,,! ,,art ,,( ,,logical ,,?9k+ ,,or ,,! ,,laws ,,( ,,reason+ ,by ,,william ,,walk] ,,atk9son ,l4,n4 ,,f[l] ,,company #g1 ,imp]ial ,arcade1 ,ludgate ,circus ,london1 ,e4,c41 ,engl& #aiji ,,! ,,progress ,,company ,,*icago1 ,,ill4 ,copyright #aiji ,by ,,! ,,progress ,,company ,*icago1 ,ill41 ,u4,s4,a4 ,,cont5ts ,i4 ,reason+ #i ,,ii4 ,! ,process ( ,reason+ #ag ,,iii4 ,! ,concept #be ,,iv4 ,! ,use ( ,concepts #cg ,v4 ,concepts & ,images #dh ,,vi4 ,t]ms #ef ,,vii4 ,! ,mean+ ( ,t]ms #gc ,,viii4 ,judgm5ts #hb ,,ix4 ,propositions #ij ,x4 ,imm$iate ,reason+ #ii ,,xi4 ,inductive ,reason+ #ajg ,,xii4 ,reason+ by ,induction #aaf ,,xiii4 ,!ory & ,hypo!ses #abe ,,xiv4 ,mak+ & ,te/+ ,hypo!ses #acb ,,xv4 ,d$uctive ,reason+ #add ,,xvi4 ,! ,syllogism #aef ,,xvii4 ,v>ieties ( ,syllogisms #afg ,,xviii4 ,reason+ by ,analogy #agi ,,xix4 ,fallacies #ahf ,,*apt] ,i4 ,,reason+ ,reason+ is def9$ z3 ,! act1 process or art ( ex]cis+ ! faculty ( reason2 ! act or faculty ( employ+ reason 9 argum5t2 argum5tation1 ratioc9ation2 reason+ p[]2 disputation1 discussion1 argum5tation4 ,/ew>t says3 ,! ^w reason itself is f> f be+ precise 9 its mean+4 ,9 common & popul> disc\rse x d5otes t p[] by :i* we di/+ui% tru? f falsehood1 & "r f wrong1 & by :i* we are enabl$ to comb9e means = ! atta9m5t ( p>ticul> ends4 ,by ! employm5t ( ! reason+ faculties ( ! m9d we comp>e objects pres5t$ to ! m9d z p]cepts or concepts1 tak+ up ! raw mat]ials ( ?\ght & weav+ !m into m complex & elaborate m5tal fabrics :i* we call ab/ract & g5]al ideas ( tru?4 ,brooks says3 ,x is ! ?9k+ p[] ( ! m9d2 ! faculty :i* gives u :at has be5 call$ ?\ght-k1 9 di/9ction f s5se-k4 ,x may be reg>d$ z ! m5tal ar*itect among ! faculties2 x trans=ms ! mat]ial furni%$ by ! s5ses 444 into new products1 & ?us builds up ! temples ( sci5ce & philosophy4 ,! la/-m5tion$ au?ority adds3 ,its products are tw(old1 ideas & ?\ghts4 ,an idea is a m5tal product :i* :5 express$ 9 words does n give a proposition2 a ?\ght is a m5tal product :i* embraces ! relation ( two or m ideas4 ,! ideas ( ! und]/&+ are ( two g5]al classes2 ab/ract ideas & g5]al ideas4 ,! ?\ghts are also ( two g5]al classes2 ^? p]ta9+ to cont+5t tru? & ^? p]ta9+ to necess>y tru?4 ,9 cont+5t tru?1 we h facts1 or imm$iate judgm5ts1 & g5]al tru?s includ+ laws & causes1 d]iv$ f p>ticul> facts2 9 necess>y tru? we h axioms1 or self-evid5t tru?s1 & ! tru?s d]iv$ f !m by reason+1 call$ !orems4 ,9 invit+ y to consid] ! processes ( reason+1 we are irresi/ibly rem9d$ ( ! old /ory ( "o ( ,moli]e's plays 9 :i* "o ( ! *>act]s expresses surprise on le>n+ t he _h be5 talk+ prose = =ty ye>s )\t kn[+ x4 ,z ,jevons says 9 m5tion+ ?is3 ,n9ety-n9e p out ( a hundr$ might be equally surpris$ on he>+ t !y _h be5 conv]t+ propositions1 syllogiz+1 fall+ into p>alogisms1 fram+ hypo!ses & mak+ classifications ) g5]a & species4 ,if ask$ :e!r !y 7 logicians1 !y w\ld probably answ]1 ,no6 ,!y w\ld be p>tly "r2 = ,i believe t a l>ge numb] ev5 ( educat$ p]sons h no cle> idea ( :at logic is4 ,yet1 9 a c]ta9 way1 e "o mu/ h be5 a logician s9ce he began to speak4 ,s1 9 ask+ y to consid] ! processes ( reason+ we are n assum+ t y nev] h reason$--on ! contr>y we are fully aw>e t y 9 connection ) e o!r p]son1 h reason$ all y\r mature life4 ,t is n ! "q4 ,:ile ev]yone reasons1 ! fact is equally true t ! majority ( p]sons reason incorrectly4 ,_m p]sons reason along l9es f> f correct & sci5tific1 & suff] !re= & !reby4 ,"s writ]s h claim$ t ! majority ( p]sons are incapable ( ev5 fairly correct reason+1 po9t+ to ! absurd ideas ent]ta9$ by ! masses ( p z a pro( ( ! /atem5t4 ,^! writ]s are probably a little radical 9 _! views & /atem5ts1 b "o is (t5 /ruck ) wond] at ! evid5ces ( incapacity = int]pret+ facts & impressions on ! "p ( ! g5]al public4 ,! masses ( p accept ! mo/ absurd ideas z tru?1 provid+ !y are gravely ass]t$ by "s "o claim+ au?ority4 ,! mo/ illogical ideas are accept$ )\t dispute or exam9ation1 provid+ !y are /at$ solemnly & au?oritatively4 ,p>ticul>ly 9 ! respective fields ( religion & politics d we f9d ?is bl9d acceptance ( illogical ideas by ! multitude4 ,m]e ass]tion by ! lead]s seems suffici5t = ! multitude ( foll[]s to acquiesce4 ,9 ord] to reason correctly x is n m]ely necess>y to h a good intellect4 ,an a?lete may h ! prop] proportions1 good framework1 & symmetrical muscles1 b he _c expect to cope ) o!rs ( 8 k9d unless he has le>n$ to develop ^? muscles & to use !m to ! be/ advantage4 ,&1 9 ! same way1 ! man :o wi%es to reason correctly mu/ develop 8 intellectual faculties & mu/ also le>n ! art ( us+ !m to ! be/ advantage4 ,o!rwise he w wa/e 8 m5tal en]gy & w be plac$ at a disadvantage :5 confront$ ) a tra9$ logician 9 argum5t or debate4 ,"o :o has witness$ a debate or argum5t betwe5 two m5 equally /rong intellectually1 "o ( :om is a tra9$ logician & ! o!r lack+ ?is advantage1 w nev] =get ! impression produc$ ^u him by ! unequal /ruggle4 ,! conflict is l t ( a p[]ful wre/l]1 untra9$ 9 ! little tricks & turns ( ! sci5ce1 9 ! v>i\s pr9ciples ( apply+ =ce 9 a c]ta9 way at a c]ta9 "t1 at a c]ta9 place1 ) a tra9$ & exp]i5c$ wre/l]4 ,or ( a conflict betwe5 a muscul> giant untra9$ 9 ! art ( box+1 :5 confront$ ) a tra9$ & exp]i5c$ expon5t ( ! manly art4 ,! result ( any su* conflict is assur$ 9 advance4 ,!re=e1 ev]yone %\ld refuse to re/ cont5t )\t a k ( ! art ( reason+ correctly1 = o!rwise he places himself "u a heavy h&icap 9 ! race = success1 & all[s o!rs1 p]haps less well-equipp$ m5tally1 to h a decid$ advantage ov] him4 ,jevons says 9 ?is connection3 ,to be a good logician is1 h[ev]1 f> m valuable ?an to be a good a?lete2 because logic tea*es u to reason well1 & reason+ gives u k1 & k1 z ,"l ,bacon said1 is p[]4 ,z a?letes1 m5 _c = a mom5t comp>e ) horses or tig]s or monkeys4 ,yet1 ) ! p[] ( k1 m5 tame horses & %oot tig]s & despise monkeys4 ,! weake/ framework ) ! mo/ logical m9d w conqu] 9 ! end1 because x is easy to =esee ! future1 to calculate ! result ( actions1 to avoid mi/akes :i* might be fatal1 & to discov] ! means ( do+ ?+s :i* seem$ impossible4 ,if su* little creatures z ants _h bett] bra9s ?an m51 !y w\ld ei!r de/roy m5 or make !m into slaves4 ,x is true t we _c use our eyes & e>s )\t gett+ "s k9d ( k1 & ! brute animals c d ! same4 ,b :at gives p[] is ! deep] k call$ ,sci5ce4 ,p may see1 & he>1 & feel all _! lives )\t really le>n+ ! nature ( ?+s !y see4 ,b reason is ! m9d's eye1 & enables u to see :y ?+s are1 & :5 & h[ ev5ts may be made to happ5 or n to happ54 ,! logician endeavors to le>n exactly :at ?is reason is :i* makes ! p[] ( m54 ,we all1 z ,i h said1 mu/ reason well or ill1 b logic is ! sci5ce ( reason+ & enables u to di/+ui% betwe5 ! good reason+ :i* leads to tru?1 & ! bad reason+ :i* e day betrays p into error & mis=tune4 ,9 ?is volume we hope to be able to po9t out ! me?ods & pr9ciples ( correctly us+ ! reason+ faculties ( ! m9d1 9 a pla91 simple mann]1 devoid ( useless te*nicalities & academic discussion4 ,we %all adh]e1 9 ! ma91 to ! pr9ciples e/abli%$ by ! be/ ( ! au?orities ( ! old s*ool ( psy*ology1 bl5d+ ! same ) ^? advanc$ by ! be/ au?orities ( ! ,new ,psy*ology4 ,no attempt to make ( ?is book a s*ool text-book %all be made1 = our sole object & aim is to br+ ?is important subject be=e ! g5]al public compos$ ( p :o h nei!r ! "t nor incl9ation to indulge 9 te*nical discussion nor academic hair-splitt+1 b :o desire to und]/& ! und]ly+ work+ pr9ciples ( ! ,laws ( ,reason+4 ,,*apt] ,,ii4 ,,! ,,process ,,( ,,reason+ ,! processes ( ,reason+ may be said to comprise f\r g5]al /ages or /eps1 z foll[s3 ,i4 ,ab/raction1 by :i* is meant ! process ( draw+ (f & sett+ aside f an object1 p]son or ?+1 a quality or attribute1 & mak+ ( x a di/9ct object ( ?\ght4 ,= in/ance1 if ,i p]ceive 9 a lion ! quality ( /r5g?1 & am able to ?9k ( ?is quality ab/ractly & indep5d5tly ( ! animal--if ! t]m /r5g? has an actual m5tal mean+ to me1 indep5d5t ( ! lion--!n ,i h ab/ract$ t quality2 ! ?9k+ !re( is an act ( ab/raction2 & ! ?\ght-idea itself is an ab/ract idea4 ,"s writ]s hold t ^! ab/ract ideas are realities1 & n m]e figm5ts ( fancy4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,! rose dies1 b my idea ( its color & fragrance rema9s4 ,o!r au?orities reg>d ,ab/raction z b an act ( att5tion conc5trat$ ^u b ! p>ticul> quality to ! exclusion ( o!rs1 & t ! ab/ract idea has no exi/5ce ap>t f ! g5]al idea ( ! object 9 :i* x is includ$4 ,sir ,william ,hamilton says3 ,we c rivet our att5tion on "s p>ticul> mode ( a ?+1 z its smell1 its color1 its figure1 its size1 etc41 & ab/ract x f ! o!rs4 ,?is may be call$ ,modal ,ab/raction4 ,! ab/raction we h n[ be5 consid]+ is p]=m$ on individual objects1 & is consequ5tly p>ticul>4 ,!re is no?+ necess>ily connect$ ) g5]alization 9 ab/raction2 g5]alization is inde$ dep5d5t on ab/raction1 :i* x supposes2 b ab/raction does n involve g5]alization4 ,,ii4 ,g5]alization1 by :i* is meant ! process ( =m+ ,concepts or ,g5]al ,ideas4 ,x acts 9 ! direction ( appreh5d+ ! common qualities ( objects1 p]sons & ?+s1 & comb9+ & unit+ !m into a s+le notion or conception :i* w compreh5d & include !m all4 ,a ,g5]al ,idea or ,concept diff]s f a p>ticul> idea 9 t x includes )9 itself ! qualities ( ! p>ticul> & o!r p>ticul>s1 & accord+ly may be appli$ to any "o ( ^! p>ticul>s z well z to ! g5]al class4 ,= in/ance1 "o may h a p>ticul> idea ( "s p>ticul> horse1 :i* applies only to t p>ticul> horse4 ,he may also h a ,g5]al ,idea ( horse1 9 ! g5]ic or class s5se1 :i* idea applies n only to ! g5]al class ( horse b also to ea* & e horse :i* is includ$ 9 t class4 ,! expression ( ,g5]alization or ,conception is call$ a ,concept4 ,,iii4 ,judgm5t1 by :i* is meant ! process ( comp>+ two objects1 p]sons or ?+s1 "o ) ano!r1 & ?us p]ceiv+ _! agreem5t or disagreem5t4 ,?us we may comp>e ! two concepts horse & animal1 & p]ceiv+ a c]ta9 agreem5t betwe5 !m we =m ! judgm5t t3 ,a horse is an animal2 or comp>+ horse & c[1 & p]ceiv+ _! disagreem5t1 we =m ! judgm5t3 ,a horse is n a c[4 ,! expression ( a judgm5t is call$ a ,proposition4 ,,iv4 ,reason+1 by :i* is meant ! process ( comp>+ two objects1 p]sons or ?+s1 ?r\gh _! relation to a ?ird object1 p]son or ?+4 ,?us we may reason 7a7 t all mammals are animals2 7b7 t a horse is a mammal2 7c7 t1 !re=e1 a horse is an animal2 ! result ( ! reason+ be+ ! /atem5t t3 ,a horse is an animal4 ,! mo/ fundam5tal pr9ciple ( reason+1 !re=e1 consi/s 9 ! comp>+ ( two objects ( ?\ght ?r\gh & by means ( _! relation to a ?ird object4 ,! natural =m ( expression ( ?is process ( ,reason+ is call$ a ,syllogism4 ,x w be se5 t ^! f\r processes ( reason+ necessitate ! employm5t ( ! processes ( ,analysis & ,syn!sis1 respectively4 ,analysis means a sep>at+ ( an object ( ?\ght into its con/itu5t p>ts1 qualities or relations4 ,syn!sis means ! comb9+ ( ! qualities1 p>ts or relations ( an object ( ?\ght into a composite :ole4 ,^! two processes are f\nd 9 all processes ( ,reason+4 ,ab/raction is pr9cipally analytic2 ,g5]alization or ,conception *iefly syn!tic2 ,judgm5t is ei!r or bo? analytic or syn!tic2 ,reason+ is ei!r a syn!sis ( p>ticul>s 9 ,induction1 or an evolution ( ! p>ticul> f ! g5]al 9 ,d$uction4 ,!re are two great classes ( ,reason+2 viz41 7#a7 ,inductive ,reason+1 or ! inf]5ce ( g5]al tru?s f p>ticul> tru?s2 & 7#b7 ,d$uctive ,reason+1 or ! inf]5ce ( p>ticul> tru?s f g5]al tru?s4 ,inductive ,reason+ proce$s by discov]+ a g5]al tru? f p>ticul> tru?s4 ,= in/ance1 f ! p>ticul> tru?s t individual m5 die we discov] ! g5]al tru? t ,all m5 mu/ die2 or f obs]v+ t 9 all obs]v$ in/ances ice melts at a c]ta9 temp]ature1 we may inf] t ,all ice melts at a c]ta9 temp]ature4 ,inductive ,reason+ proce$s f ! kn[n to ! unkn[n4 ,x is ess5tially a syn!tic process4 ,x seeks to discov] g5]al laws f p>ticul> facts4 ,d$uctive ,reason+ proce$s by discov]+ p>ticul> tru?s f g5]al tru?s4 ,?us we reason t z all m5 die1 ,john ,smi?1 be+ a man1 mu/ die2 or1 t z all ice melts at a c]ta9 temp]ature1 x foll[s t ! p>ticul> piece ( ice "u consid]ation w melt at t c]ta9 temp]ature4 ,d$uctive ,reason+ is !re=e se5 to be ess5tially an analytical process4 ,mills says ( ,inductive ,reason+3 ,! inductive me?od ( ! anci5ts consi/$ 9 ascrib+ ! "* ( g5]al tru?s to all propositions :i* are true 9 all ! in/ances ( :i* we h k4 ,bacon expos$ ! insuffici5cy ( ?is me?od1 & physical inve/igation has n[ f> outgr[n ! ,baconian conception4444 ,induction1 !n1 is t op]ation by :i* we inf] t :at we "k to be true 9 a p>ticul> case or cases1 w be true 9 all cases :i* resemble ! =m] 9 c]ta9 assignable respects4 ,9 o!r words1 induction is ! process by :i* we conclude t :at is true ( c]ta9 individuals ( a class is true ( ! :ole class1 or t :at is true at c]ta9 times w be true 9 simil> circum/ances at all times4 ,reg>d+ ,d$uctive ,reason+1 a writ] says3 ,d$uctive ,reason+ is t process ( reason+ by :i* we arrive at ! necess>y consequ5ces1 />t+ f admitt$ or e/abli%$ premises4 ,brooks says3 ,! g5]al tru?s f :i* we reason to p>ticul>s are d]iv$ f sev]al di/9ct s\rces4 ,"s are intuitive1 z ! axioms ( ma!matics or logic4 ,"s ( !m are d]iv$ f induction4444 ,"s ( !m are m]ely hypo!tical1 z 9 ! inve/igation ( ! physical sci5ces4 ,_m ( ! hypo!ses & !ories ( ! physical sci5ces are us$ z g5]al tru? = d$uctive reason+2 z ! !ory ( gravitation1 ! !ory ( light2 etc4 ,reason+ f ! !ory ( univ]sal gravitation1 ,lev]ri] discov]$ ! position ( a new planet 9 ! heav5s be=e x _h be5 discov]$ by human eyes4 ,halleck po9ts out ! int]dep5d5ce ( ,inductive & ,d$uctive ,reason+ 9 ! foll[+ words3 ,man has to f9d out ?r\gh 8 own exp]i5ce1 or t ( o!rs1 ! major premises f :i* he argues or draws 8 conclusions4 ,by induction we exam9e :at seems to u a suffici5t numb] ( individual cases4 ,we !n conclude t ! re/ ( ^! cases1 :i* we h n exam9$1 w obey ! same g5]al laws4444 ,! premise1 ',all c[s *ew ! cud1' 0 laid d[n aft] a c]ta9 numb] ( c[s _h be5 exam9$4 ,if we 7 to see a c[ tw5ty ye>s h5ce1 we %\ld expect t %e *ew$ h] cud4444 ,aft] ,induction has classifi$ c]ta9 ph5om5a & ?us giv5 u a major premise1 we proce$ d$uctively to apply ! inf]5ce to any new specim5 t c be %[n to belong to t class4 ,! sev]al /eps ( ,d$uctive ,reason+ %all n[ be consid]$ 9 turn z we proce$4 ,,*apt] ,,iii4 ,,! ,,concept ,9 consid]+ ! process ( ?9k+1 we mu/ classify ! sev]al /eps or /ages ( ?\ght t we may exam9e ea* 9 detail = ! purpose ( compreh5d+ !m comb9$ z a :ole4 ,9 actual ?9k+ ^! sev]al /eps or /ages are n cle>ly sep>at$ 9 consci\sness1 s t ea* /&s out cle> & di/9ct f ! prec$+ & succe$+ /eps or /ages1 b1 on ! contr>y1 !y bl5d & %ade into ea* o!r s t x is (t5 difficult to draw a cle> divid+ l9e4 ,! fir/ /ep or /age 9 ! process ( ?9k+ is t :i* is call$ a concept4 ,a concept is a m5tal repres5tation ( any?+4 ,pr(4 ,wm4 ,james says3 ,! function by :i* we m>k (f1 discrim9ate1 draw a l9e ar\nd1 & id5tify a num]ically di/9ct subject ( disc\rse is call$ conception4 ,!re are five /ages or /eps 9 ea* concept1 z foll[s3 ,i4 ,pres5tation4 ,be=e a concept may be =m$ !re mu/ fir/ be a pres5tation ( ! mat]ial f :i* ! concept is to be =m$4 ,if we wi% to =m ! concept1 animal1 we mu/ fir/ h p]ceiv$ an animal1 probably sev]al k9ds ( animals--horses1 dogs1 cats1 c[s1 pigs1 lions1 tig]s1 etc4 ,we mu/ also h receiv$ impressions f ! sight ( ^! animals :i* may be reproduc$ by ! memory--repres5t$ to ! m9d4 ,9 ord] t we may h a full concept ( animal we %\ld h p]ceiv$ e k9d ( animal1 = o!rwise !re w\ld be "s elem5ts ( ! full concept lack+4 ,accord+ly x is practically impossible to h a full concept ( any?+4 ,! great] ! opportunities = p]ception ! great] w be ! opportunity = conception4 ,9 o!r books ( ?is s]ies we h spok5 ( ! value & importance ( ! att5tion & ( cle> & full p]ception4 ,)\t an active employm5t ( ! att5tion1 x is impossible to receive a cle> p]ception ( any?+2 & unless ! p]ception has be5 cle>1 x is impossible = ! m9d to =m a cle> concept ( ! ?+ p]ceiv$4 ,z ,sir ,wm4 ,hamilton has said3 ,an act ( att5tion1 t is an act ( conc5tration1 seems ?us necess>y to e ex]tion ( consci\sness1 z a c]ta9 contraction ( ! pupil is requisite to e ex]tion ( vision4444 ,att5tion1 !n1 is to consci\sness :at ! contraction ( ! pupil is to sight1 or to ! eye ( ! m9d :at ! microscope or telescope is to ! bodily eye4444 ,x con/itutes ! half ( all intellectual p[]4 ,& ,sir ,b4 ,brodie said3 ,x is att5tion1 mu* m ?an 9 ! ab/ract p[] ( reason+1 :i* con/itutes ! va/ diff]5ce :i* exi/s betwe5 m9ds ( diff]5t individuals4 ,& z ,dr4 ,beattie says3 ,! =ce ) :i* any?+ /rikes ! m9d is g5]ally 9 proportion to ! degree ( att5tion be/[$ ^u x4 ,,ii4 ,comp>ison4 ,foll[+ ! /age ( ,pres5tation is ! /age ( ,comp>ison4 ,we sep>ate our g5]al concept ( animal into a numb] ( sub-concepts1 or concepts ( v>i\s k9ds ( animals4 ,we comp>e ! pig ) ! goat1 ! c[ ) ! horse1 9 fact ea* animal ) all o!r animals kn[n to u4 ,by ?is process we di/+ui% ! po9ts ( resemblance & ! po9ts ( diff]5ce4 ,we p]ceive t ! wolf resembles ! dog to a consid]able degree2 t x has "s po9ts ( resemblance to ! fox2 & a /ill less di/9ct resemblance to ! be>2 also t x diff]s mat]ially f ! horse1 ! c[ or ! elephant4 ,we also le>n t !re are v>i\s k9ds ( wolves1 all be>+ a great resemblance to ea* o!r1 & yet hav+ m>k$ po9ts ( diff]5ce4 ,! clos] we obs]ve ! v>i\s individuals among ! wolves1 ! m po9ts ( diff]5ce d we f9d4 ,! faculty ( ,comp>ison evid5ces itself 9 inductive reason+2 ability & disposition to analyze1 classify1 comp>e1 etc4 ,f[l] says t ^? 9 :om x is l>gely develop$ ,reason cle>ly & correctly f conclusions & sci5tific facts up to ! laws :i* gov]n !m2 disc]n ! kn[n f ! unkn[n2 detect error by its incongruity ) facts2 h an excell5t tal5t = comp>+1 expla9+1 exp\nd+1 criticis+1 expos+1 etc4 ,pr(4 ,william ,james says3 ,any p]sonal or practical int]e/ 9 ! results to be obta9$ by di/+ui%+1 makes "o's wits amaz+ly %>p to detect diff]5ces4 ,& long tra9+ & practice 9 di/+ui%+ has ! same effect z p]sonal int]e/4 ,bo? ( ^! ag5cies give to small am\nts ( objective diff]5ce ! same effectiv5ess ^u ! m9d t1 "u o!r circum/ances1 only l>ge ones w\ld make4 ,,iii4 ,ab/raction4 ,foll[+ ! /age ( ,comp>ison is t ( ,ab/raction4 ,! t]m ,ab/raction z us$ 9 psy*ology means3 ,! act or process ( sep>at+ f ! num]\s qualities inh]5t 9 any object1 ! p>ticul> "o :i* we wi% to make ! subject ( obs]vation & reflection4 ,or1 ! act ( )draw+ ! consci\sness f a numb] ( objects ) a view to conc5trate x on "s p>ticul> "o4 ,! negative act ( :i* ,att5tion is ! positive4 ,to ab/ract is to sep>ate or set ap>t4 ,9 ! process ( ,ab/raction 9 our consid]ation ( animals1 aft] hav+ recogniz$ ! v>i\s po9ts ( diff]5ce & resemblance betwe5 ! v>i\s species & individuals1 we proce$ to consid] "s special quality ( animals1 &1 9 do+ s1 we ab/ract1 set aside1 or sep>ate ! p>ticul> quality :i* we wi% to consid]4 ,if we wi% to consid] ! size ( animals1 we ab/ract ! quality ( size f ! o!r qualities1 & consid] animals ) ref]5ce to size alone4 ,?us we consid] ! v>i\s degrees ( size ( ! v>i\s animals1 classify+ !m accord+ly4 ,9 ! same way we may ab/ract ! quality ( %ape1 color or habits1 respectively1 sett+ aside ?is quality = special obs]vation & classification4 ,if we wi% to /udy1 exam9e or consid] c]ta9 qualities 9 a ?+ we ab/ract t p>ticul> quality f ! o!r qualities ( ! ?+2 or we ab/ract ! o!r qualities until no?+ is left b ! p>ticul> quality "u consid]ation4 ,9 exam9+ or consid]+ a class or numb] ( ?+s1 we fir/ ab/ract ! qualities possess$ 9 common by ! class or numb] ( ?+s2 & also ab/ract or set aside ! qualities n common to !m4 ,= in/ance2 9 consid]+ classes ( animals1 we ab/ract ! comb9$ quality ( milk-giv+ & p\*-possess+ :i* is possess$ 9 common by a numb] ( animals2 !n we gr\p ^! sev]al animals 9 a class :i* we "n ! ,m>supialia1 ( :i* ! opossum & kang>oo are memb]s4 ,9 ^! animals ! "y are br\ght =? 9 an imp]fect condition1 undevelop$ 9 size & condition1 & are !n kept 9 ! p\* & n\ri%$ until !y are able to c>e = !mselves4 ,likewise1 we may ab/ract ! idea ( ! plac5ta1 ! app5dage :i* connects ! "y unborn animal ) ! "m1 & by means ( :i* ! foetus is n\ri%$4 ,! animals di/+ui%$ by ?is quality are gr\p$ toge!r z ! ,plac5tal ,mammals4 ,! ,plac5tal ,mammals are divid$ into v>i\s gr\ps1 by an ,ab/raction ( qualities or class resemblance or diff]5ce1 z foll[s3 ,! ,ed5tata1 or too?less creatures1 su* z ! slo?s1 ant-eat]s1 armadillos1 etc42 ! ,sir5ia1 s-nam$ f _! fanci$ resemblance to ! fabl$ sir5s1 among :i* class are ! sea-c[s1 manatees1 dugongs1 etc42 ! ,cetacea1 or :ale family1 :i* al?