Latest / THE SECRET LAW OF ATTRACTION: Manifest Wealth, Success & Abundance / REASONING POWER - PRACTICAL LOGIC: Mastering the Art of Clear Thinking - William Walker Atkinson

Transcript

REASONING POWER - PRACTICAL LOGIC: Mastering the Art of Clear Thinking - William Walker Atkinson · THE SECRET LAW OF ATTRACTION: Manifest Wealth, Success & Abundance

0:00
Speaker 1: Reasoning Power. Practical Logic by William Walker Atkinson, nineteen twenty two.
0:07
Speaker 1: Practical Logic. In this book, you are asked to consider
0:11
Speaker 1: that wonderful phase of personal power known as reasoning power,
0:15
Speaker 1: and to include in such consideration the principles of practical logic.
0:20
Speaker 1: In the practical instruction which is set forth in the
0:22
Speaker 1: series of books of which the present volume is one,
0:25
Speaker 1: personal power is regarded as being a phase of the
0:28
Speaker 1: expression and manifestation of power, i e. The all power
0:32
Speaker 1: from which all forms and phases of particular power directly
0:35
Speaker 1: or indirectly procede. Reason is the activity of the highest
0:39
Speaker 1: faculties of cognition, thought, understanding, and knowledge. It is the
0:44
Speaker 1: highest process of the intellect, the thinking faculty, the faculty
0:48
Speaker 1: of understanding, the faculty of knowing. Reasoning proceeds by logical
0:53
Speaker 1: processes even when the reasoner knows not of formal rules
0:57
Speaker 1: of logic. Logic is the science or art of exact reasoning,
1:02
Speaker 1: or of pure and formal thought, or the laws according
1:05
Speaker 1: to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted.
1:08
Speaker 1: Logic may lie regarded from either of two general viewpoints, viz.
1:13
Speaker 1: One that of formal logic, in which the subject is
1:16
Speaker 1: treated in accordance with the academic technical formal position, or
1:21
Speaker 1: two that of practical logic, in which technical form and
1:24
Speaker 1: academic treatment are largely set aside in favor of the
1:27
Speaker 1: presentation concerned with efficient use, employment, work, utility, and action.
1:33
Speaker 1: In the present consideration, there shall be but little reference
1:36
Speaker 1: to the methods of formal logic. The subject will be
1:39
Speaker 1: presented almost entirely according to the methods of practical logic.
1:44
Speaker 1: Reasoning applied according to the methods of practical logic consists
1:48
Speaker 1: of the processes of consecutive thinking, in which the mind
1:50
Speaker 1: passes before it in review the essential facts concerning a subject,
1:54
Speaker 1: and then, after a careful consideration of their respective characteristics
1:58
Speaker 1: in relations, draws conclusions and makes judgments conformable with truth.
2:04
Speaker 1: Reasoning and practical logic are concerned with the discovery of
2:07
Speaker 1: the truth regarding the existence, nature, and character of any
2:11
Speaker 1: subject or objective thought to which the attention is directed
2:14
Speaker 1: for that purpose. Moreover, they are concerned with the discovery
2:18
Speaker 1: of efficient means, whereby definite ends may be secured and
2:21
Speaker 1: definite results affected. One of the distinguishing characteristics of reasoning
2:26
Speaker 1: according to the methods of practical logic may be expressed
2:29
Speaker 1: by the term purposive effort, i e. Effort directed definitely
2:33
Speaker 1: and with purpose. Reasoning inspired by practical logic must ever
2:38
Speaker 1: be purposive. It must have an aim and end, an intention,
2:42
Speaker 1: object and purpose, and must be inspired and directed by
2:45
Speaker 1: these motives. That aim and end, intention, object, and purpose
2:50
Speaker 1: of reason and practical logic is always found to be
2:53
Speaker 1: the discovery of truth and of facts. When you reason
2:57
Speaker 1: about anything, you do so in order to discover something
3:00
Speaker 1: at present unknown to you. That which you seek is
3:03
Speaker 1: unknown to you, though usually you have a more or
3:06
Speaker 1: less general notion of the direction which the mind must
3:09
Speaker 1: travel in its search for it. You may not know
3:12
Speaker 1: just what you want or just what you hope to find,
3:15
Speaker 1: but you are conscious of the want of a general
3:17
Speaker 1: or particular something, and you have a more or less
3:20
Speaker 1: definite idea of the general class of things to which
3:22
Speaker 1: it belongs and in which it must be sought. The
3:26
Speaker 1: more clearly and definitely you perceive the exact nature of
3:29
Speaker 1: the want, the more definite and determined will be your
3:32
Speaker 1: reasoning leading up to its discovery. It has been well
3:35
Speaker 1: said that all reasoning begins in doubt, that the process
3:39
Speaker 1: of reasoning is always one of problems solving. The occasion
3:42
Speaker 1: for reasoning is always a thwarted purpose. Dot If you
3:47
Speaker 1: are omniscient all knowing, as the absolute or supreme being
3:50
Speaker 1: of philosophy, and in theology always is held to be,
3:53
Speaker 1: then you would never have any need of reasoning, and
3:56
Speaker 1: consequently would never reason at all. This because in such
4:01
Speaker 1: case you would have nothing left about which to reason.
4:03
Speaker 1: You would know all things. Your purpose would never be thwarted,
4:08
Speaker 1: for there would be nothing to thwart it, and nothing
4:10
Speaker 1: by means of which it might be thwarted. You would
4:13
Speaker 1: never be perplexed about anything whatsoever, and would never have
4:16
Speaker 1: to think out or think about anything. Philosophers have held
4:21
Speaker 1: that an omniscient, omnipotent being cannot properly be held to
4:24
Speaker 1: think at all in the form of reasoning. Such a
4:27
Speaker 1: being would transcend reason. It would know everything that is
4:30
Speaker 1: to be known without effort, directly and immediately. Moreover, it
4:35
Speaker 1: would have no thwarted purpose to overcome and remedy by
4:38
Speaker 1: means of reasoning. Reasoning, then, is seen to be a
4:42
Speaker 1: mental power reserved for finite beings who have much to
4:45
Speaker 1: learn and many thwarted purposes to overcome and to remedy
4:49
Speaker 1: and who need to employ reasoning in order to cure
4:52
Speaker 1: such troubles and to remedy such deficiencies. Reasoning power, then
4:57
Speaker 1: is seen to belong to the category of personal power.
5:01
Speaker 1: Logic investigates the processes of reasoning in order one to
5:05
Speaker 1: discover the qualities distinguishing correct thinking, and two to formulate
5:09
Speaker 1: rules and methods whereby invalid thinking may be avoided and
5:13
Speaker 1: valid thinking may be secured. It announces certain basic laws
5:17
Speaker 1: and principles which have been found to govern all valid thinking.
5:21
Speaker 1: It teaches certain rules and methods by means of which
5:23
Speaker 1: valid thinking may be insured and secured and invalid thinking avoided.
5:29
Speaker 1: Formal logic strives to give to the form of logical
5:32
Speaker 1: reasoning the technical scientific accuracy of mathematical formulas. Its teachers
5:37
Speaker 1: have sought to discover and announce logical terms in formulas
5:40
Speaker 1: often of extreme technicality in complexity, which correspond to those
5:44
Speaker 1: employed in higher mathematics. Practical logic, on the contrary, holds
5:50
Speaker 1: that only in a very inadequate way can logic be
5:52
Speaker 1: reduced to algebraic expression. Its teachers seek rather to announce plain,
5:57
Speaker 1: practical rules and methods, whereby the average thinking individual may
6:00
Speaker 1: assure himself that he is pursuing the correct general laws
6:03
Speaker 1: and principles of reasoning, and that he is avoiding the
6:06
Speaker 1: fallacies which beset the road of thought. As we have
6:10
Speaker 1: already told you, we shall have very little to do
6:12
Speaker 1: with formal logic in this book, but we shall have
6:15
Speaker 1: much to do with practical logic. We shall proceed upon
6:19
Speaker 1: the theory that psychology is descriptive, logic is regulative, and
6:23
Speaker 1: corrective reason is creative. The edifice of our instruction is
6:28
Speaker 1: built upon sound foundations, having a strong pillar at each corner.
6:33
Speaker 1: These foundation pillars are as follows, one psychology, two practical logic,
6:39
Speaker 1: three experience, and four common sense. Each pillar has its
6:45
Speaker 1: definite and particular place and purpose in the whole plan,
6:48
Speaker 1: but no one of them would be strong enough to
6:50
Speaker 1: support the structure where the other three removed. It is
6:54
Speaker 1: only when the four elements represented by these pillars are
6:57
Speaker 1: united in strength and harmony of arrangement that the structure
7:00
Speaker 1: is properly supported and scientifically balanced. You probably have desired,
7:06
Speaker 1: at some time in your life at least to learn
7:08
Speaker 1: something concerning the principles of practical logic or logical reasoning.
7:13
Speaker 1: Most persons have felt this desire. Many persons have sought
7:17
Speaker 1: such information in the technical text books of formal logic,
7:20
Speaker 1: but most of them have found in such books chiefly
7:23
Speaker 1: a great disappointment. Instead of practical instruction, they have found strange,
7:28
Speaker 1: mysterious terms instead of practical rules. They have found abstruse
7:33
Speaker 1: artificial formulas, having apparently no relation to everyday life and
7:37
Speaker 1: thought in their requirements. They have asked for the bread
7:41
Speaker 1: of instruction, and have been given the cold stone of
7:43
Speaker 1: formal technical, academic categories and hair splitting distinctions, having no
7:48
Speaker 1: discernible connection with the actual thinking processes of the average man. Many,
7:53
Speaker 1: an eager seeker after the truths of logical thinking, has
7:56
Speaker 1: become discouraged after an experience of this kind. Usibly after
8:00
Speaker 1: several such and has given up all hopes of ever
8:03
Speaker 1: learning anything about the real meaning and use of logic.
8:07
Speaker 1: But we are glad to be able to say there
8:09
Speaker 1: has been, of late years a decided tendency in the
8:12
Speaker 1: direction of bringing down the subject of logic from the
8:14
Speaker 1: region of thin air and extreme coldness in which it
8:17
Speaker 1: has been kept for so long, down to the warmer
8:20
Speaker 1: and more comfortable valleys wherein most of us dwell formal
8:24
Speaker 1: logic is taking its place with the study of the
8:26
Speaker 1: dead languages. Practical logic is taking a place on the
8:30
Speaker 1: level with the study of the living tongues. The pragmatic
8:34
Speaker 1: spirit of modern thought is insisting that the essential, usable,
8:37
Speaker 1: workable elements of logic be separated from its ancient dead
8:41
Speaker 1: forms and be made obtainable in living, practical forms, adapted
8:45
Speaker 1: to the requirements of everyday life. Practical logic is coming
8:49
Speaker 1: to the front, while formal logic, in many cases is
8:52
Speaker 1: being shown out by the back door of practical mental establishments.
8:57
Speaker 1: It has been said that the theory of every operation
9:00
Speaker 1: of the mind is later than its performance. Men were
9:03
Speaker 1: accustomed to think correctly long before they began to reflect
9:06
Speaker 1: upon their thinking faculties and the processes by which their
9:09
Speaker 1: results were obtained. It has also been said that a
9:13
Speaker 1: meager soul can never be made fat, nor a narrow
9:16
Speaker 1: soul be made large by merely studying the rules of thinking.
9:21
Speaker 1: So have your thinking first and plenty to think about,
9:24
Speaker 1: and then ask your logician to teach you how to
9:26
Speaker 1: scrutinize with a nice eye the processes by which you
9:29
Speaker 1: have arrived at your conclusions. The real office of practical
9:33
Speaker 1: logic is largely corrective and regulative. It points out and
9:38
Speaker 1: corrects fallacious reasoning on your part. It enables you to
9:41
Speaker 1: detect fallacious, sophistical, or casuistical reasoning on the part of others.
9:46
Speaker 1: It exercises a direction over your habitual processes of thought,
9:49
Speaker 1: thereby inhibiting a logical forms of thought and supplanting them
9:53
Speaker 1: by true logical forms. If it simply enabled you to
9:56
Speaker 1: detect the false reasoning of other persons and to prevent
10:00
Speaker 1: from being deceived by such, the study of practical logic
10:03
Speaker 1: would be well worth while. In reality, it not only
10:06
Speaker 1: accomplishes this task, but also performs other equally important work
10:10
Speaker 1: for the individual who earnestly studies its principles. There are
10:14
Speaker 1: many persons who have never even heard of the rules
10:17
Speaker 1: and methods of logical reasoning, and who do not know
10:20
Speaker 1: even the meaning of the principal terms employed in that science,
10:23
Speaker 1: but who nevertheless have really been employing these methods with
10:27
Speaker 1: more or less correctness, and observing these rules more or
10:30
Speaker 1: less faithfully during their entire period of life. They are
10:34
Speaker 1: like the man in the French comedy who expressed surprise
10:37
Speaker 1: when informed that he had been talking prose all his life.
10:40
Speaker 1: For said he, I never learned prose, never studied it,
10:44
Speaker 1: never was taught it, never even knew that I was
10:47
Speaker 1: talking it. I must have a remarkable mind. So many
10:51
Speaker 1: would doubtless wonder if informed that they were using logical
10:54
Speaker 1: forms and methods in their thought. They too might think
10:57
Speaker 1: their minds to be wonderful, inasmuch as they had never
11:00
Speaker 1: studied logic and never know that they were employing its
11:03
Speaker 1: methods with more or less success. Jevons says ninety nine
11:07
Speaker 1: people out of one hundred might be surprised on hearing
11:10
Speaker 1: that they had been employing syllogisms in other logical forms,
11:13
Speaker 1: converting propositions, framing hypotheses, and making classifications with genera and species.
11:20
Speaker 1: If asked whether they were logicians, they would probably answer no.
11:25
Speaker 1: They would be partly right, for I believe that a
11:27
Speaker 1: large number, even of educated persons, have no clear idea
11:31
Speaker 1: what logic is. Yet in a certain way, everyone must
11:35
Speaker 1: have been a logician since he began to speak. I
11:38
Speaker 1: may be asked, if indeed we cannot help being logicians,
11:42
Speaker 1: why do we need logic at all? The answer is
11:45
Speaker 1: that there are logicians and logicians. All persons are logicians
11:50
Speaker 1: in some manner or degree. But unfortunately, many persons are
11:54
Speaker 1: bad logicians and suffer harm in consequence. It is just
11:58
Speaker 1: the same in other matters. We must reason well or ill.
12:03
Speaker 1: But logic is the science of reasoning which enables us
12:06
Speaker 1: to distinguish between the good reasoning, which leads to truth,
12:09
Speaker 1: and the bad reasoning, which leads to error and misfortune.
12:13
Speaker 1: The logicians did not invent the essential forms of logic. Instead,
12:17
Speaker 1: they discovered them already in existence and being employed with
12:20
Speaker 1: more or less accuracy and precision by all thinking individuals.
12:25
Speaker 1: The laws of logical thought are not commands announced by
12:28
Speaker 1: some ruling authority. They are merely statements of the way
12:31
Speaker 1: the mind works when it reasons truly inefficiently. They are
12:35
Speaker 1: laws of nature, not laws of men. The laws of
12:38
Speaker 1: practical logic are simply the statements of certain principles and
12:42
Speaker 1: methods observed and applied more or less faithfully and consistently
12:46
Speaker 1: by intelligent men and women when they reason seriously, carefully,
12:50
Speaker 1: and deliberately. Men reason more or less correctly, observing more
12:55
Speaker 1: or less faithfully the essential logical forms. Long before the
12:58
Speaker 1: term logic was, and still longer before the present day,
13:02
Speaker 1: principles and methods of logic were announced. This, however, is
13:07
Speaker 1: no more remarkable than the fact that all nature and
13:10
Speaker 1: all contained within nature obeyed the law of gravitation long
13:14
Speaker 1: before that law was discovered, and still longer before its
13:17
Speaker 1: principles of operation were generally and commonly known to men.
13:21
Speaker 1: Newton simply discovered the existence of certain physical laws and
13:25
Speaker 1: announced them. Logicians simply discovered the existence of certain mental
13:28
Speaker 1: laws and announced them. It is true that men have
13:32
Speaker 1: done good thinking without a formal acquaintance with the laws
13:35
Speaker 1: of logical thought. But they did so in spite of
13:38
Speaker 1: their lack of knowledge, not because of it. No man
13:43
Speaker 1: ever thought efficiently because of his ignorance of the principles
13:46
Speaker 1: of logic. On the other hand, you can no more
13:49
Speaker 1: reasonably expect to become a proficient and efficient logical reasoner
13:53
Speaker 1: by merely knowing the laws of practical logic than you
13:56
Speaker 1: could expect to become a proficient and efficient mathematician by
13:59
Speaker 1: simply knowing the law law of mathematics. In either case,
14:03
Speaker 1: something more is needed. But in each case it is
14:05
Speaker 1: equally true that you will do well to learn thoroughly
14:08
Speaker 1: those rules, principles, and laws in order to attain correctness,
14:12
Speaker 1: to secure freedom from error, and to detect the errors
14:15
Speaker 1: of others which are often claimed to be truth in
14:18
Speaker 1: these respective branches of scientific thought. In the spirit of
14:22
Speaker 1: the above statements, the following instruction in the Principles of
14:26
Speaker 1: practical Logic is offered to you Reasoning Power Practical Logic
14:32
Speaker 1: by William Walker Atkinson, nineteen twenty two. The Psychology of reasoning.
14:38
Speaker 1: Psychology does not attempt to solve the problem of just
14:42
Speaker 1: what mind is. Instead, it contents itself with regarding mind
14:46
Speaker 1: as experiencing a series of mental states, and of discovering
14:50
Speaker 1: in announcing just how the mental processes arise, proceed, and
14:54
Speaker 1: manifest themselves. In this way, psychology inquires into the mental
15:00
Speaker 1: processes involved in the activities of reasoning and reports just
15:04
Speaker 1: what laws, principles, and methods of procedure it has discovered
15:08
Speaker 1: to be active in that important field of mentation. In
15:11
Speaker 1: the first place, it discovers and reports that reasoning is
15:14
Speaker 1: a phase or form of thinking, that phase or form
15:17
Speaker 1: which is concerned with considering, deliberating, forming opinions, judging, concluding,
15:23
Speaker 1: and ascertaining valid grounds for belief in anything. It discovers
15:27
Speaker 1: and reports that thinking employs thoughts as its material, these
15:31
Speaker 1: thoughts being combined, woven, and manufactured into the complex products
15:35
Speaker 1: of reasoning. Thoughts are of varying degrees of complexity, ranging
15:39
Speaker 1: from the simplest perception to the most complex general idea.
15:43
Speaker 1: The simplest form of thought is that known as the
15:46
Speaker 1: percept or the simple idea derived from perception. But even
15:50
Speaker 1: the simplest percept is really complex and composed of several elements.
15:55
Speaker 1: As you shall see presently, perception is not the simplest
15:59
Speaker 1: and most elementary, very mental process. Below it in the
16:02
Speaker 1: scale is what is known as sensation. Sensation, however, is
16:07
Speaker 1: not usually included in the category of thought. On the contrary,
16:11
Speaker 1: it is considered to be the raw material of thought.
