The Art of Logical Thinking; Or, The Laws of Reasoning

CHAPTER XIV.
MAKING AND TESTING HYPOTHESES

The older philosophers and logicians were often at a loss how to reasonably account for the origin of hypotheses. It will be seen, after giving the matter a little thought, that the actual formation of the hypothesis is more than a mere grouping together or synthesis of facts or ideas—there is another mental process which actually evolves the hypothesis or theory—which gives a possible reason. What is this mental process? Let us consider the matter. Brooks well says: "The hypotheses of science originate in what is called anticipation. They are not the result of a mere synthesis of facts, for no combination of facts can give the law or cause. We do not see the law; we see the facts and the mind thinks the law. By the power of anticipation, the mind often leaps from a few facts to the cause which produces them or the law which governs them. Many hypotheses were but a happy intuition of the mind. They were the result of what La Place calls 'a great guess,' or what Plato so beautifully designates as 'a sacred suspicion of truth.' The forming of hypotheses requires a suggestive mind, a lively fancy, a philosophic imagination, that catches a glimpse of the idea through the form, or sees the law standing behind the fact."

The student of The New Psychology sees in the mental operation of the forming of the hypothesis—"the mind thinking the law"—but an instance of the operation of the activities of the Subconscious Mind, or even the Superconscious Mind. (See the volume on the Subconscious Mind in this series.) Not only does this hypothesis give the explanation which the old psychology has failed to do, but it agrees with the ideas of others on the subject as stated in the above quotation from Brooks; and moreover agrees with many recorded instances of the formation of great hypotheses. Sir Wm. Hamilton discovered the very important mathematical law of quaternions while walking one day in the Dublin Observatory. He had pondered long on the subject, but without result. But, finally, on that eventful day he suddenly "felt the galvanic circle of thought" close, and the result was the realization of the fundamental mathematical relations of the problem. Berthelot, the founder of Synthetic Chemistry, has testified that the celebrated experiments which led to his remarkable discoveries were seldom the result of carefully followed lines of conscious thought or pure reasoning processes; but, instead, came to him "of their own accord," so to speak, "as from a clear sky." In these and many other similar instances, the mental operation was undoubtedly purely subjective and subconscious. Dr. Hudson has claimed that the "Subjective Mind" cannot reason inductively, and that its operations are purely and distinctly deductive, but the testimony of many eminent scientists, inventors and philosophers is directly to the contrary.

In this connection the following quotation from Thomson is interesting: "The system of anatomy which has immortalized the name of Oken is the consequence of a flash of anticipation which glanced through his mind when he picked up in a chance walk the skull of a deer, bleached and disintegrated by the weather, and exclaimed after a glance, 'It is part of a vertebral column!' When Newton saw the apple fall, the anticipatory question flashed through his mind, 'Why do not the heavenly bodies fall like this apple?' In neither case had accident any important share; Newton and Oken were prepared by the deepest previous study to seize upon the unimportant fact offered to them, and to show how important it might become; and if the apple and the deer-skull had been wanting, some other falling body, or some other skull, would have touched the string so ready to vibrate. But in each case there was a great step of anticipation; Oken thought he saw a type of the whole skeleton in a single vertebra, while Newton conceived at once that the whole universe was full of bodies tending to fall.... The discovery of Goethe, which did for the vegetable kingdom what Oken did for the animal, that the parts of a plant are to be regarded as metamorphosed leaves, is an apparent exception to the necessity of discipline for invention, since it was the discovery of a poet in a region to which he seemed to have paid no especial or laborious attention. But Goethe was himself most anxious to rest the basis of this discovery upon his observation rather than his imagination, and doubtless with good reason.... As with other great discoveries, hints had been given already, though not pursued, both of Goethe's and Oken's principles. Goethe left his to be followed up by others, and but for his great fame, perhaps his name would never have been connected with it. Oken had amassed all the materials necessary for the establishment of his theory; he was able at once to discover and conquer the new territory."

It must not be supposed, however, that all hypotheses flashing into the field of consciousness from the Subconsciousness, are necessarily true or correct. On the contrary many of them are incorrect, or at least only partially correct. The Subconsciousness is not infallible or omniscient—it merely produces results according to the material furnished it. But even these faulty hypotheses are often of value in the later formation of a correct one. As Whewell says: "To try wrong guesses is with most persons the only way to hit upon right ones." Kepler is said to have erected at least twenty hypotheses regarding the shape of the earth's orbit before he finally evolved the correct one. As Brooks says: "Even incorrect hypotheses may be of use in scientific research, since they may lead to more correct suppositions." The supposition of the circular motions of the heavenly bodies around the earth as a center, which lead to the conception of epicycles, etc., and at last to the true theory is an illustration of this. So the 'theory of phlogiston' in chemistry, made many facts intelligible, before the true one of 'oxidation' superseded it. And so, as Thomson says, "with the theory that 'Nature abhors a vacuum,' which served to bring together so many cognate facts not previously considered as related. Even an incorrect conception of this kind has its place in science, so long as it is applicable to the facts; when facts occur which it cannot explain, we either correct it or replace it with a new one. The pathway of science, some one remarks, is strewn with the remains of discarded hypotheses."

Halleck says regarding the danger of hasty inference: "Men must constantly employ imperfect induction in order to advance; but great dangers attend inductive inferences made from too narrow experience. A child has experience with one or two dogs at his home. Because of their gentleness, he argues that all dogs are gentle. He does not, perhaps, find out the contrary until he has been severely bitten. His induction was too hasty. He had not tested a sufficiently large number of dogs to form such a conclusion. From one or two experiences with a large crop in a certain latitude, a farmer may argue that the crop will generally be profitable, whereas it may not again prove so for years. A man may have trusted a number of people and found them honest. He concludes that people as a rule are honest, trusts a certain dishonest man, and is ruined. The older people grow, the more cautious they generally become in forming inductive conclusions. Many instances are noted and compared; but even the wisest sometimes make mistakes. It once was a generally accepted fact that all swans were white. Nobody had ever seen a dark swan, and the inference that all swans were white was regarded as certainly true. Black swans were, however, found in Australia."