\gh fi%-l 9 appe>ance1 are really mammals1 giv+ bir? to liv+ "y :i* !y n\ri% ) brea/-milk1 among :i* are ! :ales1 porpoises1 dolph9s1 etc42 ! ,ungulata1 or ho($ animals1 su* z ! horse1 ! tapir1 ! rh9oc]os1 ! sw9e1 ! hippopotamus1 ! camel1 ! de]1 ! %eep1 ! c[1 etc42 ! ,hyracoidea1 hav+ tee? resembl+ bo? ! ho($ animals & ! gnaw+ animals1 ( :i* ! coney or rock-rabbit is ! pr9cipal example2 ! ,proboscidea1 or trunk$ animals1 :i* family is repres5t$ by ! v>i\s families ( elephants2 ! ,c>nivora1 or fle%-eat]s1 repres5t$ by v>i\s sub-families & species2 ! ,rod5tia1 or gnaw]s2 ! ,insectivora1 or insect fe$]s2 ! ,*eiropt]a1 or f+]-w+$2 ! ,lemuroidea1 or lemurs1 hav+ ! g5]al appe>ance ( ! monkey1 b also ! long bu%y tail ( ! fox2 ! ,primates1 includ+ ! monkeys1 baboons1 man-apes1 gibbons1 gorillas1 *impanzees1 orang-outangs & ,man4 ,9 all ( ^! cases y w see t ea* class or g5]al family possesses a c]ta9 common quality :i* gives x its classification1 & :i* quality is ! subject ( ! ,ab/raction 9 consid]+ ! p>ticul> gr\p ( animals4 ,fur!r & clos] ,ab/raction divides ^! classes into sub-classes2 = in/ance1 ! family or class ( ! ,c>nivora1 or fle%-eat]s1 may be divid$ by fur!r ,ab/raction into ! classes ( seals1 be>s1 weasels1 wolves1 dogs1 lions1 tig]s1 leop>ds1 etc4 ,9 ?is process1 we mu/ fir/ make ! m g5]al ,ab/raction ( ! wolf & simil> animals into ! dog-family2 & ! lion1 tig] & simil> =ms into ! cat-family4 ,halleck says ( ,ab/raction3 ,9 ! process ( ,ab/raction1 we draw our att5tion away f a mass ( confus+ details1 unimportant at ! "t1 & att5d only to qualities common to ! class4 ,ab/raction is little else ?an c5t]+ ! p[] ( att5tion on "s qualities to ! exclusion ( o!rs4 ,,iv4 ,g5]alization4 ,aris+ f ! /age ( ,ab/raction is ! /age ( ,g5]alization4 ,g5]alization is3 ,! act or process ( g5]aliz+ or mak+ g5]al2 br++ sev]al objects agree+ 9 "s po9t "u a common or g5]al "n1 head or class2 an ext5d+ f p>ticul>s to g5]als2 r$uc+ or arrang+ 9 a g5us2 br++ a p>ticul> fact or s]ies ( facts into a relation ) a wid] circle ( facts4 ,z ,bol+broke says3 ,! m9d1 !re=e1 makes its utmo/ endeavors to g5]alize its ideas1 beg9n+ e>ly ) su* z are mo/ famili> & com+ 9 "t to ^? :i* are less s4 ,"u ! head ( ,ab/raction we h se5 t ?r\gh ,ab/raction we may ,g5]alize ! v>i\s species into ! v>i\s families1 & ?us1 9 turn1 into ! v>i\s sub-families4 ,foll[+ ! same process we may n>r[ d[n ! sub-families into species compos$ ( v>i\s individuals2 or into great] & /ill great] families or gr\ps4 ,g5]alization is really ! act ( ,classification1 or =m+ into classes all ?+s hav+ c]ta9 qualities or prop]ties 9 common4 ,! coroll>y is t all ?+s 9 a c]ta9 g5]aliz$ class mu/ possess ! p>ticul> quality or prop]ty common to ! class4 ,?us we "k t all animals 9 ! class ( ! ,c>nivora mu/ eat fle%2 & t all ,mammals possess brea/s f :i* !y fe$ _! "y4 ,z ,halleck says3 ,we put all objects hav+ l qualities into a c]ta9 g5us1 or class4 ,:5 ! objects are 9 t class1 we "k t c]ta9 qualities w h a g5]al application to !m all4 ,v4 ,d5om9ation4 ,foll[+ closely ^u ! /ep ( ,g5]alization or ,classification1 is ! /ep ( ,d5om9ation4 ,by ,d5om9ation we mean ! act ( nam+ or designat+ by a "n4 ,a "n is ! symbol by :i* we ?9k ( a famili> ?+ )\t ! necessity = mak+ a di/9ct m5tal image ^u ea* occasion ( ?\ght4 ,or1 x may be consid]$ z ak9 to a label affix$ to a ?+4 ,z 9 ! case ( ! algebraic symbols1 a1 b1 c1 x1 & y1 by ! use ( :i* we are able to make intricate calculations easily & rapidly1 s may we use ^! ^w symbols mu* m readily ?an we c\ld ! l5g?y descriptions or ev5 ! m5tal images ( ! ?+ symboliz$4 ,x is mu* easi] = u to ?9k horse ?an x w\ld be to ?9k ! full def9ition ( t animal1 or to ?9k ( x by recall+ a m5tal picture ( ! horse ea* "t we wi%$ to ?9k ( x4 ,or1 x is mu* bett] = u to be able to glance at a label on a package or bottle ?an to exam9e ! cont5ts 9 detail4 ,z ,hobbes says3 ,a ^w tak5 at pleasure to s]ve = a m>k1 :i* may raise 9 our m9ds a ?\ght l to "s ?\ght we _h be=e1 & :i* be+ pron\nc$ to o!rs1 may be to !m a sign ( :at ?\ght ! speak] _h or _h n1 be=e 9 8 m9d4 ,mill says3 ,a "n is a ^w 7or set ( words7 s]v+ ! d\ble purpose ( a m>k to recall to ourselves ! lik5ess ( a =m] ?\ght & z a sign to make x kn[n to o!rs4 ,"s philosoph]s reg>d names z symbols ( our ideas ( ?+s1 r ?an ( ! ?+s !mselves2 o!rs reg>d !m z symbols ( ! ?+s !mselves4 ,x w be se5 t ! value ( a "n dep5ds mat]ially ^u ! correct mean+ & und]/&+ reg>d+ x possess$ by ! p]son us+ x4 ,,*apt] ,,iv4 ,,! ,,use ,,( ,,concepts ,hav+ obs]v$ ! sev]al /eps or /ages ( a concept1 let u n[ consid] ! use & misuse ( ! latt]4 ,at fir/ glance x w\ld appe> difficult to misuse a concept1 b a little consid]ation w %[ t p v commonly fall into error reg>d+ _! concepts4 ,= in/ance1 a *ild p]ceives a horse1 a c[ or a %eep & he>s its eld]s apply ! t]m animal to x4 ,?is t]m is p]fectly correct1 al?\gh symboliz+ only a v g5]al classification or g5]alization4 ,b1 ! *ild kn[+ no?+ ( ! m limit$ & detail$ classification beg9s to g5]alize reg>d+ ! animal4 ,to x1 accord+ly1 an animal is id5tical ) ! dog or ! c[1 ! %eep or ! horse1 z ! case may be1 & :5 ! t]m is us$ ! *ild ?9ks t all animals are simil> to ! p>ticul> animal se54 ,lat] on1 :5 x he>s ! t]m animal appli$ to a totally diff]5t look+ creature1 x ?9ks t a mi/ake has be5 made & a /ate ( confusion occurs4 ,or1 ev5 :5 a t]m is appli$ )9 n>r[] limits1 ! same tr\ble occurs4 ,! *ild may he> ! t]m dog appli$ to a ma/iff1 & x accord+ly =ms a concept ( dog id5tical ) ! qualities & attributes ( ! ma/iff4 ,lat]1 he>+ ! same t]m appli$ to a toy-t]ri]1 x becomes indignant & cries out t ! latt] is no dog b is some?+ entirely diff]5t4 ,x is n until ! *ild becomes acqua9t$ ) ! fact t !re are _m k9ds ( creatures 9 ! g5]al category ( dog t ! latt] t]m becomes fully und]/ood & its appropriate concept is intellig5tly =m$4 ,?us we see ! importance ( ! /ep ( ,pres5tation4 ,9 ! same way ! *ild might imag9e t because "s p>ticul> man _h r$ hair & long :isk]s1 all m5 7 r$-hair$ & long-:isk]$4 ,su* a *ild w\ld always =m ! concept ( man z a creature possess$ ( ! p]sonal qualities j m5tion$4 ,z a writ] once said1 read]s ( curr5t ,fr5* lit]ature might imag9e t all ,engli%m5 7 %ort1 dumpy1 r$-*eek$ & irascible1 & t all ,engli%wom5 _h great tee? & enorm\s feet2 also t read]s ( ,engli% lit]ature might imag9e t all ,fr5*m5 7 l monkeys1 & all ,fr5*wom5 7 sad coquettes4 ,9 ! same way _m ,am]ican "y p believe t all ,engli%m5 say ,don't y "k & all ,engli%wom5 con/antly ejaculate3 ,fancy6 ,also t e ,engli%man we>s a monocle4 ,9 ! same way1 ! "y ,engli% p]son1 f read+ ! *eap novels ( 8 own c\ntry1 might well =m ! concept ( all ,am]icans z long-legg$1 *9-:isk]$ & big-nos$1 say+ ,waal1 ,i want to "k2 ,i reckon2 & ,du tell2 :ile !y tilt$ !mselves back 9 a *air ) _! feet on ! mantelpiece4 ,! concept ( a ,we/]n man1 ent]ta9$ by ! av]age ,ea/]n p]son :o has nev] travel$ fur!r ,we/ ?an ,buffalo1 is equally amus+4 ,9 ! same way1 we h kn[n ,we/]n p :o =m$ a concept ( ,bo/on p z p>tak+ ( a /eady & cont9u\s diet ( bak$ beans & /udi\sly read+ ,br[n+ & ,em]son betwe5 ^! meals4 ,halleck says3 ,a c]ta9 ,norwegian *ild t5 ye>s old _h ! quality :ite firmly imb$d$ 9 8 concept man4 ,happ5+ "o day to see a negro = ! fir/ "t1 ! *ild refus$ to call him a man until ! negro's o!r qualities compell$ ! *ild to revise 8 concept & to elim9ate :it5ess4 ,if t *ild %\ld ev] see an ,indian or a ,*9aman1 ! concept w\ld und]go /ill fur!r revision4 ,a girl ( six1 re>$ ) an intemp]ate fa!r & bro!rs1 _h ! quality ( drunk5ness firmly fix$ 9 h] concept ( man4 ,a c]ta9 boy kept1 until ! age ( elev51 tru/wor?9ess 9 8 concept ( man4 ,ano!r boy1 until late 9 8 te5s ?\ght t man 0 a creature :o did wrong n f det]m9ation b f ignorance1 t any man w\ld *ange 8 c\rse to ! "r pa? if he c\ld b und]/& t he 0 go+ wrong4 ,happ5+ "o day to he> ( a weal?y man :o 0 neglect+ to provide com=ts = 8 ag$ "m 9 h] la/ sickness1 ! boy conclud$ t ! man did n "k 8 "m's condition4 ,:5 he in=m$ ! man1 ! boy 0 told to m9d 8 own bus9ess4 ,! same day he he>d ( "s politicians :o _h int5tionally *eat$ ! city 9 lett+ a contract & he imm$iately revis$ 8 concept4 ,x mu/ be borne 9 m9d t mo/ ( our concepts are subject to *ange dur+ our entire life2 t at fir/ !y are made only 9 a t5tative way2 t exp]i5ce may %[ u1 at any "t1 t !y h be5 errone\sly =m$1 t we h1 ab/ract$ too little or too mu*1 made ?is class too wide or too n>r[1 or t "h a quality mu/ be add$ or !re "o tak5 away4 ,let u n[ consid] ! m5tal processes involv$ 9 ! =mation & use ( a concept4 ,we h fir/1 z we h se51 ! pres5tation ( ! crude mat]ial f :i* ! concept mu/ be =m$4 ,our att5tion be+ attract$ to or direct$ t[>d an object1 we notice its qualities & prop]ties4 ,!n we beg9 a process ( comp>ison ( ! object p]ceiv$ or ( our p]ception ( x4 ,we comp>e ! object ) o!r objects or ideas 9 our m9d1 not+ simil>ities & diff]5ces & !reby lead+ t[>ds classification ) simil> objects & oppos$ dissimil> ones4 ,! great] ! range ( o!r objects previ\sly p]ceiv$1 ! great] w be ! numb] ( relations e/abli%$ betwe5 ! new object or idea & o!rs4 ,z we advance 9 exp]i5ce & k1 ! web ( relat$ objects & ideas becomes m intricate & complex4 ,! relations atta*+ to ! *ild's concept ( horse is v mu* simpl] ?an ! concept ( ! exp]i5c$ adult4 ,!n we pass on to ! /ep ( analysis1 9 :i* we sep>ate ! qualities ( ! object & consid] !m 9 detail4 ,! act ( ab/raction is an analytical process4 ,!n we pass on to ! /ep ( syn!sis1 9 :i* we unite ! mat]ials ga!r$ by comp>ison & analysis1 & ?us =m a g5]al idea or concept reg>d+ ! object4 ,9 ?is process we comb9e ! v>i\s qualities disc]n$ by comp>ison & analysis1 & gr\p+ !m toge!r z 9 a bundle1 we tie !m toge!r ) ! /r+ ( syn!sis & ?us h a true g5]al conception4 ,?us f ! fir/ g5]al conception ( horse z a simple ?+1 we notice fir/ t ! animal has c]ta9 qualities lack+ 9 o!r ?+s & c]ta9 o!rs simil> to o!r ?+s2 !n we analyze ! v>i\s qualities ( ! horse1 recogniz$ ?r\gh comp>ison1 until we h a cle> & di/9ct idea ( ! v>i\s p>ts1 qualities & prop]ties ( ! horse2 !n we syn!size1 & jo9+ toge!r ^! v>i\s conceptions ( ! said qualities1 we at la/ =m a cle> g5]al concept ( ! horse z he is1 ) all 8 qualities4 ,( c\rse1 if we lat] discov] o!r qualities atta*$ to ! horse1 we add ^! to our g5]al syn!siz$ concept--our concept ( horse is enl>g$4 ,( c\rse ^! v>i\s /eps 9 ! =mation & use ( a concept are n realiz$ z di/9ct acts 9 ! consci\sness1 = ! processes are l>gely in/9ctive & subconsci\s1 p>ticul>ly 9 ! case ( ! exp]i5c$ individual4 ,! subconsci\s1 or habit m9d1 usually att5ds to ^! details = u1 except 9 in/ances 9 :i* we delib]ately apply ! w to ! task1 z 9 cases ( close /udy1 9 :i* we take ! process f ! region ( ! involunt>y & place x 9 ! volunt>y category4 ,s closely relat$ & bl5d$ are ^! v>i\s /eps ( ! process1 t "s au?orities h disput$ vigor\sly ^u ! "q z to :i* ( ! two /eps1 comp>ison or analysis1 prec$es ! o!r4 ,"s h claim$ t analysis mu/ prec$e comp>ison1 else h[ c\ld "o comp>e )\t hav+ fir/ analyz$ ! ?+s to be comp>$4 ,o!rs hold t comp>ison mu/ prec$e analysis1 else h[ c\ld "o note a quality unless he _h 8 att5tion drawn to x by its resemblance to or diff]5ce f qualities 9 o!r objects4 ,! tru? seems to lie betwe5 ! two ideas1 = 9 "s cases !re seems to be a p]ception ( "s simil>ity or diff]5ce be=e any analysis or ab/raction takes place2 :ile 9 o!rs !re seems to be an analysis or ab/raction be=e comp>ison is possible4 ,9 ?is book we h foll[$ ! arrangem5t favor$ by ! late/ au?orities1 b ! "q is /ill an op5 "o to _m m9ds4 ,z we h se51 ! g5]al concept once hav+ be5 =m$1 ! m9d proce$s to classify ! concept ) o!rs hav+ g5]al qualities 9 common4 ,&1 likewise1 x proce$s to g5]alize f ! classification1 assum+ c]ta9 qualities 9 c]ta9 classes4 ,!n we proce$ to make /ill fur!r g5]alizations & classifications on an asc5d+ & wid5+ scale1 includ+ seem+ resemblances less m>k$1 until f9ally we embrace ! object ) o!r objects 9 z l>ge a class z possible z well z 9 z close & limit$ a sub-class z possible4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,g5]alization is an asc5d+ process4 ,! broad] concept is reg>d$ z high] ?an ! n>r[] concept2 a concept is consid]$ high] ?an a p]cept2 a g5]al idea /&s above a p>ticul> idea4 ,we ?us g up f p>ticul>s to g5]als2 f p]cepts to concepts2 f l[] concepts to high] concepts4 ,beg9n+ d[n ) p>ticul> objects1 we rise f !m to ! g5]al idea ( _! class4 ,hav+ =m$ a numb] ( l[] classes1 we comp>e !m z we did individuals & g5]alize !m into high] classes4 ,we p]=m ! same process ) ^! high] classes1 & ?us proce$ until we are at la/ arre/$ 9 ! highe/ class1 ,be+4 ,hav+ rea*$ ! p9nacle ( g5]alization1 we may desc5d ! ladd] by rev]s+ ! process ?r\gh :i* we asc5d4 ,f ?is process ( g5]alization1 or syn!sis1 we create f our simple concepts our g5]al concepts4 ,"s ( ! old] au?orities di/+ui%$ betwe5 ^! two classes by t]m+ ! =m] conceptions1 & res]v+ ! t]m concepts = ! g5]al concepts4 ,brooks says ( ?is3 ,! products ( g5]alization are g5]al ideas call$ concepts4 ,we h already discuss$ ! me?od ( =m+ conceptions & n[ consid] ! nature ( ! concept itself4444 ,a concept is a g5]al idea4 ,x is a g5]al notion :i* has 9 x all t is common to its own class4 ,x is a g5]al s*eme :i* embraces all ! individuals ( ! class :ile x resembles 9 all respects none ( its class4 ,?us my conception ( a quadrup$ has 9 x all f\r-foot$ animals1 b x does n correspond 9 all respects to any p>ticul> animals2 my conception ( a triangle embraces all triangles1 b does n agree 9 details ) any p>ticul> triangle4 ,! g5]al conception _c be made to fit exactly any p>ticul> object1 b x teems ) _m p>ticul>s4 ,^! po9ts may be illu/rat$ ) ! concepts horse1 bird1 color1 animal1 etc4 ,s we may beg9 to p]ceive ! di/9ction & diff]5ce betwe5 a concept & a m5tal image4 ,?is di/9ction1 & ! fact t a concept _c be imag$1 is g5]ally difficult = ! beg9n]4 ,x is important t "o %\ld h a cle> & di/9ct und]/&+ reg>d+ ?is po9t1 & s we %all consid] x fur!r 9 ! foll[+ *apt]4 ,,*apt] ,v4 ,,concepts ,,& ,,images ,z we h said1 a concept _c be imag$--_c be us$ z ! subject ( a m5tal image4 ,?is /atem5t is p]plex+ to ! /ud5t :o has be5 accu/om$ to ! idea t e conception ( ! m9d is capable ( be+ reproduc$ 9 ! =m ( a m5tal image4 ,b ! app>5tly p>adoxical /atem5t is se5 z q simple :5 a little consid]ation is giv5 to x4 ,= in/ance1 y h a di/9ct g5]al concept ( animal4 ,y "k :at y mean :5 y say or ?9k1 animal4 ,y recognize an animal :5 y see "o & y und]/& :at is meant :5 ano!r uses ! ^w 9 conv]sation4 ,b y _c =m a m5tal image ( ! concept1 animal4 ,:y8 ,because any m5tal image y might =m w\ld be ei!r a picture ( "s p>ticul> animal or else a composite ( ! qualities ( sev]al animals4 ,y\r concept is too broad & g5]al to all[ ( a composite picture ( all animals4 ,&1 9 tru?1 y\r concept is n a picture ( any?+ t actually exi/s 9 "o p>ticul>1 b an ab/ract idea embrac+ ! qualities ( all animals4 ,x is l ! algebraic x--a symbol = some?+ t exi/s1 b n ! ?+ itself4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,a concept _c be repres5t$ by a concrete image4 ,?is is evid5t f its be+ g5]al r ?an p>ticul>4 ,if its color1 size or %ape is fix$ by an image1 x is no long] g5]al b p>ticul>4 ,& ,halleck says3 ,x is impossible to image any?+ )\t giv+ t image individual m>ks4 ,! be/ m5tal images are s def9ite t a picture c\ld be pa9t$ f !m4 ,a be+ might come "u ! class man & h a snub nose1 blonde hair1 scanty eyebr[s1 & no sc> on 8 face4 ,! pres5ce ( "o ( ^! individual peculi>ities 9 ! concept man w\ld de/roy x4 ,if we =m an image ( an apple1 x mu/ be ei!r ( a yell[1 r$1 gre51 or russet apple1 ei!r z l>ge z a pipp9 or z small z a crab-apple4 ,a boy 0 ask$ :at he ?\ght ( :5 'apple' 0 m5tion$4 ,he repli$ t he ?\ght ( 'a big1 d>k-r$1 apple ) a bad spot on "o side1 ne> ! top4' ,t boy c\ld image di/9ctly1 b 8 p[] ( =m+ concepts 0 /ill 9 its infancy4 ,s we see t :ile a m5tal image mu/ picture ! p>ticul> & individual qualities1 prop]ties & appe>ances ( "s p>ticul> unit ( a class1 a concept c & mu/ conta9 only ! class qualities--t is1 ! qualities belong+ to ! entire class4 ,! g5]al concept is z has be5 said a g5]al idea 444 a g5]al notion :i* has 9 x all t is common to its own class4 ,& x foll[s t a g5]al idea ( ?is k9d _c be pictur$4 ,a picture mu/ be ( "s p>ticul> ?+1 :ile a concept is some?+ above & high] ?an p>ticul> ?+s4 ,we may picture a man1 b we _c picture ,man ! concept ( ! race4 ,a concept is n a reproduction ( ! image ( a ?+1 b on ! contr>y is an idea ( a class ( ?+s4 ,we tru/ t ! /ud5t w consid] ?is po9t until he arrives at a cle> und]/&+ ( ! di/9ction1 & ! reason !re(4 ,b1 :ile a concept is incapable ( be+ pictur$ m5tally z an image1 x is true t "s p>ticul> repres5tative ( a class may be held 9 ! m9d or imag9ation z an idealiz$ object1 z a g5]al repres5tative ( ! class1 :5 we speak or ?9k ( ! g5]al t]m or concept1 provid+ t its real relation to ! concept is recogniz$4 ,^! idealiz$ objects1 h[ev]1 are n concepts--!y are p]cepts reproduc$ by ! memory4 ,x is important1 h[ev]1 to all :o wi% to convey _! ?\ght pla9ly1 t !y be able to conv]t _! concepts into idealiz$ repres5tative objects4 ,o!rwise1 !y t5d to become too ideali/ic & ab/ract = common compreh5sion4 ,z ,halleck well says3 ,we %\ld 9 all cases be ready to translate our concepts1 :5 occasion requires1 into ! images ( ^? individuals :i* ! concept repres5ts4 ,a concept means no?+ except 9 ref]5ce to c]ta9 individuals4 ,)\t !m x c\ld nev] h _h exi/5ce & !y are entitl$ to repres5tation4 ,a man :o _c translate 8 concepts into def9ite images ( ! prop] objects1 is fitt$ nei!r to tea*1 prea*1 nor practice any pr(ession4444 ,!re 01 n long ago1 a man v fond ( talk+ ab\t fruit 9 ! ab/ract2 b he fail$ to recognize an individual cranb]ry :5 x 0 plac$ be=e him4 ,a humori/ rem>k$ t a c]ta9 metaphysician _h su* a love = ab/ractions1 & su* an int5se dislike = concrete ?+s1 z to refuse to eat a concrete pea* :5 plac$ be=e him4 ,9 ! beg9n+ _m /ud5ts are p]plex$ reg>d+ ! diff]5ce betwe5 a p]cept & a concept4 ,! di/9ction is simple :5 prop]ly consid]$4 ,a p]cept is3 ! object ( an act ( p]ception2 t :i* is p]ceiv$4 ,a concept is3 a m5tal repres5tation4 ,brooks makes ! foll[+ di/9ction3 ,a p]cept is ! m5tal product ( a real ?+2 a concept is a m]e idea or notion ( ! common attributes ( ?+s4 ,a p]cept repres5ts "s p>ticul> object2 a concept is n p>ticul>1 b g5]al4 ,a p]cept c be describ$ by p>ticul>s2 a concept c be describ$ only by g5]als4 ,! =m] c usually be repres5t$ by an image1 ! latt] _c be imag9$1 x c only be ?\ght4 ,?us "o is able to image ! p]cept ( a p>ticul> horse :i* has be5 p]ceiv$2 b he is unable to image correctly ! concept ( horse z a class or g5]ic t]m4 ,9 connection ) ?is di/9ction betwe5 p]ception & conception1 we may z well consid] ! subject ( app]ception1 a t]m favor$ by _m mod]n psy*ologi/s1 al?\gh o!rs /eadfa/ly decl9e to recognize its necessity or mean+ & refuse to employ x4 ,app]ception may be def9$ z3 p]ception accompani$ by compreh5sion2 p]ception accompani$ by recognition4 ,! ?+ p]ceiv$ is held to be compreh5d$ or recogniz$--t is1 p]ceiv$ 9 a new s5se1 by reason ( c]ta9 previ\sly acquir$ ideas 9 ! m9d4 ,halleck expla9s x z3 ! p]ception ( ?+s 9 relation to ! ideas :i* we already possess4 ,x foll[s t all individuals possess$ ( equally active organs ( p]ception1 & equally active att5tion1 w p]ceive ! same ?+ 9 ! same way & 9 ! same degree4 ,b ! app]ception ( ea* individual w diff] & v>y accord+ to 8 previ\s exp]i5ce & tra9+1 temp]am5t & ta/e1 habit & cu/om4 ,= in/ance1 ! famili> /ory ( ! boy :o climb$ a tree & wat*$ ! pass]s-by1 not+ _! comm5ts4 ,! fir/ pass]-by notic+ ! tree1 says al\d3 ,t w\ld make a good /ick ( timb]4 ,good morn+1 ,mr4 ,c>p5t]1 said ! boy4 ,! next man said3 ,t tree has f9e b>k4 ,good morn+1 ,mr4 ,tann]1 said ! boy4 ,ano!r said1 ,i bet !re's a squirrel's ne/ up 9 t tree4 ,good morn+1 ,mr4 ,hunt]1 said ! boy4 ,! woman sees 9 a bird some?+ pretty & cunn+4 ,! hunt] sees 9 x some?+ to kill4 ,! orni?ologi/ sees x z some?+ ( a c]ta9 g5us & species1 & p]haps also z some?+ appropriate = 8 collection4 ,! f>m] p]ceives x to be some?+ de/ructive ( ei!r insects or crops4 ,a ?ief sees a jail z some?+ to be dread$2 an ord9>y citiz51 some?+ useful = conf9+ objectionable p2 a policeman1 some?+ 9 ! l9e ( 8 bus9ess4 ,& s on1 ! app]ception diff]+ ^u ! previ\s exp]i5ce ( ! individual4 ,9 ! same way ! sci5ti/ sees 9 an animal or rock _m qualities ( :i* ! ord9>y p]son is ignorant4 ,our tra9+1 exp]i5ce1 prejudices1 etc41 affect our app]ception4 ,& s1 we see t 9 a measure our concepts are det]m9$ n only by our simple p]ceptions1 b also mat]ially by our app]ceptions4 ,we conceive ?+s n only z !y are app>5t to our s5ses1 b also z color$ & influ5c$ by our previ\s impressions & ideas4 ,= ?is reason we f9d widely v>y+ concepts ( ! same ?+s among diff]5t individuals4 ,only an absolute m9d c\ld =m an absolute concept4 ,,*apt] ,,vi4 ,,t]ms ,9 logic ! words concept & t]m are practically id5tical1 b 9 ! popul> usage ( ! t]ms !re is a di/9ct diff]5ce4 ,?is diff]5ce is w>rant$1 if we dep>t f ! !oretical phase ( logic1 = ! ^w concept really d5otes an idea 9 ! m9d1 :ile ! ^w t]m really d5otes a ^w or "n ( an idea or concept--! symbol ( ! latt]4 ,9 a previ\s *apt] we h se5 t ,d5om9ation1 or ! act ( nam+ or designat+ by a "n is ! f9al /ep or /age 9 =m+ a concept4 ,& x is a fact t ! majority ( ! words 9 ! languages ( civiliz$ p d5ote g5]al ideas or concepts4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,to give ea* individual or p>ticul> idea a "n peculi> to itself w\ld be impracticable & inde$ impossible2 ! m9d w\ld soon become ov]:elm$ ) its burd5 ( names4 ,ne>ly all ! ord9>y words ( our language are g5]al r ?an p>ticul>4 ,! individuals di/+ui%$ by p>ticul> names1 except+ p]sons & places1 are comp>atively few4 ,mo/ objects are nam$ only by common n\ns2 ne>ly all ( our v]bs express g5]al actions2 our adjectives d5ote common qualities1 & our adv]bs designate classes ( actions & qualities4 ,!re are v few words 9 ! language1 besides ! names ( p]sons & places1 t d n express g5]al ideas4 ,9 logic ! ^w t]m is employ$ to d5ote any ^w or words :i* con/itute a concept4 ,! ^w concept is employ$ /rictly 9 ! s5se ( a subject ( ?\ght1 )\t ref]5ce to ! words symboliz+ x4 ,! concept1 or subject ( ?