16:14
Speaker 1: It is worthwhile to pause here a moment in order
16:17
Speaker 1: to note the distinction between sensation and perception. Sensation is
16:22
Speaker 1: the mental state arising from the excitation of portions of
16:25
Speaker 1: the nervous system by reason of their contact with objects
16:28
Speaker 1: or forces external to the nervous system. Perception is the
16:33
Speaker 1: mental state arising from one the conscious recognition of the
16:37
Speaker 1: sensory reports, two the interpretation of these reports as particular
16:41
Speaker 1: kinds of sensation, and three the association of these reports
16:45
Speaker 1: with the external object or force originally giving rise to them. Example,
16:51
Speaker 1: there is placed before you a certain external object, the
16:54
Speaker 1: object known to most persons as an orange. Your mental
16:58
Speaker 1: processes concerning it are as far follow. Your sense of
17:01
Speaker 1: sight reports certain conditions arising from an excitation of the
17:04
Speaker 1: optical nerves. Your sense of touch reports certain conditions arising
17:09
Speaker 1: from the contact of the nerves of your fingertips with
17:11
Speaker 1: something external to it. Your sense of smell reports certain
17:14
Speaker 1: conditions arising from the contact of your nerve ends located
17:18
Speaker 1: in the mucous membrane of your nostrils with certain subtle
17:20
Speaker 1: emanations of the substance of something external to them. Your
17:25
Speaker 1: sense of taste reports certain conditions arising from the contact
17:28
Speaker 1: of the nerves located in your mouth and tongue with
17:31
Speaker 1: an outside substance which has been placed within the mouth
17:34
Speaker 1: or upon the extended tongue. Your sense of hearing makes
17:37
Speaker 1: no report in this particular case. Your perception then proceeds
17:42
Speaker 1: to recognize and interpret these sensations. In doing so, it
17:46
Speaker 1: is aided by your past experience with sensation, by means
17:49
Speaker 1: of which you have evolved from the simple sensation stage
17:52
Speaker 1: of the young infant to the perceptive stage of the
17:54
Speaker 1: adult of at least average experience with external things. Your
17:58
Speaker 1: perception also proceeds to associate these sensations with things external
18:02
Speaker 1: to itself. It recognizes and interprets these sensory reports in
18:07
Speaker 1: terms of perception of size, shape, form, distance, color, et cetera,
18:12
Speaker 1: in terms of perception of weight, size, shape form, degree
18:16
Speaker 1: of hardness, et cetera, in terms of perception of odour, fragrance, aroma,
18:22
Speaker 1: et cetera, in terms of sweetness and agreeable taste, et cetera.
18:27
Speaker 1: To all of these sensory reports, it applies certain terms
18:30
Speaker 1: which it has adopted as representing certain perceived sensations. It
18:34
Speaker 1: recognizes the perceptive elements of roundness, certain size, certain shape,
18:39
Speaker 1: certain form characteristics, yellowish color, of certain weight, in certain
18:44
Speaker 1: feel of fragrance, and aroma of sweetness and pleasant taste.
18:49
Speaker 1: It interprets these perceptive elements in symbolic forms of thought
18:52
Speaker 1: and speech called words or terms. It associates these perceptive
18:57
Speaker 1: elements or characteristics with the external object which has given
19:01
Speaker 1: rise to the several sensory stimuli in question. You may
19:05
Speaker 1: object that you perceive instinctively and that you never perform
19:09
Speaker 1: consciously the processes just described. But we would remind you
19:13
Speaker 1: that while sensation is instinctive, perception is acquired through experience
19:18
Speaker 1: and becomes instinctive only by reason of repeated practice and
19:21
Speaker 1: cultivation of the habit. The young infant senses, but does
19:25
Speaker 1: not perceive. It learns only by experience to distinguish between
19:30
Speaker 1: its various sensations, to recognize them as such, to interpret them,
19:35
Speaker 1: to associate them with external objects. It feels from the start,
19:40
Speaker 1: but it must learn by gradual experience to recognize, interpret,
19:44
Speaker 1: and associate with external objects such feelings and sensations. Sully
19:49
Speaker 1: gives us a simple, effective figurative illustration of the difference
19:53
Speaker 1: between sensations and perceptions. He says, sensations are the alphabet
19:58
Speaker 1: by which we spell out the obeat objects presented to us.
20:02
Speaker 1: In order to grasp and apprehend these objects, these letters
20:05
Speaker 1: must be put together after the manner of words. Thus,
20:09
Speaker 1: the apprehension of an apple by the eye involves the
20:11
Speaker 1: putting together of various sensations of sight, touch, and taste.
20:16
Speaker 1: This is the mind's work and is known as perception.
20:20
Speaker 1: He further tells us that by these sensation letters, we
20:23
Speaker 1: may spell out and make up perceptive words. For instance,
20:27
Speaker 1: from the several sensation letters of O, R, A, N, G, E,
20:32
Speaker 1: we may spell out and make up the perceptive word orange.
20:36
Speaker 1: Gordy also gives us a practical explanation as follows. What
20:40
Speaker 1: does the mind do with its sensations of colors, odors,
20:43
Speaker 1: and tastes? In order to perceive colors, odors, and tastes
20:46
Speaker 1: as qualities of objects? It groups them together, does it not?
20:52
Speaker 1: When you look at an apple, you group its color, taste,
20:55
Speaker 1: and smell together as qualities of one object. You perceive
20:59
Speaker 1: only when they seem to be qualities actually forming a
21:02
Speaker 1: part of the objects in the world about us, or
21:04
Speaker 1: states of our own bodies. Strictly speaking, what we do
21:08
Speaker 1: when we perceive is to make a group consisting of
21:11
Speaker 1: one or more sensations and ideas of sensations, and to
21:15
Speaker 1: regard the group as qualities of an external object. A
21:19
Speaker 1: percept is a thought in which one or more sensory
21:22
Speaker 1: elements are recognized, interpreted, and associated with an external object,
21:27
Speaker 1: are regarded as being qualities of that object, and are
21:30
Speaker 1: incorporated into a group, giving the impression of a single
21:33
Speaker 1: and unitary whole, which is regarded as constituting the idea
21:37
Speaker 1: and meaning of that object. Illustration. When we perceive an
21:41
Speaker 1: external object e g. An orange, we experience a group
21:45
Speaker 1: or aggregate of sensory impressions which, by recognition, interpretation, and association,
21:50
Speaker 1: we combine into the unitary single thought of that orange.
21:54
Speaker 1: Not an orange or any orange, however, but merely and
21:58
Speaker 1: strictly that particular orange, and any being an element of
22:02
Speaker 1: another class of thoughts. The form or phase of thought
22:06
Speaker 1: which is immediately above the precept in the scale of
22:09
Speaker 1: reasoning is known as the concept or the complex idea
22:12
Speaker 1: derived from conception. The concept is constituted, composed, and made
22:17
Speaker 1: up of several percepts. Just as the percept represents the
22:21
Speaker 1: thought of the composite qualities of a particular object, so
22:25
Speaker 1: does the concept represent the thought of the composite, essential,
22:28
Speaker 1: and common qualities of a certain class of objects. Thus
22:32
Speaker 1: we have found that the percept of that orange is
22:35
Speaker 1: a composite of the qualities of that particular orange. Now
22:38
Speaker 1: we find that the concept of orange, meaning any in
22:41
Speaker 1: every orange, all oranges, is a composite of the qualities
22:45
Speaker 1: which are possessed in common by all oranges, and which
22:48
Speaker 1: each and every orange must possess, in order to be
22:51
Speaker 1: an orange at all, all the essential qualities of oranges
22:54
Speaker 1: in general, all the qualities which must be stated in
22:58
Speaker 1: a complete definition of the general terms orange. Conception is
23:03
Speaker 1: the mental act of combining perceptive ideas into a more
23:06
Speaker 1: general group idea of a general class of objects. By
23:09
Speaker 1: it is formed the concept or the thought or idea
23:12
Speaker 1: representing the whole number of objects denoted by the several
23:15
Speaker 1: general perceptive ideas composing it. To understand the process of
23:20
Speaker 1: conception more clearly, you must first understand the essential nature
23:24
Speaker 1: and character of the concept which is formed by the
23:26
Speaker 1: act of conception. We ask you to give careful attention
23:30
Speaker 1: to the following consideration of the concept, for you must
23:33
Speaker 1: understand this thoroughly if you wish to manifest efficient reasoning power.
23:37
Speaker 1: Along the lines of practical logic, the dictionary definition of
23:41
Speaker 1: concept is an abstract general conception, a general notion, a
23:46
Speaker 1: universal idea, the idea or a larger or smaller class
23:50
Speaker 1: of particular things. In traditional logic, the concept is the
23:54
Speaker 1: idea of a characteristic or characteristics belonging to more than
23:58
Speaker 1: one person or thing, and thus to a general class
24:01
Speaker 1: of things. It stands opposed to the percept, which is
24:04
Speaker 1: an idea dealing with particular things only. The act of
24:08
Speaker 1: conception consists of several stages or phases, which are always
24:12
Speaker 1: performed with greater or less precision and accuracy by the
24:15
Speaker 1: person thinking, although he may not be conscious of their
24:18
Speaker 1: nature or of the order observed in their manifestation. Having
24:22
Speaker 1: acquired only gradually the art of performing this process, having
24:26
Speaker 1: obtained it along the lines of the evolution and development
24:29
Speaker 1: of his mental activity from early childhood, and having taken
24:32
Speaker 1: on the habit of performing it, he employs it more
24:34
Speaker 1: or less unconsciously, and he takes it for granted. Analysis, however,
24:40
Speaker 1: will show that these stages or phases are necessary, and
24:43
Speaker 1: that they are always performed consciously or unconsciously by the
24:46
Speaker 1: thinking individual. The processes above referred to are as follows.
24:51
Speaker 1: One perception of numerous particular objects. Two comparison of these
24:56
Speaker 1: particular objects and noting wherein they agree or differ in
25:00
Speaker 1: their qualities. Three selection of certain individual objects which are
25:04
Speaker 1: found to agree in definite fundamental qualities, to be similar
25:08
Speaker 1: or alike in certain respects. For generalizing or classifying these
25:13
Speaker 1: similar or like objects into classes, which classes have as
25:17
Speaker 1: their essential and necessary qualities those characteristics which have been
25:22
Speaker 1: discovered to be common to and universal among those selected
25:25
Speaker 1: individual objects. Five denominating or giving a name, or applying
25:29
Speaker 1: a term to that general class of objects, putting a
25:32
Speaker 1: verbal tag or label on it to distinguish it as
25:35
Speaker 1: a whole. Thus, the general class of fruit known as
25:39
Speaker 1: the orange or oranges includes all the fruit of that
25:42
Speaker 1: general kind, and its class qualities are those which are
25:45
Speaker 1: essential and necessary to all oranges, and which are common
25:48
Speaker 1: and universal among all oranges, though the numerous particular oranges
25:52
Speaker 1: may differ materially in non essential characteristics. The thought, idea,
25:58
Speaker 1: or notion of the orange or oranges as a class
26:02
Speaker 1: is the concept orange to which that general term is
26:05
Speaker 1: applied into that class must fit, and under that name
26:09
Speaker 1: or term must fall each and every one, any and
26:12
Speaker 1: all of the fruit known as oranges. Gordy says, conception
26:17
Speaker 1: is that act of mind by which it forms an
26:19
Speaker 1: idea of a class, or that act of mind that
26:22
Speaker 1: enables us to use general names intelligently. We never see
26:26
Speaker 1: a class i e. An indefinite number of individuals that
26:29
Speaker 1: resemble each other in certain particulars. Classes do not make
26:34
Speaker 1: themselves known to us through any of the senses, How then,
26:37
Speaker 1: does the mind form an idea of a class. To
26:41
Speaker 1: answer that question is to state what the mind does.
26:43
Speaker 1: In conception, Smaller concepts may be combined into larger ones
26:48
Speaker 1: by the application of the characteristic principles of conception viz.
26:52
Speaker 1: One cognition of several particular concepts. Two comparison of one
26:57
Speaker 1: particular concept with another or others for the purpose of
27:00
Speaker 1: noting resemblances and differences. Three selection of certain particular concepts
27:05
Speaker 1: which are found to agree or resemble each other in
27:08
Speaker 1: one or more particulars. For generalizing or classifying these like
27:12
Speaker 1: concepts into larger concepts. Five of fixing names and terms
27:17
Speaker 1: to these larger concepts. The process of conception may be
27:21
Speaker 1: continued at great length, higher and still higher generalizations being made.
27:27
Speaker 1: The end comes only when you have generalized every existing
27:30
Speaker 1: object into one supreme and universal class, the sumum genus,
27:34
Speaker 1: comprising either all existing things regarded as a whole, or
27:38
Speaker 1: the ultimate essence or substance of such. To this ultimate
27:42
Speaker 1: concept is given the class term or name being the sole,
27:46
Speaker 1: essential and necessary quality of which is existence in some form, phase, mode,
27:51
Speaker 1: or degree of being. Ness, a something or somewhat of
27:53
Speaker 1: which the only essential quality is that it exists. Besides
27:58
Speaker 1: the quantitative distinction between I mean different kinds of concepts
28:01
Speaker 1: i e. The difference consisting of the number of objects
28:04
Speaker 1: included in their content, there is to be noted a
28:07
Speaker 1: qualitative distinction i e. A difference in general kind, character,
28:12
Speaker 1: or quality. The several most important kinds of qualitative differences
28:16
Speaker 1: between concepts are based upon the following lines of distinction
28:20
Speaker 1: one material quality, two incidental quality, three causal quality. Each
28:26
Speaker 1: of these are considered below in further detail. The material
28:30
Speaker 1: quality of a concept is determined by the fundamental material
28:33
Speaker 1: character of the objects represented in the general idea, considered
28:37
Speaker 1: apart from their incidental relations or associations with other things. Example,
28:42
Speaker 1: the concept sheep is formed and composed of the essential
28:46
Speaker 1: and necessary fundamental qualities common to and universally present in
28:50
Speaker 1: the entire number of particular objects called sheep. This apart
28:53
Speaker 1: from any use or employment of sheep or any part
28:56
Speaker 1: or portion of their bodies, their energy, et cetera. In
29:01
Speaker 1: the same way, following the same rule of qualitative unity
29:04
Speaker 1: of character, the concept sheep may become a part, element
29:08
Speaker 1: or factor in the larger concept called ruminants. Likewise, the
29:13
Speaker 1: latter concept may be included in the still larger one
29:16
Speaker 1: of mammals, and this in turn into a still greater
29:20
Speaker 1: one called animals, and so on until the ultimate concept
29:24
Speaker 1: of being is reached. The incidental quality of a concept
29:28
Speaker 1: is determined not by the fundamental material character of the
29:31
Speaker 1: objects represented in the general idea, but rather by their
29:35
Speaker 1: incidental relations or associations with other things certain subordinate or
29:39
Speaker 1: secondary qualities. The most important incidental qualities of this kind
29:44
Speaker 1: are those concerned with utility, use, employment, and practical application
29:49
Speaker 1: to certain purposes or ends. Example, things and their percepts
29:54
Speaker 1: may be classified under the category of the quality of
29:57
Speaker 1: being useful for fuel purposes, of being useful as light
30:01
Speaker 1: producing agents, of employment as disinfectants, of use as medicinal remedies,
30:06
Speaker 1: as use for tanning purposes, curing purposes, preserving purposes, pickling purposes,
30:12
Speaker 1: or use employment, utility, or possible application for any purpose whatsoever.
30:19
Speaker 1: Under this mode of conceptual classification, coal wood, oil, fats,
30:24
Speaker 1: et cetera. May be included in the concept of fuel
30:27
Speaker 1: ie things serving for heat producing purposes, in the same
30:31
Speaker 1: way torches, oil, candles, electric lamps, et cetera. May be
30:36
Speaker 1: included in the concept of light producing things. Such examples
30:41
Speaker 1: might be extended indefinitely, but the above will serve to
30:44
Speaker 1: illustrate the characteristic element of this form of classification of concepts.
30:49
Speaker 1: The casual quality of a concept is determined neither by
30:52
Speaker 1: the fundamental material character, nor by the incidental relations or
30:56
Speaker 1: associations of the objects represented in the general lifea, but
31:00
Speaker 1: rather by the power of such objects to produce casual
31:03
Speaker 1: results or effects by reason of their presence in actions.
31:07
Speaker 1: The causal quality of a particular thing is represented by
31:11
Speaker 1: the idea of how does it work, what it will do,
31:14
Speaker 1: what results or effects proceed from its presence in action.
31:18
Speaker 1: The causal qualities of a number of things, when found
31:22
Speaker 1: to agree in general causal character, result in their being
31:26
Speaker 1: combined and included in a concept of a law. Such
31:30
Speaker 1: a law is merely the concept embodying the general idea
31:33
Speaker 1: of how and in what way this class of things works.
31:37
Speaker 1: A still higher causal synthesis or generalization results in the
31:41
Speaker 1: concept of a principle or law of laws of action.
31:45
Speaker 1: A cause of causes raise to its highest power. This
31:49
Speaker 1: form of concept posits the existence of an ultimate principle
31:52
Speaker 1: of cause, a causeless cause. Psychology also furnishes us with
31:58
Speaker 1: a comprehensive classification of this sels several general processes involving
32:02
Speaker 1: in logical reasoning. This classification proceeds as follows judgment upon
32:07
Speaker 1: the materials of thought resulting from the following processes viz.
32:12
Speaker 1: One analysis or the discovery of differences in character two synthesis,
32:19
Speaker 1: or the discovery of resemblances in character three inference, or
32:24
Speaker 1: the induction or deduction of new facts or truths from
32:27
Speaker 1: others previously discovered by analysis or synthesis. The following brief
32:32
Speaker 1: statements will serve to explain in greater detail the nature
32:35
Speaker 1: and meaning of the above mentioned several processes involved in
32:38
Speaker 1: logical reasoning. Judgment is that mental process involving comparison and discrimination,
32:45
Speaker 1: i e. Discernment of resemblances and differences in equalities of
32:48
Speaker 1: respective percepts or concepts, whereby the mind forms opinions and
32:53
Speaker 1: decisions concerning the nature of things under consideration. In the
32:57
Speaker 1: processes of judgment, the mind compares its perceptive or conceptive thoughts, ideas,
33:03
Speaker 1: or notions, and then reaches a decision concerning a their
33:07
Speaker 1: degree of resemblance or difference b their respective relations of
33:11
Speaker 1: the whole and its parts, or of the parts and
33:14
Speaker 1: their whole three their respective relations of cause and effect
33:18
Speaker 1: or effect and cause, or for their respective incidental relations. Judgments,
33:24
Speaker 1: when completed, are always affirmative or negative. The mind cannot
33:29
Speaker 1: reason or think logically without judging. To think or reason
33:33
Speaker 1: logically is to judge from its simplest and most elemental
33:37
Speaker 1: stages and phases to its most complex and derivative forms
33:41
Speaker 1: and modes. Reasoning is found to employ the processes of judgment,
33:45
Speaker 1: it cannot proceed without them. Analysis is that mental process
33:49
Speaker 1: whereby differences between equalities, properties, and attributes, the respective characters
33:55
Speaker 1: of two or more objects of perception or conception are
33:58
Speaker 1: detected and discovered. As as a consequence of analysis, particular
34:02
Speaker 1: percepts or concepts are mentally analyzed, dissected, separated, refined, or
34:08
Speaker 1: resolved into their constituent parts, elements, or factors, each of
34:12
Speaker 1: which is represented by a simpler mental idea and its
34:15
Speaker 1: appropriate term. Synthesis is that mental process whereby resemblances inequalities, properties,
34:22
Speaker 1: and attributes, the respective characters of two or more objects
34:26
Speaker 1: of perception or conception are detected and discovered. As a
34:30
Speaker 1: consequence of synthesis, particular percepts and concepts are mentally synthesized, joined, combined, associated, related,
34:39
Speaker 1: put together, united, and fused into a concept of a
34:42
Speaker 1: higher order, a greater class, a more general, and more
34:45
Speaker 1: nearly universal character, into a greater whole, law or principle.
34:50
Speaker 1: Inference is that mental process whereby through analogy, induction, or deduction,
34:56
Speaker 1: new facts or truths are adduced or drawn from others
34:59
Speaker 1: previous discovered by the processes of analysis or synthesis, or
35:03
Speaker 1: by both of these combined. It has been defined as
35:07
Speaker 1: deduction or induction from preceding known facts or premises, resulting
35:11
Speaker 1: in the discovery of new facts and truths. Again, it
35:16
Speaker 1: has been stated as the process of coordinating and systematizing
35:19
Speaker 1: previously acquired knowledge so that new knowledge is thereby gained
35:23
Speaker 1: through induction, re deduction, or similar process. Inference is the
35:28
Speaker 1: process of reasoning from the known to the unknown, or
35:31
Speaker 1: the discovery of a third fact from two facts already known.