Brooks says regarding the probability of hypotheses: "The probability of a hypothesis is in proportion to the number of facts and phenomena it will explain. The larger the number of facts and phenomena that it will satisfactorily account for, the greater our faith in the correctness of our supposition.... If there is more than one hypothesis in respect to the facts under consideration, that one which accounts for the greatest number of facts is the most probable.... In order to verify a hypothesis it must be shown that it will account for all the facts and phenomena. If these facts are numerous and varied, and the subject is so thoroughly investigated that it is quite certain that no important class of facts has been overlooked, the supposition is regarded as true, and the hypothesis is said to be verified. Thus the hypothesis of the 'daily rotation' of the earth on its axis to account for the succession of day and night is accepted as absolutely true. This is the view taken by Dr. Whewell and many other thinkers in respect to the verification of a hypothesis. Some writers, however, as Mill and his school, maintain that in order to verify a hypothesis, we must show not only that it explains all the facts and phenomena, but that there is no other possible hypothesis which will account for them.... The former view of verification is regarded as the correct one. By the latter view, it is evident that a hypothesis could never be verified."

Jevons says: "In the fourth step (verification), we proceed to compare these deductions with the facts already collected, or when necessary and practicable, we make new observations and plan new experiments, so as to find out whether the hypothesis agrees with nature. If we meet with several distinct disagreements between our deductions and our observations, it will become likely that the hypothesis is wrong, and we must then invent a new one. In order to produce agreement it will sometimes be enough to change the hypothesis in a small degree. When we get hold of a hypothesis which seems to give results agreeing with a few facts, we must not at once assume that it is certainly correct. We must go on making other deductions from it under various circumstances, and, whenever it is possible, we ought to verify these results, that is, compare them with facts observed through the senses. When a hypothesis is shown in this way to be true in a great many of its results, especially when it enables us to predict what we should never otherwise have believed or discovered, it becomes certain that the hypothesis itself is a true one.... Sometimes it will happen that two or even three quite different hypotheses all seem to agree with certain facts, so that we are puzzled which to select.... When there are thus two hypotheses, one as good as the other, we need to discover some fact or thing which will agree with one hypothesis and not with the other, because this immediately enables us to decide that the former hypothesis is true and the latter false."

In the above statements regarding the verification of hypotheses we see references made to the testing of the latter upon the "facts" of the case. These facts may be either the observed phenomena or facts apparent to the perception, or else facts obtained by deductive reasoning. The latter may be said to be facts which are held to be true if the hypothesis be true. Thus if we erect the hypothesis that "All men are mortal," we may reason deductively that it will follow that each and every thing that is a man must die sooner or later. Then we test our hypotheses upon each and every man whom we may subject to observation and experiment. If we find a single man who does not die, then the test disproves our hypotheses; if on the contrary all men (the "facts" in the case) prove to be mortal, then is our hypotheses proven or established. The deductive reasoning in this case is as follows: "If so-and-so is true regarding such-and-such a class; and if this particular thing belongs to that class; then it will follow that so-and-so is true regarding this particular thing." This argument is expressed in what is called a Hypothetical Proposition (see Chapter IX), the consideration of which forms a part of the general subject of Deductive Reasoning. Therefore as Jevons has said, "Deductive Reasoning is the Third Step in Inductive Reasoning, and precedes Verification", which we have already considered. Halleck says: "After Induction has classified certain phenomena and thus given us a major premise, we may proceed deductively to apply the inference to any new specimen that can be shown to belong to that class. Induction hands over to deduction a ready-made major premise.... Deduction takes that as a fact, making no inquiry about its truth.... Only after general laws have been laid down, after objects have been classified, after major premises have been formed, can deduction be employed."

In view of the above facts, we shall now proceed to a consideration of that great class of Reasoning known under the term—Deductive Reasoning.

CHAPTER XV.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Jevons says regarding the last stated illustration: "Here are three sentences which state three different facts; but when we know the two first facts, we learn or gather the third fact from the other two. When we thus learn one fact from other facts, we infer or reason, and we do this in the mind. Reasoning thus enables us to ascertain the nature of a thing without actual trial. If we always needed to taste a thing before we could know whether it was good to eat or not, cases of poisoning would be alarmingly frequent. But the appearance and peculiarities of a mushroom may be safely learned by the eye or the nose, and reasoning upon this information and the fact already well known, that mushrooms are good to eat, we arrive without any danger or trouble at the conclusion that the particular fungus before us is good to eat. To reason, then, is to get some knowledge from other knowledge."

The student will recognize that Deductive Reasoning is essentially an analytic process, because it operates in the direction of analyzing a universal or general truth into its particulars—into the particular parts which are included within it—and asserting of them that "what is true of the general is true of the particular." Thus in the general truth that "All men are mortal," we see included the particular truth that "John Smith is mortal"—John Smith having been discovered to be a man. We deduce the particular truth about John Smith from the general truth about "all men." We analyze "all men" and find John Smith to be one of its particular parts. Therefore, "Deduction is an inference from the whole to its parts; that is, an analytic process."

The student will also recognize that Deductive Reasoning is essentially a descending process, because it operates in the direction of a descent from the universal to the particular; from the higher to the lower; from the broader to the narrower. As Brooks says: "Deduction descends from higher truths to lower truths, from laws to facts, from causes to phenomena, etc. Given the law, we can by deduction descend to the facts that fall under the law, even if we have never before seen the facts; and so from the cause we may pass down to observed and even unknown phenomena."

The general truths which are used as the basis of Deductive Reasoning are discovered in several ways. The majority arise from Inductive Reasoning, based upon experience, observation and experiment. For instance in the examples given above, we could not truthfully assert our belief that: "All horses are animals" unless we had previously studied both the horse and animals in general. Nor without this study could we state that "Dobbin is a horse." Nor could we, without previous study, experience and experiment truthfully assert that: "All mushrooms are good to eat;" or that "this fungus is a mushroom;" and that "therefore, this fungus is good to eat." Even as it is, we must be sure that the fungus really is a mushroom, else we run a risk of poisoning ourselves. General truths of this kind are not intuitive, by any means, but are based upon our own experience or the experience of others.