\ght1 is ! important elem5t or fact & ! t]m d5ot+ x is m]ely a conv5i5t symbol ( expression4 ,x mu/ be rememb]$ t a t]m does n necess>ily consi/s ( b a s+le ^w1 = (t5 _m words are employ$ to d5ote ! concept1 sometimes ev5 an entire clause or phrase be+ f\nd necess>y = ! curr5t t]m4 ,= ! purpose ( ! consid]ation ( ! subjects to be treat$ ^u 9 ?is book1 we may agree t3 ,a t]m is ! outw>d symbol ( a concept2 & t3 ,! concept is ! idea express$ by ! t]m4 ,!re are ?ree g5]al p>ts or phases ( ,d$uctive ,logic1 namely3 ,t]ms1 ,propositions & ,syllogisms4 ,!re=e1 9 consid]+ ,t]ms we are ent]+ into a consid]ation ( ! fir/ phase ( ,d$uctive ,logic4 ,unless we h a correct und]/&+ ( ,t]ms1 we _c expect to und]/& ! succe$+ /ages ( ,d$uctive ,reason+4 ,z ,jevons says3 ,:5 we jo9 t]ms toge!r we make a ,proposition2 :5 we jo9 ,propositions toge!r1 we make an argum5t or piece ( reason+4444 ,we %\ld g5]ally get no?+ b nons5se if we 7 to put toge!r any t]ms & any propositions & to suppose t we 7 reason+4 ,to produce a good argum5t we mu/ be c>eful to obey c]ta9 rules1 :i* x is ! purpose ( ,logic to make kn[n4 ,b1 9 ord] to und]/& ! matt] p]fectly1 we ought fir/ to le>n exactly :at a t]m is1 & h[ _m k9ds ( t]ms !re may be2 we h next to le>n ! nature ( a proposition & ! diff]5t k9ds ( propositions4 ,aft]w>ds we %all le>n h[ "o proposition may by reason+ be drawn f o!r propositions 9 ! k9d ( argum5t call$ ! syllogism4 ,n[1 hav+ se5 t t]ms are ! outw>d symbols or expression ( concepts1 & are ! names ( ?+s :i* we jo9 toge!r 9 a proposition1 let u proce$ to consid] ! diff]5t k9ds ( t]ms1 foll[+ ! classifications adopt$ by ! au?orities4 ,a t]m may conta9 any numb] ( n\ns1 sub/antive or adjective or x may conta9 b a s+le n\n4 ,?us 91 ,tig]s are f]oci\s1 ! fir/ t]m is ! s+le sub/antive tig]s2 ! second t]m is ! s+le adjective f]oci\s4 ,& 9 ! proposition1 ,! ,k+ ( ,engl& is ! ,emp]or ( ,india1 !re are two t]ms1 ea* compos$ ( two n\ns1 ,k+ ( ,engl& be+ ! fir/ t]m & ,emp]or ( ,india be+ ! second t]m4 ,! proposition1 ,! libr>y ( ! ,briti% ,museum is ! greate/ collection ( books 9 ! _w1 conta9s fifte5 words b only two t]ms2 ! fir/ t]m be+ ,! libr>y ( ! ,briti% ,museum1 9 :i* are two sub/antives1 "o adjective1 two def9ite articles & "o preposition2 ! second t]m be+1 ! greate/ collection ( books 9 ! _w1 :i* conta9s ?ree sub/antives1 "o adjective1 two articles1 & two prepositions4 ,! above illu/ration is suppli$ by ,jevons1 :o adds3 ,a logical t]m1 !n1 may consi/ ( any numb] ( n\ns1 sub/antive or adjective1 ) ! articles1 prepositions & conjunctions requir$ to jo9 !m toge!r2 /ill x is only "o t]m if x po9ts out1 or makes u ?9k ( a s+le object1 or collection1 or class ( objects4 7,a sub/antive1 is3 ! "p ( spee* :i* expresses some?+ t exi/s1 ei!r mat]ial or immat]ial47 ,! fir/ classification ( t]ms divides !m into two g5]al classes1 viz41 7#a7 ,s+ul> ,t]ms2 & 7#b7 ,g5]al ,t]ms4 ,a ,s+ul> ,t]m is a t]m d5ot+ a s+le object1 p]son or ?+4 ,al?\gh d5ot+ only a s+le object1 p]son or ?+1 x may be compos$ ( sev]al words2 or x may be compos$ ( b "o ^w z 9 ! case ( a prop] "n1 etc4 ,! foll[+ are ,s+ul> ,t]ms1 because !y are t]ms d5ot+ b a s+le object1 p]son or ?+3 ,europe2 ,m9nesota2 ,socrates2 ,%akespe>e2 ! fir/ man2 ! highe/ good2 ! fir/ cause2 ! ,k+ ( ,engl&2 ! ,briti% ,museum2 ! ,commission] ( ,public ,works2 ! ma9 /reet ( ! ,city ( ,new ,york4 ,x w be not$ t 9 all ( ! examples giv51 ! ,s+ul> ,t]m d5otes a p>ticul> some?+1 a specific ?+1 a some?+ ( :i* !re is b "o1 & t "o possesses p>ticul>ity & individuality4 ,z ,hyslop says3 ,on5ess ( k9d is n ! only or di/9ctive feature ( ,s+ul> ,t]ms1 b individuality1 or s+ul>ity1 z repres5t+ a concrete individual :ole4 ,a ,g5]al ,t]m is a t]m :i* applies1 9 ! same s5se1 to ea* & e individual object1 p]son or ?+ 9 a numb] ( objects1 p]sons or ?+s ( ! same k9d1 or to ! entire class compos$ ( su* objects p]sons or ?+s ( ! same k9d4 ,= in/ance1 horse2 man2 bip$2 mammal2 trees2 figures2 gra9 ( s&2 matt]1 etc4 ,hyslop says1 reg>d+ ,g5]al ,t]ms3 ,9 ^! in/ances ! t]ms d5ote m ?an "o object1 & apply to all ( ! same k9d4 ,_! mean+ is important 9 ! int]pretation ( :at are call$ univ]sal propositions4 ,ano!r g5]al classification ( ,t]ms divides !m into two respective classes1 z foll[s3 7#a7 ,collective ,t]ms2 & 7#b7 ,di/ributive ,t]ms4 ,hyslop says ( ?is classification3 ,?is division is bas$ ^u ! di/9ction betwe5 aggregate :oles ( ! same k9d & class t]ms4 ,x p>tly co9cides ) ! division into ,s+ul> & ,g5]al ,t]ms1 ! latt] always be+ di/ributive4 ,a ,collective ,t]m is "o :i* d5otes an aggregate or collect$ :ole ( objects1 p]sons or ?+s ( ! same or simil> k9d1 :i* collective :ole is consid]$ z an individual1 al?\gh compos$ ( a totality ( sep>ate individual objects1 p]sons or ?+s4 ,?us ! foll[+ t]ms3 regim5t2 congregation2 army2 family2 cr[d2 nation2 company2 battalion2 class2 congress2 p>liam5t2 conv5tion2 etc4 are ,collective ,t]ms1 because !y d5ote collective1 aggregate or composite :oles1 consid]$ z an individual4 ,a ,di/ributive ,t]m is a t]m :i* d5otes ea* & e individual object1 p]son or ?+ 9 a giv5 class4 ,= example1 are ! t]ms3 man2 quadrup$2 bip$2 mammal2 book2 diamond2 tree4 ,z ,hyslop says3 ,g5]al t]ms are always di/ributive4 ,also3 ,x is important also to keep cle> ! di/9ction betwe5 class :oles & collective :oles4444 ,!y are (t5 confus$ s z to call a t]m d5ot+ a class a ,collective ,t]m4 ,ano!r g5]al classification ( ,t]ms divides !m into ! foll[+ two respective classes2 7#a7 ,concrete ,t]ms2 & 7#b7 ,ab/ract ,t]ms4 ,a ,concrete ,t]m is a t]m d5ot+ ei!r a def9ite object1 p]son or ?+ :i* is subject to p]ception & exp]i5ce1 & may be consid]$ z actually exi/5t concretely1 z = in/ance3 horse2 man2 m\nta92 doll>2 knife2 table2 etc41 or else an attribute ?\ght ( & us$ solely z an attribute1 z = in/ance3 beautiful1 wise1 noble1 virtu\s1 good1 etc4 ,an ,ab/ract ,t]m is a t]m d5ot+ ! attribute1 quality or prop]ty consid]$ z ap>t f ! object1 p]son or ?+ & z hav+ an ab/ract exi/5ce1 z = in/ance3 beauty2 wisdom2 nobility2 goodness2 virtue1 etc4 ,z we h se5 else:]e1 ^! qualities h no real exi/5ce 9 !mselves1 b are kn[n & ?\ght ( only 9 connection ) concrete objects1 p]sons & ?+s4 ,?us we _c "k ,beauty1 b may "k beautiful ?+s2 we _c "k ,virtue1 b we may "k virtu\s p1 etc4 ,an attribute or quality is concrete :5 express$ z an adjective2 & ab/ract :5 express$ z a n\n2 z = in/ance1 beautiful & beauty1 respectively1 or virtu\s & virtue1 respectively4 ,! di/9ction may be summ$ up z foll[s3 ,a ,concrete ,t]m is ! "n ( a ?+ or ( a quality ( a ?+ express$ z an adjective & z m]ely a quality2 :ile an ,ab/ract ,t]m is ! "n ( a quality ( a ?+1 express$ z a n\n & z a ?+ 9 itself4 ,c]ta9 t]ms may be us$ z ei!r ,concrete ,t]ms or z ,ab/ract ,t]ms1 & c]ta9 au?orities h se5 fit to classify !m z ,mix$ ,t]ms1 z = in/ance ! t]ms3 gov]nm5t2 religion2 philosophy2 etc4 ,ano!r g5]al classification ( ,t]ms divides !m into two respective classes z foll[s3 7#a7 ,positive ,t]ms2 & 7#b7 ,negative ,t]ms4 ,a ,positive ,t]m is a t]m :i* d5otes its own qualities1 z = in/ance3 good1 human1 l>ge1 squ>e1 black1 /rong1 etc4 ,^! t]ms indicate ! pres5ce ( ! quality d5ot$ by ! t]m itself4 ,a ,negative ,t]m is a t]m d5ot+ ! abs5ce ( a quality1 z = in/ance3 inhuman1 inorganic1 unwell1 unpleasant1 non-conducive1 etc4 ,^! t]ms d5y ! pres5ce ( c]ta9 qualities1 r ?an ass]t+ ! pres5ce ( an opposite quality4 ,!y are ess5tially negative 9 nature & 9 =m4 ,jevons says3 ,we may usually "k a ,negative ,t]m by its beg9n+ ) "o ( ! little syllables un-1 9-1 a-1 an-1 non-1 or by its end+ ) -less4 ,hyslop says3 ,! usual symbols ( ,negative ,t]ms are 91 un1 less1 dis1 a1 or an1 anti1 mis1 & sometimes de1 & non & n4 ,jevons adds3 ,if ! ,engli% language 7 a p]fect "o1 e t]m ought to h a ,negative ,t]m exactly correspond+ to x1 s t all adjectives & n\ns w\ld be 9 pairs4 ,j z conv5i5t has its negative inconv5i5t2 metallic1 non-metallic2 logical1 illogical2 & s on2 s blue %\ld h its negative1 non-blue2 lit]>y1 non-lit]>y2 pap]1 non-pap]4 ,b _m ( ^! ,negative ,t]ms w\ld be seldom or nev] us$1 & if we happ5 to want !m1 we c make !m = ! occasion by putt+ n-1 or non-1 be=e ! ,positive ,t]m4 ,accord+ly1 we f9d 9 ! diction>y only ^? ,negative ,t]ms :i* are mu* employ$4 ,! la/ nam$ au?ority also says3 ,sometimes ! same ^w may seem to h two or ev5 m di/9ct negatives4 ,!re is mu* diff]5ce betwe5 undress$ & n-dress$1 t is 'n 9 ev5+ dress4' ,bo? seem to be negatives ( 'dress$1' b ?is is because ! ^w has two di/9ct mean+s4 ,"s au?orities insi/ ^u clos] & fur!r classification1 z = in/ance1 9 ! case ( :at !y call a ,privative ,t]m1 d5ot+ ! abs5ce ( qualities once possess$ by ! object1 p]son or ?+1 z3 deaf1 dead1 bl9d1 d>k1 etc4 ,hyslop says t ^! t]ms are ,positive 9 =m & ,negative 9 matt] or mean+4 ,also 9 ! case ( :at !y call a ,nego-positive ,t]m1 d5ot+ ! pres5ce ( a positive quality express$ 9 a negative mann]1 z3 disagreeable1 inhuman1 invaluable1 etc4 ,^! la/ m5tion$ classes h[ev] are reg>d$ by "s z ! result ( c>ry+ too f> ! t5d5cy t[>d classification1 & ! two g5]al classes1 ,positive & ,negative1 are ?\ght suffici5t = ! purpose ( ! g5]al /ud5t4 ,! same objection applies to a classification occasionally made i4e41 t :i* is call$ an ,inf9itat$ ,t]m1 d5ot+ a t]m ! int5t ( :i* is to place 9 a di/9ct category e object1 p]son or ?+ o!r ?an t express$ 9 ! correspond+ ,positive ,t]m4 ,! int5t ( ! t]m is to place ! positive idea 9 "o class1 & all else into a sep>ate "o4 ,examples ( ?is class ( t]ms are f\nd 93 n-,i1 n-animal1 n-tree1 unmoral1 etc4 ,hyslop says ( ^! t]ms3 ,!y are n always1 if ev]1 recogniz$ z rhetorically elegant1 b are valuable (t5 to make cle> ! really negative1 or inf9itatively negative nature ( ! idea 9 m9d4 ,ano!r g5]al classification ( ,t]ms divides !m into two respective classes1 z foll[s3 7#a7 ,absolute ,t]ms2 & 7#b7 ,relative ,t]ms4 ,an ,absolute ,t]m is a t]m d5ot+ ! pres5ce ( qualities intr9sic to ! object1 & n dep5d+ ^u any relation to any o!r object1 z = in/ance3 man2 book2 horse2 gun2 etc4 ,^! t]ms may be relat$ to _m o!r t]ms1 b are n necess>ily relat$ to any o!r4 ,a ,relative ,t]m is a t]m d5ot+ c]ta9 necess>y relations to o!r t]ms1 z = in/ance3 fa!r2 son2 "m2 daught]2 tea*]2 pupil2 ma/]2 s]vant2 etc4 ,?us x is impossible to ?9k ( *ild except 9 relation to p>5t1 or vice v]sa4 ,! "o t]m implies ! exi/5ce ( its relat$ t]m4 ,hyslop says ( ! above classification3 ,relative ,t]ms sugge/ ! ?\ght ( o!r individuals ) ! relation involv$ z a "p ( ! t]m's mean+1 :ile ,absolute ,t]ms sugge/ only ! qualities 9 ! subject )\t a relation to o!rs be+ necess>ily involv$4 ,"s au?orities also classify t]ms z high] & l[]2 also z broad & n>r[4 ,?is classification is meant to indicate ! cont5t & ext5t ( ! t]m4 ,= in/ance1 :5 we classify1 we beg9 ) ! individuals :i* we !n gr\p into a small class4 ,^! classes we !n gr\p into a l>g] class1 accord+ to _! resemblances4 ,^! l>g] classes !n g to =m a "p ( /ill l>g] classes1 & s on4 ,z ^! classes advance !y =m broad] t]ms2 & z we retreat f ! g5]al class into ! less g5]al & m p>ticul>1 ! t]m becomes n>r[]4 ,by "s1 ! broad] t]m :i* includes ! n>r[] is call$ ! high] t]m1 & ! n>r[] are call$ ! l[] t]ms4 ,?us animal w\ld be a high] & broad] t]m ?an dog1 cat or tig] because x includes ! latt]4 ,brooks says3 ,s9ce a concept is =m$ by ! union ( ! common attributes ( individuals1 x ?us embraces bo? attributes & individuals4 ,! attributes ( a concept con/itute :at is call$ its cont5t2 ! individuals x embraces con/itute its ext5t4 ,accord+ly1 ! feature ( includ+ objects 9 a concept or t]m is call$ its ext5sion2 :ile ! feature ( includ+ attributes or qualities is call$ its int5sion4 ,x foll[s z a natural consequ5ce t ! great] ! ext5sion ( a t]m1 ! less its int5sion2 ! great] its int5sion1 ! less its ext5sion4 ,we w und]/& ?is m cle>ly :5 we consid] t ! m individuals conta9$ 9 a t]m1 ! few] common prop]ties or qualities x c conta92 & ! m common prop]ties1 ! few] individuals4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,! concept man has m ext5sion ?an poet1 orator or /atesman1 s9ce x embraces m individuals2 & less int5sion1 s9ce we mu/ lay aside ! di/9ctive attributes ( poet1 orator & /atesman 9 ord] to unite !m 9 a common class man4 ,9 ! same way ! g5]al t]m animal is q ext5d$ = x includes a l>ge numb] ( individual v>ieties ( v diff]5t & v>i$ *>act]i/ics & qualities2 z = in/ance1 ! lion1 camel1 dog1 oy/]1 elephant1 snail1 worm1 snake1 etc4 ,accord+ly its int5sion mu/ be small = x c include only ! qualities common to all animals1 :i* are v few inde$4 ,! def9ition ( ! t]m %[s h[ small is its int5sion1 z3 ,animal4 ,an organic be+1 ris+ above a vegetable 9 v>i\s respects1 especially 9 possess+ s5sibility1 w & ! p[] ( volunt>y motion4 ,ano!r n>r[s ! int5sion /ill fur!r :5 he def9es animal z3 a creature :i* possesses1 or has possess$1 life4 ,halleck says3 ,animal is v n>r[ 9 int5sion1 v broad 9 ext5sion4 ,!re are few qualities common to all animals1 b !re is a va/ numb] ( animals4 ,to give ! full mean+ ( ! t]m 9 ext5sion1 we %\ld h to "n e animal1 f ! microscopic infusoria to ! tig]1 f ! angleworm to ! :ale4 ,:5 we decrease ! ext5sion to "o species ( animal1 horse1 ! individuals are few]1 ! qualities m num]\s4 ,! importance ( =m+ cle> & di/9ct concepts & ( gr\p+1 classify+ & g5]aliz+ ^! into l>g] & broad] concepts & t]ms is recogniz$ by all au?orities & is g5]ally reg>d$ z =m+ ! real basis ( all con/ructive ?\ght4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,g5]alization lies at ! basis ( language3 only z man c =m g5]al conceptions is x possible = him to =m a language4444 ,ne>ly all ! ord9>y words 9 our language are g5]al r ?an p>ticul>4444 ,?is p[] ( g5]alization lies also at ! basis ( sci5ce4 ,_h we no p[] ( =m+ g5]al ideas1 ea* p>ticul> object w\ld be a /udy by itself1 & we %\ld ?us nev] pass beyond ! v alphabet ( k4 ,judgm5ts1 except 9 ! simple/ =m1 w\ld be impossible2 & x is difficult to see h[ ev5 ! simple/ =m ( ! syllogism c\ld be con/ruct$4 ,no g5]al conclusion c\ld be drawn f p>ticul>s1 nor p>ticul> conclusions f g5]als2 & ?us nei!r inductive nor d$uctive reason+ w\ld be possible4 ,! classifications ( sci5ce c\ld n be made2 & k w\ld end at ! v ?re%old ( sci5ce4 ,,*apt] ,,vii4 ,,! ,,mean+ ,,( ,,t]ms ,e t]m has its mean+1 or cont5t1 z "s au?orities pref] to call x4 ,! ^w or words ( :i* ! t]m is compos$ are m]ely vocal s\nds1 s]v+ z a symbol = ! real mean+ ( ! t]m1 :i* mean+ exi/s only 9 ! m9d ( ! p]son und]/&+ x4 ,to "o n und]/&+ ! mean+ ( ! t]m1 ! latt] is b z a mean+less s\nd1 b to "o und]/&+ x ! s\nd awak5s m5tal associations & repres5tation & ?us s]ves its purpose z a symbol ( ?\ght4 ,ea* concrete g5]al t]m has two mean+s1 7#a7 ! actual concrete ?+1 p]son or object to :i* ! t]m is appli$2 & 7#b7 ! qualities1 attributes or prop]ties ( ^? objects1 p]sons or ?+s 9 consequ5ce ( :i* ! t]m is appli$4 ,= in/ance1 9 ! case ( ! concrete t]m book1 ! fir/ mean+ consi/s ( ! g5]al idea ( ! ?+ :i* we ?9k ( z a book1 & ! second mean+ consi/s ( ! v>i\s qualities :i* g to make t ?+ a book1 z ! pr9t$ pages1 ! b9d+1 ! =m1 ! cov]1 etc4 ,n only is t p>ticul> ?+ a book1 b e o!r ?+ hav+ ! same or simil> prop]ties also mu/ be a book4 ,& s1 :5ev] ,i call a ?+ a book x mu/ possess ! said qualities4 ,&1 :5ev] ,i comb9e ! ideas ( ^! qualities 9 ?\ght1 ,i mu/ ?9k ( a book4 ,z ,jevons says3 ,9 reality1 e ord9>y g5]al t]m has a d\ble mean+3 x means ! ?+s to :i* x is appli$1 444 x also means1 9 a totally diff]5t way1 ! qualities & peculi>ities impli$ z be+ 9 ! ?+s4 ,logicians say t ! numb] ( ?+s to :i* a t]m applies is ! ext5sion ( ! t]m2 :ile ! numb] ( qualities or peculi>ities impli$ is ! int5sion4 ,! ext5sion & int5sion ( t]ms has be5 ref]r$ to 9 ! previ\s *apt]4 ,! g5]al classification ( ! degrees ( ext5sion ( a g5]al t]m is express$ by ! two t]ms1 ,g5us & ,species1 respectively4 ,! classification ( ! "* ( ! int5sion ( a t]m is express$ by ! t]m1 ,diff]5ce1 ,prop]ty & ,accid5t1 respectively4 ,g5us is a t]m indicat+3 a class ( objects conta9+ sev]al species2 a class m ext5sive ?an a species2 a univ]sal :i* is pr$icable ( sev]al ?+s ( diff]5t species4 ,species is a t]m d5ot+3 a small] class ( objects ?an a g5us1 & ( two or m ( :i* a g5us is compos$2 a pr$icable t expresses ! :ole ess5ce ( its subject 9 s f> z any common t]m c express x4 ,an au?ority says3 ,! names species & g5us are m]ely relative & ! same common t]m may1 9 "o case1 be ! species :i* is pr$icat$ ( an individual1 & 9 ano!r case ! individual ( :i* a species is pr$icat$4 ,?us ! individual1 ,george1 belongs to ! logical species ,man1 :ile ,man is an individual ( ! logical species ,animal4 ,jevons says3 ,x is desirable to h names by :i* to %[ t "o class is conta9$ 9 ano!r1 & accord+ly we call ! class :i* is divid$ into two or m small] ones1 ! g5us1 & ! small] ones into :i* x is divid$1 ! species4 ,animal is a g5us ( :i* man is a species2 :ile man1 9 turn1 is a g5us ( :i* ,caucasian is a species2 & ,caucasian1 9 turn1 becomes a g5us ( :i* ,socrates becomes a species4 ,! /ud5t mu/ avoid confus+ ! logical mean+ ( ! t]ms g5us & species ) ! use ( ! same t]ms 9 ,natural ,hi/ory4 ,ea* class is a g5us to ! class bel[ x 9 ext5sion2 & ea* class is a species to ! class above x 9 ext5sion4 ,at ! l[e/ extreme ( ! scale we rea* :at is call$ ! infima species1 :i* _c be fur!r subdivid$1 z = in/ance ,socrates--?is l[e/ species mu/ always be an individual object1 p]son or ?+4 ,at ! highe/ extreme ( ! scale we rea* :at is summum g5us1 or highe/ g5us1 :i* is nev] a species ( any?+1 = !re is no class high] ?an x1 z = in/ance1 be+1 exi/5ce1 reality1 tru?1 ! absolute1 ! inf9ite1 ! ultimate1 etc4 ,hyslop says3 ,9 reality !re is b "o summum g5us1 :ile !re may be an indef9ite numb] ( infimae species4 ,all int]m$iate t]ms betwe5 ^! extremes are sometimes call$ subalt]ns1 z be+ ei!r g5]a or species1 accord+ to ! relation 9 :i* !y are view$4 ,pass+ on to ! classification ( ! "* ( ! int5sion ( t]ms1 we f9d3 ,diff]5ce1 a t]m d5ot+3 ,! m>k or m>ks by :i* ! species is di/+ui%$ f ! re/ ( ! g5us2 ! specific *>act]i/ic4 ,?us ! color ( ! sk9 is a diff]5ce betwe5 ! ,negro & ! ,caucasian2 ! numb] ( feet ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! bip$ & ! quadrup$2 ! =m & %ape ( leaves ! diff]5ce betwe5 ! oak & ! elm trees1 etc4 ,hyslop says3 ,:atev] di/+ui%es "o object f ano!r c be call$ ! diff]5tia4 ,x is "s *>act]i/ic 9 addition to ! common qualities & det]m9es ! species or individual "u ! g5us4 ,prop]ty1 a t]m d5ot+3 ,a peculi> quality ( any?+2 t :i* is inh]5t 9 or naturally ess5tial to any?+4 ,?us a prop]ty is a di/+ui%+ m>k ( a class4 ,?us black sk9 is a prop]ty ( ! ,negro race2 f\r feet a prop]ty ( quadrup$s2 a c]ta9 =m ( leaf a prop]ty ( ! oak tree4 ,?us a diff]5ce betwe5 two species may be a prop]ty ( "o ( ! species4 ,accid5t1 a t]m d5ot+3 ,any quality or circum/ance :i* may or may n belong to a class1 accid5tally z x 72 or1 :atev] does n really con/itute an ess5tial "p ( an object1 p]son or ?+4 ,z1 = in/ance1 ! r$ness ( a rose1 = a rose might "p ) its r$ness & /ill be a rose--! color is ! accid5t ( ! rose4 ,or1 a brick may be :ite & /ill be a brick1 al?\gh ! majority ( bricks are r$--! r$ness or :it5ess ( ! brick are its accid5ts & n its ess5tial prop]ties4 ,:ately says3 ,accid5ts 9 ,logic are ( two k9ds--sep>able & insep>able4 ,if walk+ be ! accid5t ( a p>ticul> man1 x is a sep>able "o1 = he w\ld n cease to be t man ?\gh he /ood /ill2 :ile1 on ! contr>y1 if ,spani>d is ! accid5t connect$ ) him1 x is an insep>able "o1 s9ce he nev] c cease to be1 e?nologically consid]$1 :at he 0 born4 ,aris+ f ! classification ( ! mean+ or cont5t ( t]ms1 we f9d ! process t]m$ ,def9ition4 ,def9ition is a t]m d5ot+3 ,an explanation ( a ^w or t]m4 ,9 ,logic ! t]m is us$ to d5ote ! process ( analysis 9 :i* ! prop]ties & diff]5ces ( a t]m are cle>ly /at$4 ,!re are ( c\rse sev]al k9ds ( def9itions4 ,= in/ance1 !re is :at is call$ a ,real ,def9ition1 :i* ,:ately def9es z3 ,a def9ition :i* expla9s ! nature ( ! ?+ by a p>ticul> "n4 ,!re is also :at is call$ a ,physical ,def9ition1 :i* is3 ,a def9ition made by enum]at+ su* p>ts z are actually sep>able1 su* z ! hull1 ma/s1 etc41 ( a %ip4 ,also a ,logical ,def9ition1 :i* is3 ,a def9ition consi/+ ( ! g5us & ! diff]5ce4 ,?us if a planet be def9$ z 'a w&]+ />1' /> is ! g5us1 & w&]+ po9ts out ! diff]5ce betwe5 a planet & an ord9>y />4 ,an ,accid5tal ,def9ition is3 ,a def9ition ( ! accid5tal qualities ( a ?+4 ,an ,ess5tial ,def9ition is3 a def9ition ( ! ess5tial prop]ties & diff]5ces ( an object1 p]son or ?+4 ,crabbe discrim9ates betwe5 a ,def9ition & an ,explanation1 z foll[s3 ,a def9ition is correct or precise2 an explanation is g5]al or ample4 ,! def9ition ( a ^w def9es or limits ! ext5t ( its signification2 x is ! rule = ! s*ol> 9 ! use ( any ^w2 ! explanation ( a ^w may include bo? def9ition & illu/ration2 ! =m] admits ( no m words ?an w include ! lead+ features 9 ! mean+ ( any t]m2 ! latt] admits ( an unlimit$ scope = diffus5ess on ! "p ( ! expla9]4 ,hyslop gives ! foll[+ excell5t explanation ( ! ,logical ,def9ition1 :i* z he /ates is ! prop] mean+ ( ! t]m 9 ,logic4 ,he /ates3 ,! rules :i* regulate ,logical ,def9ition are z foll[s3 #a4 ,a def9ition %\ld /ate ! ess5tial attributes ( ! species def9$4 #b4 ,a def9ition mu/ n conta9 ! "n ( ^w def9$4 ,o!rwise ! def9ition is call$ a circulus 9 def9i5do4 #c4 ,! def9ition mu/ be exactly equival5t to ! species def9$4 #d4 ,a def9ition %\ld n be express$ 9 obscure1 figurative1 or ambigu\s language4 #e4 ,a def9ition mu/ n be negative :5 x c be affirmative4 ,a correct def9ition necess>ily requires ! manife/ation ( ! two respective processes ( ,analysis & ,syn!sis4 ,analysis is a t]m d5ot+3 ,! sep>ation ( any?