of the antecedent from that of the +consequent; and the confusing of a contrary with a contradictory, which +amounts, in practice, to mistaking the reverse of wrong for right. But +fallacies of Ratiocination properly lie in syllogisms. They<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span> commonly +resolve themselves, when in a single syllogism, into the having more +than three terms, whether covertly, as through an undistributed middle, +or an illicit process, or avowedly. But the most dangerous and the +commonest of these fallacies arise in a chain of argument from <i>changing +the premisses</i>. One of the obscurer forms of this is the fallacy <i>a +dicto secundum quid</i> (i.e. with a qualification, or condition, +expressed, or, more usually, understood) <i>ad dictum simpliciter</i>. Thus, +the Mercantile Theory was in favour of prohibiting all trade which tends +to carry out more money than it brings in, on the ground that money is +riches, though it is so only if the money can be <i>freely</i> spent. Such, +too, was the argument (used to support the doctrine that tithes fall on +the landlord) that, because now the rent of tithe-free land exceeds that +of tithed land, the rent from the latter would be increased by the +abolition of all tithes. There was a similar fallacy in the use of the +maxim, that individuals are the best judges of their pecuniary +interests, against Mr. Wakefield's scheme for concentrating settlers. +Cases in which the condition of <i>time</i> is dropped, fall under this same +particular fallacy, as, when the maxim that prices always find their +level, is construed as meaning that they are always <i>at</i> their level. It +is the same with the reasoning (especially in political and social +subjects), upon principles, which are true in the absence of all +modifying causes, as though no such causes <i>could</i> exist. Other +analogous fallacies are those <i>a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum +quid</i> (the converse of the preceding), and <i>a dicto secundum quid ad +dictum secundum alterum quid</i>.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER VII.</h2> + +<h3>FALLACIES OF CONFUSION.</h3> + +<p>Under this head come all fallacies which arise, not so much from a false +estimate of the probative force of known evidence, as from an indistinct +conception what the evidence is.</p> + +<p>1. Thus, where there is an ambiguous middle, or a term used in different +senses in the premisses and in the conclusion, the argument proceeds as +though there were evidence to the point, when, in fact, there is none. +This error does not occur much in direct inductions, since the things +themselves are there present to the senses or memory; but chiefly, in +Ratiocination, where we are deciphering our own or others' notes. The +ambiguity arises very often from assuming that a word corresponds +precisely in meaning with the root itself (e.g. <i>representative</i>), or +with cognate words from the same root, called <i>paronymous</i> words (as, +<i>artful</i>, with <i>art</i>). Other examples of ambiguities are; 'Money,' +which, meaning both the currency and also capital seeking investment, is +often thought to be scarce in the former sense, because scarce in the +latter; 'Influence of Property,' which, signifying equally the influence +of respect for the power for good, and of fear of the power for evil, +which is possessed by the rich, is represented as being assailed under +its former form when attacked really only under the latter; 'Theory,' +which, because applied popularly to the accounting for an effect apart +from facts, is ridiculed, even when expressing, as it properly does, the +result of philosophical induction<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> from experience; 'The Church,' which +refers (as in the question of the inviolability of <i>Church</i> property) +sometimes to the clergy alone, sometimes to all its members; 'Good,' in +the Stoic argument that virtue, as alone <i>good</i> (in the Stoic sense), +must therefore include freedom and beauty, because these are <i>good</i> (in +the popular sense). So, the meaning of 'I' shifts from <i>the laws of my +nature</i> to <i>my will</i>, in Descartes' <i>à priori</i> argument for the being of +a God, viz. that there must be an external archetype whence I got the +conception, for if <i>I</i> (i.e. <i>the laws of my nature</i>) made it, <i>I</i> (i.e. +<i>my will</i>, and not, as it should consistently be, <i>the laws of my +nature</i>) could unmake it; but <i>I</i> (i.e. <i>my will</i>) cannot. In the +Free-Will controversy, 'I' is used ambiguously for volitions, actions, +and mental dispositions, and 'Necessity' both for <i>Certainty</i> and for +<i>Compulsion</i>. From the application of 'same,' 'one,' 'identical,' which +primarily refer to a single object, to several objects because +<i>similar</i>, grew up (for the purpose of accounting for the supposed +<i>oneness</i> in things said to have the <i>same</i> nature or qualities) both +the Platonic <i>Ideas</i>, and also the <i>Substantial Forms</i> and <i>Second +Substances</i> of the Aristotelians, even though the latter did see the +distinction between things differing both <i>specie</i> and <i>numero</i>, and +those differing <i>numero</i> only. And thence, too, sprang Berkeley's proof +of the existence of a Universal Mind from the supposed need