35:35
Speaker 1: It produces a new and third judgment based upon two
35:38
Speaker 1: prior judgments which have been arrived at through some previous
35:41
Speaker 1: reasoning of some kind. Its forms are known respectively as
35:45
Speaker 1: logical analogy, logical induction, and logical deduction. Note. You are
35:51
Speaker 1: requested to familiarize yourself with the above stated explanations of analysis, synthesis, inference,
35:58
Speaker 1: and judgment, as well as of the pre viously stated
36:00
Speaker 1: explanations of precepts and concepts. A thorough understanding of these
36:05
Speaker 1: elements of logical reasoning or reasoning thought is essential for
36:09
Speaker 1: your comprehension of the further instruction to be presented in
36:12
Speaker 1: the following sections of this book. The fundamental building materials
36:16
Speaker 1: of thought i e. Percepts and concepts, and the basic
36:20
Speaker 1: processes whereby such materials are put together and built into
36:24
Speaker 1: the structure of thought. These must be understood by those
36:27
Speaker 1: who desire to engage in the working of thought building,
36:30
Speaker 1: logical reasoning, or rational thought. The seven axioms of logical reasoning.
36:36
Speaker 1: In logical reasoning, you are asked to apply the principles
36:39
Speaker 1: of several fundamental and basic axioms. An axiom is a
36:44
Speaker 1: self evident and necessary truth, a proposition which it is
36:48
Speaker 1: necessary to take for granted, an established principle. These axioms
36:53
Speaker 1: of logical reasoning, however, while offered as self evident and
36:56
Speaker 1: necessary to be taken for granted, are not the arbitrary
37:00
Speaker 1: dogmas or dicta of real or pretended authority. Instead, they
37:04
Speaker 1: represent the universal experience of human thought, rationally applied and directed.
37:08
Speaker 1: They represent truths of which the contrary is unthinkable, and
37:12
Speaker 1: which would constitute a scandal of rational thought. These axioms
37:16
Speaker 1: are in constant use in the thought processes of reasoning
37:19
Speaker 1: human beings. They are taken for granted, and are either
37:23
Speaker 1: directly asserted or tacitly implied in all logical reasoning. The
37:27
Speaker 1: seven axioms of logical reasoning, which we shall consider in
37:31
Speaker 1: detail in the succeeding sections of this book, are named
37:34
Speaker 1: and briefly stated in the following paragraphs as follows. I
37:40
Speaker 1: the axiom of logical analysis. Every thing is composed, constituted,
37:44
Speaker 1: and made up of a parts, elements and factors, and
37:48
Speaker 1: b qualities, properties and attributes, which, in combination, arrangement, correlation,
37:54
Speaker 1: and coordination constitute its character and make it just what
37:57
Speaker 1: it is and into which it may be anna dissected
38:01
Speaker 1: and separated in thought. Two the axiom of logical synthesis.
38:06
Speaker 1: Everything belongs to a class of things possessing one or
38:09
Speaker 1: more common and essential characteristics. Many things belong to several
38:13
Speaker 1: classes of different, though not opposing character Three. The axiom
38:18
Speaker 1: of logical judgment. All logical judgment is based upon these
38:22
Speaker 1: three fundamental laws of thought. Viz. One, a thing is
38:26
Speaker 1: always just what it is and nothing else at a
38:28
Speaker 1: given time and place, no matter what particular name or
38:31
Speaker 1: term may be employed to indicate, designate, or represent it. Two,
38:36
Speaker 1: A thing cannot both be and not be just what
38:38
Speaker 1: it is affirmed to be at the same time and place. Three,
38:42
Speaker 1: A thing must either be or not be that which
38:45
Speaker 1: it is affirmed to be at a given time and place.
38:48
Speaker 1: There is no third alternative. For the axiom of logical analogy.
38:54
Speaker 1: A few things which are alike in many respects are probably,
38:58
Speaker 1: though not certainly, allow in some other respects. V The
39:03
Speaker 1: axiom of logical induction. What is discovered to be true
39:06
Speaker 1: of a great number of observed objects, things, or individuals
39:10
Speaker 1: of a definite general class is practically certain to be
39:13
Speaker 1: true of that general class as a whole. The characteristics
39:16
Speaker 1: assumed to be possessed in common by all the individual
39:19
Speaker 1: objects or things in a definite general class constitute the
39:23
Speaker 1: accepted essential characteristics of that class as a whole. Six
39:28
Speaker 1: the axiom of logical causation. Every change, happening, event, or
39:33
Speaker 1: entrance into or exit from existence proceeds from precedent conditions
39:37
Speaker 1: or causes. Given the same causative factors, the same material elements,
39:42
Speaker 1: and the same environmental conditions, the same results and effects
39:46
Speaker 1: will follow in all cases so determined and conditioned. Seven
39:51
Speaker 1: the axiom of logical deduction. What is true of the
39:54
Speaker 1: class as a whole must be true of each, every
39:57
Speaker 1: and all of the individuals composing that class. Note you
40:01
Speaker 1: are advised to commit to memory the above stated seven
40:04
Speaker 1: axioms of logical reasoning. A consistent and intelligent application of
40:09
Speaker 1: their respective principles will open to you many doors of
40:12
Speaker 1: the temple of logical thought, reasoning, power practical logic. By
40:18
Speaker 1: William Walker Atkinson, nineteen twenty two. The Law of logical analysis.
40:25
Speaker 1: You are now invited to consider that important law of
40:27
Speaker 1: logical reasoning known as the law of logical analysis. This
40:32
Speaker 1: law represents the universal experience of human thought, rationally applied
40:36
Speaker 1: and directed. The law of logical analysis is expressed in
40:40
Speaker 1: the first of the seven axioms of logical reasoning, which
40:43
Speaker 1: is as follows. One the axiom of logical analysis. Every
40:48
Speaker 1: thing is composed, constituted, and made up of a parts, elements,
40:53
Speaker 1: and factors and b qualities, properties and attributes, which, in combination, arrangement, correlation,
41:01
Speaker 1: and coordination, constitute its character and make it just what
41:04
Speaker 1: it is, and into which it may be analyzed, dissected,
41:07
Speaker 1: and separated. In thought, this axiom states a truth which
41:11
Speaker 1: is verified by all human experience, is supported by the
41:15
Speaker 1: common sense reports of the race, and is substantiated by
41:18
Speaker 1: the judgment of the keenest logical and philosophical thought. It
41:21
Speaker 1: is to be regarded as a self evident truth and
41:24
Speaker 1: as a proposition which may be taken for granted. It
41:27
Speaker 1: is assumed in all logical thought, and is implied in
41:30
Speaker 1: all true reasoning. The following consideration is not intended to
41:34
Speaker 1: be offered as proof of its truth, but is designed
41:37
Speaker 1: merely to elucidate and make clear the manifestation of this
41:40
Speaker 1: principle in the world of thought and things. Our consideration
41:44
Speaker 1: properly begins with a definition of the term thing, as
41:47
Speaker 1: employed in this axiom. Let us come to an understanding
41:51
Speaker 1: of the meaning of this important term. By so doing
41:54
Speaker 1: we reduce the risk of misunderstanding in the course of
41:56
Speaker 1: this instruction. Inasmuch as the greater part of all disputes
42:01
Speaker 1: arise from misunderstanding of and non agreement upon the principal
42:05
Speaker 1: terms employed in the reasoning. It is important that an
42:08
Speaker 1: agreement of this kind be reached at the beginning of
42:10
Speaker 1: an argument or other process of reasoning. This will serve
42:14
Speaker 1: to explain the frequent resort to definitions which you will
42:17
Speaker 1: discover in the course of this instruction. A thing, in
42:21
Speaker 1: the present usage of the term is any separate and
42:24
Speaker 1: distinguishable object of thought. The term separate, as employed in
42:29
Speaker 1: this definition, means distinct apart from others. The terms distinguishable,
42:34
Speaker 1: as employed in this definition, means capable of being set
42:38
Speaker 1: apart from others by visible marks, signs, or characteristics, or
42:42
Speaker 1: capable of definition of terms or logical division. A more
42:47
Speaker 1: technical definition of thing is whatever exists or may be
42:51
Speaker 1: conceived to exist, as a separate, concrete entity, or as
42:55
Speaker 1: a specific particular object of thought. In this category of
42:59
Speaker 1: things contained all objects of which we have or can
43:03
Speaker 1: have any practical knowledge through the senses or through thought
43:06
Speaker 1: employing the material furnished by the senses. If there are
43:10
Speaker 1: any entities outside of this category, we do not and
43:13
Speaker 1: cannot know them in the way in which we know
43:15
Speaker 1: the things of ordinary experience, parts, elements, and factors. Now
43:21
Speaker 1: for the definitions of the three terms employed in that
43:24
Speaker 1: clause of the axiom following the symbol A viz. Parts, elements,
43:29
Speaker 1: and factors. A part is a constituent portion of a whole,
43:34
Speaker 1: a portion less than the whole of a thing. An
43:37
Speaker 1: element is one of the essential parts or principles of
43:40
Speaker 1: which anything is composed and upon which its distinctive character
43:44
Speaker 1: is based. A factor is one of the elements of
43:48
Speaker 1: a thing, which, when multiplied or combined, constitutes that product
43:52
Speaker 1: which is the whole of the thing. It will require
43:55
Speaker 1: but little thought on your part to convince you that
43:57
Speaker 1: everything you have ever experienced, or can and imagine yourself
44:00
Speaker 1: as experiencing, is composed, constituted, and made up of parts, elements,
44:06
Speaker 1: and factors, and is subject to physical or mental analysis
44:10
Speaker 1: into such. You can form no idea of a concrete,
44:14
Speaker 1: definite thing as being devoid of parts, elements, or factors.
44:18
Speaker 1: Your imagination, as well as your reason, will find itself
44:21
Speaker 1: unable to form a conception of such a thing. For you.
44:25
Speaker 1: Even if you were to find yourself able to conceive
44:27
Speaker 1: of such a thing, you would not be able to
44:29
Speaker 1: find words and terms with which to express the thought.
44:33
Speaker 1: The principle of composition and analysis is illustrated by the
44:36
Speaker 1: ancient Buddhistic story of the dialogue between a sage and
44:40
Speaker 1: a king who was visiting him. The sage asked the king,
44:44
Speaker 1: what do you mean when you think or speak of
44:45
Speaker 1: your chariot. The king replied, when I think or speak
44:49
Speaker 1: of my chariot, I mean my vehicle, which is composed
44:52
Speaker 1: of the body, the wheels, the axle, and the pole. Again,
44:57
Speaker 1: the question was asked, what do you mean when you
44:59
Speaker 1: think speak of a river? The answer was, when I
45:03
Speaker 1: think and speak of a river, I mean its flowing water,
45:06
Speaker 1: its bed, and its bank. The sage then asked the king.
45:10
Speaker 1: Do the body, the wheels, the axle, and the pole
45:14
Speaker 1: of the chariot, taken apart from one another, represent your
45:17
Speaker 1: thought and idea of a chariot. Do the flowing water,
45:21
Speaker 1: the river bed, the river banks, taken apart from one another,
45:25
Speaker 1: represent your thought and idea of a river? The king replied, nay,
45:30
Speaker 1: Reverend Sir, these things, apart from one another and not
45:33
Speaker 1: joined together, are not but separate and distinct things, And
45:37
Speaker 1: when in that condition, constitute neither the chariot nor the river.
45:40
Speaker 1: In such case there is no chariot, and no river
45:43
Speaker 1: to be perceived and known to my mind. Then ask
45:46
Speaker 1: the Sage, can you think of a chariot or of
45:49
Speaker 1: a river without including in your thought these parts which
45:51
Speaker 1: constitute it? Nay, Sir, I cannot think of either chariot
45:56
Speaker 1: or river in this way. When I attempted, I find
45:59
Speaker 1: myself thinking of nothing, or of a mere word or name.
46:03
Speaker 1: Then said the Sage. Can you think of a chariot
46:06
Speaker 1: or a river by thinking merely of the separated parts which,
46:09
Speaker 1: when combined, constitute them. Nay, Reverend Sir, replied the King.
46:14
Speaker 1: When I try to do so, I find myself thinking
46:16
Speaker 1: merely of separate and disconnected parts, and not of the
46:19
Speaker 1: chariot or the river at all. In such case, as before,
46:23
Speaker 1: I find that to me the chariot and the river
46:25
Speaker 1: are mere words or names, and have no present real
46:28
Speaker 1: existence at all. Then ask the Sage, tell me of
46:33
Speaker 1: what your real thought of the chariot and of the
46:34
Speaker 1: river must consist of. What is it composed of? What
46:38
Speaker 1: is it made up? Reverend Sir replied the King. I
46:42
Speaker 1: find that my real thought of the chariot and of
46:44
Speaker 1: the river is composed, constituted, and made up of my
46:48
Speaker 1: several ideas of their various parts, and of my idea
46:51
Speaker 1: of the combination, correlation, and coordination of those parts. Of
46:55
Speaker 1: those several parts existing and being assembled, arranged and put
46:59
Speaker 1: together in a certain fashion. Good said the Sage. You
47:04
Speaker 1: have now discovered for yourself the true nature of all things.
47:08
Speaker 1: Everything of which you can think is so composed, constituted,
47:11
Speaker 1: and made up. So are the several parts, elements and
47:14
Speaker 1: factors put together in a certain fashion, and acting in combination, coordination,
47:19
Speaker 1: and correlation. Thus the ancient Sage, employing the Socratic method
47:24
Speaker 1: of delivering the mind of its thought by means of
47:26
Speaker 1: asking leading questions taught to the King, the lesson of
47:29
Speaker 1: the true nature of things and thoughts of things. You
47:33
Speaker 1: may employ this method in the way of applying the
47:36
Speaker 1: general principle to anything and everything which is the subject
47:39
Speaker 1: or object of your actual experience, and which is the
47:42
Speaker 1: result of your processes of perception and conception. All percepts
47:46
Speaker 1: and all concepts are made up of put together parts,
47:50
Speaker 1: elements and factors of thought, as you have seen in
47:52
Speaker 1: the preceding section of this book, and being so, they
47:56
Speaker 1: are each an all subject to analysis and resolution into
47:59
Speaker 1: such constriction elements in considering the subject of composition and analysis, however,
48:05
Speaker 1: you must not lose sight of the important part played
48:08
Speaker 1: in it by the respective forms of arrangement in correlation
48:11
Speaker 1: present in the putting together of the several elements, parts,
48:14
Speaker 1: or factors of a thing. For instance, there are many
48:18
Speaker 1: chemical elements harmless in themselves or harmless when combined in
48:22
Speaker 1: certain proportions, which are poisonous when combined in certain other proportions.
48:28
Speaker 1: The same is true concerning explosives. For instance, nitroglycerin is
48:32
Speaker 1: composed of two harmless and non explosive materials, which, when
48:36
Speaker 1: combined in certain proportions, produce the high explosive. Formulas must
48:41
Speaker 1: include not only the constituent elements, but also the proportions
48:45
Speaker 1: in which these must be combined. Carbon in different forms
48:49
Speaker 1: produces the diamond, charcoal, and other substances manifesting widely different appearances.
48:56
Speaker 1: From some seventy or eighty chemical elements combined in different proportions,
49:01
Speaker 1: all the countless number of organic and inorganic material substances
49:04
Speaker 1: are made up and constituted. In considering the principle of composition,
49:09
Speaker 1: the associated principles of correlation i e. Mutual or reciprocal
49:13
Speaker 1: relation and coordination i e. Common and harmonious action, movement
49:18
Speaker 1: or condition must be also taken into consideration. The phenomena
49:23
Speaker 1: of composition consists not only of the putting together, but
49:26
Speaker 1: also of the arrangement observed in the putting together. The
49:30
Speaker 1: law of composition and analysis manifests in the mental as
49:34
Speaker 1: well as in the physical field. In every field of
49:37
Speaker 1: physics or psychology, it is found manifest. No exceptions have
49:42
Speaker 1: thus far been discovered. All apparent exceptions are ultimately found
49:47
Speaker 1: unquestionably coming under the rule qualities, properties, and attributes. Now
49:53
Speaker 1: for the definitions of the three terms employed in that
49:56
Speaker 1: clause of our axiom, following the symbol b viz. Qualities, properties,
50:01
Speaker 1: and attributes. A quality is anything that makes or helps
50:06
Speaker 1: to make anything, such as it is a distinguishing property, characteristic,
50:10
Speaker 1: or a tribute. A property is a peculiar quality of
50:15
Speaker 1: a thing, A distinctive attribute an inherent and naturally essential
50:19
Speaker 1: characteristic of anything. And the tribute is an inherent quality,
50:24
Speaker 1: essential property, or characteristic disposition. In the preceding section of
50:29
Speaker 1: this book, you have seen that, in the act or
50:32
Speaker 1: process of perception, you recognize certain sensory reports arising from
50:36
Speaker 1: contact with external objects as being associated with those particular objects,
50:41
Speaker 1: and interpret them as representing certain qualities, properties, or attributes
50:45
Speaker 1: inherent and abiding in those objects. In a percept, as
50:50
Speaker 1: you have discovered, you regard the perceived elements as representing
50:53
Speaker 1: qualities of the perceived object, these being incorporated into a group,
50:57
Speaker 1: giving the impression of a single and unitary which is
51:00
Speaker 1: regarded as constituting the idea and meaning of that object. Therefore,
51:06
Speaker 1: your percept of a particular object is composed and made
51:09
Speaker 1: up of put together separate perceptions arising from separate sensations. Likewise,
51:15
Speaker 1: the object represented by your percept is regarded as being
51:18
Speaker 1: composed and made up of the put together particular qualities, properties,
51:23
Speaker 1: and attributes which are represented by the perceptive elements which
51:26
Speaker 1: constitute your completed percept. Illustration, When you perceive a particular
51:31
Speaker 1: orange placed before you, you become conscious of a number
51:34
Speaker 1: of sensations arising by reason of the presence of the
51:37
Speaker 1: orange and of its contact with your sensory organism. These
51:41
Speaker 1: several sensations, being recognized, interpreted, and associated with that orange,
51:47
Speaker 1: are transformed into perceptive elements and combined in your completed
51:51
Speaker 1: percept of that orange. Your percept then is composed and
51:55
Speaker 1: made up of several elements, each of which represents a
51:58
Speaker 1: particular quality, properly or a tribute of that orange. In
52:02
Speaker 1: the illustrative figure on the next page, we have one
52:06
Speaker 1: a circle representing your percept of that particular orange, and
52:10
Speaker 1: two a number of smaller circles included in the limits
52:13
Speaker 1: of the larger one, each of which represents the perceptive
52:16
Speaker 1: element associated with some particular quality, property, or attitude of
52:20
Speaker 1: the orange viz. A Its form, b its weight, c
52:25
Speaker 1: its hardness or softness, d its color, e its fragrance,
52:31
Speaker 1: f its taste, g its size. Each of these respective
52:36
Speaker 1: perceptive element is called a simple percept. Their fusion and
52:40
Speaker 1: union into the particular idea of that orange constitutes a
52:43
Speaker 1: complex percept technically known as a percept, such as has
52:47
Speaker 1: been described to you. You should note here the important
52:51
Speaker 1: fact that you are able to distinguish between one object
52:54
Speaker 1: of thought and other such objects, between one perceived thing
52:57
Speaker 1: and other such things solely by reason of your perception
53:00
Speaker 1: of the differences in the respective qualities, properties, and attributes
53:04
Speaker 1: of the several objects or things. You distinguish and discriminate
53:08
Speaker 1: between objects and things solely by reason of your perception
53:12
Speaker 1: of their distinctive respective characters. The character of anything i e.
53:17
Speaker 1: That peculiar quality or the sum of qualities by which
53:21
Speaker 1: a person or thing is distinguished from others, is composed
53:24
Speaker 1: and made up of characteristics characteristics. The term characteristics means
53:31
Speaker 1: distinguishing traits, qualities, attributes, or properties. In the category of
53:37
Speaker 1: characteristics are found not only the qualities, properties, and attributes
53:41
Speaker 1: which we have just considered, but also the parts, elements,
53:45
Speaker 1: and factors and their arrangement, correlations, and coordinations which we
53:49
Speaker 1: considered a little further back in this section of this book.