+ into its con/itu5t elem5ts1 qualities1 prop]ties & attributes4 ,x is se5 at once t 9 ord] to correctly def9e an object1 p]son or ?+1 x is fir/ necess>y to analyze ! latt] 9 ord] to p]ceive its ess5tial & accid5tal prop]ties or diff]5ces4 ,unless ! qualities1 prop]ties & attributes are cle>ly & fully p]ceiv$1 we _c prop]ly def9e ! object itself4 ,syn!sis is a t]m d5ot+3 ,! act ( jo9+ or putt+ two or m ?+s toge!r2 9 ,logic3 ! me?od by composition1 9 opposition to ! me?od ( resolution or analysis4 ,9 /at+ a def9ition we mu/ necess>ily jo9 toge!r ! v>i\s ess5tial qualities1 prop]ties & attributes1 :i* we h discov]$ by ! process ( analysis2 & ! syn!siz$ comb9ation1 consid]$ z a :ole1 is ! def9ition ( ! object express$ by ! t]m4 ,,*apt] ,,viii4 ,,judgm5ts ,! fir/ /ep 9 ! process ( reason+ is t ( ,conception or ! =m+ ( ,concepts4 ,! second /ep is t ( ,judgm5t1 or ! process ( p]ceiv+ ! agreem5t or disagreem5t ( two conceptions4 ,judgm5t 9 ,logic is def9$ z3 ,! comp>+ toge!r 9 ! m9d ( two notions1 concepts or ideas1 :i* are ! objects ( appreh5sion1 :e!r complex or incomplex1 & pron\nc+ t !y agree or disagree ) ea* o!r1 or t "o ( !m belongs or does n belong to ! o!r4 ,judgm5t is !re=e affirmative or negative4 ,:5 we h 9 our m9d two concepts1 we are likely to comp>e !m "o ) ! o!r1 & to ?us arrive at a conclusion reg>d+ _! agreem5t or disagreem5t4 ,?is process ( comp>ison & decision is :at1 9 ,logic1 is call$ ,judgm5t4 ,9 e act ( ,judgm5t !re mu/ be at lea/ two concepts to be exam9$ & comp>$4 ,?is comp>ison mu/ lead to a ,judgm5t reg>d+ _! agreem5t or disagreem5t4 ,= in/ance1 we h ! two concepts1 horse & animal4 ,we exam9e & comp>e ! two concepts1 & f9d t !re is an agreem5t betwe5 !m4 ,we f9d t ! concept horse is includ$ 9 ! high] concept ( animal & !re=e1 we ass]t t3 ,! horse is an animal4 ,?is is a /atem5t ( agreem5t & is1 !re=e1 a ,positive ,judgm5t4 ,we !n comp>e ! concepts horse & c[ & f9d a disagreem5t betwe5 !m1 :i* we express 9 ! /atem5t ( ! ,judgm5t t3 ,! horse is n a c[4 ,?is ,judgm5t1 /at+ a disagreem5t is :at is call$ a ,negative ,judgm5t4 ,9 ! above illu/ration ( ! comp>ison betwe5 ! concepts horse & animal we f9d t ! second concept animal is broad] ?an ! fir/1 horse1 s broad 9 fact t x includes ! latt]4 ,! t]ms are n equal1 = we _c say1 9 tru?1 t an animal is ! horse4 ,we may1 h[ev]1 include a "p ( ! broad] conception ) ! n>r[] & say3 "s animals are horses4 ,sometimes bo? concepts are ( equal rank1 z :5 we /ate t3 ,man is a rational animal4 ,9 ! process ( ,judgm5t !re is always ! necessity ( ! *oice betwe5 ! ,positive & ! ,negative4 ,:5 we comp>e ! concepts horse & animal1 we mu/ ( necessity decide ei!r t ! horse is an animal1 or else t x is n an animal4 ,! importance ( ! process ( ,judgm5t is ably /at$ by ,halleck1 z foll[s3 ,7 isolat$ concepts possible1 !y w\ld be ( v little use4 ,isolat$ facts are ( no m s]vice ?an unspun wool4 ,we might h a concept ( a c]ta9 class ( ?ree-leav$ ivy1 z we might also ( poisons4 ,unless judgm5t l9k$ ^! two concepts & decid$ t ?is species ( ivy is poison\s1 we might take hold ( x & be poison$4 ,we might h a concept ( bread & also "o ( meat1 fruit & vegetables4 ,if we also _h a concept ( food1 unrelat$ to ^!1 we %\ld />ve to dea?1 = we %\ld n ?9k ( !m z foods4 ,a vessel1 suppos+ itself to be f> out at sea1 signal$ ano!r vessel t ! crew 7 dy+ ( ?ir/4 ,t crew c]ta9ly _h a concept ( dr9kable ?+s & also ( wat]4 ,to ! surprise ( ! fir/1 ! second vessel signal$ back1 ',draw f ! sea & dr9k4 ,y are at ! m\? ( ! ,amazon4' ,! ?ir/y crew _h n jo9$ ! concept dr9kable to ! concept ( wat] ov] ! %ip's side4 ,a man hav+ tak5 an ov]dose ( laudanum1 8 wife lo/ mu* valuable "t 9 s5d+ out = antidotes1 because c]ta9 ( h] concepts _h n be5 connect$ by judgm5t4 ,%e _h good concepts ( c(fee & ( mu/>d2 %e also knew t an antidote to opium 0 ne$$2 b %e _h nev] l9k$ ^! concepts & judg$ t c(fee & mu/>d 7 antidotes to opium4 ,! mom5t %e =m$ t judgm5t %e 0 a wis] woman = h] k 0 relat$ & usable4444 ,judgm5t is ! p[] revolutioniz+ ! _w4 ,! revolution is sl[ because nature's =ces are s complex1 s h>d to be r$uc$ to _! simple/ =ms & s disguis$ & neutraliz$ by ! pres5ce ( o!r =ces4444 ,=tunately judgm5t is ev] sil5tly work+ & comp>+ ?+s t1 to pa/ ages1 h seem$ dissimil>2 & x is cont9ually ab/ract+ & leav+ out ( ! field ( view ^? qualities :i* h simply s]v$ to obscure ! po9t at issue4 ,judgm5t may be bo? analytic or syn!tic 9 its processes2 & x may be nei!r4 ,:5 we comp>e a n>r[ concept ) a broad] "o1 z a "p ) a :ole1 ! process is syn!tic or an act ( comb9ation4 ,:5 we comp>e a "p ( a concept ) ano!r concept1 ! process is analytic4 ,:5 we comp>e concepts equal 9 rank or ext5t1 ! process is nei!r syn!tic nor analytic4 ,?us 9 ! /atem5t t3 ,a horse is an animal1 ! judgm5t is syn!tic2 9 ! /atem5t t3 "s animals are horses1 ! judgem5t is analytic2 9 ! /atem5t t3 a man is a rational animal1 ! judgm5t is nei!r analytic nor syn!tic4 ,brooks says3 ,9 "o s5se all judgm5ts are syn!tic4 ,a judgm5t consi/s ( ! union ( two ideas & ?is unit+ is a process ( syn!sis4 ,?is1 h[ev]1 is a sup]ficial view ( ! process4 ,su* a syn!sis is a m]e me*anical syn!sis2 bel[ ?is is a ?\ght-process :i* is sometimes analytic1 sometimes syn!tic & sometimes nei!r analytic nor syn!tic4 ,! same au?ority /ates3 ,! act ( m9d describ$ is :at is kn[n z logical judgm5t4 ,/rictly speak+1 h[ev]1 e intellig5t act ( ! m9d is accompani$ ) a judgm5t4 ,to "k is to discrim9ate &1 !re=e1 to judge4 ,e s5sation or cognition involves a k & s a judgm5t t x exi/s4 ,! m9d _c ?9k at all )\t judg+2 to ?9k is to judge4 ,ev5 9 =m+ ! notions :i* judgm5t comp>es1 ! m9d judges4 ,e notion or concept implies a previ\s act ( judgm5t to =m x3 9 =m+ a concept1 we comp>e ! common attributes be=e we unite !m2 & comp>ison is judgm5t4 ,x is ?us true t ',e concept is a contract$ judgm5t2 e judgm5t an exp&$ concept4' ,?is k9d ( judgm5t1 by :i* we affirm ! exi/5ce ( /ates ( consci\sness1 discrim9ate qualities1 di/+ui% p]cepts & =m concepts1 is call$ primitive or psy*ological judgm5t4 ,9 ,logical ,judgm5t !re are two aspects2 i4e41 ,judgm5t by ,ext5sion & ,judgm5t by ,int5sion4 ,:5 we comp>e ! two concepts horse & animal we f9d t ! concept horse is conta9$ 9 ! concept animal & ! judgm5t t a horse is an animal may be consid]$ z a ,judgm5t by ,ext5sion4 ,9 ! same comp>ison we see t ! concept horse conta9s ! quality ( animality1 & 9 attribut+ ?is quality to ! horse1 we may also say ! horse is an animal1 :i* judgm5t may be consid]$ z a ,judgm5t by ,int5sion4 ,brooks says3 ,bo? views ( ,judgm5t are correct2 ! m9d may rea* its judgm5t ei!r by ext5sion or by int5sion4 ,! me?od by ext5sion is usually ! m natural4 ,:5 a ,judgm5t is express$ 9 words x is call$ a ,proposition4 ,!re is "s confusion reg>d+ ! two t]ms1 "s hold+ t a ,judgm5t & a proposition are id5tical1 & t ! t]m proposition may be prop]ly us$ to indicate ! judgm5t itself4 ,b ! au?orities :o seek = cle>ness ( expression & ?\ght n[ g5]ally hold t3 ,a ,proposition is a ,judgm5t express$ 9 words4 ,9 ! next *apt]1 9 :i* we consid] ,propositions1 we %all ent] into a m ext5d$ consid]ation ( ! subject ( ,judgm5ts z express$ 9 ,propositions1 :i* consid]ation we omit at ?is po9t 9 ord] to avoid repetition4 ,j z ! respective subjects ( ,concepts & ,t]ms necess>ily bl5d into ea* o!r1 s d ! respective subjects ( ,judgm5ts & ,propositions4 ,9 ea* case1 too1 !re is ! elem5t ( ! m5tal process on ! "o h& & ! v]bal expression ( x on ! o!r h&4 ,x w be well to keep ?is fact 9 m9d4 ,,*apt] ,,ix4 ,,propositions ,we h se5 t ! fir/ /ep ( ,d$uctive ,reason+ is t :i* we call ,concepts4 ,! second /ep is t :i* we call ,propositions4 ,9 ,logic1 a ,proposition is3 ,a s5t5ce1 or "p ( a s5t5ce1 affirm+ or d5y+ a connection betwe5 ! t]ms2 limit$ to express ass]tions r ?an ext5d$ to que/ions & comm&s4 ,hyslop def9es a ,proposition z3 any affirmation or d5ial ( an agreem5t betwe5 two conceptions4 ,examples ( ,propositions are f\nd 9 ! foll[+ s5t5ces3 ,! rose is a fl[]2 a horse is an animal2 ,*icago is a city2 all ( :i* are affirmations ( agreem5t betwe5 ! two t]ms involv$2 also 93 ,a horse is n a zebra2 p9ks are n roses2 ! :ale is n a fi%2 etc41 :i* are d5ials ( agreem5t betwe5 ! t]ms4 ,! ,p>ts ( a ,proposition are3 7#a7 ! ,subject1 or t ( :i* some?+ is affirm$ or d5i$2 7#b7 ! ,pr$icate1 or ! some?+ :i* is affirm$ or d5i$ reg>d+ ! ,subject2 & 7#c7 ! ,copula1 or ! v]b s]v+ z a l9k betwe5 ! ,subject & ! ,pr$icate4 99 99 99 99 99 ,9 ! ,proposition3 ,man is an animal1 ! t]m man is ! ,subject2 ! t]m an animal is ! ,pr$icate2 & ! ^w is1 is ! ,copula4 ,! ,copula is always "s =m ( ! v]b to be1 9 ! pres5t t5se indicative1 9 an affirmative ,proposition2 & ! same ) ! negative p>ticle affix$1 9 a negative ,proposition4 ,! ,copula is n always directly express$ by ! ^w is or is n1 etc41 b is in/ead express$ 9 "s phrase :i* implies !m4 ,= in/ance1 we say he runs1 :i* implies he is runn+4 ,9 ! same way1 x may appe> at times z if ! ,pr$icate 0 miss+1 z 93 ,god is1 by :i* is meant ,god is exi/+4 ,9 "s cases1 ! ,proposition is inv]t$1 ! ,pr$icate appe>+ fir/ 9 ord]1 & ! ,subject la/1 z 93 ,bless$ are ! peacemak]s2 or ,/rong is ,tru?4 ,9 su* cases judgm5t mu/ be us$ 9 det]m9+ ! matt]1 9 accordance ) ! "* & mean+ ( ! t]ms4 ,an ,affirmative ,proposition is "o 9 :i* ! ,pr$icate is affirm$ to agree ) ! ,subject4 ,a ,negative ,proposition is "o 9 :i* ! agreem5t ( ! ,pr$icate & ,subject is d5i$4 ,examples ( bo? ( ^! classes h be5 giv5 9 ?is *apt]4 ,ano!r classification ( ,propositions divides !m 9 ?ree classes1 z foll[s 7#a7 ,categorical2 7#b7 ,hypo!tical2 7#c7 ,disjunctive4 ,a ,categorical ,proposition is "o 9 :i* ! affirmation or d5ial is made )\t res]vation or qualification1 z = in/ance3 ,man is an animal2 ! rose is a fl[]1 etc4 ,! fact ass]t$ may n be true1 b ! /atem5t is made positively z a /atem5t ( reality4 ,a ,hypo!tical ,proposition is "o 9 :i* ! affirmation or d5ial is made to dep5d ^u c]ta9 conditions1 circum/ances or suppositions1 z = in/ance3 ,if ! wat] is boil+-hot1 x w scald2 or if ! p[d] be damp1 x w n explode1 etc4 ,jevons says3 ,hypo!tical ,propositions may g5]ally be recogniz$ by conta9+ ! little ^w 'if2' b x is d\btful :e!r !y really diff] mu* f ! ord9>y propositions4444 ,we may easily say t 'boil+ wat] w scald1' & 'damp gunp[d] w n explode1' ?us avoid+ ! use ( ! ^w 'if4' ,a ,disjunctive ,proposition is "o imply+ or ass]t+ an alt]native1 & usually conta9+ ! conjunction or1 sometimes toge!r ) ei!r1 z = in/ance3 ,lightn+ is %eet or =k$2 ,ar*es are ei!r r\nd or po9t$2 ,angles are ei!r obtuse1 "r angl$ or acute4 ,ano!r classification ( ,propositions divides !m 9 two classes z foll[s3 7#a7 ,univ]sal2 7#b7 ,p>ticul>4 ,a ,univ]sal ,proposition is "o 9 :i* ! :ole quantity ( ! ,subject is involv$ 9 ! ass]tion or d5ial ( ! ,pr$icate4 ,= in/ance3 ,all m5 are li>s1 by :i* is affirm$ t all ( ! entire race ( m5 are 9 ! category ( li>s1 n "s m5 b all ! m5 t are 9 exi/5ce4 ,9 ! same way ! ,proposition3 ,no m5 are immortal is ,univ]sal1 = x is a univ]sal d5ial4 ,a ,p>ticul> ,proposition is "o 9 :i* ! affirmation or d5ial ( ! ,pr$icate involves only a "p or portion ( ! :ole ( ! ,subject1 z = in/ance3 ,"s m5 are a!i/s1 or ,"s wom5 are n va91 9 :i* cases ! affirmation or d5ial does n involve all or ! :ole ( ! ,subject4 ,o!r examples are3 ,a few m51 etc42 _m p1 etc42 c]ta9 books1 etc42 mo/ p1 etc4 ,hyslop says3 ,! signs ( ! ,univ]sal ,proposition1 :5 =mally express$1 are all1 e1 ea*1 any1 & :ole or words ) equival5t import4 ,! signs ( ,p>ticul> ,propositions are also c]ta9 adjectives ( quantity1 su* z "s1 c]ta91 a few1 _m1 mo/ or su* o!rs z d5ote at lea/ a "p ( a class4 ,! subject ( ! ,di/ribution ( ,t]ms 9 ,propositions is consid]$ v important by ,logicians1 & z ,hyslop says3 has mu* importance 9 det]m9+ ! legitimacy1 or at lea/ ! intelligibility1 ( our reason+ & ! assurance t x w be accept$ by o!rs4 ,"s au?orities favor ! t]m1 ,qualification ( ! ,t]ms ( ,propositions1 b ! e/abli%$ usage favors ! t]m ,di/ribution4 ,! def9ition ( ! ,logical t]m1 ,di/ribution1 is3 ,! di/+ui%+ ( a univ]sal :ole into its sev]al k9ds ( species2 ! employm5t ( a t]m to its fulle/ ext5t2 ! application ( a t]m to its fulle/ ext5t1 s z to include all significations or applications4 ,a ,t]m ( a ,proposition is di/ribut$ :5 x is employ$ 9 its fulle/ s5se2 t is to say1 :5 x is employ$ s z to apply to ea* & e object1 p]son or ?+ includ$ "u x4 ,?us 9 ! proposition1 ,all horses are animals1 ! t]m horses is di/ribut$2 & 9 ! proposition1 ,"s horses are ?or\ghbr$s1 ! t]m horses is n di/ribut$4 ,bo? ( ^! examples relate to ! di/ribution ( ! subject ( ! proposition4 ,b ! pr$icate ( a proposition also may or may n be di/ribut$4 ,= in/ance1 9 ! proposition1 ,all horses are animals1 ! pr$icate1 animals1 is n di/ribut$1 t is1 n us$ 9 its fulle/ s5se1 = all animals are n horses--!re are "s animals :i* are n horses &1 !re=e1 ! pr$icate1 animals1 n be+ us$ 9 its fulle/ s5se is said to be n di/ribut$4 ,! proposition really means3 ,all horses are "s animals4 ,!re is h[ev] ano!r po9t to be rememb]$ 9 ! consid]ation ( ,di/ribution ( ,t]ms ( ,propositions1 :i* ,brooks expresses z foll[s3 ,di/ribution g5]ally %[s itself 9 ! =m ( ! expression1 b sometimes x may be det]m9$ by ! ?\ght4 ,?us if we say1 ',m5 are mortal1' we mean all m51 & ! t]m m5 is di/ribut$4 ,b if we say ',books are necess>y to a libr>y1' we mean1 n 'all books' b '"s books4' ,! te/ ( di/ribution is :e!r ! t]m applies to 'ea* & e4' ,?us :5 we say 'm5 are mortal1' x is true ( ea* & e man t he is mortal4 ,! ,rules ( ,di/ribution ( ! ,t]ms ( ,proposition are z foll[s3 #a4 ,all univ]sals di/ribute ! subject4 #b4 ,all p>ticul>s d n di/ribute ! subject4 #c4 ,all negatives di/ribute ! pr$icate4 #d4 ,all affirmatives d n di/ribute ! pr$icate4 ,! above rules are bas$ ^u logical reason+4 ,! reason = ! fir/ two rules is q obvi\s1 = :5 ! subject is univ]sal1 x foll[s t ! :ole subject is involv$2 :5 ! subject is p>ticul> x foll[s t only a "p ( ! subject is involv$4 ,9 ! case ( ! ?ird rule1 x w be se5 t 9 e negative proposition ! :ole ( ! pr$icate mu/ be d5i$ ! subject1 z = in/ance1 :5 we say3 ,"s animals are n horses1 ! :ole class ( horses is cut (f f ! subject1 & is ?us di/ribut$4 ,9 ! case ( ! f\r? rule1 we may readily see t 9 ! affirmative proposition ! :ole ( ! pr$icate is n d5i$ ! subject1 z = in/ance1 :5 we say t3 ,horses are animals1 we d n mean t horses are all ! animals1 b t !y are m]ely a "p or portion ( ! class animal--!re=e1 ! pr$icate1 animals1 is n di/ribut$4 ,9 addition to ! =ms ( ,propositions giv5 !re is ano!r class ( ,propositions kn[n z ,def9itive or ,sub/itutive ,propositions1 9 :i* ! ,subject & ! ,pr$icate are exactly alike 9 ext5t & rank4 ,= in/ance1 9 ! proposition1 ,a triangle is a polygon ( ?ree sides ! two t]ms are int]*angeable2 t is1 may be sub/itut$ = ea* o!r4 ,h5ce ! t]m sub/itutive4 ,! t]m def9itive arises f ! fact t ! respective t]ms ( ?is k9d ( a proposition necess>ily def9e ea* o!r4 ,all logical def9itions are express$ 9 ?is la/ m5tion$ =m ( proposition1 = 9 su* cases ! subject & ! pr$icate are precisely equal to ea* o!r4 ,,*apt] ,x4 ,,imm$iate ,,reason+ ,9 ! process ( ,judgm5t we mu/ comp>e two concepts & asc]ta9 _! agreem5t ( disagreem5t4 ,9 ! process ( ,reason+ we foll[ a simil> me?od & comp>e two judgm5ts1 ! result ( su* comp>ison be+ ! d$uction ( a ?ird judgm5t4 ,! simple/ =m ( reason+ is t kn[n z ,imm$iate ,reason+1 by :i* is meant ! d$uction ( "o proposition f ano!r :i* implies x4 ,"s h def9$ x z3 reason+ )\t a middle t]m4 ,9 ?is =m ( reason+ only "o proposition is requir$ = ! premise1 & f t premise ! conclusion is d$uc$ directly & )\t ! necessity ( comp>ison ) any o!r t]m ( proposition4 ,! two pr9cipal me?ods employ$ 9 ?is =m ( ,reason+ are2 7#a7 ,opposition2 7#b7 ,conv]sion4 ,opposition exi/s betwe5 propositions hav+ ! same subject & pr$icate1 b diff]+ 9 quality or quantity1 or bo?4 ,! ,laws ( ,opposition are z foll[s3 ,i4 7#a7 ,if ! univ]sal is true1 ! p>ticul> is true4 7#b7 ,if ! p>ticul> is false1 ! univ]sal is false4 7#c7 ,if ! univ]sal is false1 no?+ foll[s4 7#d7 ,if ! p>ticul> is true1 no?+ foll[s4 ,,ii4 7#a7 ,if "o ( two contr>ies is true1 ! o!r is false4 7#b7 ,if "o ( two contr>ies is false1 no?+ c be inf]r$4 7#c7 ,contr>ies are nev] bo? true1 b bo? may be false4 ,,iii4 7#a7 ,if "o ( two sub-contr>ies is false1 ! o!r is true4 7#b7 ,if "o ( two sub-contr>ies is true1 no?+ c be inf]r$ conc]n+ ! o!r4 7#c7 ,sub-contr>ies c nev] be bo? false1 b bo? may be true4 ,,iv4 7#a7 ,if "o ( two contradictories is true1 ! o!r is false4 7#b7 ,if "o ( two contradictories is false1 ! o!r is true4 7#c7 ,contradictories c nev] be bo? true or bo? false1 b always "o is true & ! o!r is false4 ,9 ord] to compreh5d ! above laws1 ! /ud5t %\ld famili>ize himself ) ! foll[+ arrangem5t1 adopt$ by logicians z a conv5i5ce3 ,univ]sal ,affirmative 7,a7 ,negative 7,e7 ,propositions ,affirmative 7,i7 ,p>ticul> ,negative 7,o7 ,examples ( ! above3 ,univ]sal ,affirmative 7,a73 ,all m5 are mortal2 ,univ]sal ,negative 7,e73 ,no man is mortal2 ,p>ticul> ,affirmative 7,i73 ,"s m5 are mortal2 ,p>ticul> ,negative 7,o73 ,"s m5 are n mortal4 ,! foll[+ examples ( ab/ract propositions are (t5 us$ by logicians z t5d+ t[>d a cle>] conception ?an examples su* z giv5 above3 7,a7 ,all ,a is ,b4 7,i7 ,"s ,a is ,b4 7,e7 ,no ,a is ,b4 7,o7 ,"s ,a is n ,b4 ,^! f\r =ms ( propositions be> c]ta9 logical relations to ea* o!r1 z foll[s3 ,a & ,e are /yl$ contr>ies4 ,i & ,o are sub-contr>ies2 ,a & ,i & also ,e & ,o are call$ subalt]ns2 ,a & ,o & also ,i & ,e are /yl$ contradictories4 ,a close /udy ( ^! relations1 & ! symbols express+ !m1 is necess>y = a cle> compreh5sion ( ! ,laws ( ,opposition /at$ a little fur!r back1 z well z ! pr9ciples ( ,conv]sion :i* we %all m5tion a little fur!r on4 ,! foll[+ *>t1 call$ ! ,squ>e ( ,opposition1 is also employ$ by logicians to illu/rate ! relations betwe5 ! f\r classes ( propositions3 ,a ,,contr>ies ,e ------------------------ _/ _/,s ,c _/,e ,o _/,i ,n _/,r ,t _/,o ,s ,r _/,t ,s ,u ,a _/,c ,u ,b _/,i ,b ,a _/,d ,a ,l _/ ,l ,t _/ ,t ,e _/ ,d ,e ,r _/ ,i ,r ,n _/,a ,c ,n ,s _/,r ,t ,s _/,t ,o _/,n ,r _/,o ,i _/,c ,e _/ ,s _/ ------------------------ ,i ,,sub-,,contr>ies ,o ,conv]sion is ! process ( imm$iate reason+ by :i* we inf] f a giv5 proposition ano!r proposition hav+ ! pr$icate ( ! orig9al = its subject & ! subject ( ! orig9al = its pr$icate2 or /at$ 9 a few words3 ,conv]sion is ! transposition ( ! subject & pr$icate ( a proposition4 ,z ,brooks /ates x3 ,propositions or judgm5ts are conv]t$ :5 ! subject & pr$icate *ange places 9 su* a mann] t ! result+ judgm5t is an inf]5ce f ! giv5 judgm5t4 ,! new proposition1 result+ f ! op]ation or ,conv]sion1 is call$ ! ,conv]se2 ! orig9al proposition is call$ ! ,conv]t5d4 ,! ,law ( ,conv]sion is t3 ,no t]m mu/ be di/ribut$ 9 ! ,conv]se t is n di/ribut$ 9 ! ,conv]t5d4 ,?is arises f ! obvi\s fact t no?+ %\ld be affirm$ 9 ! d]iv$ proposition ?an !re is 9 ! orig9al proposition4 ,!re are ?ree k9ds ( ,conv]sion2 viz3 7#a7 ,simple ,conv]sion2 7#b7 ,conv]sion by ,limitation2 7#c7 ,conv]sion by ,contraposition4 ,9 ,simple ,conv]sion !re is no *ange 9 ei!r quality or quantity4 ,9 ,conv]sion by ,limitation ! quality is *ang$ f univ]sal to p>ticul>4 ,9 ,conv]sion by ,negation ! quality is *ang$ b n ! quantity4 ,ref]r+ to ! classification tables & symbols giv5 9 ! prec$+ pages ( ?is *apt]1 we may n[ proce$ to consid] ! application ( ^! me?ods ( ,conv]sion to ea* ( ! f\r k9ds ( propositions2 z foll[s3 ,! ,univ]sal ,affirmative 7symbol ,a7 proposition is conv]t$ by ,limitation1 or by a *ange ( quality f univ]sal to p>ticul>4 ,! pr$icate n be+ di/ribut$ 9 ! conv]t5d1 we mu/ n di/ribute x 9 ! conv]se by say+ all4 ,?us 9 ?is case we mu/ conv]t ! proposition1 all m5 are mortal 7,a71 into "s mortals are m5 7,i74 ,! ,univ]sal ,negative 7symbol ,e7 is conv]t$ by ,simple ,conv]sion1 9 :i* !re is no *ange 9 ei!r quality or quantity4 ,= s9ce bo? t]ms ( ,e are di/ribut$1 !y may bo? be di/ribut$ 9 ! conv]se )\t violat+ ! law ( conv]sion4 ,?us ,no man is mortal is conv]t$ into3 ,no mortals are m54 ,e is conv]t$ into ,e4 ,! ,p>ticul> ,affirmative 7symbol ,i7 is also conv]t$ by ,simple ,conv]sion 9 :i* !re is no *ange 9 ei!r quality or quantity4 ,= s9ce nei!r t]m is di/ribut$ 9 ,i1 nei!r t]m may be di/ribut$ 9 ! conv]se1 & ! latt] mu/ rema9 ,i4 ,= in/ance2 ! proposition3 ,"s m5 are mortal is conv]t$ into ! proposition1 ,"s mortals are m54 ,! ,p>ticul> ,negative 7symbol ,o7 is conv]t$ by ,conv]sion by ,negation1 9 :i* ! quality is *ang$ b n ! quantity4 ,?us 9 conv]t+ ! proposition3 ,"s m5 are n mortal1 we mu/ n say "s mortals are n m51 = 9 s do+ we w\ld di/ribute m5 9 ! pr$icate1 :]e x is n di/ribut$ 9 ! conv]t5d4 ,avoid+ ?is1 we transf] ! negative p>ticle f ! copula to ! pr$icate s t ! conv]t5d becomes ,i :i* is conv]t$ by ,simple ,conv]sion4 ,?us we transf] ,"s m5 are n mortal into ,"s m5 are n-mortal f :i* we easily conv]t 7by simple ,conv]sion7 ! proposition3 ,"s n-mortals are m54 ,x w be well = /ud5ts1 at ?is po9t1 to consid] ! ?ree foll[+ ,fundam5tal ,laws ( ,?\ght z laid d[n by ! au?orities1 :i* are z foll[s3 ,! ,law ( ,id5tity1 :i* /ates t3 ,! same quality or ?+ is always ! same quality or ?