of such a +Being to harbour, in the interval, the idea, which, one and the same +(really, only two <i>similar</i> ideas), a man's mind has entertained at two +distinct times. The difficulty in <i>Achilles and the Tortoise</i> arises +from the use of <i>infinity</i>, or, <i>for ever</i>, in the premisses,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> to +signify a finite time which is infinitely divisible, and, in the +conclusion, to signify an infinite time. Thus, again, 'right' is used to +express, both what others have no right to stop a man from doing, and +also what it is not against his own duty to do; both what people are +entitled to expect from, and also what they may enforce from others. The +Fallacy of Composition and Division, i.e. the use of the same term in a +syllogism, at one time in a collective, at another in a distributive +sense, is one of the Fallacies of Ambiguous Terms. Examples of it are +the arguments, that <i>great men</i> (collectively) could be dispensed with, +because the place of any particular great man might have been supplied +(i.e., in fact, by some other great man); and, that a high prize in a +lottery may be reasonably expected (by <i>a certain individual</i>, viz. +oneself), because a high prize is commonly gained (<i>by some one or other</i>).</p> + +<p>2. In Petitio Principii, the premisses are not even verbally sufficient +for the conclusion, since one premiss is either clearly the same as the +conclusion, or actually proved from it, or not susceptible of any other +proof. Men commonly fall into it, through believing that the premiss +<i>was</i> verified, though they have forgotten how. But the variety, termed +Reasoning in a Circle, implies a conscious attempt to prove two +propositions reciprocally from each other. This formal proof is not +often attempted, except under the pressure of controversy; but, from +mistaking mutual coherency for truth, propositions, which cannot be +proved except from each other, are often <i>admitted</i>, when expressed in +different language, without other proof. Frequently a proposition is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span> +presented in abstract terms as a proof of the same in concrete, as, in +Molière's parody, 'L'opium endormit parcequ'il a une vertu soporifique.' +So, some qualities of a thing selected arbitrarily are termed its nature +or essence, and then reasoned from as though not able to be counteracted +by any of the rest. 'Question-begging appellatives,' particularly, are +cases of Petitio Principii, e.g. the styling any reform an <i>innovation</i>, +which it really is, only that <i>innovation</i> conveys, besides its +dictionary meaning, a covert sense of something extreme. Thus, in +Cicero's De Finibus, 'Cupiditas,' which usually implies vice, is used to +express certain desires the moral character of which is the point in +question. Again, the infinite divisibility of matter was assumed by the +argument which was used to prove it, viz. that the least portion of +matter must have both an upper and an under surface (which, as every +other Fallacy of Confusion, when cleared up, appears as a fallacy of a +different sort, under shelter of which, as indeed in ratiocinative +fallacies generally, the mere verbal juggle at first escapes detection). +Such, again, was Euler's argument, that <i>minus</i> multiplied by <i>minus</i> +gives <i>plus</i>, <i>because</i> it could not give the same as <i>minus</i> multiplied +by <i>plus</i>, which gives <i>minus</i>. So, some ethical writers begin by +assuming, that certain general sentiments are the <i>natural</i> sentiments +of mankind, and thence argue that any which differ are morbid and +<i>unnatural</i>. Thus, lastly, Hobbes and Rousseau rested the existence of +government and law on a supposed social compact, and not on men's +perception of the interests of society, which, however, could be the +only ground for their abiding by such compact if a fact.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span></p><p>3. In Ignoratio Elenchi, or, the Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion, the +error lies not either in mistaking the import of the premisses, or in +forgetting what they are, but in mistaking what is the conclusion to be +proved. Sometimes, a particular is substituted for the universal as the +proposition needing proof, and sometimes, a proposition with different +terms. Under this fallacy come the cases, not only of proving what was +not denied, but of disproving what was not asserted; e.g. the argument +used against Malthus (whose own position was, that population increases +only <i>in so far as not kept down</i> by prudence, or by poverty and +disease), that, at times, population has been nearly stationary; or +again, that, in some country or other, population and comfort are +increasing together, Malthus himself having asserted that this might be +so, if capital has increased. Similarly, even Reid, Stewart, and Brown +(not merely Dr. Johnson) urged that Berkeley ought, if consistent, to +have run his head against a post, as though the non-recognition of an +occult <i>cause</i> of sensations implies disbelief in any <i>fixed order among them</i>.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span></p> + +<h2>BOOK VI.</h2> + +<h3>ON THE LOGIC OF THE MORAL SCIENCES.