53:53
Speaker 1: The characteristics of a thing make it just what it is.
53:56
Speaker 1: That particular thing is distinguished from other particular things external characteristics.
54:03
Speaker 1: In addition to the characteristics i e. The qualities, properties,
54:07
Speaker 1: and attributes the parts, elements, and factors which we have
54:11
Speaker 1: considered in these pages, there are certain quasi characteristics of
54:15
Speaker 1: things which some thinkers would include in a category of
54:18
Speaker 1: characteristics or attributes. These quasi characteristics compose a class of
54:23
Speaker 1: relation attributes i e. Attributes denoting the relations known as
54:27
Speaker 1: contiguity of time, space, and cause and effect, which the
54:31
Speaker 1: object bears to other things or objects. These relation attributes
54:36
Speaker 1: are often called the external characteristics of the object or thing. Example,
54:42
Speaker 1: a the relation of cause and effect existing between two things.
54:46
Speaker 1: B the relation of nearness or distance in space between
54:50
Speaker 1: two things. C the relation of nearness or distance in
54:53
Speaker 1: time between two things. The quasi characteristics or external characteristics,
55:00
Speaker 1: while properly belonging to an object or things, nevertheless are
55:04
Speaker 1: not true characteristics, such as the internal characteristics which we
55:08
Speaker 1: have previously described in the pages. The internal characteristics i e.
55:14
Speaker 1: The parts, elements, and factors, the qualities, properties, and attributes
55:18
Speaker 1: of a thing, are essentially connected with the inner nature
55:21
Speaker 1: of that thing, while the external characteristics depend not upon
55:25
Speaker 1: the inner nature of the thing, but instead upon the
55:29
Speaker 1: external conditions under which the thing exists. By conditions is
55:34
Speaker 1: meant the state, circumstances or relative position in or under
55:38
Speaker 1: which anything exists. We shall consider the subject of external
55:43
Speaker 1: characteristics in the following section of this book, which is
55:47
Speaker 1: devoted to the examination of the law of logical synthesis.
55:51
Speaker 1: We believe this to be the more logical method of
55:53
Speaker 1: treating that particular subject, inasmuch as it is involved in
55:57
Speaker 1: apperception rather than in perception. Reasoning power Practical Logic by
56:03
Speaker 1: William Walker Atkinson nineteen twenty two the law of logical synthesis.
56:10
Speaker 1: You are now invited to consider that important law of
56:13
Speaker 1: logical reasoning known as the law of logical synthesis. This
56:17
Speaker 1: law represents the universal experience of human thought, rationally applied
56:22
Speaker 1: and directed. The law of logical synthesis is expressed in
56:26
Speaker 1: the second of the seven axioms of logical reasoning, which
56:29
Speaker 1: is as follows two the axiom of logical synthesis. Everything
56:34
Speaker 1: belongs to a class of things possessing one or more
56:37
Speaker 1: common and essential characteristics. Many things belong to several classes
56:41
Speaker 1: of different, though not opposing character The principle law and
56:46
Speaker 1: truth embodied in this axiom is employed in all logical thinking.
56:51
Speaker 1: It is regarded as a self evident truth, properly to
56:54
Speaker 1: be taken for granted. It is assumed in all logical thought,
56:57
Speaker 1: and is implied in all true reasoning. The following consideration
57:02
Speaker 1: is not intended to be offered as proof of its truth,
57:05
Speaker 1: but is designed merely to elucidate and make clearer the
57:07
Speaker 1: manifestation of this principle in the world of thought and things.
57:12
Speaker 1: By logical synthesis is meant the act of synthesizing, combining,
57:16
Speaker 1: putting together, or arranging systematically into classes or groups two
57:21
Speaker 1: or more individual or particular things possessing common essential characteristics.
57:26
Speaker 1: By class is meant a group of individual or particular
57:30
Speaker 1: things possessing common essential characteristics. The principle of classification, as
57:36
Speaker 1: employed in logical reasoning is applied under two general methods, viz. One,
57:41
Speaker 1: the method of practical classification, and two the method of
57:45
Speaker 1: logical synthesis. Practical classification consists of placing particular things, represented
57:52
Speaker 1: by their appropriate percepts, into loosely constructed classes, depending upon
57:56
Speaker 1: the general resemblance discovered to exist between the respective characteristics
58:00
Speaker 1: of such things. This form of classification is employed merely
58:04
Speaker 1: for convenience of thought and expression. Logical synthesis consists of
58:09
Speaker 1: the processes whereby reason unites into a general idea or
58:13
Speaker 1: concept the several elements of a number of particular percepts
58:16
Speaker 1: bearing a very close resemblance to each other in the
58:18
Speaker 1: matter of their essential characteristics. This form of classification or
58:23
Speaker 1: synthesis has for its purpose the creation of an intelligent
58:26
Speaker 1: idea of a general class, genus or species of things.
58:30
Speaker 1: Such created ideas afterward to be used as material for
58:33
Speaker 1: the higher processes of logical reasoning. Or logical inference. We
58:38
Speaker 1: now ask you to consider in further detail each of
58:40
Speaker 1: these two general methods of classification practical classification by reference
58:47
Speaker 1: to your own experience. You will find that you are
58:49
Speaker 1: in the habit of grouping your ideas of things into
58:52
Speaker 1: certain loose li knited classes. You think of them as
58:55
Speaker 1: all of a kind for the purpose of convenience, Yet
58:58
Speaker 1: you do not make the subdivisions into genera species, families,
59:02
Speaker 1: et cetera. Your ordinary classification of this kind, you will find,
59:07
Speaker 1: arises from your perception of certain general kinds, forms or
59:11
Speaker 1: classes of relationship existing between the particular things in question.
59:16
Speaker 1: Examples of this kind of relation between particular things are
59:19
Speaker 1: found in cases of one the relations of existence in
59:22
Speaker 1: the same place, two the relation of existence in the
59:26
Speaker 1: same period of time. Three the relation of cause and effect,
59:30
Speaker 1: as for instance thunder and lightning. For personal relations as
59:35
Speaker 1: for instance parent and child, husband and wife, brother and sister,
59:40
Speaker 1: et cetera. Five Mass relations as for instance, members of
59:45
Speaker 1: the same religious denomination, the same political party, the same
59:48
Speaker 1: baseball team, the same legislature, the same club, et cetera.
59:54
Speaker 1: Six utilitarian relations, as for instance coal and fire, oil
1:00:00
Speaker 1: and light, steam and motive power, et cetera. Seven relations
1:00:05
Speaker 1: of common purpose or use, as for instance, coal wood
1:00:09
Speaker 1: and oil considered as heat producers, or candles oil and
1:00:14
Speaker 1: electric light considered as light producers. Eight relations of resemblance
1:00:18
Speaker 1: of prominent characteristics, as for instance, all black things, all
1:00:23
Speaker 1: sweet things, all solid things, all poisonous things, all explosive things.
1:00:29
Speaker 1: Nine the special relations of whole and parts, as for instance,
1:00:33
Speaker 1: the automobile and its numerous parts, fixtures, and attachments. This
1:00:38
Speaker 1: list of possible practical classification might be extended almost indefinitely,
1:00:43
Speaker 1: but the above mentioned more important classes will serve to
1:00:46
Speaker 1: illustrate the principle employed and observed in all such classification.
1:00:51
Speaker 1: You will find it of great importance to cultivate this
1:00:54
Speaker 1: form of classification. By tying your notions of things into
1:00:58
Speaker 1: separate bundles, by placing them in the appropriate pigeonholes of memory,
1:01:02
Speaker 1: by cross indexing them, as it were, you will be
1:01:05
Speaker 1: able to perform your work of practical thinking and efficient
1:01:08
Speaker 1: thought with a minimum expenditure of time and effort, and
1:01:11
Speaker 1: with a maximum of desirable results. Put things into classes
1:01:15
Speaker 1: in your mind, but be careful that each thing properly
1:01:18
Speaker 1: belongs in that class. Else you may experience trouble when
1:01:22
Speaker 1: you have need to refer to that class of things.
1:01:25
Speaker 1: You cannot well classify things properly unless you have previously
1:01:28
Speaker 1: acquired clear and correct percepts or concepts of them. The
1:01:32
Speaker 1: man who has the materials of thought well classified and
1:01:35
Speaker 1: systematically arranged will be able to think out the desired
1:01:39
Speaker 1: answer long before the man not so prepared is able
1:01:42
Speaker 1: to do it. Indeed, the latter person may not be
1:01:45
Speaker 1: able to do it at all. System In a classification
1:01:48
Speaker 1: of ideas, information and knowledge will give one an immense
1:01:52
Speaker 1: advantage over others who follow the higglety pigglety method or
1:01:55
Speaker 1: lack of method. Professor halleck Well says whenever a person
1:02:00
Speaker 1: is comparing a fact in order to put it in
1:02:02
Speaker 1: the same class with other specimens, he is thinking. Comparison
1:02:07
Speaker 1: is an absolutely essential factor of thought, and classification demands comparison.
1:02:12
Speaker 1: The man who has not properly classified the myriad individual
1:02:16
Speaker 1: objects with which he has to deal must advance like
1:02:18
Speaker 1: a cripple. He only can travel with seven leagued boots.
1:02:23
Speaker 1: Who has thought out the relations existing between these stray
1:02:26
Speaker 1: individuals and put them into their proper classes in a minute.
1:02:30
Speaker 1: A business man may put his hand on any one
1:02:33
Speaker 1: of ten thousand letters if they are properly classified in
1:02:37
Speaker 1: the same way the student of any science can, if
1:02:40
Speaker 1: he studies his subject aright, have all of his knowledge
1:02:43
Speaker 1: of any subject classified in speedily available for use. You
1:02:47
Speaker 1: will be able to put the same thing into very
1:02:49
Speaker 1: many classes under the method of practical classification. The more
1:02:54
Speaker 1: classes the better. For each class relation gives you another
1:02:57
Speaker 1: handle with which to grasp the thought of that thing
1:03:00
Speaker 1: when you need it. Each is another cross index by
1:03:03
Speaker 1: means of which you may find it when it is required.
1:03:06
Speaker 1: Some psychologists indicate the process of practical classification by the
1:03:10
Speaker 1: name or term apperception, so as to distinguish it from
1:03:13
Speaker 1: the classification of logical synthesis known in logic as conception.
1:03:18
Speaker 1: The important mental process known as apperception is overlooked in
1:03:21
Speaker 1: most works dealing with the subject of formal logic. Indeed,
1:03:25
Speaker 1: this particular subject belongs rather to the field of practical logic.
1:03:30
Speaker 1: Professor Gordy says apperception is the most fundamental form of
1:03:34
Speaker 1: mental activity. It is that combining activity of the mind
1:03:37
Speaker 1: that brings order and harmony of related facts into the
1:03:40
Speaker 1: consciousness of relations. In the processes of constructive imagination. The
1:03:45
Speaker 1: factor of apperception, or the knowledge of practical relations, is
1:03:50
Speaker 1: a very important element. Practical logic is largely concerned with
1:03:54
Speaker 1: the discovery of the practical relations between things, and the
1:03:58
Speaker 1: proper classifications of unrelated knowledge is only half knowledge. Be
1:04:05
Speaker 1: keen in your search for relations, and be careful in
1:04:08
Speaker 1: your classification of them after they are discovered. Men advance
1:04:12
Speaker 1: by reason of their discovery of new relations in things,
1:04:15
Speaker 1: and by properly classifying and indexing these in their minds.
1:04:19
Speaker 1: Hallick Well says, whenever one learns a new thing apparently
1:04:23
Speaker 1: unrelated to any other part of his knowledge, he should
1:04:26
Speaker 1: make haste to form connections. In doing this, he will think. This, then,
1:04:33
Speaker 1: is what the method of practical classification means. As for
1:04:36
Speaker 1: the method of logical synthesis or generalization, that is another story.
1:04:41
Speaker 1: You have doubtless noted that under the method of practical classification,
1:04:45
Speaker 1: the arrangement into classes is made according to the quasia, tributes,
1:04:49
Speaker 1: or the external characteristics of the different things, rather than
1:04:53
Speaker 1: according to the true qualities, properties, and attributes the internal
1:04:57
Speaker 1: characteristics of the different objects. In logical synthesis or generalization,
1:05:03
Speaker 1: the division and classification proceed according to strict logical requirements.
1:05:08
Speaker 1: In it, only the true qualities, properties, and attributes are
1:05:11
Speaker 1: taken into consideration. Only the internal characteristics are employed. In
1:05:15
Speaker 1: the process of logical classification, logical synthesis or generalization is
1:05:22
Speaker 1: the act or process of bringing two or more particular
1:05:24
Speaker 1: percepts agreeing in some important point or points of character,
1:05:28
Speaker 1: into a common or general class under a common general head, name,
1:05:32
Speaker 1: or term, or to bring a particular fact or series
1:05:36
Speaker 1: of facts into a wider circle of similar facts to
1:05:39
Speaker 1: which an appropriate term has been affixed. The general idea, class,
1:05:44
Speaker 1: or conception thus produced is known as a concept. The
1:05:48
Speaker 1: concept so produced is the general idea or notion, or
1:05:52
Speaker 1: the idea or notion of a general class of things,
1:05:55
Speaker 1: which is composed, constituted, and made up of a number
1:05:58
Speaker 1: of particular ideas of particular individual things possessing class characteristics.
1:06:02
Speaker 1: In common, the term applied to the concept becomes the
1:06:06
Speaker 1: class name. In logical synthesis or generalization, the term class
1:06:12
Speaker 1: does not, as in practical classification, mean merely a crowd, collection, aggregation,
1:06:17
Speaker 1: or assembled number of individuals not necessarily possessing essential internal characteristics. Instead,
1:06:24
Speaker 1: it here clearly means an indefinite number of individual things
1:06:27
Speaker 1: perhaps far apart in time or space, which possess certain
1:06:31
Speaker 1: essential internal characteristics in common, and which are practically identical
1:06:36
Speaker 1: and alike in these essential respects. In logical synthesis or generalization,
1:06:43
Speaker 1: many individual things are carefully compared for resemblances and agreement,
1:06:48
Speaker 1: their respective non essential differences and disagreements being laid aside
1:06:52
Speaker 1: in the general classification. That is to say, if the
1:06:56
Speaker 1: several things agree in the major characteristics, then their disagreements
1:07:00
Speaker 1: in their minor characteristics are overlooked in the general classification.
1:07:05
Speaker 1: These minor disagreements, however, may later form the basis for
1:07:09
Speaker 1: the formation of subclasses, et cetera. Agreements are the basis
1:07:13
Speaker 1: of synthesis, disagreements are the basis of analysis. In this way,
1:07:18
Speaker 1: all concepts of classes, orders, families, species, and general rise.
1:07:25
Speaker 1: Let us take the general concept of bird as an illustration.
1:07:29
Speaker 1: The conceptual term bird is defined as any and every feathered, winged,
1:07:34
Speaker 1: warm blooded, egg laying, biped vertebrate, great or small, young
1:07:39
Speaker 1: or old. Here, then, are the essential common parts, elements
1:07:44
Speaker 1: and factors, qualities, properties, and attributes which each in every bird,
1:07:49
Speaker 1: and all birds in normal condition, must possess in order
1:07:52
Speaker 1: to constitute them true birds viz. One a vertebra, two
1:07:57
Speaker 1: two legs, three wings, four or warm blood, five feathers,
1:08:02
Speaker 1: six egg laying functions in a female seven all in
1:08:06
Speaker 1: combination in the same animal at the same time. Bats
1:08:10
Speaker 1: and butterflies are not birds, though they have wings. Flying
1:08:14
Speaker 1: fish and flying squirrels are not birds though they fly.
1:08:17
Speaker 1: Reptiles are not birds, though some of them lay eggs,
1:08:21
Speaker 1: and so on. All the essential characteristics must be present
1:08:24
Speaker 1: in the same animal at the same time. The creatures
1:08:27
Speaker 1: just mentioned, while possessing some of these characteristics, lack others,
1:08:32
Speaker 1: and so cannot be birds. The concept of birds may
1:08:36
Speaker 1: be synthesized into the greater concept of vertebrates, and this
1:08:40
Speaker 1: in turn into the still greater concept of animals, and
1:08:44
Speaker 1: this again into the still more general concept of natural objects. Likewise,
1:08:50
Speaker 1: the concept of birds may be analyzed and separated into
1:08:54
Speaker 1: its various subclasses families, species, subspecies, varieties, et cetera. As
1:09:01
Speaker 1: we have already said, synthesis proceeds according to resemblances. Analysis
1:09:05
Speaker 1: proceeds according to differences. Note it must not be overlooked
1:09:10
Speaker 1: that while the stricter and more precise forms of logical
1:09:13
Speaker 1: classification deal with concepts of classes composed of many individuals
1:09:17
Speaker 1: having only a few common characteristics. Yet there are certain
1:09:20
Speaker 1: forms employed in logical reasoning in which a certain variation
1:09:24
Speaker 1: of this particular principle is manifested. These forms are as follows.
1:09:29
Speaker 1: One class concepts, in which many objects or individuals possess
1:09:33
Speaker 1: practically only one common essential characteristic, and two class concepts,
1:09:38
Speaker 1: in which are included merely one individual or object having
1:09:42
Speaker 1: one or more special characteristics. Examples of each are given
1:09:46
Speaker 1: in the following two paragraphs. A. The class concept may
1:09:51
Speaker 1: include many individuals having practically but one common essential characteristic,
1:09:55
Speaker 1: as for instance, class concepts of white things, colored things,
1:10:00
Speaker 1: beautiful things, live things, dead things. In fact, any kind
1:10:04
Speaker 1: of things having but one essential quality necessary to admit
1:10:07
Speaker 1: them to the class. Any quality or condition may serve
1:10:11
Speaker 1: as the basis for such classification and as the one
1:10:15
Speaker 1: essential quality or element of such concept. Thus, when we
1:10:19
Speaker 1: say this thing is sweet, we place it in the
1:10:22
Speaker 1: class of sweet things, the one essential attribute of such
1:10:25
Speaker 1: class being sweetness. B. The class concept may include only
1:10:30
Speaker 1: one individual or object having one or more special qualities
1:10:34
Speaker 1: or conditions. For example, the Eiffel Tower, the Capital at Washington,
1:10:40
Speaker 1: the Washington Monument, the Rosetta, Stone, Niagara Falls, Napoleon Bonaparte
1:10:45
Speaker 1: are each in a class by itself, and each has
1:10:48
Speaker 1: some special characteristic distinguishing it from all other things. Here,
1:10:53
Speaker 1: the individual or object constitutes the whole thing of its
1:10:56
Speaker 1: special class. These two special forms of class concepts are
1:11:01
Speaker 1: of course capable of being synthesized into greater class concepts,
1:11:05
Speaker 1: but only the first mentioned may be analyzed into subclasses.
1:11:09
Speaker 1: The latter defies analysis of this kind, for it consists
1:11:12
Speaker 1: of only one individual in forming concepts by logical synthesis
1:11:17
Speaker 1: or generalization. Care must be taken to discriminate between one
1:11:22
Speaker 1: the essential characteristics of the various individual things you wish
1:11:26
Speaker 1: to combine into a general class, and two the non
1:11:30
Speaker 1: essential characteristics possessed by some, but not all, of the
1:11:34
Speaker 1: particular things. An essential characteristic is a characteristic which is
1:11:39
Speaker 1: common to the whole class, one which is necessary to
1:11:42
Speaker 1: entitle the individual to admission to the class. A non
1:11:47
Speaker 1: essential characteristic is a characteristic which a member of a
1:11:50
Speaker 1: class may or may not have, which is not necessary
1:11:54
Speaker 1: to admit him to the class, but which does not
1:11:56
Speaker 1: debar him from it. The true essential characteristics of the
1:12:01
Speaker 1: bird concept are those previously noted viz. Vertebra two legs, wings,
1:12:06
Speaker 1: warm blood, feathers, egg laying in combination in the same
1:12:10
Speaker 1: individual that non essential attributes possessed by the individual members
1:12:15
Speaker 1: of the class are, for example, differences in coloring in
1:12:19
Speaker 1: general or special conformation, size, food, habits, nest, building habits,
1:12:24
Speaker 1: configuration of beak, bill, feet, wings, tail, body, et cetera.