+1 no matt] h[ diff]5t ! conditions 9 :i* x occurs4 ,! ,law ( ,contradiction1 :i* /ates t3 ,no ?+ c at ! same "t & place bo? be & n be4 ,! ,law ( ,exclud$ ,middle1 :i* /ates t3 ,ev]y?+ mu/ ei!r be or n be2 !re is no o!r alt]native or middle c\rse4 ,( ^! laws1 ,pr(4 ,jevons1 a not$ au?ority1 says3 ,/ud5ts are seldom able to see at fir/ _! full mean+ & importance4 ,all argum5ts may be expla9$ :5 ^! self-evid5t laws are grant$2 & x is n too mu* to say t ! :ole ( logic w be pla9 to ^? :o w con/antly use ^! laws z ! key4 ,,*apt] ,,xi4 ,,inductive ,,reason+ ,inductive ,reason+1 z we h said1 is ! process ( discov]+ g5]al tru? f p>ticul> tru?s1 or inf]r+ g5]al laws f p>ticul> facts4 ,?us1 f ! exp]i5ce ( ! individual & ! race reg>d+ ! p>ticul> tru? t ea* & e man "u obs]vation has be5 obs]v$ to die soon] or lat]1 x is inf]r$ t all m5 die1 & h5ce1 ! induction ( ! g5]al tru? t ,all m5 mu/ die4 ,or1 z f exp]i5ce we "k t ! v>i\s k9ds ( metals exp& :5 subject$ to heat1 we inf] t all metals are subject to ?is law1 & t consequ5tly we may arrive by inductive reason+ at ! conclusion t3 ,all metals exp& :5 subject$ to heat4 ,x w be notic$ t ! conclusion arriv$ at 9 ?is way by ,inductive ,reason+ =ms ! fundam5tal premise 9 ! process ( ,d$uctive ,reason+4 ,z we h se5 else:]e1 ! two processes1 ,inductive & ,d$uctive ,reason+1 respectively are int]dep5d5t--re/+ ^u "o ano!r4 ,jevons says ( ,inductive ,reason+3 ,9 ,d$uctive ,reason+ we inquire h[ we may ga!r ! tru? conta9$ 9 "s propositions call$ ,premises1 & put into ano!r proposition call$ ! ,conclusion4 ,we h n yet und]tak5 to f9d out h[ we c le>n :at propositions really are true1 b only :at propositions are true :5 o!r ones are true4 ,all ! acts ( reason+ yet consid]$ w\ld be call$ d$uctive because we d$uce1 or lead d[n ! tru? f premises to conclusion4 ,x is an exce$+ly important ?+ to und]/& d$uctive inf]5ce correctly1 b x might seem to be /ill m important to und]/& inductive inf]5ce1 by :i* we ga!r ! tru? ( g5]al propositions f facts obs]v$ z happ5+ 9 ! _w ar\nd u4 ,halleck says3 ,man has to f9d out ?r\gh 8 own exp]i5ce1 or t ( o!rs1 ! major premises f :i* he argues or draws 8 conclusions4 ,by induction we exam9e :at seems to u a suffici5t numb] ( individual cases4 ,we !n conclude t ! re/ ( ^! cases1 :i* we h n exam9$1 w obey ! same g5]al law4444 ,only aft] g5]al laws h be5 laid d[n1 aft] objects h be5 classifi$1 aft] major premises h be5 =m$1 c d$uction be employ$4 ,/range z may n[ appe>1 x is a fact t until a comp>atively rec5t p]iod 9 ! hi/ory ( man1 x 0 held by philosoph]s t ! only way to arrive at all k 0 by means ( ,d$uctive ,reason+1 by ! use ( ! ,syllogism4 ,! influ5ce ( ,ari/otle 0 great & m5 pref]r$ to pursue artificial & complicat$ me?ods ( ,d$uctive ,reason+1 r ?an to rea* ! tru? by obta9+ ! facts f ,nature h]self1 at fir/ h&1 & !n inf]r+ g5]al pr9ciple f ! facts s ga!r$4 ,! rise ( mod]n sci5tific me?ods ( reason+1 along ! l9es ( ,inductive ,inf]5ce1 dates f ab\t #abbe-acjj4 ,rog] ,bacon 0 "o ( ! fir/ to tea* t we mu/ arrive at sci5tific tru? by a process ( obs]vation & exp]im5tation on ! natural objects to be f\nd on all sides4 ,he made _m discov]ies by foll[+ ?is process4 ,he 0 ably second$ by ,galileo :o liv$ "s ?ree hundr$ ye>s lat]1 & :o also taught t _m great g5]al tru?s might be ga9$ by c>eful obs]vation & intellig5t inf]5ce4 ,"l ,francis ,bacon1 :o liv$ ab\t ! same "t z ,galileo1 pres5t$ 9 8 ,novum ,organum _m excell5t obs]vations & facts reg>d+ ! process ( ,inductive ,reason+ & sci5tific ?\ght4 ,z ,jevons says3 ,inductive logic inquires by :at mann] ( reason+ we c ga!r ! laws ( nature f ! facts & ev5ts obs]v$4 ,su* reason+ is call$ induction1 or inductive inquiry1 &1 z x has actually be5 practic$ by all ! great discov]]s 9 sci5ce1 x consi/s 9 f\r /eps4 ,! ,f\r ,/eps 9 ,inductive ,reason+1 z /at$ by ,jevons1 are z foll[s3 ,fir/ ,/ep4--,prelim9>y obs]vation4 ,second ,/ep4--,! mak+ ( hypo!ses4 ,?ird ,/ep4--,d$uctive reason+4 ,f\r? ,/ep4--,v]ification4 ,x w be se5 t ! process ( ,inductive ,reason+ is ess5tially a syn!tic process1 because x op]ates 9 ! direction ( comb9+ & unit+ p>ticul> facts or tru?s into g5]al tru?s or laws :i* compreh5d1 embrace & include !m all4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,! p>ticul> facts are unit$ by ! m9d into ! g5]al law2 ! g5]al law embraces ! p>ticul> facts & b9ds !m toge!r into a unity ( pr9ciple & ?\ght4 ,induction is ?us a process ( ?\ght f ! p>ts to ! :ole--a syn!tic process4 ,x w also be se5 t ! process ( ,inductive ,reason+ is ess5tially an asc5d+ process1 because x asc5ds f p>ticul> facts to g5]al laws2 p>ticul> tru?s to univ]sal tru?s2 f ! l[] to ! high]1 ! n>r[] to ! broad]1 ! small] to ! great]4 ,brooks says ( ,inductive ,reason+3 ,! relation ( induction to d$uction w be cle>ly se54 ,induction & ,d$uction are ! conv]se1 ! opposites ( ea* o!r4 ,d$uction d]ives a p>ticul> tru? f a g5]al tru?2 ,induction d]ives a g5]al tru? f p>ticul> tru?s4 ,?is anti!sis appe>s 9 e p>ticul>4 ,d$uction goes f g5]als to p>ticul>s2 ,induction goes f p>ticul>s to g5]als4 ,d$uction is an analytic process2 ,induction is a syn!tic process4 ,d$uction is a desc5d+ process--x goes f ! high] tru? to ! l[] tru?2 ,induction is an asc5d+ process--x goes f ! l[] tru? to ! high]4 ,!y diff] also 9 t ,d$uction may be appli$ to necess>y tru?s1 :ile ,induction is ma9ly re/rict$ to cont+5t tru?s4 ,hyslop says3 ,!re h be5 sev]al ways ( def9+ ?is process4 ,x has be5 usual to contra/ x ) ,d$uction4 ,n[1 d$uction is (t5 said to be reason+ f g5]al to p>ticul> tru?s1 f ! conta9+ to ! conta9$ tru?1 or f cause to effect4 ,induction1 !re=e1 by contra/ is def9$ z reason+ f ! p>ticul> to ! g5]al1 f ! conta9$ to ! conta9+1 or f effect to cause4 ,sometimes induction is said to be reason+ f ! kn[n to ! unkn[n4 ,?is w\ld make d$uction1 by contra/1 reason+ f ! unkn[n to ! kn[n1 :i* is absurd4 ,! =m] ways ( repres5t+ x are mu* ! bett]4 ,b !re is /ill a bett] way ( comp>+ !m4 ,d$uction is reason+ 9 :i* ! conclusion is conta9$ 9 ! premises4 ,?is is a gr\nd = its c]titude & we commit a fallacy :5ev] we g beyond ! premises z %[n by ! laws ( ! di/ribution ( t]ms4 ,9 contra/ ) ?is1 !n1 we may call inductive reason+ ! process by :i* we g beyond ! premises 9 ! conclusion4444 ,! process "h is to />t f giv5 facts & to inf] "s o!r probable facts m g5]al or connect$ ) !m4 ,9 ?is we see ! process ( go+ beyond ! premises4 ,!re are1 ( c\rse1 c]ta9 conditions :i* regulate ! legitimacy ( ! proc$ure1 j z !re are conditions det]m9+ d$uction4 ,!y are t ! conclusion %all repres5t ! same g5]al k9d z ! premises1 ) a possibility ( accid5tal diff]5ces4 ,b x goes beyond ! premises 9 s f> z kn[n facts are conc]n$4 ,! foll[+ example may give y a cle>] idea ( ! processes ( ,inductive ,reason+3 ,fir/ ,/ep4 ,prelim9>y ,obs]vation4 ,example3 ,we notice t all ! p>ticul> magnets :i* h come "u our obs]vation attract iron4 ,our m5tal record ( ! ph5om5a may be /at$ z3 ,a1 ,b1 ,c1 ,d1 ,e1 ,f1 ,g1 etc41 & also ,x1 ,y1 & ,z1 all ( :i* are magnets1 9 all obs]v$ in/ances1 & at all obs]v$ times1 attract iron4 ,second ,/ep4 ,! ,mak+ ( ,hypo!ses4 ,example3 ,^u ! basis ( ! obs]vations & exp]im5ts1 z above /at$1 & apply+ ! axiom ( ,inductive ,reason+1 t3 ,:at is true ( ! _m1 is true ( ! :ole1 we feel ju/ifi$ 9 =m+ a hypo!sis or inf]5ce ( a g5]al law or tru?1 apply+ ! facts ( ! p>ticul>s to ! g5]al1 :ole or univ]sal1 ?us3 ,all magnets attract iron4 ,?ird ,/ep4 ,d$uctive ,reason+4 ,example3 ,pick+ up a magnet reg>d+ :i* we h _h no exp]i5ce & ^u :i* we h made no exp]im5ts1 we reason by ! syllogism1 z foll[s3 7#a7 ,all magnets attract iron2 7#b7 ,?is ?+ is a magnet2 !re=e 7#c7 ,?is ?+ w attract iron4 ,9 ?is we apply ! axiom ( ,d$uctive ,reason+3 ,:atev] is true ( ! :ole is true ( ! p>ts4 ,f\r? ,/ep4 ,v]ification4 ,example3 ,we !n proce$ to te/ ! hypo!sis ^u ! p>ticul> magnet1 s z to asc]ta9 :e!r or n x agrees ) ! p>ticul> facts4 ,if ! magnet does n attract iron we "k t ei!r our hypo!sis is wrong & t "s magnets d n attract iron2 or else t our judgm5t reg>d+ t p>ticul> ?+ be+ a magnet is at fault & t x is n a magnet4 ,9 ei!r case1 fur!r exam9ation1 obs]vation & exp]im5t is necess>y4 ,9 case ! p>ticul> magnet does attract iron1 we feel t we h v]ifi$ our hypo!sis & our judgm5t4 ,,*apt] ,,xii4 ,,reason+ ,,by ,,induction ,! t]m ,induction1 9 its logical usage1 is def9$ z foll[s3 7a7 ,! process ( inve/igat+ & collect+ facts2 & 7b7 ! d$uc+ ( an inf]5ce f ^! facts2 also 7c7 sometimes loosely us$ 9 ! s5se ( an inf]5ce f obs]v$ facts4 ,mill says3 ,induction1 !n1 is t op]ation ( ! m9d1 by :i* we inf] t :at we "k to be true 9 a p>ticul> case or cases1 w be true 9 all cases :i* resemble ! =m] 9 c]ta9 assignable respects4 ,9 o!r words1 ,induction is ! process by :i* we conclude t :at is true ( c]ta9 individuals ( a class1 is true ( ! :ole class1 or t :at is true at c]ta9 times w be true 9 simil> circum/ances at all times4 ,! ,basis ( ,induction is ! axiom t3 ,:at is true ( ! _m is true ( ! :ole4 ,ess]1 a well kn[n au?ority1 /ates ?is axiom 9 r m complicat$ =m1 z foll[s3 ,t :i* belongs or does n belong to _m ?+s ( ! same k9d1 belongs or does n belong to all ?+s ( ! same k9d4 ,?is basic axiom ( ,induction re/s ^u ! conviction t ,nature's laws & manife/ations are regul>1 ord]ly & uni=m4 ,if we assume t ,nature does n manife/ ^! qualities1 !n ! axiom mu/ fall1 & all inductive reason mu/ be fallaci\s4 ,z ,brooks well says3 ,induction has be5 comp>$ to a ladd] ^u :i* we asc5d f facts to laws4 ,?is ladd] _c /& unless x has some?+ to re/ ^u2 & ?is some?+ is our fai? 9 ! con/ancy ( ,nature's laws4 ,"s au?orities h held t ?is p]ception ( ! uni=mity ( ,nature's laws is 9 ! nature ( an intuitive tru?1 or an inh]5t law ( our intellig5ce4 ,o!rs hold t x is 9 itself an inductive tru?1 arriv$ at by exp]i5ce & obs]vation at a v e>ly age4 ,we are held to h notic$ ! uni=mity 9 natural ph5om5a1 & almo/ in/9ctively inf] t ?is uni=mity is cont9u\s & univ]sal4 ,! au?orities assume ! exi/5ce ( two k9ds ( ,induction1 namely3 7#a7 ,p]fect ,induction2 & 7#b7 ,imp]fect ,induction4 ,o!r1 b simil>1 t]ms are employ$ by diff]5t au?orities to designate ^! two classes4 ,p]fect ,induction necessitates a k ( all ! p>ticul>s =m+ a class2 t is1 all ! individual objects1 p]sons1 ?+s or facts compris+ a class mu/ be kn[n & enum]at$ 9 ?is =m ( ,induction4 ,= in/ance1 if we knew positively all ( ,br[n's *ildr51 & t _! names 7 ,john1 ,pet]1 ,m>k1 ,luke1 ,*>les1 ,william1 ,m>y & ,susan1 respectively2 & t ea* & e "o ( !m 7 freckl$ & _h r$ hair2 !n1 9 t case1 in/ead ( simply g5]aliz+ & /at+ t3 ,john1 ,pet]1 ,m>k1 ,luke1 ,*>les1 ,william1 ,m>y & ,susan1 :o are all ( ,br[n's *ildr51 are freckl$ & h r$ hair1 we w\ld save words1 & /ate ! inductive conclusion3 ,all ,br[n's *ildr5 are freckl$ & h r$ hair4 ,x w be notic$ t 9 ?is case we include 9 ! process only :at is /at$ 9 ! premise itself1 & we d n ext5d our inductive process beyond ! actual data ^u :i* x is bas$4 ,?is =m ( ,induction is sometimes call$ ,logical ,induction1 because ! inf]5ce is a logical necessity1 )\t ! possibility ( error or exception4 ,by "s au?orities x is held n to be ,induction at all1 9 ! /rict s5se1 b little m ?an a simplifi$ =m ( enum]ation4 ,9 actual practice x is seldom available1 = x is almo/ impossible = u to "k all ! p>ticul>s 9 inf]r+ a g5]al law or tru?4 ,9 view ( ?is difficulty1 we fall back ^u ! m practical =m ( induction kn[n z3 ,imp]fect ,induction1 or z x is sometimes call$ ,practical ,induction1 by :i* is meant ! inductive process ( reason+ 9 :i* we assume t ! p>ticul>s or facts actually kn[n to u correctly repres5t ^? :i* are n actually kn[n1 & h5ce ! :ole class to :i* !y belong4 ,9 ?is process x w be se5 t ! conclusion ext5ds beyond ! data ^u :i* x is bas$4 ,9 ?is =m ( ,induction we mu/ actually employ ! pr9ciple ( ! axiom3 ,:at is true ( ! _m is true ( ! :ole--t is1 mu/ assume x to be a fact1 n because we "k x by actual exp]i5ce1 b because we inf] x f ! axiom :i* also agrees ) pa/ exp]i5ce4 ,! conclusion arriv$ at may n always be true 9 its fulle/ s5se1 z 9 ! case ( ! conclusion ( ,p]fect ,induction1 b is ! result ( an inf]5ce bas$ ^u a pr9ciple :i* gives u a reasonable "r to assume its tru? 9 abs5ce ( bett] k4 ,9 consid]+ ! actual /eps 9 ! process ( ,inductive ,reason+ we c d no bett] ?an to foll[ ! classification ( ,jevons1 m5tion$ 9 ! prec$+ *apt]1 ! same be+ simple & readily compreh5d$1 & !re=e pref]able 9 ?is case to ! m te*nical classification favor$ by "s o!r au?orities4 ,let u n[ consid] ^! f\r /eps4 ,fir/ ,/ep4 ,prelim9>y obs]vation4 ,x foll[s t )\t ! exp]i5ce ( oneself or ( o!rs 9 ! direction ( obs]v+ & rememb]+ p>ticul> facts1 objects1 p]sons & ?+s1 we _c hope to acquire ! prelim9>y facts = ! g5]alization & inductive inf]5ce necess>y 9 ,inductive ,reason+4 ,x is necess>y = u to =m a v>iety ( cle> ,concepts or ideas ( facts1 objects1 p]sons & ?+s1 be=e we may hope to g5]alize f ^! p>ticul>s4 ,9 ! *apt]s ( ?is book devot$ to ! consid]ation ( ,concepts1 we may see ! fundam5tal importance ( ! =mation & acquirem5t ( correct ,concepts4 ,concepts are ! fundam5tal mat]ial = correct reason+4 ,9 ord] to produce a p]fect f9i%$ product1 we mu/ h p]fect mat]ials1 & a suffici5t quantity ( !m4 ,! great] ! k "o possesses ( ! facts & objects ( ! outside _w1 ! bett] able is he to reason !refrom4 ,concepts are ! raw mat]ial :i* mu/ fe$ ! ma*9]y ( reason+1 & f :i* ! f9al product ( p]fect$ ?\ght is produc$4 ,z ,halleck says3 ,!re mu/ fir/ be a pres5tation ( mat]ials4 ,suppose t we wi% to =m ! concept fruit4 ,we mu/ fir/ p]ceive ! diff]5t k9ds ( fruit--*]ry1 pe>1 qu9ce1 plum1 currant1 apple1 fig1 orange1 etc4 ,be=e we c take ! next /ep1 we mu/ be able to =m di/9ct & accurate images ( ! v>i\s k9ds ( fruit4 ,if ! concept is to be absolutely accurate1 n "o k9d ( fruit mu/ be ov]look$4 ,practically ?is is impossible2 b _m k9ds %\ld be exam9$4 ,:]e p]ception is inaccurate & /9t$1 ! products ( ?\ght _c be tru/wor?y4 ,no build+ is firm if re>$ on insecure f\ndations4 ,9 ! process ( ,prelim9>y ,obs]vation1 we f9d t !re are two ways ( obta9+ a k ( ! facts & ?+s ar\nd u4 ,^! two ways are z foll[s3 ,i4 ,by ,simple ,obs]vation1 or ! p]ception ( ! happ5+s :i* are manife/$ )\t our int]f]5ce4 ,9 ?is way we p]ceive ! motion ( ! tides2 ! movem5t ( ! planets2 ! ph5om5a ( ! wea!r2 ! pass+ ( animals1 etc4 ,,ii4 ,by ! ,obs]vation ( ,exp]im5t1 or ! p]ception ( happ5+s 9 :i* we int]f]e ) ?+s & !n obs]ve ! result4 ,an exp]im5t is3 ,a trial1 pro(1 or te/ ( any?+2 an act1 op]ation1 or process design$ to discov] "s unkn[n tru?1 pr9ciple or effect1 or to te/ "s receiv$ or reput$ tru? or pr9ciple4 ,hobbes says3 ,to h _h _m exp]im5ts is :at we call exp]i5ce4 ,jevons says3 ,exp]im5tation is obs]vation ) some?+ m2 namely1 regulation ( ! ?+s ^: behavior is to be obs]v$4 ,! advantages ( exp]im5t ov] m]e obs]vation are ( two k9ds4 ,9 ! fir/ place1 we %all g5]ally "k mu* m c]ta9ly & accurately ) :at we are deal+1 :5 we make exp]im5ts ?an :5 we simply obs]ve natural ev5ts4444 ,x is a fur!r advantage ( artificial exp]im5ts1 t !y enable u to discov] entirely new sub/ances & to le>n _! prop]ties4444 ,x w\ld be a mi/ake to suppose t ! mak+ ( an exp]im5t is inductive reason+1 & gives u )\t fur!r tr\ble ! laws ( nature4 ,exp]im5ts only give u ! facts ^u :i* we may aft]w>d reason4444 ,exp]im5ts !n m]ely give facts1 & x is only by c>eful reason+ t we c le>n :5 ! same facts w be obs]v$ aga94 ,! g5]al rule is t ! same causes w produce ! same effects4 ,:atev] happ5s 9 "o case w happ5 9 all l cases1 provid$ t !y are really l1 & n m]ely app>5tly s4444 ,:5 we h by repeat$ exp]im5ts tri$ ! effect :i* all ! surr\nd+ ?+s might h on ! result1 we c !n reason ) mu* confid5ce z to simil> results 9 simil> circum/ances4444 ,9 ord] t we may1 f our obs]vations & exp]im5ts1 le>n ! law ( nature & become able to =esee ! future1 we mu/ p]=m ! process ( g5]alization4 ,to g5]alize is to draw a g5]al law f p>ticul> cases1 & to inf] t :at we see to be true ( a few ?+s is true ( ! :ole g5us or class to :i* ^! ?+s belong4 ,x requires mu* judgm5t & skill to g5]alize correctly1 because ev]y?+ dep5ds ^u ! numb] & "* ( ! in/ances ab\t :i* we reason4 ,hav+ se5 t ! fir/ /ep 9 ,inductive ,reason+ is ,prelim9>y ,obs]vation1 let u n[ consid] ! next /eps 9 :i* we may see :at we d ) ! facts & ideas :i* we h acquir$ by ?is ,obs]vation & ,exp]im5t4 ,,*apt] ,,xiii4 ,,!ory ,,& ,,hypo!ses ,foll[+ ,jevons' classification1 we f9d t ! ,second ,/ep 9 ,inductive ,reason+ is t call$ ,! ,mak+ ( ,hypo!ses4 ,a ,hypo!sis is3 ,a supposition1 proposition or pr9ciple assum$ or tak5 = grant$ 9 ord] to draw a conclusion or inf]5ce 9 pro( ( ! po9t or "q2 a proposition assum$ or tak5 = grant$1 ?\gh n prov$1 = ! purpose ( d$uc+ pro( ( a po9t 9 "q4 ,x w be se5 t a ,hypo!sis is m]ely held to be possibly or probably true1 & n c]ta9ly true2 x is 9 ! nature ( a work+ assumption1 ^: tru? mu/ be te/$ by obs]v$ facts4 ,! assumption may apply ei!r to ! cause ( ?+s1 or to ! laws :i* gov]n ?+s4 ,ak9 to a hypo!sis1 & by _m p confus$ 9 mean+ ) ! latt]1 is :at is call$ a ,!ory4 ,a ,!ory is3 ,a v]ifi$ hypo!sis2 a hypo!sis :i* has be5 e/abli%$ z1 app>5tly1 ! true "o4 ,an au?ority says ,!ory is a /rong] ^w ?an hypo!sis4 ,a !ory is f\nd$ on pr9ciples :i* h be5 e/abli%$ on indep5d5t evid5ce4 ,a hypo!sis m]ely assumes ! op]ation ( a cause :i* w\ld acc\nt = ! ph5om5a1 b has n evid5ce t su* cause 0 actually at "w4 ,metaphysically1 a !ory is no?+ b a hypo!sis support$ by a l>ge am\nt ( probable evid5ce4 ,brooks says3 ,:5 a hypo!sis is %[n to expla9 all ! facts t are kn[n1 ^! facts be+ v>i$ & ext5sive1 x is said to be v]ifi$1 & becomes a !ory4 ,?us we h ! !ory ( univ]sal gravitation1 ! ,cop]nican !ory ( ! sol> sy/em1 ! undulatory !ory ( light1 etc41 all ( :i* 7 orig9ally m]e hypo!ses4 ,?is is ! mann] 9 :i* ! t]m is usually employ$ 9 ! inductive philosophy2 ?\gh x mu/ be admitt$ t x is n always us$ 9 ?is /rict s5se4 ,disc>d$ hypo!ses are (t5 ref]r$ to z !ories2 & t :i* is actually a !ory is sometimes call$ a hypo!sis4 ,! /eps by :i* we build up a hypo!sis are num]\s & v>i$4 ,9 ! fir/ place we may erect a hypo!sis by ! me?ods ( :at we h describ$ z ,p]fect ,induction1 or ,logical ,induction4 ,9 ?is case we proce$ by simple g5]alization or simple enum]ation4 ,! example ( ! freckl$1 r$-hair$ *ildr5 ( ,br[n1 m5tion$ 9 a previ\s *apt]1 expla9s ?is me?od4 ,x requires ! exam9ation & k ( e object or fact ( :i* ! /atem5t or hypo!sis is made4 ,hamilton /ates t x is ! only induction :i* is absolutely necessitat$ by ! laws ( ?\ght4 ,x does n ext5d fur!r ?an ! plane ( exp]i5ce4 ,x is ak9 to ma!matical reason+4 ,f> m important is ! process by :i* hypo!ses are erect$ by means ( inf]5ces f ,imp]fect ,induction1 by :i* we reason f ! kn[n to ! unkn[n1 transc5d+ exp]i5ce1 & mak+ true inductive inf]5ces f ! axiom ( ,inductive ,reason+4 ,?is process involves ! subject ( ,causes4 ,jevons says3 ,! cause ( an ev5t is t antec$5t1 or set ( antec$5ts1 f :i* ! ev5t always foll[s4 ,p (t5 make mu* difficulty ab\t und]/&+ :at ! cause ( an ev5t means1 b x really means no?+ beyond ! ?+s t mu/ exi/ be=e 9 ord] t ! ev5t %all happ5 aft]w>d4 ,causes are (t5 obscure & difficult to det]m9e4 ,! foll[+ five difficulties are likely to arise3 ,i4 ,! cause may be out ( our exp]i5ce1 & is !re=e n to be und]/ood2 ,,ii4 ,causes (t5 act conjo9tly1 s t x is difficult to discov] ! "o pr$om9ant cause by reason ( its associat$ causes2 ,,iii4 ,(t5 ! pres5ce ( a c\nt]act+1 or modify+ cause may confuse u2 ,,iv4 ,(t5 a c]ta9 effect may be caus$ by ei!r ( sev]al possible causes2 ,v4 ,t :i* appe>s z a cause ( a c]ta9 effect may be b a co-effect ( an orig9al cause4 ,mill =mulat$ sev]al te/s = asc]ta9+ ! causal ag5cy 9 p>ticul> cases1 9 view ( ! above-/at$ difficulties4 ,^! te/s are z foll[s3 7#a7 ,! ,me?od ( ,agreem5t2 7#b7 ,! ,me?od ( ,diff]5ce2 7#c7 ,! ,me?od ( ,residues2 & 7#d7 ,! ,me?od ( ,concomitant ,v>iations4 ,! foll[+ def9itions ( ^! v>i\s te/s are giv5 by ,atwat] z foll[s3 ,me?od ( ,agreem5t3 ,if1 :5ev] a giv5 object or ag5cy is pres5t )\t c\nt]act+ =ces1 a giv5 effect is produc$1 !re is a /rong evid5ce t ! object or ag5cy is ! cause ( ! effect4 ,me?od ( ,diff]5ce3 ,if1 :5 ! suppos$ cause is pres5t ! effect is pres5t1 & :5 ! suppos$ cause is abs5t ! effect is want+1 !re be+ 9 nei!r case any o!r ag5ts pres5t to effect ! result1 we may reasonably inf] t ! suppos$ cause is ! real "o4 ,me?od ( ,residue3 ,:5 9 any ph5om5a we f9d a result rema9+ aft] ! effects ( all kn[n causes are e/imat$1 we may attribute x to a residual ag5t n yet reckon$4 ,me?od ( ,concomitant ,v>iations3 ,:5 a v>iation 9 a giv5 antec$5t is accompani$ by a v>iation ( a giv5 consequ5t1 !y are 9 "s mann] relat$ z cause & effect4 ,atwat] adds3 ,:5ev] ei!r ( ^! crit]ia is f\nd free f conflict+ evid5ce1 & especially :5 sev]al ( !m concur1 ! evid5ce is cle> t ! cases obs]v$ are fair repres5tatives ( ! :ole class1 & w>rant a valid inductive conclusion4 ,jevons gives u ! foll[+ valuable rules3 ,i4 ,:5ev] we c alt] ! quantity ( ! ?+s exp]im5t$ on1 we c apply a rule = discov]+ :i* are causes & :i* are effects1 z foll[s3 ,we mu/ v>y ! quantity ( "o ?+1 mak+ x at "o "t great] & at ano!r "t less1 & if we obs]ve any o!r ?+ :i* v>ies j at ! same times1 x w 9 all probability be an effect4 ,,ii4 ,:5 ?+s v>y regul>ly & frequ5tly1 !re is a simple rule1 by foll[+ :i* we c judge :e!r *anges are connect$ toge!r z causes & effects1 z foll[s3 ,^? ?