</h3> + +<hr class="smler" /> + +<h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> + +<h3>INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.</h3> + +<p>Many complex problems have been resolved through the use of the +Scientific Methods, and thus only. The most complex of all problems are +the problems relating to Man himself; and of them those concerned with +the Mind and Society have never been scientifically resolved. They can +be rescued from empiricism, if at all, only by being submitted to some +of the methods already characterised as applicable to science in +general. Which of these methods must be selected, and why; what are the +causes of previous failures; and what degree of success now is possible +or probable, will be considered in this book, when a preliminary +objection (<i>based on the theory of free will</i>), that men's actions are +not, like other natural events, subject to invariable laws, has been first removed.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> + +<h3>LIBERTY AND NECESSITY.</h3> + +<p>The theory of <i>free will</i>, viz. that the will is determined by itself, +and not by antecedents, was invented<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> as being more in accordance with +the dignity of human nature and our consciousness of freedom, than +<i>philosophical necessity</i>. The latter doctrine, in laying down simply +that our volitions and actions are invariable consequents of our +antecedent states of mind, and that, given our motives, character, and +disposition, other men could predict our conduct as certainly as any +physical event, states indeed nothing which is in itself either +contradicted by our consciousness, or degrading; yet the doctrine of +causation, as applied to volition, is supposed, from the natural +tendency of the mind to imagine falsely that a mysterious constraint is +exercised by <i>any</i> antecedent over the consequent, to imply some state +of dependence which our consciousness does contradict. Moreover, the +erroneous notion that something more than uniformity of order and +capability of being predicted is meant, has been favoured by the use of +the ambiguous term <i>necessity</i> (which, it is true, commonly implies +irresistibleness), to signify simply that the given cause will be +followed by the effect subject to all possibilities of counteraction by +other causes. Most necessarians have been themselves deceived by the +expression: they are apt to be partially fatalists as to their own +actions, with a weaker spirit of self-culture than the believers in +free-will, and to fail to see that the fact of their character being +formed <i>for</i> them, that is, by their circumstances, including their own +organisation, is consistent with its being formed <i>by</i> themselves, as +intermediate agents, moulding it in any particular way which they may +<i>wish</i>. The belief that the <i>wishing</i> is excited by external causes, +e.g. by education, casual aspirations, and experience of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> ills resulting +from our previous character, can be of no practical harm, and does not +conflict with our feeling of moral freedom, that is, of power, <i>if we +wish</i>, to modify or conquer our own character.</p> + +<p>The ambiguity of the word <i>motive</i> has also caused confusion. A motive, +when used to signify that which determines the will, means not always or +only the anticipation of a pleasure or a pain, but often the desire of +the action itself. The action having finally become by association in +itself desirable, we may get the habit of willing it (that is, get a +<i>purpose</i>) without reference to its being pleasurable. We are then said +to have a confirmed character.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER III.</h2> + +<h3>THERE IS, OR MAY BE, A SCIENCE OF HUMAN NATURE.</h3> + +<p>Any facts may be a subject of science, if they follow one another +according to constant laws; and this, whether, although the ultimate +laws are known, yet, of the derivative laws on which a phenomenon +directly depends, either <i>none</i>, as in Meteorology, or, as in Tidology, +<i>only</i> the laws of the greater causes on which the chief part of a +phenomenon directly depends, have been ascertained, and not those of all +the minor modifying causes; or, as in Astronomy (which is therefore +called an <i>exact</i> science), both the ultimate laws are known, and also +the derivative laws as well of the greater as of all the minor causes. +The science of Human Nature cannot be exact, the causes of human conduct +being only approximately known. Hence it is impossible to predict <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span><i>with +scientific accuracy</i> any one man's acts, resulting as they do partly +from his circumstances, which, in the future, cannot be precisely +foreseen, and, partly, from his character, which can never be exactly +calculated, because the causes which have determined it are sure, in the +aggregate, not to be entirely like those which have determined any other +man's. But approximate generalisations, though only probably true as to +the acts and characters of individuals, will be certainly true as to +those of masses, whose conduct is determined by general causes chiefly; +and they are therefore sufficient for political and social science. They +must, however, be connected deductively with the universal laws of human +nature on which they rest, or they will be only low empirical laws. This +is the text of the next two chapters.