1:12:30
Speaker 1: Such widely varying creatures as owls, sparrows, eagles, condors, vultures, wrens,
1:12:36
Speaker 1: humming birds, cranes, storks, crows, ostriches, parrots, woodpeckers, et cetera,
1:12:43
Speaker 1: all have that essential characteristics denoting bird nests, yet each
1:12:47
Speaker 1: has many non essential characteristics which have nothing to do
1:12:51
Speaker 1: with the case of their bird nests. The concept is
1:12:55
Speaker 1: a mental symbol, yet it cannot be pictured as a
1:12:58
Speaker 1: mental image. Mind is able to grasp the conceptual symbol
1:13:02
Speaker 1: of bird, yet it cannot picture the concept bird. It
1:13:05
Speaker 1: cannot visualize it. Think over this for a moment and
1:13:09
Speaker 1: you will see just why this is so. You may
1:13:12
Speaker 1: visualize or picture a bird, but you cannot do this
1:13:15
Speaker 1: with the abstract conceptual idea of bird, i e. All birds.
1:13:21
Speaker 1: This because of the ever present non essential characteristics found
1:13:25
Speaker 1: in each and every bird in different form and kind,
1:13:28
Speaker 1: each bird having some of them, but no bird having
1:13:31
Speaker 1: all of them. Each of them is present in some birds,
1:13:34
Speaker 1: but none of them is present in all birds. A
1:13:37
Speaker 1: picture of the concept bird i e. All birds, would
1:13:41
Speaker 1: have to portray a creature having, at the same time
1:13:44
Speaker 1: and place, the long legs of the crane or stork,
1:13:47
Speaker 1: and the short legs of the wren or sparrow, the
1:13:49
Speaker 1: long bill of the humming bird, the snipe, et cetera,
1:13:53
Speaker 1: the short bill of the sparrow or wren, and the
1:13:55
Speaker 1: beak of the eagle, the claws of the hawk, the
1:13:58
Speaker 1: feet of the chicken and the web feet of the duck,
1:14:00
Speaker 1: the neck of the swan, of the crane, of the wren,
1:14:04
Speaker 1: of the sparrow, and of the duck, not to speak
1:14:06
Speaker 1: of them, almost infinite variation of color, size, relative proportions
1:14:12
Speaker 1: of the several parts of the body, et cetera. An attempt,
1:14:16
Speaker 1: even a feeble attempt, to produce such a picture would
1:14:19
Speaker 1: result in a production equaling the vision of the sufferer
1:14:21
Speaker 1: from delirium tremens or the creation of some of the
1:14:24
Speaker 1: post futurist schools of art. So you see the concept
1:14:29
Speaker 1: can exist merely as a mental symbol, never as a
1:14:32
Speaker 1: mental picture. Like the mathematical symbol, it exists merely for
1:14:37
Speaker 1: the purposes of work. Without such symbols. Moreover, logical reasoning
1:14:42
Speaker 1: would be impossible. Rules of logical synthesis or generalization. The
1:14:48
Speaker 1: following are the technical rules employed in the formation of
1:14:51
Speaker 1: concepts by logical synthesis or generalization. One discover the essential
1:14:57
Speaker 1: characteristics first. Discuss, however, the essential characteristics necessary to admit
1:15:02
Speaker 1: the particular individual things into the general class, entitling them
1:15:06
Speaker 1: to the class term and making the ideas of them
1:15:09
Speaker 1: proper elements of the concept. This is done by comparing
1:15:13
Speaker 1: the individuals regarded by you as promising candidates for admission
1:15:16
Speaker 1: to the class. This comparison will reveal a characteristics possessed
1:15:22
Speaker 1: by only some of the individuals. These cannot be canceled. Therefore,
1:15:27
Speaker 1: they are perceived to be essential characteristics of that class
1:15:30
Speaker 1: of things, and consequently are the essential elements of the
1:15:34
Speaker 1: concept representing that class. Two admit only the essential characteristics.
1:15:40
Speaker 1: Admit to the concept only the essential characteristics which have
1:15:44
Speaker 1: been discovered in the class. Rule out the canceled non essentials.
1:15:49
Speaker 1: The essential characteristics of the class constitute the essential elements
1:15:53
Speaker 1: of the concept. Nothing but such essential elements belong to
1:15:57
Speaker 1: the concept. Nothing that does not belong to the concept
1:16:01
Speaker 1: must be included in it. Three Include all qualified individuals.
1:16:07
Speaker 1: Include in the concept each every and all individual percepts
1:16:11
Speaker 1: or lesser concepts which possess all the essential elements i e.
1:16:15
Speaker 1: All the essential characteristics of the class, but exclude all
1:16:19
Speaker 1: individual percepts or lesser concepts which have not all such
1:16:23
Speaker 1: essential elements. The concept must include all that belongs to it,
1:16:27
Speaker 1: but nothing that does not belong to it. Four synthesize
1:16:32
Speaker 1: in logical sequence. The synthesis of the individuals into classes
1:16:37
Speaker 1: and of these into higher classes should proceed according to
1:16:40
Speaker 1: logical sequence i e. A from lower to higher, b
1:16:44
Speaker 1: from simple to complex e without omission of a logical
1:16:48
Speaker 1: intermediate stage. Without a logical break. For instance, it is
1:16:53
Speaker 1: illogical to synthesize horses, trout, and swallows directly into the
1:16:58
Speaker 1: great class of animals. Here, the logical method and sequence
1:17:02
Speaker 1: requires the recognition of the respective intermediate classes known as mammals, fishes,
1:17:07
Speaker 1: and birds, before the great class of animals is reached.
1:17:12
Speaker 1: Five synthesize in uniform order. The process of synthesis should
1:17:17
Speaker 1: proceed in uniform order and according to the principle of
1:17:20
Speaker 1: classification adopted in beginning it. For instance, it is logical
1:17:25
Speaker 1: to classify individual men either a according to race, as for instance,
1:17:31
Speaker 1: into the sub classes known as Caucasians, Mongolians, American Indians,
1:17:36
Speaker 1: et cetera, or b according to religion, as for instance,
1:17:41
Speaker 1: into the sub classes known as Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, et cetera.
1:17:46
Speaker 1: But it is illogical to confuse and confound these two
1:17:49
Speaker 1: respective divisions of classification. We may logically group men into
1:17:53
Speaker 1: branches of a great religion, and these into divisions, and
1:17:57
Speaker 1: these into the whole great religious class itself. Likewise, we
1:18:01
Speaker 1: may logically group men into sub races, these into minor races,
1:18:05
Speaker 1: these into major races, and these into the whole family
1:18:09
Speaker 1: of mankind. But it is illogical to classify men as
1:18:12
Speaker 1: follows Caucasians, Buddhists, Mongolians, Christians, American Indians, Atheists, et cetera.
1:18:20
Speaker 1: This because such classification is contrary to nature, lacks rational order,
1:18:25
Speaker 1: and is confusing misleading. This being so, it tends to
1:18:29
Speaker 1: fallacious reasoning when its faulty concepts are employed in induction
1:18:33
Speaker 1: or deduction. You will see this more clearly if you
1:18:36
Speaker 1: stop to consider that a Caucasian may be either a Christian,
1:18:39
Speaker 1: an atheist, or a Buddhist, but be cannot be either
1:18:42
Speaker 1: Caucasian or an American Indian. He must remain a Caucasian. Likewise,
1:18:47
Speaker 1: a Mongolian may be either a Buddhist, a Christian, or
1:18:50
Speaker 1: an atheist, but he cannot be a Caucasian. The validity
1:18:54
Speaker 1: of this rule arises from the fact that it agrees
1:18:57
Speaker 1: with the foregoing four other rules. When it is viole
1:19:00
Speaker 1: reilated one or more of the other four rules, usually
1:19:03
Speaker 1: all of them are likewise violated. Note we would call
1:19:08
Speaker 1: your attention here to this important principle involved in all
1:19:11
Speaker 1: concepts or logical classifications. The more general the class, the
1:19:15
Speaker 1: fewer are its essential elements or characteristics, and the larger
1:19:18
Speaker 1: the number of individuals included in it. Likewise, the less
1:19:23
Speaker 1: general the class, the more numerous are its essential elements
1:19:26
Speaker 1: or characteristics, and the fewer are the number of individuals
1:19:30
Speaker 1: included in it. Example, consider the following concepts in the
1:19:34
Speaker 1: light of the above statement. Viz. Bird finch sparrow a
1:19:39
Speaker 1: particular member of the finch family, Chippy a particular member
1:19:43
Speaker 1: of the sparrow family, that particular chippy a particular individual
1:19:47
Speaker 1: of the chippy family. Here you pass from the consideration
1:19:51
Speaker 1: of all birds comprising countless individuals with but very few
1:19:55
Speaker 1: essential characteristics, by gradual stages down to the consideration of
1:19:59
Speaker 1: but one bird with a multitude of essential characteristics. Each individual,
1:20:03
Speaker 1: in a sense, is in a class by itself, inasmuch
1:20:07
Speaker 1: as no two individuals are precisely alike. Reasoning Power Practical
1:20:12
Speaker 1: Logic by William Walker Atkinson, nineteen twenty two. The Law
1:20:18
Speaker 1: of logical judgment. You are now invited to consider that
1:20:22
Speaker 1: important law of logical reasoning known as the law of
1:20:25
Speaker 1: logical judgment. This law represents the universal experience of human thought,
1:20:31
Speaker 1: rationally applied and directed. The law of logical judgment is
1:20:35
Speaker 1: expressed in a third of the seven axioms of logical reasoning,
1:20:38
Speaker 1: which is as follows free the axiom of logical judgment.
1:20:43
Speaker 1: All logical judgment is based upon these three fundamental laws
1:20:47
Speaker 1: of thought. Viz. One, a thing is always just what
1:20:50
Speaker 1: it is and nothing else at a given time and place,
1:20:54
Speaker 1: no matter what name or term may be employed to indicate, designate,
1:20:58
Speaker 1: or represent it. Two, A thing cannot both be and
1:21:01
Speaker 1: yet not be just what it is affirmed to be
1:21:03
Speaker 1: at the same time and place. Three, A thing must
1:21:06
Speaker 1: either be or not be that which it is affirmed
1:21:09
Speaker 1: to be at a given time and place. There is
1:21:12
Speaker 1: no third alternative. This axiom embodies the essential principles of
1:21:18
Speaker 1: the ancient three laws of thought, which were first stated
1:21:21
Speaker 1: nearly two thousand years ago by the Old Greek philosophers.
1:21:25
Speaker 1: In their original form, they were as follows, whatever is is,
1:21:29
Speaker 1: no thing can both be and not be. Every thing
1:21:32
Speaker 1: must either be or not be. These laws are known
1:21:36
Speaker 1: technically as the law of identity, the law of contradiction,
1:21:40
Speaker 1: and the law of excluded middle, respectively. Jevins has said
1:21:45
Speaker 1: of these laws, students are seldom able to see at
1:21:48
Speaker 1: first their full meaning and importance. All arguments may be
1:21:52
Speaker 1: explained when these self evident laws are granted. It is
1:21:56
Speaker 1: not too much to say that the whole of logic
1:21:58
Speaker 1: will be plain to those who will conse use these
1:22:00
Speaker 1: laws as their key. The three divisions of the axiom
1:22:04
Speaker 1: of logical judgment embodying these three laws of thought will
1:22:08
Speaker 1: be considered in detail as we proceed with our instruction
1:22:11
Speaker 1: concerning the law of logical judgment. In this section of
1:22:14
Speaker 1: this book. Judgment is that mental process involving comparison and discrimination,
1:22:20
Speaker 1: i e. Discernment of resemblances and differences in equalities of
1:22:24
Speaker 1: respective percepts or concepts, where the mind forms opinions and
1:22:28
Speaker 1: decisions concerning the nature of the things under consideration. Judgment
1:22:33
Speaker 1: is that power of the reason whereby it perceives the
1:22:35
Speaker 1: agreement or disagreement between two objects of thought. Reason in
1:22:40
Speaker 1: the process of judgment, compares and decides. It is manifest
1:22:45
Speaker 1: in every act of reasoning thought. It manifests when you
1:22:49
Speaker 1: form your percepts, when you create your concepts, when you
1:22:52
Speaker 1: state your propositions, when you make your inferences. The mind
1:22:56
Speaker 1: cannot reason without employing judgments. To reason is to judge.
1:23:00
Speaker 1: To judge is to reason. Reasoning is a continuous process,
1:23:05
Speaker 1: and judgment is always involved in it. Reasoning is the
1:23:09
Speaker 1: golden thread upon which are strung the pearls of successive judgments.
1:23:14
Speaker 1: Logical reasoning is one logical judgment after another. Let us
1:23:19
Speaker 1: now consider in detail the three elements involved in the
1:23:22
Speaker 1: axiom of logical judgment, which expresses the law of logical judgment.
1:23:27
Speaker 1: The law of identity. The first element of the law
1:23:30
Speaker 1: of logical judgment is that originally known as the law
1:23:33
Speaker 1: of identity, which in our axiom is as follows. A
1:23:37
Speaker 1: thing is always just what it is and nothing else
1:23:40
Speaker 1: at a given time and place, no matter what name
1:23:42
Speaker 1: or term may be employed to indicate, designate, or represent it.
1:23:47
Speaker 1: The first part of this statement, i e. That a
1:23:50
Speaker 1: thing is always just what it is and nothing else
1:23:53
Speaker 1: at a given time and place, is so thoroughly self
1:23:56
Speaker 1: evident that it requires no argument to substantiate it. In fact,
1:24:00
Speaker 1: the student, first having it presented to his attention, is
1:24:03
Speaker 1: often inclined to regard the statement as a waste of words.
1:24:07
Speaker 1: Its truth is so clearly evident, its importance is realized
1:24:11
Speaker 1: only when one encounters fallacious reasoning in which the rule
1:24:15
Speaker 1: is violated. This principle, like the bee or wasp, has
1:24:19
Speaker 1: its sting in its tail, the rest of it is
1:24:21
Speaker 1: comparatively harmless. The sting containing tale is as follows, no
1:24:26
Speaker 1: matter what name or term may be employed to indicate, designate,
1:24:30
Speaker 1: or represent it. Let us carefully examine this sting, which
1:24:35
Speaker 1: wounds so many who trifle with it. Let us begin
1:24:38
Speaker 1: by reminding you that most arguments are really disputes over terms,
1:24:42
Speaker 1: rather than about facts again, that rational argument or thought
1:24:47
Speaker 1: is impossible without a preceding agreement upon the meaning of
1:24:50
Speaker 1: the principal terms employed. Once more, the essential point of
1:24:55
Speaker 1: issue of an argument. Once properly stated and clearly defined,
1:24:59
Speaker 1: the argument is then and at least partly completed, sometimes
1:25:02
Speaker 1: fully completed. The first rule of reasoning based upon practical
1:25:06
Speaker 1: logic is first define your terms. Careful observation will show
1:25:12
Speaker 1: you that most disagreements and arguments are really disputes over words.
1:25:17
Speaker 1: So you see, in order to apply the principle that
1:25:20
Speaker 1: a thing is always just what it is and nothing else,
1:25:24
Speaker 1: you must first find out that just what it is
1:25:26
Speaker 1: of the thing under consideration the subject of reasoning, thought, argument, dispute.
1:25:32
Speaker 1: This is accomplished by ascertaining and formulating the logical definition
1:25:36
Speaker 1: of the term most fitly indicating it. The following suggestions
1:25:41
Speaker 1: will prove useful to you in this direction logical definition.
1:25:46
Speaker 1: First impress upon your mind the following statement. My full
1:25:50
Speaker 1: idea of just what a thing is is expressed in
1:25:53
Speaker 1: a full, exact, and complete definition of the logical term
1:25:56
Speaker 1: indicating it. A dozen different names and terms may be
1:26:00
Speaker 1: applied to that thing in common speech, discussion, or argument,
1:26:04
Speaker 1: but its essential logical meaning is not altered in the
1:26:06
Speaker 1: least by reason of changes of names or terms. The
1:26:09
Speaker 1: thing remains just what it is in spite of the
1:26:12
Speaker 1: changed names or terms. Before I attach a name or
1:26:16
Speaker 1: term to a thing in logical thought, reasoning, or argument,
1:26:20
Speaker 1: I must be certain that such name or term fitly,
1:26:23
Speaker 1: completely and logically designates that thing. I must also remember
1:26:27
Speaker 1: that a name or term indicating more than one thing
1:26:30
Speaker 1: is practically several names or terms. The following statement of
1:26:34
Speaker 1: the leading requisites of a logical definition will serve to
1:26:37
Speaker 1: indicate the character of the latter one. The definition should
1:26:41
Speaker 1: state all the essential characteristics of the thing. Two non
1:26:45
Speaker 1: essential characteristics should not be stated in the definition. Three
1:26:49
Speaker 1: names or terms indicating the thing should not be included
1:26:52
Speaker 1: in the definition. It is illogical to define a thing
1:26:55
Speaker 1: by itself or in its own terms. For the definition
1:26:59
Speaker 1: should be stated in affirmative terms, negative terms being avoided
1:27:04
Speaker 1: so far as is possible. Five, the definition should be
1:27:08
Speaker 1: stated in plain, clear terms, all obscure, ambiguous or equivocal terms,
1:27:13
Speaker 1: terms capable of several possible meanings or conveying only vague,
1:27:17
Speaker 1: hazy and confused meanings, as well as all figurative language
1:27:21
Speaker 1: being avoided, you will discover that but very few such
1:27:25
Speaker 1: logical definitions are employed in ordinary popular argument, debate, dispute
1:27:30
Speaker 1: for reasoning thought. Hence the great number of fallacies apparent
1:27:34
Speaker 1: in such Socrates, the famous Greek philosopher, held that a
1:27:39
Speaker 1: logical definition contained in itself the answer to most of
1:27:42
Speaker 1: the questions and problems vexing the mind of man. Accordingly,
1:27:47
Speaker 1: he formulated the now famous Socratic method, which consisted of
1:27:51
Speaker 1: having his pupils answer, in the form of logical definitions
1:27:54
Speaker 1: his questions concerning the essential and fundamental nature and character
1:27:58
Speaker 1: of the things under discussion. Thus he brought them down
1:28:02
Speaker 1: to first principles, or, in the words of the current
1:28:05
Speaker 1: popular phrase, down to brass tacks. He made them solve
1:28:09
Speaker 1: their own problems. In this way, he delivered them of
1:28:13
Speaker 1: their essential ideas. His method was obstetrical. Socrates held that
1:28:18
Speaker 1: most questions and disputes arose over the meaning of words
1:28:21
Speaker 1: and terms. He was a wise man. The Socratic method,
1:28:26
Speaker 1: reduced to its simplest elements, may be applied by you
1:28:29
Speaker 1: in reaching your logical definition, in which is to be
1:28:31
Speaker 1: stated just what this thing is? In the following three forms,
1:28:36
Speaker 1: one ask yourself the questions, What are the essential parts, elements,
1:28:40
Speaker 1: and factors involved in this thing? What are its essential qualities, properties,
1:28:46
Speaker 1: and attributes? What are its causes? What are its effects?
1:28:51
Speaker 1: How does it act? What work does it perform? What
1:28:55
Speaker 1: does it do of? What greater thing is it a
1:28:58
Speaker 1: part into? What class or classes of things does it fit? Two?
1:29:04
Speaker 1: Ask yourself the following questions, what, when, where? How? Why? What? Follows?
1:29:14
Speaker 1: Three ask yourselves the following questions, what is it? How
1:29:19
Speaker 1: do I know it? What of it? These three simple
1:29:23
Speaker 1: forms of applying the Socratic method will serve to deliver
1:29:27
Speaker 1: your mind of much essential information concerning the thing in question.
1:29:31
Speaker 1: This will aid you in formulating in passing upon the
1:29:33
Speaker 1: logical definition of that thing. It is difficult to leave
1:29:37
Speaker 1: the subject of Socrates in this consideration of the law
1:29:40
Speaker 1: of identity, For that old philosopher made this law his
1:29:43
Speaker 1: cardinal principle. His teaching was based largely upon its truth
1:29:47
Speaker 1: and the means whereby it might be applied in practical reasoning.
