of the sequence, considering that as the cause which is really the effect, and that as the effect which is really the cause. The error of false causation is most apt to occur in those sciences in which there is peculiar difficulty in tracing effects to their true causes, and causes to their true effects. These, as formerly mentioned, are exemplified by medicine and political economy. A physician, for example, ascribes the cure of a patient to a remedy which he has taken, though it perhaps had no influence on his recovery; and a political declaimer refers some circumstance of national distress or commercial embarrassment to certain public measures which happened to correspond in time, but were in fact entirely unconnected. False generalization, again, as was lately stated, includes general principles which are deduced from a limited number of facts; and hypotheses which cannot be shown to be facts, but are entirely fictitious and imaginary. III. FALSE REASONING. This consists either, in applying to the explanation of facts principles which are unsound,-in applying sound principles to facts which have no relation to them, or in deducing conclusions which do not follow from these facts and principles. REASONING is usually divided into two parts, which have been called the intuitive and the discursive. Intuitive reasoning, or intuitive judgment, is when the truth of a proposition is perceived whenever it is announced. This applies to axioms or self-evident truths, and to first truths or fundamental articles of belief, formerly referred to, which rest upon the absolute conviction of the whole mass of mankind. In discursive reasoning, again, some of these axioms or first truths are applied to particular facts, so as to deduce from the connection new conclusions. Thus, when we say that "every event must have an adequate cause," we state a principle of intuitive judgment. When we then collect from the phenomena of nature various examples of adaptation and design, and, applying that intuitive principle to these facts, arrive at the conclusion that the universe is the work of an intelligent and designing First Cause,—this is Examples? Third head? Reasoning, how divided? Intuitive reasoning? Discur sive reasoning? Example of each ? discursive reasoning. The new principle or conclusion thus deduced may be applied in a similar manner to the deduction of farther conclusions, and so on through what we call a chain of reasoning. Any particular piece of reasoning, then, may generally be resolved into the following ele ments : 1. Certain principles or propositions which are stated either as axioms, as first truths, or as deductions from some former process of reasoning. 2. Certain facts or relations of facts, derived either from observation or testimony, which are stated as true, and to which the principles are to be in some manner applied. 3. Certain new conclusions deduced from the application of the principles to the facts. In examining the validity of such a process, we have not only to attend to the correctness of the principles, and the authenticity of the alleged facts, but likewise to inquire whether the facts are of that class to which the principles are legitimately applicable; for the principles may be true, and the facts authentic, and yet the reasoning may be unsound, from the principles being applied to the facts to which they have no relation. This method of examining, separately, the elements of an argument, appears to correspond with the ancient syllogism; and this, accordingly, when divested of its systematic shape, is the mental process which we perform, whenever we either state or examine any piece of reasoning. If ] say, for example, " the greatest kings are mortal, for they are but men;" I appear to state a very simple proposition; but it is in fact a process of reasoning which involves all the elements of the syllogism; namely,— 1. The general fact or proposition that all men are mortal. 2. The fact referable to the class of facts which are included under this proposition, that kings are men. 3. The deduction from this connection, that kings are mortal. Elements of reasoning? Axioms. Facts. Conclusions. Points to be attended to ? Nature of the ancient syllogism. Example of simple reasoning and analysis of it. How many and what parts? For the validity and efficacy of such a process, two things are necessary, namely,— 1. That the general proposition which forms the first part of the statement, or, in logical language, the major proposition, be absolutely and universally true, or true without exception in regard to facts of a certain class, and be admitted as such by those to whom the reasoning is addressed. 