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<h3>THE LAWS OF MIND.</h3> + +<p>By the laws of mind (i.e. as considered in this treatise, the laws of +mental phenomena) are meant the laws according to which one state of +mind is produced by another. If M. Comte and others be right in saying +that, in like manner with the mental phenomena called sensations, all +the other states of mind have for their proximate causes nervous states, +there would be no original laws of mind, and Psychology would be a mere +branch of Physiology. But at present, this tenet is not proved, however +highly probable; and, at all events, the characteristics of those +nervous<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> states are quite unknown; consequently the uniformities of +succession among the mental phenomena, which undoubtedly do exist, and +which are not proved to result from more general laws, must be +considered as the subject of a distinct science called Psychology. We +can ascertain only by experiment the simple laws of Mind, such as—1. +That a state of consciousness can be reproduced in the absence of the +cause which first excited it (i.e. that every mental impression has its +idea), and—2. That these secondary mental states themselves are +produced according to the three laws of ideas. But the complex laws are +got from these simple laws, according either to the Composition of +Causes, when the complex idea is said to <i>consist of</i> the Simple Ideas, +or to chemical combination, when it is said to be <i>generated by</i> them. +Hartley and Mr. James Mill indeed hold <i>all</i> the mental phenomena to be +generated by chemical combination from simple ideas of <i>sensation</i>, +however unlike to the alleged results; but even though they had proved +their theory, employing the Method of Difference, and not only the +Method of Agreement (which latter itself they have used only partially), +we should still have to study the complex ideas themselves inductively, +before we could ascertain their sequences.</p> + +<p>The analytical enquiry (neglected alike by the German metaphysical +school, and by M. Comte) into the general laws of mind, will show that +the mental differences of individuals are not ultimate facts, but may be +referred generally to their particular mental history, their education +and circumstances, but sometimes also to organic differences influencing +the mental phenomena, not directly, but through the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> medium of the +psychological causes of the latter. Men's animal instincts, however, are +probably, equally with the mere sensations, connected directly with +physical conditions of the brain and nerves. Whether or not there be any +direct relation between organic causes and any other mental phenomena, +Physiology is likely in time to show; but at least Phrenology does not +embody the principles of the relation.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER V.</h2> + +<h3>ETHOLOGY, OR THE SCIENCE OF THE FORMATION OF CHARACTER.</h3> + +<p>Till the Empirical laws of Mind, i.e. the truths of common experience, +are <i>explained</i> by being resolved into the causal laws (the subject of +the last chapter), they are mere approximate generalisations which +cannot be safely applied beyond the limits in which they were collected +by observation. But this does not prove aught against the universality +and simplicity of the ultimate mental laws; for the same is the case +with the empirical laws even in astronomy, where each effect results +from but few causes; <i>à fortiori</i>, therefore, will it be so in regard to +man's character, which is influenced by each of his circumstances, which +differ in the case of each nation, generation, and individual. But +though mankind have not one universal character, yet there exist +universal laws of the formation of character. These universal laws +cannot be discovered experimentally, i.e. either by artificial +experiment, since we can seldom vary the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> experiment sufficiently, and +exclude all but known circumstances, or by observation, since, even in +the most favourable instances for the latter, viz. National acts, only +the Method of Agreement can be applied. Observation has its uses in +relation to this subject; but only as verification of the results +arrived at by the Deductive Method. The Deductive Method must be +employed to obtain the laws of the formation of character. They are got +by supposing any given circumstances, and then considering how these +will, according to the general laws of mind, influence the formation of +character. So, contrary to Bacon's rule, laid down wrongly as universal, +for the discovery of principles, the highest generalisations must be +first ascertained by the experimental science of Psychology; and then +will come what is in fact a system of corollaries from the latter +science, viz. Ethology, i.e. (as dealing only with tendencies) the +<i>exact</i> science of human character, or of education both national and +individual, and which has for its principles the middle principles +(<i>axiomata media</i>) of mental science. It does not yet, but it will soon, +exist as a science. Its object must be to determine, from the general +laws of mind, combined with man's general position in the universe, what +circumstances will aid or check the growth of good or bad qualities, so +that the Art of Education will be merely the transformation of these +middle principles into precepts and their adaptation to the special +cases. But at every step these middle principles, got by deduction, must +be verified <i>à posteriori</i> by empirical laws, and by specific experience +respecting the assumed circumstances.