1:29:51
Speaker 1: Socrates had become disgusted with the notorious practices of the Sophists,
1:29:55
Speaker 1: particularly with their habit of quibbling about terms and the
1:29:58
Speaker 1: names of things. He objected, especially to their employment of
1:30:03
Speaker 1: forms of argument, which amounted to but little, if anything
1:30:06
Speaker 1: more then to play upon words, a species of punning
1:30:09
Speaker 1: in extreme cases. So he emphasized the law of identity
1:30:14
Speaker 1: and asserted that a thing is always itself, no matter
1:30:17
Speaker 1: what name may be attached to it, and that it
1:30:20
Speaker 1: is one's business to find out just what the thing is.
1:30:24
Speaker 1: To him, white was none the less white if the
1:30:26
Speaker 1: name black was applied to it. He insisted that calling
1:30:31
Speaker 1: a thing so does not make it so. He was
1:30:34
Speaker 1: opposed to the bad habit of calling things wrong names.
1:30:38
Speaker 1: Socrates cautioned his pupils always to be on guard against
1:30:42
Speaker 1: arguments or processes of quasi reasoning, which are really but
1:30:45
Speaker 1: disputes about terms and names, and in which the suchness,
1:30:49
Speaker 1: the witchness, and the thinness of particular things are either
1:30:52
Speaker 1: carelessly or else deliberately ignored. His favorite aphorism was reason
1:30:58
Speaker 1: about things, not about terms or words. A noted modern
1:31:02
Speaker 1: logician has expressed the spirit of the Socratic thought in
1:31:05
Speaker 1: the following words. Whatever is actually true of one term
1:31:08
Speaker 1: is also actually true of any term which is stated
1:31:11
Speaker 1: to be the same in essential meaning as the first term.
1:31:15
Speaker 1: Terms may be substituted one for the other, provided that
1:31:18
Speaker 1: it is agreed that they refer to exactly the same things.
1:31:22
Speaker 1: Even the symbol X may be substituted for the class
1:31:25
Speaker 1: term bird, if it be agreed that by X is
1:31:28
Speaker 1: meant feathered, winged, warm blooded, egg, laying, biped vertebrate. Do
1:31:34
Speaker 1: you get the idea? It is this. It is the
1:31:37
Speaker 1: meaning of the term, not the form, letters or sound,
1:31:40
Speaker 1: that counts. Before leaving the subject of the law of identity,
1:31:45
Speaker 1: let us give you a few concrete examples of its value,
1:31:48
Speaker 1: a few real proofs of its virtue. The study of
1:31:51
Speaker 1: fallacy arising from the violation of a law of logic
1:31:55
Speaker 1: will go further toward proving the value and virtue of
1:31:57
Speaker 1: that law than will much greater study of its tis
1:32:00
Speaker 1: technical principles and meaning. The results of the violation of
1:32:04
Speaker 1: any valid law will bring to one the most convincing
1:32:06
Speaker 1: proofs of its validity. This is true in every branch
1:32:09
Speaker 1: or field of human thought or action. Illustrations of the
1:32:14
Speaker 1: law of identity. The following examples served to illustrate the
1:32:18
Speaker 1: general principles of the application of the law of identity.
1:32:22
Speaker 1: Professor William James, in one of his essays, tells of
1:32:25
Speaker 1: a hunter who saw a squirrel clinging to the trunk
1:32:28
Speaker 1: of a tree. The hunter walked slowly around the tree
1:32:31
Speaker 1: to which the squirrel was clinging. The squirrel, at the
1:32:34
Speaker 1: same time moved around the trunk of the tree, so
1:32:37
Speaker 1: that its back was never presented to the hunter. Query
1:32:41
Speaker 1: did the hunter walk around the squirrel? Or did he
1:32:44
Speaker 1: fail to do so? According to the laws of logical reasoning,
1:32:48
Speaker 1: he must either have walked around the squirrel or not
1:32:51
Speaker 1: have done so. He could not both have done so
1:32:54
Speaker 1: and yet not have done so. It must be one
1:32:56
Speaker 1: thing or the other. But which this trick question has
1:33:00
Speaker 1: perplexed many keen practical minds. At first, to many it
1:33:04
Speaker 1: has seemed like a problem in Einstein. But it really
1:33:08
Speaker 1: is sophistical in the form stated, the form so strenuously
1:33:12
Speaker 1: objected to by Old Socrates. When the law of identity
1:33:15
Speaker 1: is applied to it, the difficulty vanishes. The gist of
1:33:19
Speaker 1: the question depends upon another question, viz. Just what is
1:33:23
Speaker 1: meant by walking around the squirrel? If by walking around
1:33:27
Speaker 1: the squirrel is meant that the man proceeded so as
1:33:30
Speaker 1: to face and turn both the back and the front
1:33:32
Speaker 1: of the squirrel, then the answer must be that he
1:33:34
Speaker 1: did not do so. If, on the contrary, by walking
1:33:38
Speaker 1: around the squirrel is meant that the man proceeded so
1:33:41
Speaker 1: as to move completely around the place where the squirrel
1:33:44
Speaker 1: was situated, i e. The trunk of the tree, then
1:33:47
Speaker 1: the answer must be that he did so without an
1:33:50
Speaker 1: agreement upon just what is meant by walking around the
1:33:54
Speaker 1: logical meaning of the term, there can be no logical judgment,
1:33:57
Speaker 1: but this agreement once reached this meaning, once established, there
1:34:01
Speaker 1: can be but one logical judgment, and that a very
1:34:04
Speaker 1: easy one at which to arrive. The law of identity
1:34:08
Speaker 1: governs this case when its principles are logically applied, and
1:34:12
Speaker 1: in it you have an example of the virtue of
1:34:13
Speaker 1: the rules. Define your terms and reason about things, not
1:34:17
Speaker 1: about words. Another example, A whale is popularly known as
1:34:22
Speaker 1: a fish. It looks like a fish, it swims like
1:34:25
Speaker 1: a fish, it lives in water like a fish. Then
1:34:29
Speaker 1: is or is it not a fish? Popular opinion holds
1:34:33
Speaker 1: that it is a fish because of the characteristics above.
1:34:36
Speaker 1: Noted naturalists hold that it is not a fish because
1:34:40
Speaker 1: it is a mammal as lungs, is warm blooded and
1:34:43
Speaker 1: suckles its young at its breast and gives it milk,
1:34:45
Speaker 1: just as does any other mammal, which is right, The
1:34:50
Speaker 1: disputants might argue indefinitely unless there was some agreement upon
1:34:53
Speaker 1: the meaning of the term fish, some logical definition of
1:34:57
Speaker 1: it reference to capable and competent a thought. Alreadies show
1:35:00
Speaker 1: that a fish is cold blooded as gills and does
1:35:04
Speaker 1: not suckle its young, having no teats or mammary glands
1:35:07
Speaker 1: to do so, this scientific meaning of the term fish
1:35:11
Speaker 1: being ascertained and accepted. This answer immediately follows the whale
1:35:15
Speaker 1: is not a fish, though it looks like one and
1:35:18
Speaker 1: lives and swims in the water like one. On the contrary,
1:35:22
Speaker 1: the same reasoning shows that the whale, having all the
1:35:25
Speaker 1: essential qualities of a mammal, is and must be a mammal.
1:35:29
Speaker 1: Another example, a person asserts that the water in the
1:35:32
Speaker 1: bathtub is hot. Another says that it is merely warm.
1:35:36
Speaker 1: A third holds that it is tepid. A fourth believes
1:35:39
Speaker 1: that it is cool. How is the dispute to be settled?
1:35:43
Speaker 1: Each reports the degree of heat sensation, or rather the
1:35:47
Speaker 1: heat perception experienced by himself, Yet the temperature of that
1:35:52
Speaker 1: water remains certain, definite, fixed at least for the moment.
1:35:56
Speaker 1: Lacking a standard of meaning, governing the use of these
1:35:59
Speaker 1: several terms, there can be no agreement. The thermometer gives
1:36:03
Speaker 1: the certain, definite fixed temperature, but it does not report
1:36:07
Speaker 1: whether such be hot, warm, tepid, or cool. Neither does
1:36:11
Speaker 1: the dictionary. Let us suppose that the disputants agree to
1:36:15
Speaker 1: accept the definition given by certain authorities on bathing. These
1:36:19
Speaker 1: authorities report that water is hot when its temperature is
1:36:23
Speaker 1: above ninety eight degrees fahr, that it is warm from
1:36:27
Speaker 1: eighty five to ninety eight degrees fahr, that it is
1:36:30
Speaker 1: tepid from seventy five to eighty five degrees fahr, that
1:36:34
Speaker 1: it is ice cold at thirty two degrees fahr. This
1:36:39
Speaker 1: or any similar standard, once accepted or adopted, the judgment
1:36:43
Speaker 1: becomes certain. The thermometer gives the true answer. Another example,
1:36:48
Speaker 1: a particularly dangerous form of fallacy claiming the protection of
1:36:51
Speaker 1: the laws of thought is that which arises from the
1:36:54
Speaker 1: assumption of some relative, comparative or personal opinion by which
1:36:57
Speaker 1: the actions of persons or the character of things are measured.
1:37:01
Speaker 1: The fallacy consists in assuming that such relative comparative or
1:37:06
Speaker 1: personal opinion represents an actual, fixed, certain standard, instead of
1:37:10
Speaker 1: being one dependent entirely upon the personal views, opinions, training,
1:37:15
Speaker 1: or prejudice of the individual employing it. For instance, it
1:37:19
Speaker 1: is often argued that such a person is noble, courageous, virtuous, vicious, selfish, unbusinesslike,
1:37:26
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Such reasoning or arguments
1:37:31
Speaker 1: are always more or less futile and inconclusive, because no
1:37:35
Speaker 1: fixed standard is agreed upon or accepted, no fixed measure
1:37:38
Speaker 1: of value agreed upon or accepted by the disputants. If
1:37:43
Speaker 1: some such fixed standard, as for instance, one representing the
1:37:47
Speaker 1: best opinion of the time and place, is agreed upon
1:37:50
Speaker 1: and accepted, then the judgment is speedily reached. In absence
1:37:55
Speaker 1: of such, the reasoning or argument travels round in a circle,
1:37:58
Speaker 1: ever moving but reaching a conclusion. The rule in such
1:38:03
Speaker 1: cases is this, define your terms, obtain an agreement upon
1:38:07
Speaker 1: the standard of measurement or value, and then reason logically
1:38:10
Speaker 1: from such. One is even justified in inquiring of others
1:38:15
Speaker 1: or of himself good for what when the argument or
1:38:18
Speaker 1: reasoning is concerned with the question or whether or not
1:38:21
Speaker 1: a certain thing or action is good. Other examples illustrating
1:38:25
Speaker 1: the need of clearness of definition of terms are found
1:38:28
Speaker 1: in the later section of this book entitled the Law
1:38:31
Speaker 1: of Deduction, under the head the terms must be unequivocal
1:38:34
Speaker 1: and not ambiguous. That portion of our instruction should be
1:38:38
Speaker 1: studied and considered in connection with the present statements, and
1:38:42
Speaker 1: vice versa, for they are both concerned with the same
1:38:44
Speaker 1: principle of judgment, the law of contradiction. The second element
1:38:50
Speaker 1: of the law of logical judgment is that originally known
1:38:53
Speaker 1: as the law of contradiction, which in our axiom is
1:38:56
Speaker 1: stated as follows. A thing cannot both be and not
1:38:59
Speaker 1: be just what it is affirmed to be at the
1:39:01
Speaker 1: same time and place. We shall consider this logical principle
1:39:06
Speaker 1: in connection with the law of excluded middle, inasmuch as
1:39:09
Speaker 1: the same essential principle is involved in each and in both,
1:39:13
Speaker 1: the two laws being complementary one to the other. The
1:39:17
Speaker 1: law of excluded middle, the third element of the law
1:39:20
Speaker 1: of logical judgment, is that originally known as the law
1:39:23
Speaker 1: of excluded middle, which in our axiom is stated as follows.
1:39:27
Speaker 1: Thing must either be or not be that which it
1:39:30
Speaker 1: is affirmed to be at a given time and place.
1:39:34
Speaker 1: In the case of these two respective laws, as in
1:39:37
Speaker 1: the case of the one which we have just considered
1:39:39
Speaker 1: that sting is found in the tail. In these cases,
1:39:43
Speaker 1: that sting consists of the clause contained in a statement
1:39:46
Speaker 1: of each ie at the same time and place or
1:39:50
Speaker 1: at a given time and place. When this point of
1:39:53
Speaker 1: time and place and that of definition of terms are
1:39:57
Speaker 1: fully understood, the application of these two principles becomes easy.
1:40:01
Speaker 1: The words at the same time and place or at
1:40:04
Speaker 1: a given time and place give additional definiteness to the
1:40:08
Speaker 1: proposition and serve to bring into a clear relief its
1:40:11
Speaker 1: essential meaning. The valid application of these two principles is
1:40:15
Speaker 1: illustrated by the following familiar examples. You are either just
1:40:19
Speaker 1: where you are or not just where you are at
1:40:21
Speaker 1: the time you are reading these words. You must either
1:40:24
Speaker 1: be there or not be there. You cannot both be
1:40:27
Speaker 1: and yet not be there. And there is no third
1:40:29
Speaker 1: alternative in which the two extremes are harmonized, or in
1:40:32
Speaker 1: which neither is the truth. This requires no argument. It
1:40:37
Speaker 1: is self evident. Again. A dog must either be an
1:40:40
Speaker 1: animal or else not be an animal at a given
1:40:43
Speaker 1: time and place. It cannot both be and yet not
1:40:46
Speaker 1: be such, and there is no third alternative. This is
1:40:50
Speaker 1: self evident. Again. A particular rose at a given time
1:40:54
Speaker 1: and place must either be read or else not read.
1:40:58
Speaker 1: It cannot both be and yet not be read, and
1:41:01
Speaker 1: there is no third alternative. Again, a whale must either
1:41:05
Speaker 1: be or not be a fish. It cannot both be
1:41:08
Speaker 1: and yet not be, and there is no third alternative.
1:41:12
Speaker 1: Such cases might be multiplied indefinitely. The principle involved is
1:41:17
Speaker 1: self evident. It is as plain as the nose on
1:41:20
Speaker 1: your face. It is only when we consider the unwarranted
1:41:24
Speaker 1: and fallacious attempts to employ the principle that its importance
1:41:27
Speaker 1: is made clear. Let us now consider a few examples
1:41:31
Speaker 1: of this fallacious application. One the element of time and place.
1:41:36
Speaker 1: The time element and space element must be taken into
1:41:39
Speaker 1: consideration in the logical application of the laws of contradiction
1:41:43
Speaker 1: in excluded middle, respectively. While it is impossible for a
1:41:47
Speaker 1: thing both to be and yet not be so and
1:41:49
Speaker 1: so or such and such at a given time and
1:41:51
Speaker 1: place or at the same time and place, and while
1:41:54
Speaker 1: it is impossible for a thing to avoid either being
1:41:57
Speaker 1: or else not being that under these conditions, yet it
1:42:00
Speaker 1: is quite possible for a thing to be such and
1:42:02
Speaker 1: such at one time and place, and not to be
1:42:04
Speaker 1: such an and such at another time and place, example,
1:42:09
Speaker 1: a piece of iron may be red hot at one
1:42:11
Speaker 1: time and not red hot at another time. Likewise, a
1:42:15
Speaker 1: piece of iron may be red hot at one end
1:42:18
Speaker 1: i e. One place, and not red hot at the
1:42:21
Speaker 1: other end i e. Another place, but at the same
1:42:25
Speaker 1: time and place it must be either red hot or not.
1:42:27
Speaker 1: So it cannot be both, and it must be either. Again.
1:42:32
Speaker 1: A man may be angry at one time and place
1:42:35
Speaker 1: and not angry at another time and place. But at
1:42:38
Speaker 1: the same time and place he must be either one
1:42:40
Speaker 1: thing or the other. He cannot be both. Again. A
1:42:44
Speaker 1: piece of cloth may be red in one place one part,
1:42:47
Speaker 1: and blue at another at the same time. Or it
1:42:50
Speaker 1: may be read today and be dyed purple tomorrow. But
1:42:53
Speaker 1: at the same time and place it must either be
1:42:55
Speaker 1: red or not red. It cannot be both. Query a
1:42:59
Speaker 1: man en has cold feet and a hot head. Is
1:43:02
Speaker 1: he hot or is he cold? If so, why are
1:43:07
Speaker 1: the principles of logical judgment overcome or their laws violated
1:43:11
Speaker 1: in such a case? In this connection, you are asked
1:43:15
Speaker 1: to note that even in such cases as those above cited,
1:43:18
Speaker 1: the law of identity governs the thing or man at
1:43:21
Speaker 1: any given time and place is always just what it
1:43:24
Speaker 1: is at that time and place, notwithstanding just what that,
1:43:29
Speaker 1: just what may be found to be two. The element
1:43:32
Speaker 1: of relative terms, the distinction between absolute terms and relative terms,
1:43:38
Speaker 1: to which we have alluded in the preceding pages, also
1:43:41
Speaker 1: plays an important part in the application of these two
1:43:43
Speaker 1: laws or principles. Relative comparative or personal terms must not
1:43:49
Speaker 1: be employed as absolute, fixed, certain definite terms in such application.
1:43:55
Speaker 1: We have already given you a typically illustrative example in
1:43:58
Speaker 1: the case of the water in the bathtub. Differences of
1:44:01
Speaker 1: opinion concerning the warmness or coolness or just rightness of
1:44:05
Speaker 1: the temperature of a room furnish another example. Here, the absolute, certain, fixed,
1:44:12
Speaker 1: definite just what the temperature is consists of the report
1:44:15
Speaker 1: of the thermometer that it is so many degrees fahrenheit.
1:44:19
Speaker 1: Whether it is cool, warm, or just right is a
1:44:23
Speaker 1: matter of individual feeling, unless a fixed standard be accepted
1:44:27
Speaker 1: or adopted by means of which these terms acquire a
1:44:30
Speaker 1: definite meaning. Here is a variation illustrating the same principle.
1:44:35
Speaker 1: A man stands before three different basins filled with water.
1:44:39
Speaker 1: The right hand basin contains water heated to one hundred
1:44:42
Speaker 1: and twenty degrees fahrenheit. The left hand basin water cool
1:44:46
Speaker 1: to thirty five degrees fahrenheit, the middle basin water heated
1:44:50
Speaker 1: to seventy five degrees fahrenheit. The man places one hand
1:44:54
Speaker 1: in the cold basin, his other hand in the hot one,
1:44:58
Speaker 1: and holds them there until they distinctly feel the respective
1:45:01
Speaker 1: kinds of temperature. Then he withdraws both hands and suddenly
1:45:06
Speaker 1: plunges them into the water in the middle basin, which
1:45:09
Speaker 1: is heated to seventy five degrees fahrenheit. This causes his
1:45:13
Speaker 1: hot water hand to feel cold and his cold water
1:45:17
Speaker 1: hand to feel warm. By reason of the contrast, query,
1:45:22
Speaker 1: is the water of the middle basin cold or not cold?
1:45:26
Speaker 1: One hand says one thing, the other hand another. How
1:45:30
Speaker 1: and why do the laws of logical judgment apply in
1:45:33
Speaker 1: this case? The answer is the only certain fact is
1:45:38
Speaker 1: that the water in the middle basin is of a
1:45:40
Speaker 1: temperature of seventy five degrees fahrenheit. Only this, and nothing more.