There is a class of general truths which are called intuitive by some authorities. Halleck says of these: "Some psychologists claim that we have knowledge obtained neither through induction nor deduction; that we recognize certain truths the moment we perceive certain objects, without any process of inference. Under the head of intuitive knowledge are classified such cases as the following: We perceive an object and immediately know that it is a time relation, as existing now and then. We are said to have an intuitive concept of time. When we are told that the whole is greater than a part; that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other; that a straight line cannot enclose space, we immediately, or intuitively, recognize the truth of these statements. Attempts at proof do not make us feel surer of their truth.... We say that it is self-evident, or that we know the fact intuitively. The axioms of mathematics and logic are said to be intuitive."

Another class of authorities, however, deny the nature of intuitive knowledge of truth, or intuitive truths. They claim that all our ideas arise from sensation and reflection, and that what we call "intuition" is merely the result of sensation and reflection reproduced by memory or heredity. They hold that the intuitions of animals and men are simply the representation of experiences of the race, or individual, arising from the impressions stored away in the subconsciousness of the individual. Halleck states regarding this: "This school likens intuition to instinct. It grants that the young duck knows water instinctively, plunges into it, and swims without learning. These psychologists believe that there was a time when this was not the case with the progenitors of the duck. They had to gain this knowledge slowly through experience. Those that learned the proper aquatic lesson survived and transmitted this knowledge through a modified structure, to their progeny. Those that failed in the lesson perished in the struggle for existence.... This school claims that the intuition of cause and effect arose in the same way. Generations of human beings have seen the cause invariably joined to the effect; hence, through inseparable association came the recognition of their necessary sequence. The tendency to regard all phenomena in these relations was with steadily increasing force transmitted by the laws of heredity to posterity, until the recognition of the relationship has become an intuition."

Another class of general truths is merely hypothetical. Hypothetical means "Founded on or including a hypothesis or supposition; assumed or taken for granted, though not proved, for the purpose of deducing proofs of a point in question." The hypotheses and theories of physical science are used as general truths for deductive reasoning. Hypothetical general truths are in the nature of premises assumed in order to proceed with the process of Deductive Reasoning, and without which such reasoning would be impossible. They are, however, as a rule not mere assumptions, but are rather in the nature of assumptions rendered plausible by experience, experiment and Inductive Reasoning. The Law of Gravitation may be considered hypothetical, and yet it is the result of Inductive Reasoning based upon a vast multitude of facts and phenomena.

The Primary Basis of Deductive Reasoning may be said to rest upon the logical axiom, which has come down to us from the ancients, and which is stated as follows: "Whatever is true of the whole is true of its parts." Or, as later authorities have expressed it: "Whatever is true of the general is true of the particular." This axiom is the basis upon which we build our Deductive Reasoning. It furnishes us with the validity of the deductive inference or argument. If we are challenged for proof of the statement that "This fungus is good to eat," we are able to answer that we are justified in making the statement by the self-evident proposition, or axiom, that "Whatever is true of the general is true of the particular." If the general "mushroom" is good to eat, then the particular, "this fungus" being a mushroom, must also be good to eat. All horses (general) being animals, then according to the axiom, Dobbin (particular horse) must also be an animal.

This axiom has been stated in various terms other than those stated above. For instance: "Whatever may be affirmed or denied of the whole, may be denied or affirmed of the parts;" which form is evidently derived from that used by Hamilton who said: "What belongs, or does not belong, to the containing whole, belongs or does not belong, to each of the contained parts." Aristotle formulated his celebrated Dictum as follows: "Whatever can be predicated affirmatively or negatively of any class or term distributed, can be predicated in like manner of all and singular the classes or individuals contained under it."

There is another form of Deductive Reasoning, that is a form based upon another axiom than that of: "Whatever is true of the whole is true of the parts." This form of reasoning is sometimes called Mathematical Reasoning, because it is the form of reasoning employed in mathematics. Its axiom is stated as follows: "Things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to one another." It will be seen that this is the principle employed in mathematics. Thus: "x equals y; and y equals 5; therefore, x equals 5." Or stated in logical terms: "A equals B; B equals C; therefore, A equals C." Thus it is seen that this form of reasoning, as well as the ordinary form of Deductive Reasoning, is strictly mediate, that is, made through the medium of a third thing, or "two things being compared through their relation to a third."

Brooks states: "The real reason for the certainty of mathematical reasoning may be stated as follows: First, its ideas are definite, necessary, and exact conceptions of quantity. Second, its definitions, as the description of these ideas are necessary, exact, and indisputable truths. Third, the axioms from which we derive conclusions by comparison are all self-evident and necessary truths. Comparing these exact ideas by the necessary laws of inference, the result must be absolutely true. Or, stated in another way, using these definitions and axioms as the premises of a syllogism, the conclusion follows inevitably. There is no place or opportunity for error to creep in to mar or vitiate our derived truths."

In conclusion, we wish to call your attention to a passage from Jevons which is worthy of consideration and recollection. Jevons says: "There is a simple rule which will enable us to test the truth of a great many arguments, even of many which do not come under any of the rules commonly given in books on logic. This rule is that whatever is true of one term is true of any term which is stated to be the same in meaning as that term. In other words, we may always substitute one term for another if we know that they refer to exactly the same thing. There is no doubt that a horse is some animal, and therefore the head of a horse is the head of some animal. This argument cannot be brought under the rules of the syllogism, because it contains four distinct logical terms in two propositions; namely, horse, some animal; head of horse, head of some animal. But it easily comes under the rule which I have given, because we have simply to put 'some animal' instead of 'a horse'. A great many arguments may be explained in this way. Gold is a metal; therefore a piece of gold is a piece of metal. A negro is a fellow creature; therefore, he who strikes a negro, strikes a fellow creature."

The same eminent authority says: "When we examine carefully enough the way in which we reason, it will be found in every case to consist in putting one thing or term in place of another, to which we know it to have an exact resemblance in some respect. We use the likeness as a kind of bridge, which leads us from a knowledge of one thing to a knowledge of another; thus the true principle of reasoning may be called the substitution of similars, or the passing from like to like. We infer the character of one thing from the character of something which acts as a go-between, or third term. When we are certain there is an exact likeness, our inference is certain; when we only believe that there probably is, or guess that there is, then our inferences are only probable, not certain."