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER VI.</h2> + +<h3>GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE SOCIAL SCIENCE.</h3> + +<p>Political and social phenomena have been thought too complex for +scientific treatment. Practitioners hitherto have been the only +students; and so, as in medicine, before the rise of Physiology and +Natural History, <i>experimenta fructifera</i>, and not <i>lucifera</i>, have been +sought. The scheme of such a science has even been thought quackery, +through the vain attempts of some theorists to frame universal precepts, +as though their failure (arising from the variety of human +circumstances) proved that the phenomena do not conform to universal +laws. Social phenomena, however, being phenomena of human nature in +masses, must, as human nature is itself subject to fixed laws, obey +fixed laws resulting from the fixed laws of human nature. The number and +changefulness of the data (unlike those of Astronomy) will prevent our +ever predicting the far future of society. But, when general laws have +been ascertained, an application of them to the individual circumstances +of a given age and country will show us the causes and tendencies of, +and the means of modifying, its actual condition. A consideration of two +methods, erroneously used for this science, viz. the Experimental or +Chemical, and the Abstract or Geometrical, will introduce us to the true one.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span></p> + +<h2>CHAPTER VII.</h2> + +<h3>THE CHEMICAL, OR EXPERIMENTAL, METHOD IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE.</h3> + +<p>The followers of this method do not recognise the laws of social +phenomena as merely a composition of the laws of individual human +nature. They demand specific experience in all cases; and they attempt +to make effects, which depend on the greatest possible complication of +causes, the subject of induction by observation and experiment. The +attempt must fail; for, we can neither get by experiment appropriate +<i>artificial</i> instances, nor, by observation, <i>spontaneous</i> instances +(from history), with the circumstances enough varied for a true +induction. Neither the <i>direct</i> nor the <i>indirect</i> Method of Difference +can be applied, for we cannot find either two single instances differing +in nothing but the presence or absence of a given circumstance (the +<i>direct</i>), or two classes respectively agreeing in nothing but the +presence of a circumstance on one side and its absence on the other (the +<i>indirect</i>). Then, again, the Method of Agreement is of small value, +because social phenomena admit the widest plurality of causes; and so +also is that of Concomitant Variations, on account of the mutual action +of the coexisting elements of society being such that what affects one +affects all. The Method of Residues is better suited to social enquiries +than the other three. But <i>it</i> is not a method of pure observation and +experiment. It presupposes that we know, by previous deduction from +principles of human nature, the causes of part of the effect.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span> But if +thus part of the truths are, why may not all be, ascertained by +Deduction, and the experimental argument be confined to the verifying of the deductions?</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER VIII.</h2> + +<h3>THE GEOMETRICAL, OR ABSTRACT, METHOD.</h3> + +<p>The Methods of Elementary Chemistry are applied to social phenomena from +carelessness as to, or ignorance of, any of the higher physical +sciences: the Geometrical Method, from the belief that Geometry, that +is, a science of coexistent, not successive facts, where there are no +conflicting forces, is, and that the now deductive physical sciences of +Causation, where there are conflicting forces, are <i>not</i>, the type of +deductive science. Thus, it seems to have been supposed by many +philosophers, that each social phenomenon results from only one force, +one single property of human nature. For instance, Hobbes assumed (eking +out his assumption by the fiction of an original contract), that +government is founded on fear. Even the scientific Bentham School based +a general theory on one premiss, viz. that men's actions are always +determined by their interests, meaning probably thereby, that the bulk +of the conduct of any succession, or of the majority of any body of men, +is determined by their private or worldly interests. They inferred +thence, that those rulers alone will govern according to the interest of +the governed, whose selfish interests are identified with it (forgetting +that, apart from the philanthropy and sense<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span> of duty of many, the +conduct of <i>all</i> rulers must be influenced by the habits of mind, both +of the whole community, and