1:45:45
Speaker 1: The rest is a matter of interpretation of sensation according
1:45:48
Speaker 1: to the existing conditions. If water of seventy five degrees
1:45:53
Speaker 1: fahrenheit be regarded, as it is by authorities as tepid
1:45:58
Speaker 1: or lukewarm, then the water must be regarded as so
1:46:01
Speaker 1: the law of logical judgment, notwithstanding the conflicting reports of
1:46:05
Speaker 1: sensation made by the respective hands. Note, if two thermometers
1:46:10
Speaker 1: disagree in their reports, get a standard one and abide
1:46:13
Speaker 1: by its decision. We advise you to fix the words
1:46:17
Speaker 1: lukewarm water in your memory, associating them with the above
1:46:21
Speaker 1: typical example. By doing so, you will have at hand
1:46:24
Speaker 1: a convenient and useful reminder not to commit the fallacy
1:46:28
Speaker 1: of confusing relative terms with absolute ones, personal feelings with
1:46:32
Speaker 1: fixed standards, permanent values with temporary ones. When you hear
1:46:36
Speaker 1: men arguing about their states of feeling or their notions
1:46:40
Speaker 1: which they mistake for fixed absolute standards and values, remember
1:46:44
Speaker 1: the story of the hot hand and the cold hand,
1:46:47
Speaker 1: and the tepid water in between. We shall not, however,
1:46:51
Speaker 1: here press the additional point that the truth is found
1:46:54
Speaker 1: between the two extremes. Although this too is a fact
1:46:58
Speaker 1: of general experience, it is nevertheless another story and must
1:47:03
Speaker 1: be told elsewhere. Three. The element of false opposites. Another
1:47:08
Speaker 1: perplexing and frequently experienced obstacle to the proper application of
1:47:12
Speaker 1: the laws and principles now under consideration is that which
1:47:16
Speaker 1: arises from a confusion concerning the logical opposite of a
1:47:19
Speaker 1: certain attribute, property, or quality of an object. Thus, many
1:47:25
Speaker 1: persons think that the true opposite of white is black.
1:47:28
Speaker 1: Upon this basis, one applying the rules of the respective
1:47:31
Speaker 1: laws of contradiction excluded middle, would be compelled to reason
1:47:34
Speaker 1: as follows, this thing before me must be either white
1:47:37
Speaker 1: or else black, for it cannot be both, and there
1:47:40
Speaker 1: is no third alternative. This reasoning is of course fallacious,
1:47:46
Speaker 1: for the thing in question might be neither white nor black.
1:47:49
Speaker 1: It might be green or yellow, or blue, or orange
1:47:52
Speaker 1: or purple or any other color. It might even be
1:47:55
Speaker 1: colorless without our rules being violated. The explanation lies in
1:48:00
Speaker 1: the fact that black is not the logical opposite of white,
1:48:04
Speaker 1: the true logical opposite of white being not white. All
1:48:09
Speaker 1: other colors are in the not white class, and it
1:48:12
Speaker 1: may be stated with logical certainty that everything that exists
1:48:15
Speaker 1: must be either white or else not white. It cannot
1:48:18
Speaker 1: be both, and there is nothing else for it to
1:48:21
Speaker 1: be but one or the other of these. The same
1:48:24
Speaker 1: state of affairs is found in the respective cases of
1:48:27
Speaker 1: the apparent opposites known as hot and cold, sharp and dull,
1:48:31
Speaker 1: and of all other cases in which the contrasting terms
1:48:34
Speaker 1: represent conditions manifested by the two extreme poles of a
1:48:37
Speaker 1: general class of things or characteristics, there being many degrees
1:48:41
Speaker 1: of difference between these two extreme poles. The same rule
1:48:45
Speaker 1: applies in cases like Republican and Democrat, Catholic and Protestant,
1:48:51
Speaker 1: et cetera. A man may be neither a Republican nor
1:48:54
Speaker 1: a Democrat, neither a Catholic nor a Protestant, for there
1:48:58
Speaker 1: is always a third alternative or a something else to
1:49:01
Speaker 1: be in such cases. The proper grouping of the opposites
1:49:05
Speaker 1: in these cases is as follows, Republican or non Republican,
1:49:10
Speaker 1: Democrat or non Democrat, Catholic or non Catholic, Protestant or
1:49:14
Speaker 1: non Protestant. Thus, each in every man that lives, no
1:49:18
Speaker 1: matter what may be his politics or religion, even if
1:49:21
Speaker 1: he be without political or religious affiliations, must be either
1:49:25
Speaker 1: a Republican or a non Republican, a Democrat or a
1:49:28
Speaker 1: non Democrat, a Catholic or a non Catholic, or for
1:49:32
Speaker 1: that matter, either the King of England or not the
1:49:35
Speaker 1: King of England. The little prefixes not or non indicate
1:49:39
Speaker 1: the true logical opposite to anything whatsoever when attached to
1:49:43
Speaker 1: the name or term designating that thing. The combined laws
1:49:47
Speaker 1: of contradiction in excluded middle, rightly understood and logically applied,
1:49:52
Speaker 1: are found to possess the absolute character of arithmetical or
1:49:55
Speaker 1: geometrical laws and principles. No true exceptions to these these
1:50:00
Speaker 1: laws ever have been discovered. Every apparent exception, when analyzed
1:50:04
Speaker 1: and explained, becomes an additional verification. The human mind is
1:50:08
Speaker 1: compelled to think according to these laws when it reasons.
1:50:11
Speaker 1: Logically reasoning power practical logic by William Walker Atkinson, nineteen
1:50:19
Speaker 1: twenty two, The law of logical analogy. You are now
1:50:24
Speaker 1: invited to consider that important law of logical reasoning known
1:50:27
Speaker 1: as the law of logical analogy. This law represents the
1:50:31
Speaker 1: universal experience of human thought, rationally applied and directed. The
1:50:36
Speaker 1: law of logical analogy is expressed in the fourth of
1:50:39
Speaker 1: the seven axioms of logical reasoning, which is as follows.
1:50:44
Speaker 1: For the axiom of logical analogy, A few things which
1:50:47
Speaker 1: are alike in many respects are probably, though not certainly
1:50:51
Speaker 1: alike in some other respects. The principle of reasoning is
1:50:55
Speaker 1: the one most frequently employed by the average person, many
1:50:59
Speaker 1: indeed by but seldom use any other form rightly understood
1:51:03
Speaker 1: and employed within proper limits. It constitutes an important rule
1:51:07
Speaker 1: of rational thought. But the possibilities of the careless and
1:51:10
Speaker 1: unwarranted extension of its employment by those not recognizing its
1:51:14
Speaker 1: limitations has caused logicians to advance but cautiously its claims.
1:51:19
Speaker 1: Reasoning by analogy is the most primitive form of reasoning,
1:51:22
Speaker 1: and it certainly was the only form employed by primitive man,
1:51:26
Speaker 1: just as today it is the only form known to
1:51:28
Speaker 1: the undeveloped races, and indeed the only one used by untrained,
1:51:33
Speaker 1: uncultured minds even in civilized communities. It has a valid
1:51:37
Speaker 1: foundation in observation and experience, and when a single story
1:51:41
Speaker 1: structure is erected upon it, it frequently serves well its purpose.
1:51:45
Speaker 1: But when we attempt to build upon it a skyscraper,
1:51:48
Speaker 1: the rising structure frequently becomes insecure and often tumbles to
1:51:51
Speaker 1: the ground. Indeed, usually it is dangerous to build upon
1:51:56
Speaker 1: it a structure which rises above the ground floor story.
1:52:00
Speaker 1: Many valuable discoveries have been made through the principle of analogy. Thus,
1:52:05
Speaker 1: a man who has mined gold in California, and who
1:52:07
Speaker 1: was then visiting in New South Wales, noticed that the
1:52:10
Speaker 1: mountains in the latter country were very similar in appearance
1:52:13
Speaker 1: to certain mountains in California in which he had dug gold. He,
1:52:18
Speaker 1: reasoning by analogy, concluded that the mountains, being alike in
1:52:22
Speaker 1: some respects, also should be alike in other respects, and
1:52:25
Speaker 1: so he dug for gold in them. His guess proved
1:52:29
Speaker 1: to be correct. He found rich or in the hills,
1:52:32
Speaker 1: and the result was the great discovery of gold in Australia.
1:52:36
Speaker 1: Geologists employed the principle of analogy in their judgment that
1:52:40
Speaker 1: certain rocks were originally formed by processes similar to those
1:52:43
Speaker 1: observed to be in operation in the present period of
1:52:46
Speaker 1: the Earth's history. Noticing the marks on a sandy sea
1:52:50
Speaker 1: beach from which the waves had just receded, they reasoned
1:52:53
Speaker 1: that the similar marks on certain rock formations were produced
1:52:56
Speaker 1: in the same way at some early period of the
1:52:58
Speaker 1: history of the Earth, the soft material afterward becoming hardened
1:53:01
Speaker 1: by natural processes. Seeing on certain rocks marked similar to
1:53:06
Speaker 1: those now impressed upon clay by rain drops and by
1:53:09
Speaker 1: the footprints of birds, mammals, and insects, they reasoned that
1:53:12
Speaker 1: the markings on the rocks were caused in the same
1:53:15
Speaker 1: way by prehistoric creatures at some early geological period when
1:53:19
Speaker 1: the rocks were in a plastic condition. In the same way,
1:53:23
Speaker 1: it is reasoned that the printed tables of logarithms used
1:53:26
Speaker 1: by the Chinese were either copied from similar tables of
1:53:29
Speaker 1: the English, or else both had a common origin. The
1:53:33
Speaker 1: probability of mere coincidence was overcome by the discovery that
1:53:36
Speaker 1: certain errors in the English tables were duplicated in the
1:53:39
Speaker 1: ones used by the Chinese. The analogy was so complete
1:53:43
Speaker 1: that the hypothesis of copying or a common origin was
1:53:46
Speaker 1: the only reasonable one. In the same way, it is
1:53:50
Speaker 1: reasoned that inasmuch as the planet Mars is found to
1:53:52
Speaker 1: have certain areas believed to be seas and certain others
1:53:56
Speaker 1: believed to be land, therefore conditions on that planet must
1:53:59
Speaker 1: resemble to some extent those of the Earth. Moreover, at
1:54:03
Speaker 1: each pole of Mars there is observed to be a white,
1:54:06
Speaker 1: rounded spot which is perceived to decrease in circumference when
1:54:09
Speaker 1: exposed to the Sun's direct rays, and to increase at
1:54:12
Speaker 1: other times, just as do the masses of ice and
1:54:15
Speaker 1: snow found around the poles of the Earth. Here the
1:54:19
Speaker 1: analogy is so close that astronomers feel justified in believing
1:54:22
Speaker 1: that Mars has ice and snow at its poles, just
1:54:25
Speaker 1: as has the Earth. The same kind of reasoning has
1:54:29
Speaker 1: led to the belief that Mars has an atmosphere with winds, clouds, rain,
1:54:33
Speaker 1: and snow, very similar to corresponding phenomena manifested on the Earth.
1:54:39
Speaker 1: The reasoning, indeed, is often carried so far as to
1:54:42
Speaker 1: reach the conclusion that there is probably life of some
1:54:45
Speaker 1: kind on the planet Mars. On the other hand, this
1:54:48
Speaker 1: form of reasoning often proves dangerous. For instance, the close
1:54:53
Speaker 1: resemblance between two kinds of fungus or two kinds of
1:54:56
Speaker 1: fruit may be so great as to cause persons to
1:54:59
Speaker 1: believe that they are practically identical. Yet one class is
1:55:03
Speaker 1: wholesome food, the other class being poisonous, or the other
1:55:07
Speaker 1: way around. Certain non venomous serpents so closely resemble the
1:55:11
Speaker 1: venomous ones as to be mistaken for them. Children are
1:55:15
Speaker 1: often made ill or are killed by eating poisonous berries
1:55:18
Speaker 1: which they have gathered and which they have mistaken for
1:55:20
Speaker 1: harmless berries of a similar appearance. Many persons have been
1:55:24
Speaker 1: killed by eating poisonous toadstools under the belief that they
1:55:27
Speaker 1: are mushrooms, the resemblance being very close Jevins says, in Norway,
1:55:33
Speaker 1: mushrooms are seldom seen and are not eaten. Once, when
1:55:37
Speaker 1: I was there, I found a few and ate them.
1:55:40
Speaker 1: I was afterward much amused by the people at the inn,
1:55:43
Speaker 1: who went out and collected toadstools and wanted me to
1:55:46
Speaker 1: eat them. Also this was clearly a case of mistaken
1:55:50
Speaker 1: reasoning by analogy. A physician visiting a patient discovers that
1:55:54
Speaker 1: there are present certain symptoms which are found in the
1:55:57
Speaker 1: early stages of scarlet fever, the other symptoms not having
1:56:00
Speaker 1: as yet presented themselves. He reasons by analogy that the
1:56:04
Speaker 1: missing symptoms are also proceeding to manifestation, and that this,
1:56:08
Speaker 1: in all probability is a case of scarlet fever in
1:56:11
Speaker 1: its early stages. The scientist examining the fossil remains of
1:56:15
Speaker 1: an extinct species of animal and finding that it possesses strong,
1:56:19
Speaker 1: blunt claws, reasons by analogy that the creature had procured
1:56:23
Speaker 1: its food by scratching or burrowing in the earth. Buckland
1:56:27
Speaker 1: reconstructed an extinct animal from a few scattered fossil bones.
1:56:31
Speaker 1: The later discovery of an entire skeleton of the animal
1:56:34
Speaker 1: proved that his reconstruction had been absolutely correct in both
1:56:37
Speaker 1: generals and in details. This constituted a most successful example
1:56:41
Speaker 1: of reasoning by analogy. But once more, there is always
1:56:46
Speaker 1: a great possibility of error in this form of reasoning.
1:56:50
Speaker 1: The dog fearing a stick or a stone will run
1:56:53
Speaker 1: away from you when you stoop suddenly to tie your shoe,
1:56:56
Speaker 1: to pick up a flower, or to turn over a
1:56:58
Speaker 1: peculiar leaf. It is cruel to reason by analogy that
1:57:02
Speaker 1: because many drunkards have red noses, therefore all red noses
1:57:06
Speaker 1: are marks of habits of excessive drinking. The red nose
1:57:09
Speaker 1: of the quite temperate John Jones must not be taken
1:57:11
Speaker 1: as an evidence of dissolute habits. We have seen the
1:57:15
Speaker 1: danger of reasoning that a whale is a fish because
1:57:18
Speaker 1: it looks like one, swims like one, lives in the
1:57:21
Speaker 1: water like one. Hallick says. Many false analogies are manufactured,
1:57:26
Speaker 1: and it is excellent training in practice to expose them.
1:57:30
Speaker 1: The majority of persons think so little that they swallow
1:57:33
Speaker 1: these false analogies, just as newly fledged robins swallow small
1:57:36
Speaker 1: stones dropped into their open mouths. The best thought today
1:57:41
Speaker 1: holds that true logical reasoning should be conducted along the
1:57:44
Speaker 1: lines of induction and deduction whenever this is possible in
1:57:47
Speaker 1: view of all the circumstances of the case, and that
1:57:50
Speaker 1: analogy should be regarded as merely an imperfect form of
1:57:53
Speaker 1: these processes, or rather as a form of imperfect induction
1:57:57
Speaker 1: or imperfect deduction, and accordingly regarded as as a makeshift,
1:58:00
Speaker 1: to be employed only when true induction or deduction are
1:58:03
Speaker 1: impracticable under the particular circumstances of the case. At the best,
1:58:10
Speaker 1: analogy is held to be but a guess, sometimes a
1:58:13
Speaker 1: scientific guess, or a rational guess, but still a guess
1:58:17
Speaker 1: at the last. Here is the explanation of the employment
1:58:21
Speaker 1: by mankind of the principle of analogy. Primitive man soon
1:58:25
Speaker 1: discovered that superficial resemblances existing between the various things of
1:58:29
Speaker 1: his everyday experience were reasonably sure evidences of a real,
1:58:33
Speaker 1: inner and essential sameness between those things. One thing was
1:58:37
Speaker 1: found good to eat, therefore another thing resembling it in
1:58:40
Speaker 1: appearance must be good to eat. Up to a certain point,
1:58:44
Speaker 1: this form of reasoning was found to be correct. What
1:58:47
Speaker 1: was much more to the point, with the primitive man,
1:58:50
Speaker 1: it was better than no reasoning at all. He knew
1:58:53
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing about certain reasoning based upon careful and extended observation, induction,
1:58:59
Speaker 1: and deduction. These required more time and attention than he
1:59:02
Speaker 1: was able to bestow upon them, and in fact, such
1:59:05
Speaker 1: more complex methods of reasoning never occurred to his mind.
1:59:09
Speaker 1: The degree of probability found in the results of reasoning
1:59:12
Speaker 1: by analogy was sufficient to attract his attention and to
1:59:15
Speaker 1: prove useful to him. So he was content until he
1:59:18
Speaker 1: afterward discovered a better way, and that better way was
1:59:22
Speaker 1: really an evolution of the original way. After all, it
1:59:26
Speaker 1: remained for the careful thinkers in advanced stages of the
1:59:28
Speaker 1: evolution of the race to discover that the principal value
1:59:31
Speaker 1: of analogy is to be found in its suggestiveness, and
1:59:34
Speaker 1: that even where analogy leads to the detection of truth
1:59:37
Speaker 1: and real facts, it usually does so only when the
1:59:40
Speaker 1: observations or experiments upon which it is based have been
1:59:43
Speaker 1: sufficiently extended and carefully reasoned upon. It has been said
1:59:48
Speaker 1: analogy may be applied with even reasonable confidence only when
1:59:51
Speaker 1: the degree of ascertained similarity is great, and when the
1:59:54
Speaker 1: extent of the preliminary observation is sufficiently wide. Again that he,
2:00:00
Speaker 1: even where analogy leads to the discovery of truth. The
2:00:03
Speaker 1: final establishment of such truth is never actually accomplished by analogy,
2:00:07
Speaker 1: but really by some stricter logical method. Reasoning from analogy
2:00:12
Speaker 1: results in merely probable conclusions, but the degree of probability
2:00:16
Speaker 1: may be raised to a high degree by pursuing the
2:00:18
Speaker 1: right methods and observing the proper precautions. Indeed, in the
2:00:23
Speaker 1: active affairs of ordinary life, analogy is really the only
2:00:26
Speaker 1: form of reasoning possible to most of us under ordinary
2:00:29
Speaker 1: existing circumstances, and we are very often forced to act
2:00:33
Speaker 1: upon conclusions reached only in this way. Reasoning by analogy,
2:00:37
Speaker 1: carefully and cautiously exercised, has led to many important discoveries
2:00:42
Speaker 1: of natural science, mechanics, medicine, psychology, et cetera, and it
2:00:47
Speaker 1: is often effectively applied in the practice of law and
2:00:50
Speaker 1: in judicial decisions. In short, analogy is useful, often necessary,
2:00:56
Speaker 1: frequently the only possible way, but its application must always
2:00:59
Speaker 1: be so rounded by the greatest care and exercised with
2:01:02
Speaker 1: the greatest caution. The essential distinction between analogy and induction
2:01:07
Speaker 1: is as follows. Analogy proceeds upon the general principle that
2:01:11
Speaker 1: a few things having many characteristics in common also have
2:01:15
Speaker 1: other characteristics in common. Induction proceeds upon the general principle
2:01:20
Speaker 1: that many things having a few characteristics in common all
2:01:23
Speaker 1: other things of the same class also have all these
2:01:26
Speaker 1: same essential characteristics. Further, in analogy, we usually confine ourselves
2:01:31
Speaker 1: chiefly to the observation of the external and incidental characteristics
2:01:35
Speaker 1: of the several things in question. In induction, however, we
2:01:39
Speaker 1: extend the observation and apply it particularly to the internal
2:01:42
Speaker 1: and essential characteristics of the things examined. We go deeper
2:01:46
Speaker 1: into the examination and search for the essential elements. The
2:01:50
Speaker 1: following diagram will illustrate the principle points of distinction between
2:01:54
Speaker 1: the processes of analogy in induction, respectively. Examples, if we
2:02:00
Speaker 1: find that X has the characteristics known as A B, C, D,
2:02:04
Speaker 1: E F respectively, and then find that Y has the
2:02:08
Speaker 1: characteristics A, B, C, D respectively, we reason by analogy
2:02:14
Speaker 1: that Y also possesses the additional common characteristics E in F, respectively,
2:02:19
Speaker 1: because these are found in X, with which Y has
2:02:21
Speaker 1: so much else in common. Thus, finding that the planet
2:02:25
Speaker 1: Venus has the attributes of light, heat, water, and atmosphere
2:02:29
Speaker 1: in common with the Earth, we reason by analogy that
2:02:32
Speaker 1: Venus probably possesses the additional attribute of the presence of
2:02:36
Speaker 1: living things in common with the earth, the latter having
2:02:39
Speaker 1: been found to possess it. Induction, on the other hand,
2:02:43
Speaker 1: what reason, as follows A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M,
2:02:53
Speaker 1: N O, P, q, R, S, t U, v W,
2:02:59
Speaker 1: members of a general class of things, notwithstanding their great
2:03:03
Speaker 1: differences in many external and incidental characteristics, are found to
2:03:07
Speaker 1: possess in common the three internal and essential characteristics designated one, two,
2:03:12
Speaker 1: and three, respectively. Therefore, it is probable that the remaining
2:03:16
Speaker 1: letters of the alphabet class viz, x, y, and z
2:03:21
Speaker 1: also possess these three essential characteristics, notwithstanding that x, y
2:03:27
Speaker 1: and Z manifest sundry differences in external and incidental characteristics
2:03:31
Speaker 1: from the remaining twenty three letters of the alphabet class. Thus,
2:03:36
Speaker 1: finding that all known heavenly bodies obey the law of gravitation,
2:03:40
Speaker 1: the astronomer reasons by induction that a newly discovered star
2:03:43
Speaker 1: must also obey that law, though he has not as
2:03:46
Speaker 1: yet had time to examine its movements. Likewise, a chemist,
2:03:51
Speaker 1: finding before him a transparent, colorless crystal composed of carbonate
2:03:54
Speaker 1: of lime, knows by deduction, based upon the premises of
2:03:58
Speaker 1: induction that it will react to other stated chemicals in
2:04:01
Speaker 1: a certain definite manner. This because all forms of carbonate
2:04:05
Speaker 1: of lime, notwithstanding their external and incidental differences, have the
2:04:09
Speaker 1: internal essential characteristic of such reaction. The general rule of
2:04:14
Speaker 1: analogy is as follows. One, the greater the number of
2:04:17
Speaker 1: points of discovered resemblance, the greater the degree of probability
2:04:21
Speaker 1: of the analogy. The fewer such points, the less the
2:04:24
Speaker 1: degree of such probability. Two, the inferred additional points of
2:04:29
Speaker 1: resemblance become the more probable in the degree in which
2:04:32
Speaker 1: they are related to or essentially connected with, those points
2:04:36
Speaker 1: of resemblance already established by observation and experiment. Three, discovered
2:04:41
Speaker 1: points of essential difference often are sufficient entirely to destroy
2:04:45
Speaker 1: the presumption and inference of analogy. Based upon many discovered
2:04:48
Speaker 1: points of external and incidental resemblance, we need scarcely consider
2:04:53
Speaker 1: in detail the many forms of possible application of the
2:04:56
Speaker 1: principle of analogy. It is as familiar to you as
2:04:59
Speaker 1: is brie, bathing, or walking. You employ it in some
2:05:03
Speaker 1: form during almost every hour of your waking periods. It
2:05:07
Speaker 1: has its evident uses in forming every day conclusions opinions, judgments,
2:05:11
Speaker 1: and decisions. You could not do without it, even if
2:05:15
Speaker 1: you so desired. The most that you can do in
2:05:18
Speaker 1: the matter of its application is to endeavor to employ
2:05:21
Speaker 1: it correctly, always recognizing its weak points and dangers, and
2:05:25
Speaker 1: always observing carefully and consistently the above stated rules concerning
2:05:29
Speaker 1: its degree of value and probability, its use, and its limitations.