CHAPTER XVI.
THE SYLLOGISM

The process of reasoning which gives rise to the expression of the argument in the form of a Syllogism must be understood if one wishes to form a clear conception of the Syllogism. The process itself is very simple when plainly stated, although the beginner is sometimes puzzled by the complicated definitions and statements of the authorities. Let us suppose that we have three objects, A, B and C, respectively. We wish to compare C and B, but fail to establish a relation between them at first. We however are able to establish a relation between A and B; and between C and A. We thus have the two propositions (1) "A equals B; and (2) C equals A". The next step is that of inferring that "if A equals B, and C equals A, then it must follow, logically, that C equals B." This process is that of indirect or mediate comparison, rather than immediate. C and B are not compared directly or immediately, but indirectly and through the medium of A. A is thus said to mediate between B and C.

This process of reasoning embraces three ideas or objects of thought, in their expression of propositions. It comprises the fundamental or elemental form of reasoning. As Brooks says: "The simplest movement of the reasoning process is the comparing of two objects through their relation to a third." The result of this process is an argument expressed in what is called a Syllogism. Whately says that: "A Syllogism is an argument expressed in strict logical form so that its conclusiveness is manifest from the structure of the expression alone, without any regard to the meaning of the terms." Brooks says: "All reasoning can be and naturally is expressed in the form of the syllogism. It applies to both inductive and deductive reasoning, and is the form in which these processes are presented. Its importance as an instrument of thought requires that it receive special notice."

In order that the nature and use of the Syllogism may be clearly understood, we can do no better than to at once present for your consideration the well-known "Rules of the Syllogism," an understanding of which carries with it a perfect comprehension of the Syllogism itself.

The Rules of the Syllogism state that in order for a Syllogism to be a perfect Syllogism, it is necessary:

I. That there should be three, and no more than three, Propositions. These three propositions are: (1) the Conclusion, or thing to be proved; and (2 and 3) the Premises, or the means of proving the Conclusion, and which are called the Major Premise and Minor Premise, respectively. We may understand this more clearly if we will examine the following example:

Major Premise: "Man is mortal;" (or "A is B").

Minor Premise: "Socrates is a man;" (or "C is A"). Therefore:

Conclusion: "Socrates is mortal" (or "C is B").

It will be seen that the above Syllogism, whether expressed in words or symbols, is logically valid, because the conclusion must logically follow the premises. And, in this case, the premises being true, it must follow that the conclusion is true. Whately says: "A Syllogism is said to be valid when the conclusion logically follows from the premises; if the conclusion does not so follow, the Syllogism is invalid and constitutes a Fallacy, if the error deceives the reasoner himself; but if it is advanced with the idea of deceiving others it constitutes a Sophism."

The reason for Rule I is that only three propositions—a Major Premise, a Minor Premise, and a Conclusion—are needed to form a Syllogism. If we have more than three propositions, then we must have more than two premises from which to draw one conclusion. The presence of more than two premises would result in the formation of two or more Syllogisms, or else in the failure to form a Syllogism.

II. That there should be three and no more than three Terms. These Terms are (1) The Predicate of the Conclusion; (2) the Subject of the Conclusion; and (3) the Middle Term which must occur in both premises, being the connecting link in bringing the two other Terms together in the Conclusion.

The Predicate of the Conclusion is called the Major Term, because it is the greatest in extension compared with its fellow terms. The Subject of the Conclusion is called the Minor Term because it is the smallest in extension compared with its fellow terms. The Major and Minor Terms are called the Extremes. The Middle Term operates between the two Extremes.

The Major Term and the Middle Term must appear in the Major Premise.

The Minor Term and the Middle Term must appear in the Minor Premise.

The Minor Term and the Major Term must appear in the Conclusion.

Thus we see that The Major Term must be the Predicate of the Conclusion; the Minor Term the Subject of the Conclusion; the Middle Term may be the Subject or Predicate of either of the premises, but must always be found once in both premises.

The following example will show this arrangement more clearly:

In the Syllogism: "Man is mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal," we have the following arrangement: "Mortal," the Major Term; "Socrates," the Minor Term; and "Man," the Middle Term; as follows:

Major Premise: "Man" (middle term) is mortal (major term).

Minor Premise: "Socrates" (minor term) is a man (major term).

Conclusion: "Socrates" (minor term) is mortal (major term).

The reason for the rule that there shall be "only three" terms is that reasoning consists in comparing two terms with each other through the medium of a third term. There must be three terms; if there are more than three terms, we form two syllogisms instead of one.

III. That one premise, at least, must be affirmative. This, because "from two negative propositions nothing can be inferred." A negative proposition asserts that two things differ, and if we have two propositions so asserting difference, we can infer nothing from them. If our Syllogism stated that: (1) "Man is not mortal;" and (2) that "Socrates is not a man;" we could form no Conclusion, either that Socrates was or was not mortal. There would be no logical connection between the two premises, and therefore no Conclusion could be deduced therefrom. Therefore, at least one premise must be affirmative.

IV. If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. This because "if one term agrees and another disagrees with a third term, they must disagree with each other." Thus if our Syllogism stated that: (1) "Man is not mortal;" and (2) that: "Socrates is a man;" we must announce the Negative Conclusion that: (3) "Socrates is not mortal."

V. That the Middle Term must be distributed; (that is, taken universally) in at least one premise. This "because, otherwise, the Major Term may be compared with one part of the Middle Term, and the Minor Term with another part of the latter; and there will be actually no common Middle Term, and consequently no common ground for an inference." The violation of this rule causes what is commonly known as "The Undistributed Middle," a celebrated Fallacy condemned by the logicians. In the Syllogism mentioned as an example in this chapter, the proposition "Man is mortal," really means "All men," that is, Man in his universal sense. Literally the proposition is "All men are mortal," from which it is seen that Socrates being "a man" (or some of all men) must partake of the quality of the universal Man. If the Syllogism, instead, read: "Some men are mortal," it would not follow that Socrates must be mortal—he might or might not be so. Another form of this fallacy is shown in the statement that (1) White is a color; (2) Black is a color; hence (3) Black must be White. The two premises really mean "White is some color; Black is some color;" and not that either is "all colors." Another example is: "Men are bipeds; birds are bipeds; hence, men are birds." In this example "bipeds" is not distributed as "all bipeds" but is simply not-distributed as "some bipeds." These syllogisms, therefore, not being according to rule, must fail. They are not true syllogisms, and constitute fallacies.

To be "distributed," the Middle Term must be the Subject of a Universal Proposition, or the Predicate of a Negative Proposition; to be "undistributed" it must be the Subject of a Particular Proposition, or the Predicate of an Affirmative Proposition. (See chapter on Propositions.)