also of their own class in it, and by the +maxims of their predecessors). Lastly, they laid down that this sense of +identity of interest with the governed is producible only by +responsibility (whereas the personal interest of rulers often prompts +them to acts, e.g. for the suppression of anarchy, which are also for +the interest of the governed). In fact, this school was pleading for +parliamentary reform, and saw truly, that it is against the selfish +interests of rulers that constitutional checks are needed, and that, in +modern Europe, a feeling in the governors of identity of interest, when +not active enough, can be roused only by responsibility to the governed. +Their mistake was, that they based on just these few premisses a general +theory of government, in forgetfulness that such should proceed by +deduction from <i>the whole</i> of the laws of human nature, since each +effect is an aggregate result of many causes operating now through the +same ones, now through different ones, of these laws.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER IX.</h2> + +<h3>THE PHYSICAL, OR CONCRETE DEDUCTIVE, METHOD.</h3> + +<p>The complexity in social effects arises from the number, not of the +laws, but of the data. Therefore, Sociology, i.e. Social Science, must +use the Concrete Deductive Method, compounding with one another the laws +of all the causes on which any one effect depends, and inferring its law +from them all. As in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> the easiest case to which the Method of Deduction +applies, so in this, the most difficult, the conclusions of +ratiocination must be <i>verified</i> by collation with the concrete +phenomena, or, if possible, with their empirical laws; and then the only +effect of an increase in the complication of the subject will be a +tendency to a disturbance, and sometimes even to an inversion (which, +indeed, M. Comte thinks inseparable from all Sociological enquiries) in +the order of the two processes, obliging us, first, to conjecture the +conclusions by specific experience, and then verify them by <i>à priori</i> +reasonings showing their connection with the principles of human nature.</p> + +<p>Sociology is a system not of positive predictions, but of tendencies. Of +tendencies themselves, not many can be laid down as true of all +societies alike. Even in the case of any single feature of society, the +<i>consensus</i> which exists in the body politic, as in the body natural, +makes it uncertain whether a cause with a special tendency in one age or +country will have quite the same in another. General propositions, +therefore, in this deductive science, as, to be true, they must be +hypothetical, and state the operation of a given cause in <i>given +circumstances</i>, so, to be of any utility, should be limited to those +classes of facts, which, though influenced by all sociological agents, +are yet influenced <i>immediately</i> by a few only, certain fixed +combinations of which are likely to recur often. Thus, Political +Economy, taking the one psychological law that men prefer a greater gain +to a smaller, and ignoring every other motive, except what are +perpetually adverse principles to this, viz. men's aversion to labour +and desire of present costly<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> pleasures, assumes, in enquiring what acts +this desire of gain will produce, that, within the department of human +affairs, where it is actually the main end, it is the <i>sole</i> end. Yet +its general propositions are of great practical use, even though it thus +provisionally overlooks as well miscellaneous concurrent causes (with +some exceptions, as e.g. the principle of population), as also the fact +of the non-existence elsewhere of the conditions of any one particular +country (e.g. the peculiarly British mode of distribution of the produce +of industry among three classes). Another hypothetical or abstract +science, which can be carved out of Sociology, is the as yet unexplored +Political Ethology, i.e. the theory of the causes which determine a +people's, or age's, type of character, which collective character, +besides being the most interesting phenomenon in the particular state of +society, is the <i>main</i> cause of the social state which follows, and +moulds <i>entirely</i> customs and laws. The neglect of national diversities +sometimes (as e.g. the assumption by our political economists, that in +commercial populations everywhere, equally as in Great Britain and +America, all motives yield to the desire of gain) vitiates only the +practical application of a proposition; but when the national character +is mixed up at every step with the phenomena (as is the case in +questions respecting the tendencies of forms of government), the +phenomena cannot properly be insulated in a separate branch of Sociology.