2. That the fact referred to it, or the minor proposition, be admitted or proved to be one of that class of facts which are included under the general proposition. The conclusion then follows by a very simple process. If either of the two former propositions be deficient or untrue, the argument is false. Thus, if I had varied the statement as follows," Angels, like other human beings, are mortal;" there is a fallacy which, when put into the syllogistic form, is immediately apparent; thus,— All human beings are mortal, The general or major proposition here is true; but the minor is not one of the class of facts which are included under it; therefore the conclusion is false. If I had said, again, "Angels, like other created beings, are mortal;" the fallacy is equally apparent, though from a different source; thus, All created beings are mortal, Here the minor proposition is true, or is a fact included under the first; but the first, or major, is not true, for we have no ground to believe that all created beings are mortal. On the other hand, when a general fact is assumed as true of a certain class of cases, we must not assume the converse as true of those which are not included in the class; thus, from the proposition, that all human beings are mor What necessary for the validity of the process? The syllogistic form rendering false reasoning apparent. Example. Names of the propositions? tal, we are not entitled to infer that angels, who are not human beings, are immortal. 'Whether this conclusion be true or not, the argument is false; because the conclusion does not arise out of the premises;-for, from the admitted general fact, that human beings are mortal, it does not follow, that all who are not human beings are not mortal. Yet this will be found a mode of fallacious reasoning of very frequent occurrence. The rule to be kept in mind for avoiding such fallacies is,—that a general truth, which applies invariably to a certain class, may be applied to any individual which can be shown to be included in that class; but that we are not entitled to extend it to any which cannot be shown to belong to the class; and that we are not to assume the reverse to be true of those which do not belong to it. On the other hand, we are not to assume a property as belonging to a class, because we have ascertained it to belong to a certain number of individuals. This error comes under another part of our subject, and has been already alluded to under the head of false generalization. The syllogism, therefore, cannot properly be considered an engine for the discovery of truth, but rather for enabling us to judge of the application of, and deductions from truths previously ascertained. For, before we can construct such a process as constitutes the syllogism, we require to have premised that most important process of investigation by which a fact is ascertained to be general in regard to all the individuals of a class; and, likewise, that certain individuals specified in the argument belong to this class. Thus, the syllogism was nothing more than that process of mind which we exercise every time when we examine the validity of an argument, though we may not always put it into this systematic form. And yet there may often be advantage in doing so, as it enables us to examine the elements of the arguments more distinctly apart. It is related of an eminent English barrister, afterward a distinguished judge, that, on one occasion, he was completely puzzled by an argument adduced by his opponent in an important case, and that he did not detect the fallacy till he went home and put it into the form of a syllogism. Though General rules in all such reasoning? Real nature of the syllogism? Advantage of it? Anecdote of the English lawyer. a syllogism, therefore, may not lead to any discovery of truth, it may be an important instrument in the detection of sophistry, by directing the attention distinctly and separately to the various elements which compose a statement or an argument, and enabling us to detect the part in which the sophistry is involved. In every process of reasoning there are two distinct objects of attention, or circumstances to be examined, before we admit the validity of the argument. These are,--the premises or data which the reasoner assumes, and which he expects us to admit as true, and the conclusions which he proposes to found upon these premises. The premises again consist of three parts, which we require to examine sepa rately and rigidly. These are,— 1. Certain statements which he brings forward as facts, and which he expects to be admitted as such. 2. Certain principles or propositions which he assumes as first truths, or articles of belief universally admitted. 3. Certain other propositions which he refers to, as deductions from former processes of investigation, or processes of reasoning. If the statements referable to these three heads are admitted as true, the argument proceeds, and we have only to judge of the validity or correctness of his farther deductions. If they are not at once admitted, the argument cannot proceed till we are satisfied on these preliminary points. If we do not admit his facts, we require him to go back to the evidence on which they rést. If we no not admit the general propositions which he assumes, we require the processes of reasoning or investigation on which these are founded. When we are at last agreed upon these premises, we proceed to judge of the conclusions which he proposes to deduce from them. The circumstances now referred to may be considered as the essential parts of a process of reasoning, in a logical view; but there is another point which we require to keep carefully in mind in examining such a process, and that is, Utility of the syllogism? Objects of attention in reasoning? How many and what? Premises; how many parts? Examination of these premises? Use of terms. |