+s :i* *ange 9 exactly equal times are 9 all likelihood connect$ toge!r4 ,,iii4 ,x is v difficult to expla9 h[ x is t we c ev] reason f "o ?+ to a class ( ?+s by g5]alization1 :5 we _c be sure t ! ?+s resemble ea* o!r 9 ! important po9ts4444 ,^u :at gr\nds d we argue8 ,we h to get a g5]al law f p>ticul> facts4 ,?is c only be done by go+ ?r\gh all ! /eps ( inductive reason+4 ,hav+ made c]ta9 obs]vations1 we mu/ frame hypo!ses z to ! circum/ances1 or laws f :i* !y proce$4 ,!n we mu/ reason d$uctively2 & aft] v]ify+ ! d$uctions 9 z _m cases z possible1 we %all "k h[ f> we c tru/ simil> d$uctions conc]n+ future ev5ts4444 ,x is difficult to judge :5 we may1 & :5 we may n1 safely inf] f "s ?+s to o!rs 9 ?is simple way1 )\t mak+ a complete !ory ( ! matt]4 ,! only rule t c be giv5 to assi/ u is t if ?+s resemble ea* o!r 9 a few prop]ties only1 we mu/ obs]ve _m in/ances be=e inf]r+ t ^! prop]ties w always be jo9$ toge!r 9 o!r cases4 ,,*apt] ,,xiv4 ,,mak+ ,,& ,,te/+ ,,hypo!ses ,! old] philosoph]s & logicians 7 (t5 at a loss h[ to reasonably acc\nt = ! orig9 ( hypo!ses4 ,x w be se51 aft] giv+ ! matt] a little ?\ght1 t ! actual =mation ( ! hypo!sis is m ?an a m]e gr\p+ toge!r or syn!sis ( facts or ideas--!re is ano!r m5tal process :i* actually evolves ! hypo!sis or !ory--:i* gives a possible reason4 ,:at is ?is m5tal process8 ,let u consid] ! matt]4 ,brooks well says3 ,! hypo!ses ( sci5ce orig9ate 9 :at is call$ anticipation4 ,!y are n ! result ( a m]e syn!sis ( facts1 = no comb9ation ( facts c give ! law or cause4 ,we d n see ! law2 we see ! facts & ! m9d ?9ks ! law4 ,by ! p[] ( anticipation1 ! m9d (t5 leaps f a few facts to ! cause :i* produces !m or ! law :i* gov]ns !m4 ,_m hypo!ses 7 b a happy intuition ( ! m9d4 ,!y 7 ! result ( :at ,la ,place calls 'a great guess1' or :at ,plato s beautifully designates z 'a sacr$ suspicion ( tru?4' ,! =m+ ( hypo!ses requires a sugge/ive m9d1 a lively fancy1 a philosophic imag9ation1 t cat*es a glimpse ( ! idea ?r\gh ! =m1 or sees ! law /&+ beh9d ! fact4 ,! /ud5t ( ,! ,new ,psy*ology sees 9 ! m5tal op]ation ( ! =m+ ( ! hypo!sis--! m9d ?9k+ ! law--b an in/ance ( ! op]ation ( ! activities ( ! ,subconsci\s ,m9d1 or ev5 ! ,sup]consci\s ,m9d4 7,see ! volume on ! ,subconsci\s ,m9d 9 ?is s]ies47 ,n only does ?is hypo!sis give ! explanation :i* ! old psy*ology has fail$ to d1 b x agrees ) ! ideas ( o!rs on ! subject z /at$ 9 ! above quotation f ,brooks2 & moreov] agrees ) _m record$ in/ances ( ! =mation ( great hypo!ses4 ,sir ,wm4 ,hamilton discov]$ ! v important ma!matical law ( quat]nions :ile walk+ "o day 9 ! ,dubl9 ,obs]vatory4 ,he _h pond]$ long on ! subject1 b )\t result4 ,b1 f9ally1 on t ev5tful day he sudd5ly felt ! galvanic circle ( ?\ght close1 & ! result 0 ! realization ( ! fundam5tal ma!matical relations ( ! problem4 ,b]!lot1 ! f\nd] ( ,syn!tic ,*emi/ry1 has te/ifi$ t ! celebrat$ exp]im5ts :i* l$ to 8 rem>kable discov]ies 7 seldom ! result ( c>efully foll[$ l9es ( consci\s ?\ght or pure reason+ processes2 b1 in/ead1 came to him ( _! own accord1 s to speak1 z f a cle> sky4 ,9 ^! & _m o!r simil> in/ances1 ! m5tal op]ation 0 und\bt$ly purely subjective & subconsci\s4 ,dr4 ,hudson has claim$ t ! ,subjective ,m9d _c reason inductively1 & t its op]ations are purely & di/9ctly d$uctive1 b ! te/imony ( _m em95t sci5ti/s1 inv5tors & philosoph]s is directly to ! contr>y4 ,9 ?is connection ! foll[+ quotation f ,?omson is int]e/+3 ,! sy/em ( anatomy :i* has immortaliz$ ! "n ( ,ok5 is ! consequ5ce ( a fla% ( anticipation :i* glanc$ ?r\gh 8 m9d :5 he pick$ up 9 a *ance walk ! skull ( a de]1 blea*$ & dis9tegrat$ by ! wea!r1 & exclaim$ aft] a glance1 ',x is "p ( a v]tebral column6' ,:5 ,newton saw ! apple fall1 ! anticipatory "q fla%$ ?r\gh 8 m9d1 ',:y d n ! heav5ly bodies fall l ?is apple8' ,9 nei!r case _h accid5t any important %>e2 ,newton & ,ok5 7 prep>$ by ! deepe/ previ\s /udy to seize ^u ! unimportant fact (f]$ to !m1 & to %[ h[ important x might become2 & if ! apple & ! de]-skull _h be5 want+1 "s o!r fall+ body1 or "s o!r skull1 w\ld h t\*$ ! /r+ s ready to vibrate4 ,b 9 ea* case !re 0 a great /ep ( anticipation2 ,ok5 ?\ght he saw a type ( ! :ole skeleton 9 a s+le v]tebra1 :ile ,newton conceiv$ at once t ! :ole univ]se 0 full ( bodies t5d+ to fall4444 ,! discov]y ( ,goe!1 :i* did = ! vegetable k+dom :at ,ok5 did = ! animal1 t ! p>ts ( a plant are to be reg>d$ z metamorphos$ leaves1 is an app>5t exception to ! necessity ( discipl9e = inv5tion1 s9ce x 0 ! discov]y ( a poet 9 a region to :i* he seem$ to h paid no especial or labori\s att5tion4 ,b ,goe! 0 himself mo/ anxi\s to re/ ! basis ( ?is discov]y ^u 8 obs]vation r ?an 8 imag9ation1 & d\btless ) good reason4444 ,z ) o!r great discov]ies1 h9ts _h be5 giv5 already1 ?\gh n pursu$1 bo? ( ,goe!'s & ,ok5's pr9ciples4 ,goe! left 8 to be foll[$ up by o!rs1 & b = 8 great fame1 p]haps 8 "n w\ld nev] h be5 connect$ ) x4 ,ok5 _h amass$ all ! mat]ials necess>y = ! e/abli%m5t ( 8 !ory2 he 0 able at once to discov] & conqu] ! new t]ritory4 ,x mu/ n be suppos$1 h[ev]1 t all hypo!ses fla%+ into ! field ( consci\sness f ! ,subconsci\sness1 are necess>ily true or correct4 ,on ! contr>y _m ( !m are incorrect1 or at lea/ only p>tially correct4 ,! ,subconsci\sness is n infallible or omnisci5t--x m]ely produces results accord+ to ! mat]ial furni%$ x4 ,b ev5 ^! faulty hypo!ses are (t5 ( value 9 ! lat] =mation ( a correct "o4 ,z ,:ewell says3 ,to try wrong guesses is ) mo/ p]sons ! only way to hit ^u "r ones4 ,kepl] is said to h erect$ at lea/ tw5ty hypo!ses reg>d+ ! %ape ( ! e>?'s orbit be=e he f9ally evolv$ ! correct "o4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,ev5 incorrect hypo!ses may be ( use 9 sci5tific rese>*1 s9ce !y may lead to m correct suppositions4 ,! supposition ( ! circul> motions ( ! heav5ly bodies ar\nd ! e>? z a c5t]1 :i* lead to ! conception ( epicycles1 etc41 & at la/ to ! true !ory is an illu/ration ( ?is4 ,s ! '!ory ( phlogi/on' 9 *emi/ry1 made _m facts intelligible1 be=e ! true "o ( 'oxidation' sup]s$$ x4 ,& s1 z ,?omson says1 ) ! !ory t ',nature abhors a vacuum1' :i* s]v$ to br+ toge!r s _m cognate facts n previ\sly consid]$ z relat$4 ,ev5 an incorrect conception ( ?is k9d has its place 9 sci5ce1 s long z x is applicable to ! facts2 :5 facts occur :i* x _c expla91 we ei!r correct x or replace x ) a new "o4 ,! pa?way ( sci5ce1 "s "o rem>ks1 is /rewn ) ! rema9s ( disc>d$ hypo!ses4 ,halleck says reg>d+ ! dang] ( ha/y inf]5ce3 ,m5 mu/ con/antly employ imp]fect induction 9 ord] to advance2 b great dang]s att5d inductive inf]5ces made f too n>r[ exp]i5ce4 ,a *ild has exp]i5ce ) "o or two dogs at 8 home4 ,because ( _! g5tl5ess1 he argues t all dogs are g5tle4 ,he does n1 p]haps1 f9d out ! contr>y until he has be5 sev]ely bitt54 ,8 induction 0 too ha/y4 ,he _h n te/$ a suffici5tly l>ge numb] ( dogs to =m su* a conclusion4 ,f "o or two exp]i5ces ) a l>ge crop 9 a c]ta9 latitude1 a f>m] may argue t ! crop w g5]ally be pr(itable1 :]eas x may n aga9 prove s = ye>s4 ,a man may h tru/$ a numb] ( p & f\nd !m hone/4 ,he concludes t p z a rule are hone/1 tru/s a c]ta9 di%one/ man1 & is ru9$4 ,! old] p gr[1 ! m cauti\s !y g5]ally become 9 =m+ inductive conclusions4 ,_m in/ances are not$ & comp>$2 b ev5 ! wise/ sometimes make mi/akes4 ,x once 0 a g5]ally accept$ fact t all swans 7 :ite4 ,nobody _h ev] se5 a d>k swan1 & ! inf]5ce t all swans 7 :ite 0 reg>d$ z c]ta9ly true4 ,black swans 71 h[ev]1 f\nd 9 ,au/ralia4 ,brooks says reg>d+ ! probability ( hypo!ses3 ,! probability ( a hypo!sis is 9 proportion to ! numb] ( facts & ph5om5a x w expla94 ,! l>g] ! numb] ( facts & ph5om5a t x w satisfactorily acc\nt =1 ! great] our fai? 9 ! correctness ( our supposition4444 ,if !re is m ?an "o hypo!sis 9 respect to ! facts "u consid]ation1 t "o :i* acc\nts = ! greate/ numb] ( facts is ! mo/ probable4444 ,9 ord] to v]ify a hypo!sis x mu/ be %[n t x w acc\nt = all ! facts & ph5om5a4 ,if ^! facts are num]\s & v>i$1 & ! subject is s ?or\ghly inve/igat$ t x is q c]ta9 t no important class ( facts has be5 ov]look$1 ! supposition is reg>d$ z true1 & ! hypo!sis is said to be v]ifi$4 ,?us ! hypo!sis ( ! 'daily rotation' ( ! e>? on its axis to acc\nt = ! succession ( day & night is accept$ z absolutely true4 ,?is is ! view tak5 by ,dr4 ,:ewell & _m o!r ?9k]s 9 respect to ! v]ification ( a hypo!sis4 ,"s writ]s1 h[ev]1 z ,mill & 8 s*ool1 ma9ta9 t 9 ord] to v]ify a hypo!sis1 we mu/ %[ n only t x expla9s all ! facts & ph5om5a1 b t !re is no o!r possible hypo!sis :i* w acc\nt = !m4444 ,! =m] view ( v]ification is reg>d$ z ! correct "o4 ,by ! latt] view1 x is evid5t t a hypo!sis c\ld nev] be v]ifi$4 ,jevons says3 ,9 ! f\r? /ep 7v]ification71 we proce$ to comp>e ^! d$uctions ) ! facts already collect$1 or :5 necess>y & practicable1 we make new obs]vations & plan new exp]im5ts1 s z to f9d out :e!r ! hypo!sis agrees ) nature4 ,if we meet ) sev]al di/9ct disagreem5ts betwe5 our d$uctions & our obs]vations1 x w become likely t ! hypo!sis is wrong1 & we mu/ !n inv5t a new "o4 ,9 ord] to produce agreem5t x w sometimes be en\gh to *ange ! hypo!sis 9 a small degree4 ,:5 we get hold ( a hypo!sis :i* seems to give results agree+ ) a few facts1 we mu/ n at once assume t x is c]ta9ly correct4 ,we mu/ g on mak+ o!r d$uctions f x "u v>i\s circum/ances1 &1 :5ev] x is possible1 we ought to v]ify ^! results1 t is1 comp>e !m ) facts obs]v$ ?r\gh ! s5ses4 ,:5 a hypo!sis is %[n 9 ?is way to be true 9 a great _m ( its results1 especially :5 x enables u to pr$ict :at we %\ld nev] o!rwise h believ$ or discov]$1 x becomes c]ta9 t ! hypo!sis itself is a true "o4444 ,sometimes x w happ5 t two or ev5 ?ree q diff]5t hypo!ses all seem to agree ) c]ta9 facts1 s t we are puzzl$ :i* to select4444 ,:5 !re are ?us two hypo!ses1 "o z good z ! o!r1 we ne$ to discov] "s fact or ?+ :i* w agree ) "o hypo!sis & n ) ! o!r1 because ?is imm$iately enables u to decide t ! =m] hypo!sis is true & ! latt] false4 ,9 ! above /atem5ts reg>d+ ! v]ification ( hypo!ses we see ref]5ces made to ! te/+ ( ! latt] ^u ! facts ( ! case4 ,^! facts may be ei!r ! obs]v$ ph5om5a or facts app>5t to ! p]ception1 or else facts obta9$ by d$uctive reason+4 ,! latt] may be said to be facts :i* are held to be true if ! hypo!sis be true4 ,?us if we erect ! hypo!sis t ,all m5 are mortal1 we may reason d$uctively t x w foll[ t ea* & e ?+ t is a man mu/ die soon] or lat]4 ,!n we te/ our hypo!ses ^u ea* & e man :om we may subject to obs]vation & exp]im5t4 ,if we f9d a s+le man :o does n die1 !n ! te/ disproves our hypo!ses2 if on ! contr>y all m5 7! facts 9 ! case7 prove to be mortal1 !n is our hypo!ses prov5 or e/abli%$4 ,! d$uctive reason+ 9 ?is case is z foll[s3 ,if s-&-s is true reg>d+ su*-&-su* a class2 & if ?is p>ticul> ?+ belongs to t class2 !n x w foll[ t s-&-s is true reg>d+ ?is p>ticul> ?+4 ,?is argum5t is express$ 9 :at is call$ a ,hypo!tical ,proposition 7see ,*apt] ,,ix71 ! consid]ation ( :i* =ms a "p ( ! g5]al subject ( ,d$uctive ,reason+4 ,!re=e z ,jevons has said1 ,d$uctive ,reason+ is ! ,?ird ,/ep 9 ,inductive ,reason+1 & prec$es ,v]ification1 :i* we h already consid]$4 ,halleck says3 ,aft] ,induction has classifi$ c]ta9 ph5om5a & ?us giv5 u a major premise1 we may proce$ d$uctively to apply ! inf]5ce to any new specim5 t c be %[n to belong to t class4 ,induction h&s ov] to d$uction a ready-made major premise4444 ,d$uction takes t z a fact1 mak+ no inquiry ab\t its tru?4444 ,only aft] g5]al laws h be5 laid d[n1 aft] objects h be5 classifi$1 aft] major premises h be5 =m$1 c d$uction be employ$4 ,9 view ( ! above facts1 we %all n[ proce$ to a consid]ation ( t great class ( ,reason+ kn[n "u ! t]m--,d$uctive ,reason+4 ,,*apt] ,,xv4 ,,d$uctive ,,reason+ ,we h se5 t !re are two great classes ( reason+1 kn[n respectively1 z 7#a7 ,inductive ,reason+1 or ! discov]y ( g5]al tru? f p>ticul> tru?s2 & 7#b7 ,d$uctive ,reason+1 or ! discov]y ( p>ticul> tru?s f g5]al tru?s4 ,z we h said1 ,d$uctive ,reason+ is ! process ( discov]+ p>ticul> tru?s f a g5]al tru?4 ,?us f ! g5]al tru? embodi$ 9 ! proposition ,all horses are animals1 :5 x is consid]$ 9 connection ) ! second>y proposition t ,dobb9 is a horse1 we are able to d$uce ! p>ticul> tru? t3 ,dobb9 is an animal4 ,or1 9 ! foll[+ case we d$uce a p>ticul> tru? f a g5]al tru?1 z foll[s3 ,all mu%rooms are good to eat2 ?is fungus is a mu%room2 !re=e1 ?is fungus is good to eat4 ,a d$uctive argum5t is express$ 9 a d$uctive syllogism4 ,jevons says reg>d+ ! la/ /at$ illu/ration3 ,"h are ?ree s5t5ces :i* /ate ?ree diff]5t facts2 b :5 we "k ! two fir/ facts1 we le>n or ga!r ! ?ird fact f ! o!r two4 ,:5 we ?us le>n "o fact f o!r facts1 we inf] or reason1 & we d ?is 9 ! m9d4 ,reason+ ?us enables u to asc]ta9 ! nature ( a ?+ )\t actual trial4 ,if we always ne$$ to ta/e a ?+ be=e we c\ld "k :e!r x 0 good to eat or n1 cases ( poison+ w\ld be al>m+ly frequ5t4 ,b ! appe>ance & peculi>ities ( a mu%room may be safely le>n$ by ! eye or ! nose1 & reason+ ^u ?is in=mation & ! fact already well kn[n1 t mu%rooms are good to eat1 we arrive )\t any dang] or tr\ble at ! conclusion t ! p>ticul> fungus be=e u is good to eat4 ,to reason1 !n1 is to get "s k f o!r k4 ,! /ud5t w recognize t ,d$uctive ,reason+ is ess5tially an analytic process1 because x op]ates 9 ! direction ( analyz+ a univ]sal or g5]al tru? into its p>ticul>s--into ! p>ticul> p>ts :i* are includ$ )9 x--& ass]t+ ( !m t :at is true ( ! g5]al is true ( ! p>ticul>4 ,?us 9 ! g5]al tru? t ,all m5 are mortal1 we see includ$ ! p>ticul> tru? t ,john ,smi? is mortal--,john ,smi? hav+ be5 discov]$ to be a man4 ,we d$uce ! p>ticul> tru? ab\t ,john ,smi? f ! g5]al tru? ab\t all m54 ,we analyze all m5 & f9d ,john ,smi? to be "o ( its p>ticul> p>ts4 ,!re=e1 ,d$uction is an inf]5ce f ! :ole to its p>ts2 t is1 an analytic process4 ,! /ud5t w also recognize t ,d$uctive ,reason+ is ess5tially a desc5d+ process1 because x op]ates 9 ! direction ( a desc5t f ! univ]sal to ! p>ticul>2 f ! high] to ! l[]2 f ! broad] to ! n>r[]4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,d$uction desc5ds f high] tru?s to l[] tru?s1 f laws to facts1 f causes to ph5om5a1 etc4 ,giv5 ! law1 we c by d$uction desc5d to ! facts t fall "u ! law1 ev5 if we h nev] be=e se5 ! facts2 & s f ! cause we may pass d[n to obs]v$ & ev5 unkn[n ph5om5a4 ,! g5]al tru?s :i* are us$ z ! basis ( ,d$uctive ,reason+ are discov]$ 9 sev]al ways4 ,! majority arise f ,inductive ,reason+1 bas$ ^u exp]i5ce1 obs]vation & exp]im5t4 ,= in/ance 9 ! examples giv5 above1 we c\ld n tru?fully ass]t our belief t3 ,all horses are animals unless we _h previ\sly /udi$ bo? ! horse & animals 9 g5]al4 ,nor )\t ?is /udy c\ld we /ate t ,dobb9 is a horse4 ,nor c\ld we1 )\t previ\s /udy1 exp]i5ce & exp]im5t tru?fully ass]t t3 ,all mu%rooms are good to eat2 or t ?is fungus is a mu%room2 & t !re=e1 ?is fungus is good to eat4 ,ev5 z x is1 we mu/ be sure t ! fungus really is a mu%room1 else we run a risk ( poison+ ourselves4 ,g5]al tru?s ( ?is k9d are n intuitive1 by any means1 b are bas$ ^u our own exp]i5ce or ! exp]i5ce ( o!rs4 ,!re is a class ( g5]al tru?s :i* are call$ intuitive by "s au?orities4 ,halleck says ( ^!3 ,"s psy*ologi/s claim t we h k obta9$ nei!r ?r\gh induction nor d$uction2 t we recognize c]ta9 tru?s ! mom5t we p]ceive c]ta9 objects1 )\t any process ( inf]5ce4 ,"u ! head ( intuitive k are classifi$ su* cases z ! foll[+3 ,we p]ceive an object & imm$iately "k t x is a "t relation1 z exi/+ n[ & !n4 ,we are said to h an intuitive concept ( "t4 ,:5 we are told t ! :ole is great] ?an a "p2 t ?+s equal to ! same ?+ are equal to ea* o!r2 t a /raight l9e _c enclose space1 we imm$iately1 or intuitively1 recognize ! tru? ( ^! /atem5ts4 ,attempts at pro( d n make u feel sur] ( _! tru?4444 ,we say t x is self-evid5t1 or t we "k ! fact intuitively4 ,! axioms ( ma!matics & logic are said to be intuitive4 ,ano!r class ( au?orities1 h[ev]1 d5y ! nature ( intuitive k ( tru?1 or intuitive tru?s4 ,!y claim t all our ideas arise f s5sation & reflection1 & t :at we call intuition is m]ely ! result ( s5sation & reflection reproduc$ by memory or h]$ity4 ,!y hold t ! intuitions ( animals & m5 are simply ! repres5tation ( exp]i5ces ( ! race1 or individual1 aris+ f ! impressions /or$ away 9 ! subconsci\sness ( ! individual4 ,halleck /ates reg>d+ ?is3 ,?is s*ool lik5s intuition to in/9ct4 ,x grants t ! "y duck kn[s wat] in/9ctively1 plunges into x1 & swims )\t le>n+4 ,^! psy*ologi/s believe t !re 0 a "t :5 ?is 0 n ! case ) ! prog5itors ( ! duck4 ,!y _h to ga9 ?is k sl[ly ?r\gh exp]i5ce4 ,^? t le>n$ ! prop] aquatic lesson surviv$ & transmitt$ ?is k ?r\gh a modifi$ /ructure1 to _! prog5y4 ,^? t fail$ 9 ! lesson p]i%$ 9 ! /ruggle = exi/5ce4444 ,?is s*ool claims t ! intuition ( cause & effect arose 9 ! same way4 ,g5]ations ( human be+s h se5 ! cause inv>iably jo9$ to ! effect2 h5ce1 ?r\gh insep>able association came ! recognition ( _! necess>y sequ5ce4 ,! t5d5cy to reg>d all ph5om5a 9 ^! relations 0 ) /eadily increas+ =ce transmitt$ by ! laws ( h]$ity to po/]ity1 until ! recognition ( ! relation%ip has become an intuition4 ,ano!r class ( g5]al tru?s is m]ely hypo!tical4 ,hypo!tical means ,f\nd$ on or includ+ a hypo!sis or supposition2 assum$ or tak5 = grant$1 ?\gh n prov$1 = ! purpose ( d$uc+ pro(s ( a po9t 9 "q4 ,! hypo!ses & !ories ( physical sci5ce are us$ z g5]al tru?s = d$uctive reason+4 ,hypo!tical g5]al tru?s are 9 ! nature ( premises assum$ 9 ord] to proce$ ) ! process ( ,d$uctive ,reason+1 & )\t :i* su* reason+ w\ld be impossible4 ,!y are1 h[ev]1 z a rule n m]e assumptions1 b are r 9 ! nature ( assumptions r5d]$ plausible by exp]i5ce1 exp]im5t & ,inductive ,reason+4 ,! ,law ( ,gravitation may be consid]$ hypo!tical1 & yet x is ! result ( ,inductive ,reason+ bas$ ^u a va/ multitude ( facts & ph5om5a4 ,! ,prim>y ,basis ( ,d$uctive ,reason+ may be said to re/ ^u ! logical axiom1 :i* has come d[n to u f ! anci5ts1 & :i* is /at$ z foll[s3 ,:atev] is true ( ! :ole is true ( its p>ts4 ,or1 z lat] au?orities h express$ x3 ,:atev] is true ( ! g5]al is true ( ! p>ticul>4 ,?is axiom is ! basis ^u :i* we build our ,d$uctive ,reason+4 ,x furni%es u ) ! validity ( ! d$uctive inf]5ce or argum5t4 ,if we are *all5g$ = pro( ( ! /atem5t t ,?is fungus is good to eat1 we are able to answ] t we are ju/ifi$ 9 mak+ ! /atem5t by ! self-evid5t proposition1 or axiom1 t ,:atev] is true ( ! g5]al is true ( ! p>ticul>4 ,if ! g5]al mu%room is good to eat1 !n ! p>ticul>1 ?is fungus be+ a mu%room1 mu/ also be good to eat4 ,all horses 7g5]al7 be+ animals1 !n accord+ to ! axiom1 ,dobb9 7p>ticul> horse7 mu/ also be an animal4 ,?is axiom has be5 /at$ 9 v>i\s t]ms o!r ?an ^? /at$ above4 ,= in/ance3 ,:atev] may be affirm$ or d5i$ ( ! :ole1 may be d5i$ or affirm$ ( ! p>ts2 :i* =m is evid5tly d]iv$ f t us$ by ,hamilton :o said3 ,:at belongs1 or does n belong1 to ! conta9+ :ole1 belongs or does n belong1 to ea* ( ! conta9$ p>ts4 ,ari/otle =mulat$ 8 celebrat$ ,dictum z foll[s3 ,:atev] c be pr$icat$ affirmatively or negatively ( any class or t]m di/ribut$1 c be pr$icat$ 9 l mann] ( all & s+ul> ! classes or individuals conta9$ "u x4 ,!re is ano!r =m ( ,d$uctive ,reason+1 t is a =m bas$ ^u ano!r axiom ?an t (3 ,:atev] is true ( ! :ole is true ( ! p>ts4 ,?is =m ( reason+ is sometimes call$ ,ma!matical ,reason+1 because x is ! =m ( reason+ employ$ 9 ma!matics4 ,its axiom is /at$ z foll[s3 ,?+s :i* are equal to ! same ?+1 are equal to "o ano!r4 ,x w be se5 t ?is is ! pr9ciple employ$ 9 ma!matics4 ,?us3 x equals y2 & y equals #e2 !re=e1 x equals #e4 ,or /at$ 9 logical t]ms3 ,a equals ,b2 ,b equals ,c2 !re=e1 ,a equals ,c4 ,?us x is se5 t ?is =m ( reason+1 z well z ! ord9>y =m ( ,d$uctive ,reason+1 is /rictly m$iate1 t is1 made ?r\gh ! m$ium ( a ?ird ?+1 or two ?+s be+ comp>$ ?r\gh _! relation to a ?ird4 ,brooks /ates3 ,! real reason = ! c]ta9ty ( ma!matical reason+ may be /at$ z foll[s3 ,fir/1 its ideas are def9ite1 necess>y1 & exact conceptions ( quantity4 ,second1 its def9itions1 z ! description ( ^! ideas are necess>y1 exact1 & indisputable tru?s4 ,?ird1 ! axioms f :i* we d]ive conclusions by comp>ison are all self-evid5t & necess>y tru?s4 ,comp>+ ^! exact ideas by ! necess>y laws ( inf]5ce1 ! result mu/ be absolutely true4 ,or1 /at$ 9 ano!r way1 us+ ^! def9itions & axioms z ! premises ( a syllogism1 ! conclusion foll[s inevitably4 ,!re is no place or opportunity = error to creep 9 to m> or vitiate our d]iv$ tru?s4 ,9 conclusion1 we wi% to call y\r att5tion to a passage f ,jevons :i* is wor?y ( consid]ation & recollection4 ,jevons says3 ,!re is a simple rule :i* w enable u to te/ ! tru? ( a great _m argum5ts1 ev5 ( _m :i* d n come "u any ( ! rules commonly giv5 9 books on logic4 ,?is rule is t :atev] is true ( "o t]m is true ( any t]m :i* is /at$ to be ! same 9 mean+ z t t]m4 ,9 o!r words1 we may always sub/itute "o t]m = ano!r if we "k t !y ref] to exactly ! same ?+4 ,!re is no d\bt t a horse is "s animal1 & !re=e ! head ( a horse is ! head ( "s animal4 ,?is argum5t _c be br\ght "u ! rules ( ! syllogism1 because x conta9s f\r di/9ct logical t]ms 9 two propositions2 namely1 horse1 "s animal2 head ( horse1 head ( "s animal4 ,b x easily comes "u ! rule :i* ,i h giv51 because we h simply to put '"s animal' in/ead ( 'a horse'4 ,a great _m argum5ts may be expla9$ 9 ?is way4 ,gold is a metal2 !re=e a piece ( gold is a piece ( metal4 ,a negro is a fell[ creature2 !re=e1 he :o /rikes a negro1 /rikes a fell[ creature4 ,! same em95t au?ority says3 ,:5 we exam9e c>efully en\gh ! way 9 :i* we reason1 x w be f\nd 9 e case to consi/ 9 putt+ "o ?