</p> + +<p>As in Ethology and other deductive sciences, so in Statistics and +History there are empirical laws. The immediate causes of social facts +are often not open to direct observation; and the deductive science<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> can +determine only what causes produce a given effect, and not the frequency +and quantities of them; in such cases, the empirical law of the causes +(which, however, can be applied to new cases only if we know that the +remoter causes, on which these latter causes depend, remain unchanged) +must be found through that of the effects, the Deductive Science relying +then for its data on indirect observation. But, in the separate branches +of Sociology, we cannot obtain empirical laws by specific experience. It +is so particularly (on account both of the number of the causes, and +also the fewness of the instances to be compared with the one in point) +when the effect of any one (e.g. Corn Laws) of many simultaneous social +causes has to be determined. We can, however, in such cases, verify +<i>indirectly</i> a theory as to the influence of a particular cause in given +circumstances, by seeing if the same theory accounts for the <i>existing</i> +state of actual social facts which that cause has a tendency to influence.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER X.</h2> + +<h3>THE INVERSE DEDUCTIVE, OR HISTORICAL, METHOD.</h3> + +<p>The <i>general</i> Science of Society, as contrasted with the branches, +shows, not what effect will follow from a given cause under given +circumstances, but what are the causes and characteristic phenomena of +States of Society generally. A <i>State of Society</i> is the simultaneous +state of all the chief social facts (e.g. employments, beliefs, laws). +It is a condition of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> whole organism; and, when analysed, it +exhibits uniformities of coexistence between its different elements. +But, as this correlation between the phenomena is itself a law resulting +from the laws which regulate the succession between one state of society +and another, the fundamental problem of Social Science is to find these +latter laws. The form of this succession, by which (on account of the +exceptionally constant reaction, in social facts, of the effects, i.e. +human character, on their causes, i.e. human circumstances) one social +state is ever in process of changing into a different one, is now +allowed to be, not, as in the solar system, a cycle, but a <i>progress</i> +(by which is not here <i>necessarily</i> meant <i>improvement</i>, whatever the +fact may be). In France it has been thought, that a law of progress, to +be found by an analysis of the course of history, would enable us to +predict the whole future. But such a law would be empirical, and not +true beyond its own facts; for the succession of mental and social +states cannot have an independent law. Empirical laws must indeed be +found; or a <i>general</i> Science of Society would be impossible: for, the +character of any one generation is so much the result of the characters +of all prior ones, that <i>men</i> could not compute so long a series from +the elementary laws producing it. But the empirical laws, when found (as +they can be, since the series of the effects as a whole is ever growing +in uniformity), must be shown by deductions to be, if not the only +possible, or even the most probable, at least possible, consequences of +the laws of human nature.</p> + +<p>The empirical laws of society are uniformities,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> either of coexistence, +or of succession. The former are ascertained and verified by Social +Statics (which is the theory of the <i>consensus</i>, i.e. the mutual actions +and reactions, of contemporaneous social elements); the latter, by +Social Dynamics (the theory of Society considered as in a state of +progress). As to Social Statics—there is, M. Comte thinks, a perpetual +reciprocity of influence between all aspects of the same organism, and +to such an extent, that the condition of any one which we cannot +directly observe can be estimated by that of another which we can. There +is, he considers, such an interdependence, not only between the +different sciences and arts among themselves, but between the sciences +in general and the arts in general, even between the condition of +different nations of the same age, and between a form of government and +the civilisation of the period. Social Statics will ascertain for us the +requisites of stable political union: it will enquire what special +circumstances have always attended on such union, increasing and +decreasing in proportion to its completeness; and will then verify these +facts as requisites by deducing them from general laws of human nature. +Thus, history indicates as such requisites and conditions of free +political union: 1. A system of educational discipline checking man's +tendency to anarchy; 2. Loyalty, i.e. a feeling of there being +something, whether persons, institutions, or individual freedom and +political and social equality, which is not to be, at least in practice, +called in question; 3. That which the Roman Empire, notwithstanding all +its tyranny, established, viz. a strong sense of common interest among +fellow-citizens (a very<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span> different feeling, by the bye, to mere +antipathy to foreigners).