VI. That an extreme, if undistributed in a Premise, may not be distributed in the Conclusion. This because it would be illogical and unreasonable to assert more in the conclusion than we find in the premises. It would be most illogical to argue that: (1) "All horses are animals; (2) no man is a horse; therefore (3) no man is an animal." The conclusion would be invalid, because the term animal is distributed in the conclusion, (being the predicate of a negative proposition) while it is not distributed in the premise (being the predicate of an affirmative proposition).

As we have said before, any Syllogism which violates any of the above six syllogisms is invalid and a fallacy.

There are two additional rules which may be called derivative. Any syllogism which violates either of these two derivative rules, also violates one or more of the first six rules as given above in detail.

The Two Derivative Rules of the Syllogism are as follows:

VII. That one Premise at least must be Universal. This because "from two particular premises no conclusion can be drawn."

VIII. That if one premise is Particular, the Conclusion must be particular also. This because only a universal conclusion can be drawn from two universal premises.

The principles involved in these two Derivative Rules may be tested by stating Syllogisms violating them. They contain the essence of the other rules, and every syllogism which breaks them will be found to also break one or more of the other rules given.

CHAPTER XVII.
VARIETIES OF SYLLOGISMS

The authorities in Logic hold that with the four kinds of propositions grouped in every possible order of arrangement, it is possible to form nineteen different kinds of valid arguments, which are called the nineteen moods of the syllogism. These are classified by division into what are called the four figures, each of which figures may be known by the position of the middle term in the premises. Logicians have arranged elaborate and curious tables constructed to show what kinds of propositions when joined in a particular order of arrangement will make sound and valid syllogisms. We shall not set forth these tables here, as they are too technical for a popular presentation of the subject before us, and because they are not necessary to the student who will thoroughly familiarize himself with the above stated Laws of the Syllogism and who will therefore be able to determine in every case whether any given argument is a correct syllogism, or otherwise.

In many instances of ordinary thought and expression the complete syllogistic form is omitted, or not stated at full length. It is common usage to omit one premise of a syllogism, in ordinary expression, the missing premise being inferred by the speaker and hearer. A syllogism with one premise unexpressed is sometimes called an Enthymene, the term meaning "in the mind." For instance, the following: "We are a free people, therefore we are happy," the major premise "All free people are happy" being omitted or unexpressed. Also in "Poets are imaginative, therefore Byron was imaginative," the minor premise "Byron was a poet" is omitted or unexpressed. Jevons says regarding this phase of the subject: "Thus in the Sermon on the Mount, the verses known as the Beatitudes consist each of one premise and a conclusion, and the conclusion is put first. 'Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.' The subject and the predicate of the conclusion are here inverted, so that the proposition is really 'The merciful are blessed.' It is evidently understood that 'All who shall obtain mercy are blessed,' so that the syllogism, when stated at full length, becomes: 'All who shall obtain mercy are blessed; All who are merciful shall obtain mercy; Therefore, all who are merciful are blessed.' This is a perfectly good syllogism."

Whenever we find any of the words: "because, for, therefore, since," or similar terms, we may know that there is an argument, and usually a syllogism.

We have seen that there are three special kinds of Propositions, namely, (1) Categorical Propositions, or propositions in which the affirmation or denial is made without reservation or qualification; (2) Hypothetical Propositions, in which the affirmation or denial is made to depend upon certain conditions, circumstances, or suppositions; and (3) Disjunctive Propositions, in which is implied or asserted an alternative.

The forms of reasoning based upon these three several classes of propositions bear the same names as the latter. And, accordingly the respective syllogisms expressing these forms of reasoning also bear the class name or term. Thus, a Categorical Syllogism is one containing only categorical propositions; a Hypothetical Syllogism is one containing one or more hypothetical propositions; a Disjunctive Syllogism is one containing a disjunctive proposition in the major premise.

Categorical Syllogisms, which are far more common than the other two kinds, have been considered in the previous chapter, and the majority of the examples of syllogisms given in this book are of this kind. In a Categorical Syllogism the statement or denial is made positively, and without reservation or qualification, and the reasoning thereupon partakes of the same positive character. In propositions or syllogisms of this kind it is asserted or assumed that the premise is true and correct, and, if the reasoning be logically correct it must follow that the conclusion is correct, and the new proposition springing therefrom must likewise be Categorical in its nature.

Hypothetical Syllogisms, on the contrary, have as one or more of their premises a hypothetical proposition which affirms or asserts something provided, or "if," something else be true. Hyslop says of this: "Often we wish first to bring out, if only conditionally, the truth upon which a proposition rests, so as to see if the connection between this conclusion and the major premise be admitted. The whole question will then depend upon the matter of treating the minor premise. This has the advantage of getting the major premise admitted without the formal procedure of proof, and the minor premise is usually more easily proved than the major. Consequently, one is made to see more clearly the force of the argument or reasoning by removing the question of the material truth of the major premise and concentrating attention upon the relation between the conclusion and its conditions, so that we know clearly what we have first to deny if we do not wish to accept it."

By joining a hypothetical proposition with an ordinary proposition we create a Hypothetical Proposition. For instance: "If York contains a cathedral it is a city; York does contain a cathedral; therefore, York is a city." Or: "If dogs have four feet, they are quadrupeds; dogs do have four feet; therefore dogs are quadrupeds." The Hypothetical Syllogism may be either affirmative or negative; that is, its hypothetical proposition may either hypothetically affirm or hypothetically deny. The part of the premise of a Hypothetical Syllogism which conditions or questions (and which usually contains the little word "if") is called the Antecedent. The major premise is the one usually thus conditioned. The other part of the conditioned proposition, and which part states what will happen or is true under the conditional circumstances, is called the Consequent. Thus, in one of the above examples: "If dogs have four feet" is the Antecedent; and the remainder of the proposition: "they are quadrupeds" is the Consequent. The Antecedent is indicated by the presence of some conditional term as: if, supposing, granted that, provided that, although, had, were, etc., the general sense and meaning of such terms being that of the little word "if." The Consequent has no special indicating term.

Jevons gives the following clear and simple Rules regarding the Hypothetical Syllogism:

I. "If the Antecedent be affirmed, the consequent may be affirmed. If the Consequent be denied, the Antecedent may be denied."