+ or t]m 9 place ( ano!r1 to :i* we "k x to h an exact resemblance 9 "s respect4 ,we use ! lik5ess z a k9d ( bridge1 :i* leads u f a k ( "o ?+ to a k ( ano!r2 ?us ! true pr9ciple ( reason+ may be call$ ! sub/itution ( simil>s1 or ! pass+ f l to l4 ,we inf] ! "* ( "o ?+ f ! "* ( some?+ :i* acts z a g-betwe51 or ?ird t]m4 ,:5 we are c]ta9 !re is an exact lik5ess1 our inf]5ce is c]ta92 :5 we only believe t !re probably is1 or guess t !re is1 !n our inf]5ces are only probable1 n c]ta94 ,,*apt] ,,xvi4 ,,! ,,syllogism ,! ?ird & highe/ phase or /ep 9 reason+--! /ep :i* foll[s aft] ^? /yl$ ,conception & ,judgm5t--is g5]ally kn[n by ! g5]al t]m ,reason+1 :i* t]m1 h[ev]1 is us$ to include ! two prec$5t /eps z well z ! f9al /ep itself4 ,?is /ep or process consi/s ( ! comp>+ ( two objects1 p]sons or ?+s1 ?r\gh _! relation to a ?ird object1 p]son or ?+4 ,z1 = in/ance1 we reason 7a7 t all mammals are animals2 7b7 t a horse is a mammal2 & 7c7 t1 !re=e1 a horse is an animal4 ,! mo/ fundam5tal pr9ciple ( ?is /ep or reason+ consi/s 9 ! comp>+ ( two objects ( ?\ght ?r\gh & by means ( _! relation to a ?ird object4 ,! natural =m ( expression ( ?is process ( reason+ is call$ a ,syllogism4 ,! process ( reason+ :i* gives rise to ! expression ( ! argum5t 9 ! =m ( a ,syllogism mu/ be und]/ood if "o wi%es to =m a cle> conception ( ! ,syllogism4 ,! process itself is v simple :5 pla9ly /at$1 al?\gh ! beg9n] is sometimes puzzl$ by ! complicat$ def9itions & /atem5ts ( ! au?orities4 ,let u suppose t we h ?ree objects1 ,a1 ,b & ,c1 respectively4 ,we wi% to comp>e ,c & ,b1 b fail to e/abli% a relation betwe5 !m at fir/4 ,we h[ev] are able to e/abli% a relation betwe5 ,a & ,b2 & betwe5 ,c & ,a4 ,we ?us h ! two propositions 7#a7 ,a equals ,b2 & 7#b7 ,c equals ,a4 ,! next /ep is t ( inf]r+ t if ,a equals ,b1 & ,c equals ,a1 !n x mu/ foll[1 logically1 t ,c equals ,b4 ,?is process is t ( indirect or m$iate comp>ison1 r ?an imm$iate4 ,c & ,b are n comp>$ directly or imm$iately1 b indirectly & ?r\gh ! m$ium ( ,a4 ,a is ?us said to m$iate betwe5 ,b & ,c4 ,?is process ( reason+ embraces ?ree ideas or objects ( ?\ght1 9 _! expression ( propositions4 ,x comprises ! fundam5tal or elem5tal =m ( reason+4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,! simple/ movem5t ( ! reason+ process is ! comp>+ ( two objects ?r\gh _! relation to a ?ird4 ,! result ( ?is process is an argum5t express$ 9 :at is call$ a ,syllogism4 ,:ately says t3 ,a ,syllogism is an argum5t express$ 9 /rict logical =m s t its conclusiv5ess is manife/ f ! /ructure ( ! expression alone1 )\t any reg>d to ! mean+ ( ! t]ms4 ,brooks says3 ,all reason+ c be & naturally is express$ 9 ! =m ( ! syllogism4 ,x applies to bo? inductive & d$uctive reason+1 & is ! =m 9 :i* ^! processes are pres5t$4 ,its importance z an in/rum5t ( ?\ght requires t x receive special notice4 ,9 ord] t ! nature & use ( ! ,syllogism may be cle>ly und]/ood1 we c d no bett] ?an to at once pres5t = y\r consid]ation ! well-kn[n ,rules ( ! ,syllogism1 an und]/&+ ( :i* c>ries ) x a p]fect compreh5sion ( ! ,syllogism itself4 ,! ,rules ( ! ,syllogism /ate t 9 ord] = a ,syllogism to be a p]fect ,syllogism1 x is necess>y3 ,i4 ,t !re %\ld be ?ree1 & no m ?an ?ree1 ,propositions4 ,^! ?ree propositions are3 7#a7 ! ,conclusion1 or ?+ to be prov$2 & 7#b & #c7 ! ,premises1 or ! means ( prov+ ! ,conclusion1 & :i* are call$ ! ,major ,premise & ,m9or ,premise1 respectively4 ,we may und]/& ?is m cle>ly if we w exam9e ! foll[+ example3 ,major ,premise3 ,man is mortal2 7or ,a is ,b74 ,m9or ,premise3 ,socrates is a man2 7or ,c is ,a74 ,!re=e3 ,conclusion3 ,socrates is mortal 7or ,c is ,b74 ,x w be se5 t ! above ,syllogism1 :e!r express$ 9 words or symbols1 is logically valid1 because ! conclusion mu/ logically foll[ ! premises4 ,&1 9 ?is case1 ! premises be+ true1 x mu/ foll[ t ! conclusion is true4 ,:ately says3 ,a ,syllogism is said to be valid :5 ! conclusion logically foll[s f ! premises2 if ! conclusion does n s foll[1 ! ,syllogism is invalid & con/itutes a ,fallacy1 if ! error deceives ! reason] himself2 b if x is advanc$ ) ! idea ( deceiv+ o!rs x con/itutes a ,sophism4 ,! reason = ,rule ,i is t only ?ree propositions--a ,major ,premise1 a ,m9or ,premise1 & a ,conclusion--are ne$$ to =m a ,syllogism4 ,if we h m ?an ?ree propositions1 !n we mu/ h m ?an two premises f :i* to draw "o conclusion4 ,! pres5ce ( m ?an two premises w\ld result 9 ! =mation ( two or m ,syllogisms1 or else 9 ! failure to =m a ,syllogism4 ,,ii4 ,t !re %\ld be ?ree & no m ?an ?ree ,t]ms4 ,^! ,t]ms are 7#a7 ,! ,pr$icate ( ! ,conclusion2 7#b7 ! ,subject ( ! ,conclusion2 & 7#c7 ! ,middle ,t]m :i* mu/ occur 9 bo? premises1 be+ ! connect+ l9k 9 br++ ! two o!r ,t]ms toge!r 9 ! ,conclusion4 ,! ,pr$icate ( ! ,conclusion is call$ ! ,major ,t]m1 because x is ! greate/ 9 ext5sion comp>$ ) its fell[ t]ms4 ,! ,subject ( ! ,conclusion is call$ ! ,m9or ,t]m because x is ! smalle/ 9 ext5sion comp>$ ) its fell[ t]ms4 ,! ,major & ,m9or ,t]ms are call$ ! ,extremes4 ,! ,middle ,t]m op]ates betwe5 ! two ,extremes4 ,! ,major ,t]m & ! ,middle ,t]m mu/ appe> 9 ! ,major ,premise4 ,! ,m9or ,t]m & ! ,middle ,t]m mu/ appe> 9 ! ,m9or ,premise4 ,! ,m9or ,t]m & ! ,major ,t]m mu/ appe> 9 ! ,conclusion4 ,?us we see t ,! ,major ,t]m mu/ be ! ,pr$icate ( ! ,conclusion2 ! ,m9or ,t]m ! ,subject ( ! ,conclusion2 ! ,middle ,t]m may be ! ,subject or ,pr$icate ( ei!r ( ! premises1 b mu/ always be f\nd once 9 bo? premises4 ,! foll[+ example w %[ ?is arrangem5t m cle>ly3 ,9 ! ,syllogism3 ,man is mortal2 ,socrates is a man2 !re=e ,socrates is mortal1 we h ! foll[+ arrangem5t3 ,mortal1 ! ,major ,t]m2 ,socrates1 ! ,m9or ,t]m2 & ,man1 ! ,middle ,t]m2 z foll[s3 ,major ,premise3 ,man 7middle t]m7 is mortal 7major t]m74 ,m9or ,premise3 ,socrates 7m9or t]m7 is a man 7major t]m74 ,conclusion3 ,socrates 7m9or t]m7 is mortal 7major t]m74 ,! reason = ! rule t !re %all be only ?ree t]ms is t reason+ consi/s 9 comp>+ two t]ms ) ea* o!r ?r\gh ! m$ium ( a ?ird t]m4 ,!re mu/ be ?ree t]ms2 if !re are m ?an ?ree t]ms1 we =m two syllogisms in/ead ( "o4 ,,iii4 ,t "o premise1 at lea/1 mu/ be affirmative4 ,?is1 because f two negative propositions no?+ c be inf]r$4 ,a negative proposition ass]ts t two ?+s diff]1 & if we h two propositions s ass]t+ diff]5ce1 we c inf] no?+ f !m4 ,if our ,syllogism /at$ t3 7#a7 ,man is n mortal2 & 7#b7 t ,socrates is n a man2 we c\ld =m no ,conclusion1 ei!r t ,socrates 0 or 0 n mortal4 ,!re w\ld be no logical connection betwe5 ! two premises1 & !re=e no ,conclusion c\ld be d$uc$ !refrom4 ,!re=e1 at lea/ "o premise mu/ be affirmative4 ,,iv4 ,if "o premise is negative1 ! conclusion mu/ be negative4 ,?is because if "o t]m agrees & ano!r disagrees ) a ?ird t]m1 !y mu/ disagree ) ea* o!r4 ,?us if our ,syllogism /at$ t3 7#a7 ,man is n mortal2 & 7#b7 t3 ,socrates is a man2 we mu/ ann\nce ! ,negative ,conclusion t3 7#c7 ,socrates is n mortal4 ,v4 ,t ! ,middle ,t]m mu/ be di/ribut$2 7t is1 tak5 univ]sally7 9 at lea/ "o premise4 ,?is because1 o!rwise1 ! ,major ,t]m may be comp>$ ) "o "p ( ! ,middle ,t]m1 & ! ,m9or ,t]m ) ano!r "p ( ! latt]2 & !re w be actually no common ,middle ,t]m1 & consequ5tly no common gr\nd = an inf]5ce4 ,! violation ( ?is rule causes :at is commonly kn[n z ,! ,undi/ribut$ ,middle1 a celebrat$ ,fallacy condemn$ by ! logicians4 ,9 ! ,syllogism m5tion$ z an example 9 ?is *apt]1 ! proposition ,man is mortal1 really means ,all m51 t is1 ,man 9 8 univ]sal s5se4 ,lit]ally ! proposition is ,all m5 are mortal1 f :i* x is se5 t ,socrates be+ a man 7or "s ( all m57 mu/ p>take ( ! quality ( ! univ]sal ,man4 ,if ! ,syllogism1 in/ead1 read3 ,"s m5 are mortal1 x w\ld n foll[ t ,socrates mu/ be mortal--he might or might n be s4 ,ano!r =m ( ?is fallacy is %[n 9 ! /atem5t t 7#a7 ,:ite is a color2 7#b7 ,black is a color2 h5ce 7#c7 ,black mu/ be ,:ite4 ,! two premises really mean ,:ite is "s color2 ,black is "s color2 & n t ei!r is all colors4 ,ano!r example is3 ,m5 are bip$s2 birds are bip$s2 h5ce1 m5 are birds4 ,9 ?is example bip$s is n di/ribut$ z all bip$s b is simply n-di/ribut$ z "s bip$s4 ,^! syllogisms1 !re=e1 n be+ accord+ to rule1 mu/ fail4 ,!y are n true syllogisms1 & con/itute fallacies4 ,to be di/ribut$1 ! ,middle ,t]m mu/ be ! ,subject ( a ,univ]sal ,proposition1 or ! ,pr$icate ( a ,negative ,proposition2 to be undi/ribut$ x mu/ be ! ,subject ( a ,p>ticul> ,proposition1 or ! ,pr$icate ( an ,affirmative ,proposition4 7,see *apt] on ,propositions47 ,,vi4 ,t an extreme1 if undi/ribut$ 9 a ,premise1 may n be di/ribut$ 9 ! ,conclusion4 ,?is because x w\ld be illogical & unreasonable to ass]t m 9 ! conclusion ?an we f9d 9 ! premises4 ,x w\ld be mo/ illogical to argue t3 7#a7 ,all horses are animals2 7#b7 no man is a horse2 !re=e 7#c7 no man is an animal4 ,! conclusion w\ld be invalid1 because ! t]m animal is di/ribut$ 9 ! conclusion1 7be+ ! pr$icate ( a negative proposition7 :ile x is n di/ribut$ 9 ! premise 7be+ ! pr$icate ( an affirmative proposition74 ,z we h said be=e1 any ,syllogism :i* violates any ( ! above six syllogisms is invalid & a fallacy4 ,!re are two additional rules :i* may be call$ d]ivative4 ,any syllogism :i* violates ei!r ( ^! two d]ivative rules1 also violates "o or m ( ! fir/ six rules z giv5 above 9 detail4 ,! ,two ,d]ivative ,rules ( ! ,syllogism are z foll[s3 ,,vii4 ,t "o ,premise at lea/ mu/ be ,univ]sal4 ,?is because f two p>ticul> premises no conclusion c be drawn4 ,,viii4 ,t if "o premise is ,p>ticul>1 ! ,conclusion mu/ be p>ticul> also4 ,?is because only a univ]sal conclusion c be drawn f two univ]sal premises4 ,! pr9ciples involv$ 9 ^! two ,d]ivative ,rules may be te/$ by /at+ ,syllogisms violat+ !m4 ,!y conta9 ! ess5ce ( ! o!r rules1 & e syllogism :i* breaks !m w be f\nd to also break "o or m ( ! o!r rules giv54 ,,*apt] ,,xvii4 ,,v>ieties ,,( ,,syllogisms ,! au?orities 9 ,logic hold t ) ! f\r k9ds ( propositions gr\p$ 9 e possible ord] ( arrangem5t1 x is possible to =m n9ete5 diff]5t k9ds ( valid argum5ts1 :i* are call$ ! n9ete5 moods ( ! syllogism4 ,^! are classifi$ by division into :at are call$ ! f\r figures1 ea* ( :i* figures may be kn[n by ! position ( ! middle t]m 9 ! premises4 ,logicians h arrang$ elaborate & curi\s tables con/ruct$ to %[ :at k9ds ( propositions :5 jo9$ 9 a p>ticul> ord] ( arrangem5t w make s\nd & valid syllogisms4 ,we %all n set =? ^! tables "h1 z !y are too te*nical = a popul> pres5tation ( ! subject be=e u1 & because !y are n necess>y to ! /ud5t :o w ?or\ghly famili>ize himself ) ! above /at$ ,laws ( ! ,syllogism & :o w !re=e be able to det]m9e 9 e case :e!r any giv5 argum5t is a correct syllogism1 or o!rwise4 ,9 _m in/ances ( ord9>y ?\ght & expression ! complete syllogi/ic =m is omitt$1 or n /at$ at full l5g?4 ,x is common usage to omit "o premise ( a syllogism1 9 ord9>y expression1 ! miss+ premise be+ inf]r$ by ! speak] & he>]4 ,a syllogism ) "o premise unexpress$ is sometimes call$ an ,en?ym5e1 ! t]m mean+ 9 ! m9d4 ,= in/ance1 ! foll[+3 ,we are a free p1 !re=e we are happy1 ! major premise ,all free p are happy be+ omitt$ or unexpress$4 ,also 9 ,poets are imag9ative1 !re=e ,byron 0 imag9ative1 ! m9or premise ,byron 0 a poet is omitt$ or unexpress$4 ,jevons says reg>d+ ?is phase ( ! subject3 ,?us 9 ! ,s]mon on ! ,m\nt1 ! v]ses kn[n z ! ,beatitudes consi/ ea* ( "o premise & a conclusion1 & ! conclusion is put fir/4 ',bless$ are ! m]ciful3 = !y %all obta9 m]cy4' ,! subject & ! pr$icate ( ! conclusion are "h inv]t$1 s t ! proposition is really ',! m]ciful are bless$4' ,x is evid5tly und]/ood t ',all :o %all obta9 m]cy are bless$1' s t ! syllogism1 :5 /at$ at full l5g?1 becomes3 ',all :o %all obta9 m]cy are bless$2 ,all :o are m]ciful %all obta9 m]cy2 ,!re=e1 all :o are m]ciful are bless$4' ,?is is a p]fectly good syllogism4 ,:5ev] we f9d any ( ! words3 because1 =1 !re=e1 s9ce1 or simil> t]ms1 we may "k t !re is an argum5t1 & usually a syllogism4 ,we h se5 t !re are ?ree special k9ds ( ,propositions1 namely1 7#a7 ,categorical ,propositions1 or propositions 9 :i* ! affirmation or d5ial is made )\t res]vation or qualification2 7#b7 ,hypo!tical ,propositions1 9 :i* ! affirmation or d5ial is made to dep5d ^u c]ta9 conditions1 circum/ances1 or suppositions2 & 7#c7 ,disjunctive ,propositions1 9 :i* is impli$ or ass]t$ an alt]native4 ,! =ms ( reason+ bas$ ^u ^! ?ree sev]al classes ( propositions be> ! same names z ! latt]4 ,&1 accord+ly ! respective syllogisms express+ ^! =ms ( reason+ also be> ! class "n or t]m4 ,?us1 a ,categorical ,syllogism is "o conta9+ only categorical propositions2 a ,hypo!tical ,syllogism is "o conta9+ "o or m hypo!tical propositions2 a ,disjunctive ,syllogism is "o conta9+ a disjunctive proposition 9 ! major premise4 ,categorical ,syllogisms1 :i* are f> m common ?an ! o!r two k9ds1 h be5 consid]$ 9 ! previ\s *apt]1 & ! majority ( ! examples ( syllogisms giv5 9 ?is book are ( ?is k9d4 ,9 a ,categorical ,syllogism ! /atem5t or d5ial is made positively1 & )\t res]vation or qualification1 & ! reason+ !reupon p>takes ( ! same positive "*4 ,9 propositions or syllogisms ( ?is k9d x is ass]t$ or assum$ t ! premise is true & correct1 &1 if ! reason+ be logically correct x mu/ foll[ t ! conclusion is correct1 & ! new proposition spr++ !refrom mu/ likewise be ,categorical 9 its nature4 ,hypo!tical ,syllogisms1 on ! contr>y1 h z "o or m ( _! premises a hypo!tical proposition :i* affirms or ass]ts some?+ provid$1 or if1 some?+ else be true4 ,hyslop says ( ?is3 ,(t5 we wi% fir/ to br+ out1 if only conditionally1 ! tru? ^u :i* a proposition re/s1 s z to see if ! connection betwe5 ?is conclusion & ! major premise be admitt$4 ,! :ole "q w !n dep5d ^u ! matt] ( treat+ ! m9or premise4 ,?is has ! advantage ( gett+ ! major premise admitt$ )\t ! =mal proc$ure ( pro(1 & ! m9or premise is usually m easily prov$ ?an ! major4 ,consequ5tly1 "o is made to see m cle>ly ! =ce ( ! argum5t or reason+ by remov+ ! "q ( ! mat]ial tru? ( ! major premise & conc5trat+ att5tion ^u ! relation betwe5 ! conclusion & its conditions1 s t we "k cle>ly :at we h fir/ to d5y if we d n wi% to accept x4 ,by jo9+ a hypo!tical proposition ) an ord9>y proposition we create a ,hypo!tical ,proposition4 ,= in/ance3 ,if ,york conta9s a ca!dral x is a city2 ,york does conta9 a ca!dral2 !re=e1 ,york is a city4 ,or3 ,if dogs h f\r feet1 !y are quadrup$s2 dogs d h f\r feet2 !re=e dogs are quadrup$s4 ,! ,hypo!tical ,syllogism may be ei!r affirmative or negative2 t is1 its hypo!tical proposition may ei!r hypo!tically affirm or hypo!tically d5y4 ,! "p ( ! premise ( a ,hypo!tical ,syllogism :i* conditions or que/ions 7& :i* usually conta9s ! little ^w if7 is call$ ! ,antec$5t4 ,! major premise is ! "o usually ?us condition$4 ,! o!r "p ( ! condition$ proposition1 & :i* "p /ates :at w happ5 or is true "u ! conditional circum/ances1 is call$ ! ,consequ5t4 ,?us1 9 "o ( ! above examples3 ,if dogs h f\r feet is ! ,antec$5t2 & ! rema9d] ( ! proposition3 !y are quadrup$s is ! ,consequ5t4 ,! ,antec$5t is indicat$ by ! pres5ce ( "s conditional t]m z3 if1 suppos+1 grant$ t1 provid$ t1 al?\gh1 _h1 71 etc41 ! g5]al s5se & mean+ ( su* t]ms be+ t ( ! little ^w if4 ,! ,consequ5t has no special indicat+ t]m4 ,jevons gives ! foll[+ cle> & simple ,rules reg>d+ ! ,hypo!tical ,syllogism3 ,i4 ,if ! ,antec$5t be affirm$1 ! consequ5t may be affirm$4 ,if ! ,consequ5t be d5i$1 ! ,antec$5t may be d5i$4 ,,ii4 ,avoid ! fallacy ( affirm+ ! consequ5t1 or d5y+ ! antec$5t4 ,?is is a fallacy because ( ! fact t ! conditional /atem5t made 9 ! major premise may n be ! only "o det]m9+ ! consequ5t4 ,! foll[+ is an example ( ,affirm+ ! ,consequ5t3 ,if x is ra9+1 ! sky is ov]cl\d$2 ! sky is ov]cl\d$2 !re=e1 x is ra9+4 ,9 tru?1 ! sky may be ov]cl\d$1 & /ill x may n be ra9+4 ,! fallacy is /ill m app>5t :5 express$ 9 symbols1 z foll[s3 ,if ,a is ,b1 ,c is ,d2 ,c is ,d2 !re=e1 ,a is ,b4 ,! fallacy ( d5y+ ! ,antec$5t is %[n by ! foll[+ example3 ,if ,radium 7 *eap x w\ld be useful2 ,radium is n *eap2 !re=e ,radium is n useful4 ,or1 express$ 9 symbols3 ,if ,a is ,b1 ,c is ,d2 ,a is n ,b2 !re=e ,c is n ,d4 ,9 tru? ,radium may be useful al?\gh n *eap4 ,jevons gives ! foll[+ examples ( ^! fallacies3 ,if a man is a good tea*]1 he ?or\ghly und]/&s 8 subject2 b ,john ,jones ?or\ghly und]/&s 8 subject2 !re=e1 he is a good tea*]4 ,also1 ,if sn[ is mix$ ) salt x melts2 ! sn[ on ! gr\nd is n mix$ ) salt2 !re=e x does n melt4 ,jevons says3 ,to affirm ! consequ5t & !n to inf] t we c affirm ! antec$5t1 is z bad z break+ ! ?ird rule ( ! syllogism1 & all[+ an undi/ribut$ middle t]m4444 ,to d5y ! antec$5t is really to break ! f\r? rule ( ! syllogism1 & to take a t]m z di/ribut$ 9 ! conclusion :i* 0 n s 9 ! premises4 ,hypo!tical ,syllogisms may usually be easily r$uc$ to or conv]t$ into ,categorical ,syllogisms4 ,z ,jevons says3 ,9 reality1 hypo!tical propositions & syllogisms are n diff]5t f ^? :i* we h m fully consid]$4 ,x is all a matt] ( ! conv5i5ce ( /at+ ! propositions4 ,= in/ance1 in/ead ( say+3 ,if ,radium 7 *eap1 x w\ld be useful1 we may say ,*eap ,radium w\ld be useful2 or in/ead ( say+3 ,if glass is ?91 x breaks easily1 we may say ,?9 glass breaks easily4 ,hyslop gives ! foll[+ ,rule = ,conv]sion 9 su* cases3 ,reg>d ! antec$5t ( ! hypo!tical proposition z ! subject ( ! categorical1 & ! consequ5t ( ! hypo!tical proposition z ! pr$icate ( ! categorical4 ,9 "s cases ?is *ange is a v simple "o2 9 o!rs x c be effect$ only by a circumlocution4 ,! ?ird class ( syllogisms1 kn[n z ,! ,disjunctive ,syllogism1 is ! exception to ! law :i* holds t all good syllogisms mu/ fit 9 & come "u ! ,rules ( ! ,syllogism1 z /at$ 9 ! prec$+ *apt]4 ,n only does x refuse to obey ^! ,rules1 b x fails to resemble ! ord9>y syllogism 9 _m ways4 ,z ,jevons says3 ,x w\ld be a great mi/ake to suppose t all good logical argum5ts mu/ obey ! rules ( ! syllogism1 :i* we h be5 consid]+4 ,only ^? argum5ts :i* connect two t]ms toge!r by means ( a middle t]m1 & are !re=e syllogisms1 ne$ obey ^! rules4 ,a great _m ( ! argum5ts :i* we daily use are ( ?is nature2 b !re are a great _m o!r k9ds ( argum5ts1 "s ( :i* h nev] be5 und]/ood by logicians until rec5t ye>s4 ,"o important k9d ( argum5t is kn[n z ! ,disjunctive ,syllogism1 ?\gh x does n obey ! rules ( ! syllogism1 or 9 any way resemble syllogisms4 ,! ,disjunctive ,syllogism is "o hav+ a disjunctive proposition 9 its major premise4 ,! disjunctive proposition also appe>s 9 ! conclusion :5 ! disjunction 9 ! major premise happ5s to conta9 m ?an two t]ms4 ,a disjunctive proposition1 we h se51 is "o :i* possesses alt]native pr$icates = ! subject 9 :i* ! conjunction or 7sometimes accompani$ by ei!r7 appe>s4 ,z = in/ance3 ,lightn+ is %eet or =k$2 or1 ,ar*es are ei!r r\nd or po9t$2 or1 ,angles are ei!r obtuse1 or "r angl$1 or acute4 ,! diff]5t ?+s jo9$ toge!r by or are call$ ,alt]natives1 ! t]m indicat+ t we may *oose betwe5 ! ?+s1 & t if "o w n answ] our purpose we may take ! o!r1 or "o ( ! o!rs if !re be m ?an "o o!r4 ,! ,rule reg>d+ ! ,use ( ,disjunctive ,syllogisms is t3 ,if "o or m alt]natives be d5i$1 ! re/ may /ill be affirm$4 ,?us if we say t ,a is ,b or ,c1 or t ,a is ei!r ,b or ,c1 we may d5y ! ,b b /ill affirm ! ,c4 ,"s au?orities also hold t ,if we affirm "o alt]native1 we mu/ d5y ! rema9d]1 b ?is view is vigor\sly disput$ by o!r au?orities4 ,x w\ld seem to be a valid rule 9 cases :]e ! t]m ei!r appe>s z3 ,a is ei!r ,b or ,c1 because !re seems to be an implication t "o or ! o!r alone c be true4 ,b 9 cases l3 ,a is ,b or ,c1 !re may be a possibility ( bo? be+ true4 ,jevons takes ?is latt] view1 giv+ z an example ! proposition3 ,a ,magi/rate is a ,ju/ice-(-!-,peace1 a ,mayor1 or a ,/ip5di>y ,magi/rate1 b x does n foll[ t "o :o is a ,ju/ice-(-!-,peace may n be at ! same "t a ,mayor4 ,he /ates3 ,aft] affirm+ "o alt]native we c only d5y ! o!rs if !re be su* a diff]5ce betwe5 !m t !y c\ld n be true at ! same "t4 ,x w\ld seem t bo? cont5tions are at ! same "t true1 ! example giv5 by ,jevons illu/rat+ 8 cont5tion1 & ! proposition ,! prison] is ei!r guilty or innoc5t illu/rat+ ! cont5tions ( ! o!r side4 ,a ,dilemma is a conditional syllogism ^: ,major ,premise pres5ts "s sort ( alt]native4 ,:ately def9es x z3 ,a conditional syllogism ) two or m antec$5ts 9 ! major1 & a disjunctive m9or4 ,!re be+ two mutually exclusive propositions 9 ! ,major ,premise1 ! reason] is compell$ to admit "o or ! o!r1 & is !n caught betwe5 ! two horns ( ! dilemma4 ,,*apt] ,,xviii4 ,,reason+ ,,by ,,analogy ,:at is call$ ,reason+ by ,analogy is "o ( ! mo/ elem5t>y =ms ( reason+1 & ! "o :i* ! majority ( u mo/ frequ5tly employ4 ,x is a primitive =m ( ha/y g5]alization evid5c+ 9 ! natural expectation t ?+s w happ5 z !y h happ5$ be=e 9 l circum/ances4 ,! t]m z us$ 9 logic has be5 def9$ z ,resemblance ( relations2 ,resemblances ( any k9d on :i* an argum5t fall+ %ort ( induction may be f\nd$4 ,brooks says3 ,analogy is t process ( ?\ght by :i* we inf] t if two ?+s resemble ea* o!r 9 "o or m p>ticul>s1 !y w resemble ea* o!r 9 "s o!r p>ticul>4 ,jevons /ates ! ,rule = ,reason+ by ,analogy1 z foll[s3 ,if two or m ?+s resemble ea* o!r 9 _m po9ts1 !y w probably resemble ea* o!r also 9 m po9ts4 ,o!rs h /at$ ! same pr9ciple z foll[s3 ,:5 "o ?+ resembles ano!r 9 kn[n p>ticul>s1 x w resemble x also 9 ! unkn[n2 & ,if two ?