</p> + +<p>Social Dynamics regards sequences. But the <i>consensus</i> in social facts +prevents our tracing the leading facts in one generation to separate +causes in a prior one. Therefore, we must find the law of the +correspondence not only between the simultaneous states, but between the +simultaneous changes of the elements of society. To find this law, +which, when duly verified, will be the scientific derivative law of the +development of humanity, we must combine the statical view of the +phenomena with the dynamical. Fortunately, the state of mankind's +speculative faculties and beliefs, being the prime agent of the social +movement, furnishes a clue in the maze of social elements, since the +order of human progression in all respects will mainly depend on the +order of progression of this prime agent. That the other dispositions +which aid in social progress (e.g. the desire for increased material +comfort) owe their means of working to this (however relatively weak a +propensity it may be) is a conclusion from the laws of human nature; and +this conclusion is in accordance also with the course of history, in +which internal social changes have ever been preceded by proportionate +intellectual changes. To determine the law of the successive +transformations of opinions all past time must be searched, since such +changes appear definitely only at long intervals. M. Comte alone has +followed out this conception of the Historical Method; and his +generalisation, to the effect that speculation has, on all subjects, +three successive stages, has high scientific value.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span></p><p>The Historical Method will trace the derivative laws of social order +and progress. It will enable us both to predict the future, and (thus +founding the noblest part of the Political Art) partly to shape it. At +present, both the Science and the Art are in the rudiments; but they are progressing.</p> + +<hr /> + +<h2>CHAPTER XI.</h2> + +<h3>THE LOGIC OF PRACTICE, OR ART; INCLUDING MORALITY AND POLICY.</h3> + +<p>Practical Ethics, i.e. Morality, is an art; and therefore its Method +must be that of Art in general. Now, Art from the major premiss, +supplied by itself, viz. that the end is desirable, and from the +theorem, lent by Science, of the combinations of circumstances by which +the end can be reached, concludes that to secure this combination of +circumstances is desirable; if it also appear practicable, it turns the +theorem into a rule. Unless Science's report as to the circumstances is +a full one, the rule may fail; and as, in any case, rules of conduct +cannot comprise more than the ordinary conditions of the effect (or they +would be too cumbrous for use), they must, at least in moral subjects, +be considered, till confronted with the theorems, which are the reasons +of them, provisional only. Practical maxims, therefore, till so +confronted, are not universally true even for a given end, much less for +conduct generally, and must not<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> be used, as they are by the +<i>geometrical</i> school, as ultimate premisses.</p> + +<p>Any particular art consists of its rules, <i>together with</i> the theorems +on which they depend; and Art in general consists of the truths of +Science; only these must be arranged in the order most convenient, not, +as in Science (which is an enquiry into the course of nature), for +thought, but for practice. Intermediate scientific truths must be framed +to serve as first principles of the various arts: and through them the +end or purpose of an art will be connected with the means for realising +the conditions of its attainment. The end itself, however, is defined by +the art, not by the science. Each art has one first principle or major +premiss which does not, as the propositions of Science, assert that a +thing <i>is</i> or <i>will be</i>, but recommends it as what <i>ought to be</i>. A +scientific theory, however complete, of the history and tendencies of +society does not show us (without Teleology, i.e. the Doctrine of Ends) +what are the preferable ends. Art itself has its Philosophia Prima, for +ascertaining the standard of ends. There can be but one such standard or +general principle to which all rules of practice should conform; for, if +there were several, a higher yet would be needed, as umpire when they +disagreed. In Morality the felt need of a standard has been sometimes +supplied by the hypothesis of intuitive moral principles: but a standard +would still be wanted for the other two branches of the Art of Life, +viz. Prudence or Policy, and Taste; and <i>their</i> standard when found +would serve for Morality as well. The true standard, or general +principle, is, <i>the promotion of the happiness of</i> <span class="smaller">ALL</span> <i>sentient +beings</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span> This is not the <i>sole</i> end; for instance, ideal nobleness of +will or conduct should be pursued in preference to the <i>specific</i> +pursuit of happiness; but all ends whatsoever must be justified and +should be controlled by it.</p> + +<p class="tbrk"> </p> + +<h4>LONDON<br />PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO.<br />NEW-STREET SQUARE</h4> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Analysis of Mr. Mill's System of Logic, by +William Stebbing + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MILL'S LOGIC *** + +***** This file should be named 30866-h.htm or 30866-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/0/8/6/30866/ + +Produced by David Clarke, Martin Pettit and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from images generously made available +by The Internet Archive/Million Book Project) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> |