II. "Avoid the fallacy of affirming the consequent, or denying the antecedent. This is a fallacy because of the fact that the conditional statement made in the major premise may not be the only one determining the consequent." The following is an example of "Affirming the Consequent:" "If it is raining, the sky is overclouded; the sky is overclouded; therefore, it is raining." In truth, the sky may be overclouded, and still it may not be raining. The fallacy is still more apparent when expressed in symbols, as follows: "If A is B, C is D; C is D; therefore, A is B." The fallacy of denying the Antecedent is shown by the following example: "If Radium were cheap it would be useful; Radium is not cheap; therefore Radium is not useful." Or, expressed in symbols: "If A is B, C is D; A is not B; therefore C is not D." In truth Radium may be useful although not cheap. Jevons gives the following examples of these fallacies: "If a man is a good teacher, he thoroughly understands his subject; but John Jones thoroughly understands his subject; therefore, he is a good teacher." Also, "If snow is mixed with salt it melts; the snow on the ground is not mixed with salt; therefore it does not melt."

Jevons says: "To affirm the consequent and then to infer that we can affirm the antecedent, is as bad as breaking the third rule of the syllogism, and allowing an undistributed middle term.... To deny the antecedent is really to break the fourth rule of the syllogism, and to take a term as distributed in the conclusion which was not so in the premises."

Hypothetical Syllogisms may usually be easily reduced to or converted into Categorical Syllogisms. As Jevons says: "In reality, hypothetical propositions and syllogisms are not different from those which we have more fully considered. It is all a matter of the convenience of stating the propositions." For instance, instead of saying: "If Radium were cheap, it would be useful," we may say "Cheap Radium would be useful;" or instead of saying: "If glass is thin, it breaks easily," we may say "Thin glass breaks easily." Hyslop gives the following Rule for Conversion in such cases: "Regard the antecedent of the hypothetical proposition as the subject of the categorical, and the consequent of the hypothetical proposition as the predicate of the categorical. In some cases this change is a very simple one; in others it can be effected only by a circumlocution."

The third class of syllogisms, known as The Disjunctive Syllogism, is the exception to the law which holds that all good syllogisms must fit in and come under the Rules of the Syllogism, as stated in the preceding chapter. Not only does it refuse to obey these Rules, but it fails to resemble the ordinary syllogism in many ways. As Jevons says: "It would be a great mistake to suppose that all good logical arguments must obey the rules of the syllogism, which we have been considering. Only those arguments which connect two terms together by means of a middle term, and are therefore syllogisms, need obey these rules. A great many of the arguments which we daily use are of this nature; but there are a great many other kinds of arguments, some of which have never been understood by logicians until recent years. One important kind of argument is known as the Disjunctive Syllogism, though it does not obey the rules of the syllogism, or in any way resemble syllogisms."

The Disjunctive Syllogism is one having a disjunctive proposition in its major premise. The disjunctive proposition also appears in the conclusion when the disjunction in the major premise happens to contain more than two terms. A disjunctive proposition, we have seen, is one which possesses alternative predicates for the subject in which the conjunction "or" (sometimes accompanied by "either") appears. As for instance: "Lightning is sheet or forked;" or, "Arches are either round or pointed;" or, "Angles are either obtuse, or right angled, or acute." The different things joined together by "or" are called Alternatives, the term indicating that we may choose between the things, and that if one will not answer our purpose we may take the other, or one of the others if there be more than one other.

The Rule regarding the Use of Disjunctive Syllogisms is that: "If one or more alternatives be denied, the rest may still be affirmed." Thus if we say that "A is B or C," or that "A is either B or C," we may deny the B but still affirm the C. Some authorities also hold that "If we affirm one alternative, we must deny the remainder," but this view is vigorously disputed by other authorities. It would seem to be a valid rule in cases where the term "either" appears as: "A is either B or C," because there seems to be an implication that one or the other alone can be true. But in cases like: "A is B or C," there may be a possibility of both being true. Jevons takes this latter view, giving as an example the proposition: "A Magistrate is a Justice-of-the-Peace, a Mayor, or a Stipendiary Magistrate," but it does not follow that one who is a Justice-of-the-Peace may not be at the same time a Mayor. He states: "After affirming one alternative we can only deny the others if there be such a difference between them that they could not be true at the same time." It would seem that both contentions are at the same time true, the example given by Jevons illustrating his contention, and the proposition "The prisoner is either guilty or innocent" illustrating the contentions of the other side.

A Dilemma is a conditional syllogism whose Major Premise presents some sort of alternative. Whately defines it as: "A conditional syllogism with two or more antecedents in the major, and a disjunctive minor." There being two mutually exclusive propositions in the Major Premise, the reasoner is compelled to admit one or the other, and is then caught between "the two horns of the dilemma."

CHAPTER XVIII.
REASONING BY ANALOGY

Jevons states the Rule for Reasoning by Analogy, as follows: "If two or more things resemble each other in many points, they will probably resemble each other also in more points." Others have stated the same principle as follows: "When one thing resembles another in known particulars, it will resemble it also in the unknown;" and "If two things agree in several particulars, they will also agree in other particulars."

There is a difference between generalization by induction, and by analogy. In inductive generalization the rule is: "What is true of the many is true of all;" while the rule of analogy is: "things that have some things in common have other things in common." As Jevons aptly remarks: "Reasoning by Analogy differs only in degree from that kind of reasoning called 'Generalization.' When many things resemble each other in a few properties, we argue about them by Generalization. When a few things resemble each other in many properties, it is a case of analogy." Illustrating Analogy, we may say that if in A we find the qualities, attributes or properties called a, b, c, d, e, f, g, respectively, and if we find that in B the qualities, etc., called a, b, c, d, e, respectively, are present, then we may reason by analogy that the qualities f and g must also belong to B.