+s agree 9 sev]al p>ticul>s1 !y w also agree 9 o!r p>ticul>s4 ,!re is a diff]5ce betwe5 g5]alization by induction1 & by analogy4 ,9 inductive g5]alization ! rule is3 ,:at is true ( ! _m is true ( all2 :ile ! rule ( analogy is3 ?+s t h "s ?+s 9 common h o!r ?+s 9 common4 ,z ,jevons aptly rem>ks3 ,reason+ by ,analogy diff]s only 9 degree f t k9d ( reason+ call$ ',g5]alization4' ,:5 _m ?+s resemble ea* o!r 9 a few prop]ties1 we argue ab\t !m by ,g5]alization4 ,:5 a few ?+s resemble ea* o!r 9 _m prop]ties1 x is a case ( analogy4 ,illu/rat+ ,analogy1 we may say t if 9 ,a we f9d ! qualities1 attributes or prop]ties call$ a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 respectively1 & if we f9d t 9 ,b ! qualities1 etc41 call$ a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 respectively1 are pres5t1 !n we may reason by analogy t ! qualities f & g mu/ also belong to ,b4 ,brooks says ( ?is =m ( reason+3 ,?is pr9ciple is 9 con/ant application 9 ord9>y life & 9 sci5ce4 ,a physician1 9 visit+ a pati5t1 says ?is disease corresponds 9 sev]al p>ticul>s ) typhoid fev]1 h5ce x w correspond 9 all p>ticul>s1 & is typhoid fev]4 ,s1 :5 ! geologi/ discov]s a fossil animal ) l>ge1 /rong1 blunt claws1 he inf]s t x procur$ its food by scrat*+ or burr[+ 9 ! e>?4 ,x 0 by analogy t ,dr4 ,buckl& con/ruct$ an animal f a few fossil bones1 & :5 subsequ5tly ! bones ( ! entire animal 7 discov]$1 8 con/ruction 0 f\nd to be correct4 ,halleck says3 ,9 argum5t or reason+ we are mu* aid$ by ! habit ( se>*+ = hidd5 resemblances4444 ,! detection ( su* a relation cultivates ?\ght4 ,if we are to succe$ 9 argum5t1 we mu/ develop :at "s call a six? s5se ( su* relations4444 ,! /udy ( poetry may be made v s]viceable 9 detect+ analogies & cultivat+ ! reason+ p[]s4 ,:5 ! poet br+s cle>ly to m9d ! *ange due to dea?1 us+ z an illu/ration ! cat]pill> body trans=m$ into ! butt]fly _s1 mov+ ) w+$ ease ov] fl[]+ mead[s1 he is cultivat+ our appreh5sion ( relations1 none ! less valuable because !y are beautiful4 ,b ! /ud5t mu/ be on gu>d aga9/ ! deceptive conclusions sometimes aris+ f ,reason+ by ,analogy4 ,z ,jevons says3 ,9 _m cases ,reason+ by ,analogy is f\nd to be a v unc]ta9 guide4 ,9 "s cases un=tunate mi/akes are made4 ,*ildr5 are sometimes kill$ by ga!r+ & eat+ poison\s b]ries1 wrongly inf]r+ t !y c be eat51 because o!r b]ries1 ( a some:at simil> appe>ance1 h be5 f\nd agreeable & h>mless4 ,poison\s toad/ools are occasionally mi/ak5 = mu%rooms1 especially by p n accu/om$ to ga!r+ !m4 ,9 ,norway mu%rooms are seldom se51 & are n eat52 b :5 ,i once f\nd a few !re & _h !m cook$ at an inn1 ,i 0 amus$ by ! p ( ! inn1 :o w5t & collect$ toad/ools & want$ me to eat !m also4 ,?is 0 cle>ly a case ( mi/ak5 reason+ by analogy4 ,ev5 brute animals reason 9 ! same way 9 "s degree4 ,! beat5 dog fe>s e /ick1 & !re are few dogs :i* w n run away :5 y pret5d to pick up a /one1 ev5 if !re be no /one to pick up4 ,halleck says3 ,_m false analogies are manufactur$1 & x is excell5t ?\ght tra9+ to expose !m4 ,! majority ( p ?9k s little t !y swall[ ^! false analogies j z newly fl$g$ rob9s swall[ small /ones dropp$ into _! op5 m\?s4444 ,?is t5d5cy to ?9k z o!rs d mu/ be resi/$ some:]e along ! l9e1 or !re c be no progress4 ,brooks says3 ,! argum5t f ,analogy is plausible1 b (t5 deceptive4 ,?us to inf] t s9ce ,am]ican swans are :ite1 ! ,au/ralian swan is :ite1 gives a false conclusion1 = x is really black4 ,s to inf] t because ,john ,smi? has a r$ nose & is a drunk>d1 !n ,h5ry ,jones :o also has a r$ nose is also a drunk>d1 w\ld be a dang]\s inf]5ce4444 ,conclusions ( ?is k9d drawn f analogy are frequ5tly fallaci\s4 ,reg>d+ ! ,rule = ,reason+ f ,analogy1 ,jevons says3 ,!re is no way 9 :i* we c really assure ourselves t we are argu+ safely by analogy4 ,! only rule t c be giv5 is ?is2 t ! m closely two ?+s resemble ea* o!r1 ! m likely x is t !y are ! same 9 o!r respects1 especially 9 po9ts closely connect$ ) ^? obs]v$4444 ,9 ord] to be cle> ab\t our conclusions1 we ought 9 fact nev] to re/ satisfi$ ) m]e analogy1 b ought to try to discov] ! g5]al laws gov]n+ ! case4 ,9 analogy we seem to reason f "o fact to ano!r fact )\t tr\bl+ ourselves ei!r ) d$uction or induction4 ,b x is only by a k9d ( guess t we d s2 x is n really conclusive reason+4 ,we ought prop]ly to asc]ta9 :at g5]al laws ( nature are %[n to exi/ by ! facts obs]v$1 & !n inf] :at w happ5 accord+ to ^! laws4444 ,we f9d t reason+ by analogy is n to be dep5d$ ^u1 unless we make su* an inquiry into ! causes & laws ( ! ?+s 9 "q1 t we really employ inductive & d$uctive reason+4 ,along ! same l9es1 ,brooks says3 ,! inf]5ce f analogy1 l t f induction1 %\ld be us$ ) caution4 ,its conclusion mu/ n be reg>d$ z c]ta91 b m]ely z rea*+ a high degree ( probability4 ,! inf]5ce f a "p to a "p1 no m ?an f a "p to ! :ole1 is att5d$ ) any rational necessity4 ,to atta9 c]ta9ty1 we mu/ %[ t ! pr9ciples :i* lie at ! root ( ! process are ei!r necess>y laws ( ?\ght or necess>y laws ( nature2 bo? ( :i* are impossible4 ,h5ce analogy c pret5d to only a high degree ( probability4 ,x may ev5 rea* a l>ge degree ( c]ta9ty1 b x nev] rea*es necessity4 ,we mu/1 !re=e1 be c>eful n to accept any inf]5ce f analogy z true until x is prov$ to be true by actual obs]vation & exp]im5t1 or by su* an application ( induction z to remove all reasonable d\bt4 ,,*apt] ,,xix4 ,,fallacies ,a ,fallacy is3 ,an uns\nd argum5t or mode ( argu+1 :i*1 :ile appe>+ to be decisive ( a "q1 is 9 reality n s2 an argum5t or proposition app>5tly s\nd1 b really fallaci\s2 a fallaci\s /atem5t or proposition1 9 :i* ! error is n app>5t1 & :i* is !re=e likely to mislead or deceive2 sophi/ry4 ,9 ,d$uctive ,reason+1 we meet ) two classes ( ,fallacies2 namely1 7#a7 ,fallaci\s ,premise2 & 7#b7 ,fallaci\s ,conclusion4 ,we %all n[ consid] ea* ( ^! 9 turn4 ,fallaci\s ,premise is 9 effect an unw>rant$ assumption ( premises4 ,"o ( ! mo/ common =ms ( ?is k9d ( ,fallacy is kn[n z ,begg+ ! ,"q1 ! pr9ciple ( :i* is ! assumption ( a fundam5tal premise :i* is n conc$$2 ! unw>rantable assumption ( t :i* is to be prov$2 or ! assumption ( t by :i* x is to be prov$1 )\t prov+ x4 ,its mo/ common =m is t ( boldly /at+ "s unprov5 fact1 au?oritatively & positively1 & !n proce$+ to use ! /atem5t z ! major premise ( ! argum5t1 proce$+ logically f t po9t4 ,! he>] p]ceiv+ ! argum5t proce$+ logically (t5 fails to rememb] t ! premise has be5 m]ely assum$1 )\t w>rant & )\t pro( & omitt+ ! hypo!tical if4 ,"o may proce$ to argue logically f ! premise t ,! moon is made ( gre5 *eese1 b ! :ole argum5t is invalid & fallaci\s because ( ! fact t ! p]son mak+ x has begg$ ! "q ^u an unw>rant$ premise4 ,hyslop gives a good example ( ?is =m ( fallacy 9 ! case ( ! proposition ,*ur* & ,/ate %\ld be unit$4 ,pro( be+ dem&$ ! advocate proce$s to beg ! "q z foll[s3 ,good in/itutions %\ld be unit$2 ,*ur* & ,/ate are good in/itutions2 !re=e1 ,*ur* & ,/ate %\ld be unit$4 ,! proposition t ,good in/itutions %\ld be unit$ is fallaci\s1 be+ m]ely assum$ & n prov54 ,! proposition s\nds reasonable1 & few w feel dispos$ to dispute x at fir/1 b a little consid]ation w %[ t :ile "s good in/itutions may well be unit$1 x is n a g5]al tru? t all %\ld be s4 ,begg+ ! ,"q also (t5 arises f giv+ a "n to a ?+1 & !n assum+ t we h expla9$ ! ?+4 ,?is is a v frequ5t practice ) _m p--!y try to expla9 by m]ely apply+ names4 ,an example ( ?is k9d is _h 9 ! case ( ! p]son :o tri$ to expla9 :y "o c\ld see ?r\gh a pane ( glass by say+ because x is transp>5t4 ,or :5 "o expla9s t ! reason a c]ta9 sub/ance breaks easily is because x is brittle4 ,moli]e makes ! fa!r ( a dumb girl ask :y 8 daught] is dumb4 ,! physician answ]s3 ,no?+ is m easy ?an to expla9 x2 x comes f h] hav+ lo/ ! p[] ( spee*4 ,yes1 yes1 objects ! fa!r1 b ! cause1 if y please1 :y %e has lo/ ! p[] ( spee*4 ,! physician gravely replies3 ,all our be/ au?ors w tell y t x is ! imp$+ ( ! action ( ! tongue4 ,jevons says3 ,! mo/ frequ5t way1 p]haps1 9 :i* we commit ?is k9d ( fallacy is to employ names :i* imply t we disapprove ( some?+1 & !n argue t because x is su* & su*1 x mu/ be condemn$4 ,:5 two sportsm5 fall out 9 "s mann] relat+ to ! subject ( game1 "o w1 9 all probability1 argue t ! act ( ! o!r 0 'unsportsmanlike1' & !re=e %\ld n h be5 done4 ,"h is to all appe>ance a correct syllogism3 ,no unsportsmanlike act %\ld be done2 ,john ,rob9son's act 0 unsportsmanlike3 ,!re=e1 ,john ,rob9son's act %\ld n h be5 done4 ,?is is q correct 9 =m2 b x is evid5tly ! m]e semblance ( an argum5t4 ',unsportsmanlike' means :at a sportsman %\ld n d4 ,! po9t to be argu$ 0 :e!r ! act fell )9 ! cu/om>y def9ition ( :at 0 unsportsmanlike4 ,aris+ f ,begg+ ! ,"q1 & 9 fact a class ( ! latt]1 is :at is call$ ,reason+ 9 a ,circle4 ,9 ?is =m ( fallacy "o assumes z pro( ( a proposition ! proposition itself2 or1 uses ! conclusion to prove ! premise4 ,= in/ance3 ,?is man is a rascal because he is a rogue2 & he is a rogue because he is a rascal4 ,or1 ,x is w>m because x is summ]2 & x is summ] because x is w>m4 ,or ,he nev] dr9ks to excess1 because he is nev] intemp]ate 9 dr9k+4 ,brooks says3 ,?us to argue t a p>ty is good because x advocates good measures1 & t c]ta9 measures are good because !y are advocat$ by s excell5t a p>ty1 is to reason 9 a circle4 ,s :5 p]sons argue t _! *ur* is ! true "o1 because x 0 e/abli%$ by ,god1 & !n argue t s9ce x is ! true *ur* x mu/ h be5 f\nd$ by ,god1 !y fall into ?is fallacy4 ,to argue t '! w is det]m9$ by ! /ronge/ motive' & to def9e ! /ronge/ motive z 't :i* influ5ces ! w1' is to revolve 9 a circle ( ?\ght & prove no?+4 ,plato commits ?is error :5 he argues ! immortality ( ! s\l f its simplicity1 & aft]w>ds attempts to prove its simplicity f its immortality4 ,x ne$s c>e to avoid ?is error1 = x is surpris+ h[ easily "o falls into x4 ,hyslop says3 ,! fallacy ( ,reason+ 9 a ,circle occurs mo/ly 9 long argum5ts :]e x c be committ$ )\t ready detection4444 ,:5 x occurs 9 a long disc\rse x may be committ$ )\t easy discov]y4 ,x is likely to be occasion$ by ! use ( synonyms :i* are tak5 to express m ?an ! conception involv$ :5 !y d n4 ,:at is call$ a ,vici\s ,circle is caus$ :5 ! conclusion ( "o syllogism is us$ = a proposition 9 ano!r syllogism1 :i* 9 its turn comes to be us$ z a basis = ! fir/ or orig9al syllogism4 ,fallaci\s ,conclusion is 9 effect an unw>rant$ or irrelevant assumption ( a logical conclusion4 ,!re are _m =ms ( ?is fallacy among :i* are ! foll[+3 ,%ift+ gr\nd1 :i* consi/s 9 ! pret5ce ( prov+ "o ?+ :ile 9 reality m]ely a simil> or relat$ ?+ is be+ prov$4 ,9 ?is class is ! argum5t t because a man is pr(ane he mu/ necess>ily be di%one/2 or t because a man d5ies ! inspiration ( ! ,scriptures he mu/ be an a!i/4 ,fallaci\s ,que/ion+1 9 :i* two or m relat$ que/ions are ask$1 & ! answ] ( "o is !n appli$ to ! o!r4 ,= in/ance3 ,y ass]t t ! m civiliz$ a community1 ! m silk-hats are to be f\nd 9 x8 ,yes4 ,!n1 y /ate t silk-hats are ! promot]s & cause ( civilization 9 a community8 ,a "q ( ?is k9d is (t5 s arrang$ t an answ] ei!r 9 ! affirmative or ! negative w lead to a false or fallaci\s inf]5ce4 ,= in/ance1 ! "q once ask$ a respectable citiz5 on ! witness /&3 ,h y /opp$ beat+ y\r "m8 ,an answ] ( ei!r ,yes or ,no1 0 out ( ! "q1 = x w\ld h plac$ ! witness 9 a false position1 = he _h nev] beat5 8 "m1 nor be5 accus$ ( ! same4 ,p>tial ,pro(1 9 :i* ! pro( ( a p>tial or relat$ fact is us$ to inf] a pro( ( ! :ole fact or a relat$ "o4 ,= in/ance1 x is fallaci\s to argue t a man has be5 guilty ( drunk5ness by m]ely prov+ t he 0 se5 ent]+ a saloon4 ,appeal to ,public ,op9ion1 9 :i* ! prejudices ( ! public are appeal$ to r ?an its judgm5t or reason4 ,9 politics & !ological argum5t ?is fallacy is frequ5t4 ,x is no argum5t1 & is repreh5sible4 ,appeal to ,au?ority1 or ,rev]5ce1 9 :i* ! rev]5ce & respect ( ! public = c]ta9 p]sons is us$ to influ5ce _! feel+s 9 place ( _! judgm5t or reason4 ,= in/ance3 ,wa%+ton ?\ght s-&-s1 & !re=e x mu/ be "r2 or ,x is fooli% to affirm t ,ari/otle err$2 or ,x has be5 believ$ by m5 = two ?\s& ye>s1 t1 etc2 or ,:at our fa!rs believ$ mu/ be true4 ,appeals ( ?is k9d may h _! prop] place1 b !y are fallacies nev]!less1 & n real argum5t4 ,appeal to ,pr(ession1 9 :i* an appeal is made to practices1 pr9ciples or pr(essions ( ! oppon5t1 r ?an to reason or judgm5t4 ,?us we may argue t a c]ta9 philosophy or religion _c be s\nd or good1 because c]ta9 p :o hold x are n consi/5t1 or n wor?y1 moral or sob]4 ,?is argum5t is (t5 us$ effectively aga9/ an oppon5t1 & is valid aga9/ him p]sonally4 ,b x is no valid argum5t aga9/ 8 philosophy or belief1 because he may act 9 violation ( !m1 or he may *ange 8 practices & /ill adh]e to 8 beliefs--! two are n jo9$4 ,appeal to ,g5]al ,belief1 9 :i* an appeal is made to g5]al or univ]sal belief1 al?\gh ! same may be unsupport$ by pro(4 ,?is is q common1 b is no real argum5t4 ,! common op9ion may be errone\s1 z hi/ory proves4 ,a few c5turies ago ?is argum5t c\ld h be5 us$ 9 favor ( ! e>? be+ flat1 etc4 ,a half-c5tury ago x 0 us$ aga9/ ,d>w94 ,today x is be+ us$ aga9/ o!r new ideas4 ,x is a fallacy by its v nature4 ,appeal to ,ignorance1 9 :i* an appeal is made to ! ignorance ( ! oppon5t t 8 conviction may foll[ f 8 inability to prove ! contr>y4 ,x is virtually no argum5t t3 ,s-&-s mu/ be true1 because y _c prove t x is n4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,to argue t !re is no mat]ial _w1 because we _c expla9 h[ ! m9d kn[s x to exi/1 is ! celebrat$ fallacy ( ,hume 9 philosophy4 ,! fact t we _c f9d a ne$le 9 a hay/ack is no pro( t x is n !re4 ,introduction ( ,new ,matt]1 also call$ ,non ,sequitur1 9 :i* matt] is introduc$ into ! conclusion t is n 9 ! premises4 ,hyslop gives ! foll[+ example ( x3 ,all m5 are rational2 ,socrates is a man2 !re=e1 ,socrates is noble4 ,de ,morgan gives ! foll[+ m complex example3 ,episcopacy is ( ,scripture orig92 ,! ,*ur* ( ,engl& is ! only ,episcopal *ur* 9 ,engl&2 !re=e1 ! *ur* e/abli%$ is ! *ur* t ought to be support$4 ,o!r fallacies1 resembl+ 9 "s respects ^? above m5tion$1 are z foll[s3 ,fallacy ( ,ambigu\s ,t]ms1 9 :i* diff]5t mean+s ( ! same ^w are us$ to produce ! fallaci\s argum5t4 ,z ,jevons says3 ,a ^w ) two di/9ct mean+s is really two words4 ,confusion betwe5 ,collective & ,g5]al ,mean+s ( a ,t]m1 ( :i* ,jevons says3 ,x w\ld be obvi\sly absurd to argue t because all ! books 9 ! ,briti% ,museum ,libr>y are sure to give in=mation ab\t ,k+ ,alfr$1 !re=e any p>ticul> book w be sure to give x4 ,by 'all ! books 9 ! ,briti% ,museum ,libr>y1' we mean all tak5 toge!r4 ,!re are _m o!r cases :]e ! confusion is n s evid5t1 & :]e great numb]s ( p are unable to see ! exact diff]5ce4 ,argu+ f ! ,collective to ! ,g5]al1 9 :i* ! fallacy consi/s ( argu+ t because some?+ is true ( ! :ole ( a gr\p ( ?+s1 !re=e x is true ( any ( ^? ?+s4 ,jevons says3 ,all ! soldi]s 9 a regim5t may be able to capture a t[n1 b x is absurd to suppose t !re=e e soldi] 9 ! regim5t c\ld capture ! t[n s+le h&$4 ,:ite %eep eat a great deal m ?an black %eep2 b t is because !re are s _m m ( !m4 ,unc]ta9 ,mean+ ( a ,s5t5ce1 f :i* confusion arises & fallaci\s argum5t may spr+4 ,jevons says3 ,!re is a humor\s way ( prov+ t a cat mu/ h ?ree tails3 ,because a cat has "o tail m ?an no cat2 & no cat has two tails2 !re=e1 any cat has ?ree tails4 ,"h ! fallacy re/s ^u a punn+ int]pretation ( no4 ,prov+ ! ,wrong ,conclusion1 9 :i* ! attempt to confuse conclusions is made1 ) ! result t "s p w imag9e t ! case is e/abli%$4 ,jevons says3 ,?is 0 ! device ( ! ,iri%man1 :o 0 *>g$ ) !ft on ! evid5ce ( ?ree witnesses1 :o _h se5 him d x2 he propos$ to call ?irty witnesses :o _h n se5 him d x4 ,equally logical 0 ! def5se ( ! man :o 0 call$ a mat]iali/1 & :o repli$1 ',i am n a mat]iali/2 ,i am a b>b]4' ,fallacy ( ,unsuccessful ,argum5t1 9 :i* is attempt$ ! illogical conclusion t because a c]ta9 argum5t has fail$ ! opposite conclusion is prov54 ,?is fallacy is q common1 especially 9 cases ( juries4 ,"o side fails to prove c]ta9 cont5tions1 & ! jury leaps to ! conclusion t ! opposite cont5tion mu/ be correct4 ,?is is cle>ly fallaci\s1 = !re is always ! possibility ( a ?ird explanation4 ,9 ! case ( a claim ( alibi juries are apt to fall into ?is fallacy4 ,! failure ( ! attempt to e/abli% an alibi is (t5 held to be 9 ! nature ( pro( ( ! guilt ( ! accus$4 ,old trial lawy]s ass]t t a failure to e/abli% a claim$ alibi t5ds to injure ! *ance ( ! accus$ m ?an direct evid5ce aga9/ him4 ,yet1 z all logical reason]s w see1 !re is no logical validity 9 any su* inf]5ce4 ,z ,jevons has well said3 ,no numb] ( failures 9 attempt+ to prove a proposition really disprove x4 ,at ! end ( ea* failure ! case simply /&s 9 ! same position z be=e ! attempt2 i4e41 n prov54 ,all ,violations ( ! ,rules ( ! ,syllogism con/itute fallacies1 z may be se5 by =m+ a syllogism 9 violation ( "o or m ( ! rules4 ,! logicians1 p>ticul>ly ^? ( anci5t times1 took great pa9s to discov] & "n new v>iations ( fallacies1 _m ( :i* 7 hair-splitt+ 9 nature1 & n wor?y ( be+ consid]$ s]i\sly4 ,"s ( ^? :i* we h enum]at$ may possibly be op5 to ! same criticism1 b we h omitt$ _m ( ! wor/ (f5d]s aga9/ practical common s5se4 ,an und]/&+ ( ! fundam5tal ,laws ( ,reason+ is suffici5t to expose & unmask all fallacies1 & su* und]/&+ is f> m valuable ?an ! memoriz+ ( ! names ( hair-splitt+ fallacies :i* w\ld n deceive a *ild4 ,9 addition to ! above /at$ fallacies ( ,d$uctive ,reason+1 !re are o!r fallacies :i* are met ) 9 ,inductive ,reason+4 ,let u briefly consid] !m4 ,ha/y & ,false ,g5]alization is a common fallacy ( ?is class4 ,p]sons sometimes see c]ta9 qualities 9 a few individuals ( a class1 & mi/ak5ly inf] t all ! individuals 9 t class mu/ possess ^! same qualities4 ,travel]s frequ5tly commit ?is fallacy4 ,engli%m5 visit+ ! ,unit$ ,/ates = a few weeks h be5 kn[n to publi% books ^u _! return home mak+ ! mo/ ridicul\s g5]alizations reg>d+ ! ,am]ican p1 _! ass]tions be+ bas$ ^u ! obs]vation ( a few scatt]$ individuals1 (t5 n at all repres5tative4 ,am]icans travel+ abroad commit simil> errors4 ,a fly+ trip ?r\gh a c\ntry does n af=d ! prop] opportunity = correct g5]alization4 ,z ,brooks says3 ,no hypo!sis %\ld be accept$ z true until ! facts are s num]\s t !re c be no d\bt ( its be+ prov$4 ,fallacies ( ,obs]vation result f incorrect me?ods ( obs]vation among :i* may be m5tion$ ! foll[+3 7#a7 ,c>eless ,obs]vation1 or inexact p]ception & conception2 7#b7 ,p>tial ,obs]vation1 9 :i* "o obs]ves only a "p ( ! ?+ or fact1 omitt+ ! rema9d]1 & ?us =m+ an incomplete & imp]fect concept ( ! ?+ or fact2 7#c7 ,neglect ( ,exceptions & ,contradictory ,facts1 9 :i* ! exceptions & contradictory facts are ignor$1 !reby giv+ undue importance to ! obs]v$ facts2 7#d7 ,assumption ( ,facts :i* are n real facts1 or ! assumption ( ! tru? ( ?+s :i* are untrue2 7#e7 ,confus+ ( ,inf]5ces ) ,facts1 :i* is mo/ unw>rantable4 ,fallacies ( ,mi/ak5 ,cause result f ! assumption ( a ?+ z a cause1 :5 x is n s1 ( :i* ! foll[+ are famili> examples3 ,sub/itut+ ! ,antec$5t = ! ,cause1 :i* consi/s 9 assum+ a m]e antec$5t ?+ = a cause ( ano!r ?+4 ,?us "o might assume t ! cr[+ ( ! cock 0 ! cause ( daybreak1 because x prec$$ x2 or t a comet 0 ! cause ( ! plague :i* foll[$ its appe>ance2 or 9 ! actual case 9 :i* a *ild reason$ t doctors caus$ dea?s1 because obs]vation _h %[n t !y always visit$ p]sons be=e !y di$2 or t crops fail$ because a ,presid5t ( a c]ta9 political p>ty _h be5 inaugurat$ a few mon?s be=e4 ,"s fallacies ( ev]yday reason+ are q z illogical z ^? j m5tion$4 ,sub/itut+ ! ,symptom = ! ,cause1 :i* consi/s 9 assum+ z a cause "s m]e symptom1 sign or incid5t ( ! real cause4 ,to assume t ! pimples ( measles 7 ! cause ( ! disease1 w\ld be to commit a fallacy ( ?is k9d4 ,we h m5tion$ else:]e ! fallacy :i* w\ld assume silk-hats to be ! cause ( ,civilization1 in/ead ( be+ a m]e incid5t ( ! latt]4 ,politicians are fond ( assum+ c]ta9 incid5ts or signs ( a p]iod1 z be+ ! causes ( ! prosp]ity1 culture & advancem5t ( ! p]iod1 or ! rev]se4 ,"o might argue1 ) equal =ce1 t automobiles 7 ! causes ( national prosp]ity1 po9t+ to ! fact t ! m automobiles to be se5 ! bett] ! times4 ,or1 t /raw hats produc$ hot wea!r1 = simil> reasons4 ,! ,fallacy ( ,analogy consi/s 9 assum+ a resemblance or id5tity1 :]e none exi/s4 ,we h spok5 ( ?is 9 ano!r *apt]4 ,brooks says1 also3 ,x is a fallacy to c>ry an analogy too f>2 z to inf] f ! p>able ( ! pray+ ( ! importunate woman t ,god resembles ! unju/ judge4 ,9 conclusion1 we w\ld call y\r att5tion to ! foll[+ words f ,jevons1 9 :i* he expresses ! gi/ ( ! matt]3 ,x is impossible too (t5 to rem9d p t1 on ! "o h&1 all correct reason+ consi/s 9 sub/itut+ l ?+s = l ?+s1 & inf]r+ t :at is true ( "o w be true ( all :i* are simil> to x 9 ! po9ts ( resemblance conc]n$ 9 ! matt]4 ,on ! o!r h&1 all incorrect reason+ consi/s 9 putt+ "o ?+ = ano!r :]e !re is n ! requisite lik5ess4 ,x is ! purpose ( ! rules ( d$uctive & inductive logic to enable u to judge z f> z possible :5 we are ?us rightly or wrongly reason+ f "s ?+s to o!rs4 ,,f9is4 ,,transcrib]',s ,,note3 ,obvi\s typos & pr9t] errors h be5 correct$ )\t comm5t4 ,9 addition to obvi\s errors1 ! foll[+ *anges h be5 made3 ,page #ah3 ,idea *ang$ to ,ideas 9 ! phrase1 444 =m+ ,concepts or ,g5]al ,ideas4 ,page #ga3 infuoria *ang$ to infusoria 9 ! phrase1 444 ! microscopic infusoria4444 ,page #ace3 disciple *ang$ to discipl9e 9 ! phrase1 444 necessity ( discipl9e = inv5tion4444 ,o!r ?an ! above *anges1 no attempt has be5 made to correct common spell+1 punctuation1 gramm>1 etc4 ,! au?or's usage is pres]v$ z pr9t$ 9 ! orig9al publication4