Brooks says of this form of reasoning: "This principle is in constant application in ordinary life and in science. A physician, in visiting a patient, says this disease corresponds in several particulars with typhoid fever, hence it will correspond in all particulars, and is typhoid fever. So, when the geologist discovers a fossil animal with large, strong, blunt claws, he infers that it procured its food by scratching or burrowing in the earth. It was by analogy that Dr. Buckland constructed an animal from a few fossil bones, and when subsequently the bones of the entire animal were discovered, his construction was found to be correct." Halleck says: "In argument or reasoning we are much aided by the habit of searching for hidden resemblances.... The detection of such a relation cultivates thought. If we are to succeed in argument, we must develop what some call a sixth sense of such relations.... The study of poetry may be made very serviceable in detecting analogies and cultivating the reasoning powers. When the poet brings clearly to mind the change due to death, using as an illustration the caterpillar body transformed into the butterfly spirit, moving with winged ease over flowering meadows, he is cultivating our apprehension of relations, none the less valuable because they are beautiful."

But the student must be on guard against the deceptive conclusions sometimes arising from Reasoning by Analogy. As Jevons says: "In many cases Reasoning by Analogy is found to be a very uncertain guide. In some cases unfortunate mistakes are made. Children are sometimes killed by gathering and eating poisonous berries, wrongly inferring that they can be eaten, because other berries, of a somewhat similar appearance, have been found agreeable and harmless. Poisonous toadstools are occasionally mistaken for mushrooms, especially by people not accustomed to gathering them. In Norway mushrooms are seldom seen, and are not eaten; but when I once found a few there and had them cooked at an inn, I was amused by the people of the inn, who went and collected toadstools and wanted me to eat them also. This was clearly a case of mistaken reasoning by analogy. Even brute animals reason in the same way in some degree. The beaten dog fears every stick, and there are few dogs which will not run away when you pretend to pick up a stone, even if there be no stone to pick up." Halleck says: "Many false analogies are manufactured, and it is excellent thought training to expose them. The majority of people think so little that they swallow these false analogies just as newly fledged robins swallow small stones dropped into their open mouths.... This tendency to think as others do must be resisted somewhere along the line, or there can be no progress." Brooks says: "The argument from Analogy is plausible, but often deceptive. Thus to infer that since American swans are white, the Australian swan is white, gives a false conclusion, for it is really black. So to infer that because John Smith has a red nose and is a drunkard, then Henry Jones who also has a red nose is also a drunkard, would be a dangerous inference.... Conclusions of this kind drawn from analogy are frequently fallacious."

Regarding the Rule for Reasoning from Analogy, Jevons says: "There is no way in which we can really assure ourselves that we are arguing safely by analogy. The only rule that can be given is this; that the more closely two things resemble each other, the more likely it is that they are the same in other respects, especially in points closely connected with those observed.... In order to be clear about our conclusions, we ought in fact never to rest satisfied with mere analogy, but ought to try to discover the general laws governing the case. In analogy we seem to reason from one fact to another fact without troubling ourselves either with deduction or induction. But it is only by a kind of guess that we do so; it is not really conclusive reasoning. We ought properly to ascertain what general laws of nature are shown to exist by the facts observed, and then infer what will happen according to these laws.... We find that reasoning by analogy is not to be depended upon, unless we make such an inquiry into the causes and laws of the things in question, that we really employ inductive and deductive reasoning."

Along the same lines, Brooks says: "The inference from analogy, like that from induction, should be used with caution. Its conclusion must not be regarded as certain, but merely as reaching a high degree of probability. The inference from a part to a part, no more than from a part to the whole, is attended with any rational necessity. To attain certainty, we must show that the principles which lie at the root of the process are either necessary laws of thought or necessary laws of nature; both of which are impossible. Hence analogy can pretend to only a high degree of probability. It may even reach a large degree of certainty, but it never reaches necessity. We must, therefore, be careful not to accept any inference from analogy as true until it is proved to be true by actual observation and experiment, or by such an application of induction as to remove all reasonable doubt."

CHAPTER XIX.
FALLACIES

Fallacious Premise is in effect an unwarranted assumption of premises. One of the most common forms of this kind of Fallacy is known as "Begging the Question," the principle of which is the assumption of a fundamental premise which is not conceded; the unwarrantable assumption of that which is to be proved; or the assumption of that by which it is to be proved, without proving it. Its most common form is that of boldly stating some unproven fact, authoritatively and positively, and then proceeding to use the statement as the major premise of the argument, proceeding logically from that point. The hearer perceiving the argument proceeding logically often fails to remember that the premise has been merely assumed, without warrant and without proof and omitting the hypothetical "if." One may proceed to argue logically from the premise that "The moon is made of green cheese," but the whole argument is invalid and fallacious because of the fact that the person making it has "begged the question" upon an unwarranted premise. Hyslop gives a good example of this form of fallacy in the case of the proposition "Church and State should be united." Proof being demanded the advocate proceeds to "beg the question" as follows: "Good institutions should be united; Church and State are good institutions; therefore, Church and State should be united." The proposition that "Good institutions should be united" is fallacious, being merely assumed and not proven. The proposition sounds reasonable, and few will feel disposed to dispute it at first, but a little consideration will show that while some good institutions may well be united, it is not a general truth that all should be so.

"Begging the Question" also often arises from giving a name to a thing, and then assuming that we have explained the thing. This is a very frequent practice with many people—they try to explain by merely applying names. An example of this kind is had in the case of the person who tried to explain why one could see through a pane of glass by saying "because it is transparent." Or when one explains that the reason a certain substance breaks easily is "because it is brittle." Moliere makes the father of a dumb girl ask why his daughter is dumb. The physician answers: "Nothing is more easy than to explain it; it comes from her having lost the power of speech." "Yes, yes," objects the father, "but the cause, if you please, why she has lost the power of speech." The physician gravely replies: "All our best authors will tell you that it is the impeding of the action of the tongue."

Jevons says: "The most frequent way, perhaps, in which we commit this kind of fallacy is to employ names which imply that we disapprove of something, and then argue that because it is such and such, it must be condemned. When two sportsmen fall out in some manner relating to the subject of game, one will, in all probability, argue that the act of the other was 'unsportsmanlike,' and therefore should not have been done. Here is to all appearance a correct syllogism:

"No unsportsmanlike act should be done; John Robinson's act was unsportsmanlike: Therefore, John Robinson's act should not have been done.

"This is quite correct in form; but it is evidently the mere semblance of an argument. 'Unsportsmanlike' means what a sportsman should not do. The point to be argued was whether the act fell within the customary definition of what was unsportsmanlike."

Arising from "Begging the Question," and in fact a class of the latter, is what is called "Reasoning in a Circle." In this form of fallacy one assumes as proof of a proposition the proposition itself; or, uses the conclusion to prove the premise. For instance: "This man is a rascal because he is a rogue; and he is a rogue because he is a rascal." Or, "It is warm because it is summer; and it is summer because it is warm." Or "He never drinks to excess, because he is never intemperate in drinking."

Brooks says: "Thus to argue that a party is good because it advocates good measures, and that certain measures are good because they are advocated by so excellent a party, is to reason in a circle. So when persons argue that their church is the true one, because it was established by God, and then argue that since it is the true church it must have been founded by God, they fall into this fallacy. To argue that 'the will is determined by the strongest motive' and to define the strongest motive as 'that which influences the will,' is to revolve in a circle of thought and prove nothing. Plato commits this error when he argues the immortality of the soul from its simplicity, and afterwards attempts to prove its simplicity from its immortality." It needs care to avoid this error, for it is surprising how easily one falls into it. Hyslop says: "The fallacy of Reasoning in a Circle occurs mostly in long arguments where it can be committed without ready detection.... When it occurs in a long discourse it may be committed without easy discovery. It is likely to be occasioned by the use of synonyms which are taken to express more than the conception involved when they do not." What is called a Vicious Circle is caused when the conclusion of one syllogism is used for a proposition in another syllogism, which in its turn comes to be used as a basis for the first or original syllogism.

Fallacious Conclusion is in effect an unwarranted or irrelevant assumption of a logical conclusion. There are many forms of this fallacy among which are the following:

Shifting ground, which consists in the pretence of proving one thing while in reality merely a similar or related thing is being proved. In this class is the argument that because a man is profane he must necessarily be dishonest; or that because a man denies the inspiration of the Scriptures he must be an atheist.

Fallacious Questioning, in which two or more related questions are asked, and the answer of one is then applied to the other. For instance: "You assert that the more civilized a community, the more silk-hats are to be found in it?" "Yes." "Then, you state that silk-hats are the promoters and cause of civilization in a community?" A question of this kind is often so arranged that an answer either in the affirmative or the negative will lead to a false or fallacious inference. For instance, the question once asked a respectable citizen on the witness stand: "Have you stopped beating your mother?" An answer of either "Yes" or "No," was out of the question, for it would have placed the witness in a false position, for he had never beaten his mother, nor been accused of the same.

Partial Proof, in which the proof of a partial or related fact is used to infer a proof of the whole fact or a related one. For instance, it is fallacious to argue that a man has been guilty of drunkenness by merely proving that he was seen entering a saloon.

Appeal to Public Opinion, in which the prejudices of the public are appealed to rather than its judgment or reason. In politics and theological argument this fallacy is frequent. It is no argument, and is reprehensible.

Appeal to Authority, or Reverence, in which the reverence and respect of the public for certain persons is used to influence their feelings in place of their judgment or reason. For instance: "Washington thought so-and-so, and therefore it must be right;" or "It is foolish to affirm that Aristotle erred;" or "It has been believed by men for two thousand years, that, etc;" or "What our fathers believed must be true." Appeals of this kind may have their proper place, but they are fallacies nevertheless, and not real argument.

Appeal to Profession, in which an appeal is made to practices, principles or professions of the opponent, rather than to reason or judgment. Thus we may argue that a certain philosophy or religion cannot be sound or good, because certain people who hold it are not consistent, or not worthy, moral or sober. This argument is often used effectively against an opponent, and is valid against him personally. But it is no valid argument against his philosophy or belief, because he may act in violation of them, or he may change his practices and still adhere to his beliefs—the two are not joined.

Appeal to General Belief, in which an appeal is made to general or universal belief, although the same may be unsupported by proof. This is quite common, but is no real argument. The common opinion may be erroneous, as history proves. A few centuries ago this argument could have been used in favor of the earth being flat, etc. A half-century ago it was used against Darwin. Today it is being used against other new ideas. It is a fallacy by its very nature.

Appeal to Ignorance, in which an appeal is made to the ignorance of the opponent that his conviction may follow from his inability to prove the contrary. It is virtually no argument that: "So-and-so must be true, because you cannot prove that it is not." As Brooks says: "To argue that there is no material world, because we cannot explain how the mind knows it to exist, is the celebrated fallacy of Hume in philosophy. The fact that we cannot find a needle in a haystack is no proof that it is not there."

Introduction of New Matter, also called Non Sequitur, in which matter is introduced into the conclusion that is not in the premises. Hyslop gives the following example of it: "All men are rational; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is noble." De Morgan gives the following more complex example: "Episcopacy is of Scripture origin; The Church of England is the only Episcopal church in England; therefore, the church established is the church that ought to be supported."

Other fallacies, resembling in some respects those above mentioned, are as follows:

Fallacy of Ambiguous Terms, in which different meanings of the same word are used to produce the fallacious argument. As Jevons says: "A word with two distinct meanings is really two words."

Confusion between Collective and General Meanings of a Term, of which Jevons says: "It would be obviously absurd to argue that because all the books in the British Museum Library are sure to give information about King Alfred, therefore any particular book will be sure to give it. By 'all the books in the British Museum Library,' we mean all taken together. There are many other cases where the confusion is not so evident, and where great numbers of people are unable to see the exact difference."

Arguing from the Collective to the General, in which the fallacy consists of arguing that because something is true of the whole of a group of things, therefore it is true of any of those things. Jevons says: "All the soldiers in a regiment may be able to capture a town, but it is absurd to suppose that therefore every soldier in the regiment could capture the town single handed. White sheep eat a great deal more than black sheep; but that is because there are so many more of them."

Uncertain Meaning of a Sentence, from which confusion arises and fallacious argument may spring. Jevons says: "There is a humorous way of proving that a cat must have three tails: Because a cat has one tail more than no cat; and no cat has two tails; therefore, any cat has three tails." Here the fallacy rests upon a punning interpretation of "no."

Proving the Wrong Conclusion, in which the attempt to confuse conclusions is made, with the result that some people will imagine that the case is established. Jevons says: "This was the device of the Irishman, who was charged with theft on the evidence of three witnesses, who had seen him do it; he proposed to call thirty witnesses who had not seen him do it. Equally logical was the defense of the man who was called a materialist, and who replied, 'I am not a materialist; I am a barber.'"