2:05:34
Speaker 1: Probably the best use of analogy is that in which
2:05:37
Speaker 1: its conclusions are recognized as being merely tentative, i e.
2:05:41
Speaker 1: Adopted experimentally and for a trial afterward, to be subjected
2:05:45
Speaker 1: to more careful observation, examination, and testing by its employment.
2:05:50
Speaker 1: In this way we often arrive at a valuable idea
2:05:53
Speaker 1: of a probable cause or a working hypothesis, which afterward
2:05:57
Speaker 1: may be verified or disproved. Its reports must always be
2:06:01
Speaker 1: recognized as probable truth, never as certain truth. Jevons ably
2:06:07
Speaker 1: sums up the matter when he says, in order to
2:06:09
Speaker 1: be clear about our conclusions, we ought never to rest
2:06:12
Speaker 1: satisfied with mere analogy, but ought to try to discover
2:06:16
Speaker 1: the general laws governing the case. In analogy, we seem
2:06:20
Speaker 1: to reason from one fact to another without troubling ourselves
2:06:23
Speaker 1: either with deduction or induction. But it is only by
2:06:27
Speaker 1: a kind of guess that we do, so it is
2:06:29
Speaker 1: not really conclusive reasoning. We ought properly to ascertain what
2:06:34
Speaker 1: general laws of five hundred and eighty six nature are
2:06:37
Speaker 1: shown to exist by the facts observed, and then to
2:06:40
Speaker 1: infer what will happen according to those laws. We find
2:06:44
Speaker 1: that reasoning by analogy is not to be depended upon
2:06:47
Speaker 1: unless we make such further inquiry into the causes and
2:06:51
Speaker 1: laws of the things in question, which really necessitates the
2:06:54
Speaker 1: employment of inductive and deductive reasoning. Reasoning power Practical logic
2:07:00
Speaker 1: by William Walker Atkinson, nineteen twenty two. The Law of
2:07:05
Speaker 1: logical induction. You are now invited to consider that important
2:07:09
Speaker 1: law of logical reasoning known as the law of logical induction.
2:07:14
Speaker 1: This law represents the universal experience of human thought, rationally
2:07:18
Speaker 1: applied and directed. The law of logical induction is expressed
2:07:22
Speaker 1: in a fifth of the seven axioms of logical reasoning,
2:07:25
Speaker 1: which is as follows. Five the axiom of logical induction.
2:07:30
Speaker 1: What is discovered to be true of a great number
2:07:32
Speaker 1: of observed objects, things, or individuals of a definite general
2:07:36
Speaker 1: class is practically certain to be true of that general
2:07:39
Speaker 1: class as a whole. The characteristics assumed to be possessed
2:07:43
Speaker 1: in common by all the individual objects or things in
2:07:46
Speaker 1: a definite general class constitute the accepted essential characteristics of
2:07:50
Speaker 1: that class as a whole. This fundamental principle of induction
2:07:55
Speaker 1: has been stated in many forms, among which are the following.
2:07:58
Speaker 1: What is true of the many is true of the whole.
2:08:01
Speaker 1: That which belongs or does not belong to many things
2:08:04
Speaker 1: of the same kind belongs or does not belong to
2:08:07
Speaker 1: all things of the same kind. Mills statement of the
2:08:11
Speaker 1: principle of induction is very comprehensive. It is as follows.
2:08:15
Speaker 1: Induction is that operation of the mind by which we
2:08:17
Speaker 1: infer that what we know in a particular case or
2:08:20
Speaker 1: cases will be true in all cases which resemble the
2:08:23
Speaker 1: former in certain assignable respects. In other words, induction is
2:08:27
Speaker 1: the process by which we conclude that what is true
2:08:30
Speaker 1: of certain individuals of a class is true of the
2:08:32
Speaker 1: whole class, or that what is true at certain times
2:08:35
Speaker 1: will be true in similar circumstances at all times. In
2:08:40
Speaker 1: the early days of logic, the principle of induction was
2:08:43
Speaker 1: largely neglected by reason of the great emphasis placed upon
2:08:46
Speaker 1: the principle of deduction. The followers of the old philosophies
2:08:50
Speaker 1: and systems of logic, which were fathered by Aristotle and
2:08:53
Speaker 1: long afterward wet nursed by the Scholastic school of philosophy,
2:08:57
Speaker 1: and which for many centuries dominated the world of logical
2:09:00
Speaker 1: thought and philosophy, believed that it was possible to arrive
2:09:03
Speaker 1: at all human knowledge by the methods of formal logic
2:09:06
Speaker 1: applied along the lines of deductive reasoning. The syllogism was
2:09:10
Speaker 1: elevated to the highest rank, and logicians bowed down before
2:09:14
Speaker 1: it and worshiped it. As Jevins says, men preferred trusting
2:09:18
Speaker 1: to Aristotle rather than using their own eyes. Of course,
2:09:23
Speaker 1: it was necessary to find basis for the premises employed
2:09:26
Speaker 1: in such deductive reasoning, and a certain degree of induction
2:09:30
Speaker 1: was employed in finding these, but at the best but
2:09:34
Speaker 1: imperfect induction or a sublimated form of analogy served the
2:09:38
Speaker 1: purpose in most cases. In other cases, resort was had
2:09:41
Speaker 1: to a priori judgments, i e. Propositions assumed to be
2:09:46
Speaker 1: true more or less independent of extended observation, experiment, or
2:09:50
Speaker 1: wide experience, more often held to be innate ideas or
2:09:54
Speaker 1: universal intuitions. Logicians reason from assumed causes to effects, but
2:10:00
Speaker 1: too often without first being sure that the assumed causes
2:10:03
Speaker 1: were real causes. They ignored a posteriori reasoning i e.
2:10:09
Speaker 1: Reasoning proceeding from effect to causes, judgments based upon experimental proof.
2:10:14
Speaker 1: They contented themselves with deducing particular facts from assumed general principles.
2:10:19
Speaker 1: They neglected the correlated logical process of reasoning by induction
2:10:23
Speaker 1: from particular facts to general principles, and thus assuring themselves
2:10:27
Speaker 1: of the validity of the general principles which formed the
2:10:30
Speaker 1: basis of their deductive processes. The rise of inductive reasoning
2:10:34
Speaker 1: to its proper place was due in a great measure
2:10:37
Speaker 1: to the influence of Roger Bacon d. One two one
2:10:40
Speaker 1: four one two nine two and of Francis Bacon d.
2:10:44
Speaker 1: Fifteen sixty one to sixteen twenty nine. The former laid
2:10:47
Speaker 1: the basis, the latter advanced the idea and formulated methods
2:10:51
Speaker 1: of applying the principles. Francis Bacon is often styled the
2:10:55
Speaker 1: father of inductive reasoning and the founder of the scientific method,
2:10:59
Speaker 1: but the preliminit canary work of Roger Bacon must not
2:11:01
Speaker 1: be overlooked nor forgotten. Today practically all scientific thought is
2:11:07
Speaker 1: based upon the conclusions reached by inductive reasoning. The physical
2:11:11
Speaker 1: sciences would perish where this principle eliminated. Even modern psychology
2:11:16
Speaker 1: is based upon it. Modern logic gives inductive reasoning a
2:11:20
Speaker 1: high place. Indeed, there are learned logicians who even go
2:11:24
Speaker 1: so far as to claim that deductive reasoning is but
2:11:26
Speaker 1: a reflection of inductive reasoning, and that deduction usually is
2:11:30
Speaker 1: but a restatement of the conclusions already arrived at through induction.
2:11:34
Speaker 1: But here the truth probably lies between the two extremes,
2:11:38
Speaker 1: and induction and deduction are seen to be correlated and
2:11:41
Speaker 1: coordinated processes of logical reasoning. In our consideration of the
2:11:46
Speaker 1: subject of logical synthesis or classification, we have shown you
2:11:50
Speaker 1: how and why individual objects possessing certain common characteristics are
2:11:54
Speaker 1: grouped or generalized into classes, the common characteristics of all
2:11:58
Speaker 1: these individual objects thus becoming the essential characteristics of that class.
2:12:04
Speaker 1: The same principle, as you have seen, governs the grouping
2:12:07
Speaker 1: or generalization of these classes into larger classes, and so on.
2:12:13
Speaker 1: We now ask you to make note of the fact
2:12:15
Speaker 1: that all such logical synthesis, classification, and generalization proceeds according
2:12:20
Speaker 1: to the law of logical induction, It is governed by
2:12:24
Speaker 1: the principle that the characteristics assumed to be possessed in
2:12:27
Speaker 1: common by all the individual objects or things in a
2:12:30
Speaker 1: definite class constitute the accepted essential characteristics of that class.
2:12:35
Speaker 1: As a whole. Such characteristics become the essential elements or
2:12:38
Speaker 1: qualities of the concept representing the general class of particular
2:12:43
Speaker 1: things or individual objects. But, no matter how many may
2:12:47
Speaker 1: be the individual objects or particular things of the general
2:12:50
Speaker 1: class which have been observed and examined for the purpose
2:12:53
Speaker 1: of ascertaining whether or not they possess the certain necessary
2:12:56
Speaker 1: characteristics deemed essential to the class, it is practically in
2:13:00
Speaker 1: possible that all such individual objects and particular things can
2:13:03
Speaker 1: be so observed and examined in the great majority of cases.
2:13:08
Speaker 1: In fact, it is almost certain that in most cases
2:13:10
Speaker 1: there are far more not so observed and examined than
2:13:13
Speaker 1: are so treated. This because of the natural limitations of
2:13:17
Speaker 1: man's powers of observation, experiment, and inspection. Hence, usually the
2:13:23
Speaker 1: law of induction bases its conclusions upon human experience with
2:13:26
Speaker 1: the many, rather than with the all, of a class
2:13:28
Speaker 1: of things and objects. This fact is expressed in the
2:13:32
Speaker 1: axiom as follows, what is discovered to be true of
2:13:36
Speaker 1: a great number of observed objects, things, or individuals of
2:13:39
Speaker 1: a definite general class is practically certain to be true
2:13:43
Speaker 1: of that general class as a whole. If all the
2:13:46
Speaker 1: individual things and particular objects in a certain class are observed,
2:13:50
Speaker 1: subjected to experiment, and found to possess certain characteristics in common,
2:13:55
Speaker 1: then the judgment must be that these common characteristics absolutely
2:13:58
Speaker 1: and certainly are the isa essential elements or qualities of
2:14:02
Speaker 1: that class and of its associated concept. But when only
2:14:06
Speaker 1: a great number of such are observed, inspected, and found
2:14:10
Speaker 1: to possess such common characteristics, then the judgment must be
2:14:13
Speaker 1: merely practically certain, i e. Possessing a high degree of
2:14:17
Speaker 1: probability of truth. In very many cases, it is true
2:14:22
Speaker 1: this high degree of probability falls but little short of
2:14:25
Speaker 1: absolute certainty. All that inductive reasoning may truthfully claim is
2:14:30
Speaker 1: to announce principles, laws, and judgments which, for all practical
2:14:34
Speaker 1: purposes of life may be considered as true and certain.
2:14:38
Speaker 1: But this is likewise true of all forms of logical
2:14:40
Speaker 1: inference or human reasoning. Even deductive reasoning, with its boasted
2:14:45
Speaker 1: formal certainty, must be based upon premises assumed to be true.
2:14:49
Speaker 1: By the principles of induction, it is always a case
2:14:51
Speaker 1: of so and so is true if such and such
2:14:54
Speaker 1: be true. Not but omniscions could reason with absolute certainty.
2:14:59
Speaker 1: An omission would not need to reason, for it would
2:15:02
Speaker 1: already know all that is possible to be known. Reasoning
2:15:05
Speaker 1: is but the method employed to find out and know
2:15:08
Speaker 1: something that is not known. In the light of the
2:15:11
Speaker 1: foregoing statements concerning the possibilities, probabilities, and natural limitations of
2:15:16
Speaker 1: the principles of inductive reasoning, let us now consider the
2:15:19
Speaker 1: general methods employed in conducting its processes. Inductive reasoning proceeds
2:15:25
Speaker 1: according to the following steps or stages viz. One, preliminary observation,
2:15:30
Speaker 1: two making the hypothesis, three verification by testing. Each of
2:15:36
Speaker 1: these respective processes are described in further detail in the
2:15:39
Speaker 1: next following pages of this section of this book. Preliminary observation.
2:15:46
Speaker 1: In this process preliminary to that of actual inductive reasoning,
2:15:50
Speaker 1: there is conducted an examination of a great number of
2:15:52
Speaker 1: individual objects or particular things believed likely to belong to
2:15:56
Speaker 1: a certain general class of things, activities, or events. Such
2:16:01
Speaker 1: examination is for the purpose of ascertaining definitely the common
2:16:04
Speaker 1: characteristics of such things in order to decide whether or
2:16:08
Speaker 1: not these constitute the essential elements or qualities of that
2:16:12
Speaker 1: class as a whole. Usually a more or less general
2:16:15
Speaker 1: classification based upon logical analogy or imperfect induction has preceded
2:16:21
Speaker 1: such test, trial or experiment. Observation and experiment, however, do
2:16:26
Speaker 1: not constitute induction. They merely supply induction with its working
2:16:30
Speaker 1: material two, making the hypothesis. In this process of inductive reasoning,
2:16:37
Speaker 1: there is performed the mental action of combining into a
2:16:40
Speaker 1: general idea akin to a concept, the total results of
2:16:43
Speaker 1: the extended series of observations and experiments which have preceded
2:16:47
Speaker 1: this stage, and of representing this general idea in the
2:16:50
Speaker 1: form of what is known as an hypothesis, i e.
2:16:53
Speaker 1: A supposition, proposition, or principle assumed or taken for granted
2:16:57
Speaker 1: in order to deduce there from particular proof. Hypothesis is
2:17:02
Speaker 1: the simplest term indicating the result of inductive observation and experiment.
2:17:07
Speaker 1: Theory is held to be a stronger term, and usually
2:17:10
Speaker 1: indicates an hypothesis which has been verified at least to
2:17:13
Speaker 1: some extent by subsequent observation. A law is an hypothesis
2:17:18
Speaker 1: or theory raised to a very high degree of probability
2:17:21
Speaker 1: by reason of extended and positive observation and experiment. A
2:17:25
Speaker 1: principle is a law of laws, or the reason of laws,
2:17:29
Speaker 1: or a universal law, including in its content several subordinate laws,
2:17:33
Speaker 1: which are governed by its essential characteristics and powers. A law,
2:17:38
Speaker 1: from another viewpoint may be said to be a general
2:17:41
Speaker 1: rule of procedure according to which things move, act, and work,
2:17:45
Speaker 1: a principle being that by reason of which change, producing
2:17:48
Speaker 1: actions and motions proceed, and in which they have their source.
2:17:52
Speaker 1: But the latter two terms law and principle, respectively, have
2:17:56
Speaker 1: a wide range of meaning, are subjected to varied interpretations
2:18:00
Speaker 1: and definitions, and are applied to many different general ideas.
2:18:04
Speaker 1: We give here merely their respective meanings as usually understood
2:18:07
Speaker 1: and employed in logic, physical science, and psychology. Hypotheses as
2:18:13
Speaker 1: might be supposed, possess varying respective degrees of validity or probability.
2:18:19
Speaker 1: Some are merely tentative or working hypotheses employed for convenience
2:18:24
Speaker 1: of thought and further investigation. Others rise to the dignity
2:18:27
Speaker 1: of verified theory, or perhaps even to the high rank
2:18:30
Speaker 1: of laws and principles. The following general rule is usually
2:18:34
Speaker 1: employed by logical scientific thinkers to determine the respective value
2:18:39
Speaker 1: and strength of hypotheses. Rule for valuation of hypotheses. One,
2:18:44
Speaker 1: If the hypothesis involves only a few essential characteristics of
2:18:48
Speaker 1: its class, it must be supported by a much larger
2:18:51
Speaker 1: number of particular observations and experiments than if it involves
2:18:54
Speaker 1: a greater number of such Two. The greater the number
2:18:58
Speaker 1: of facts and phenomena satisfactorily accounted for by an hypothesis,
2:19:03
Speaker 1: the greater is its probable validity. Three. Where there is
2:19:07
Speaker 1: more than one hypothesis claiming recognition as the explanation of
2:19:10
Speaker 1: a series of given facts or phenomena, than that one
2:19:13
Speaker 1: which is found to account for the greater number of
2:19:15
Speaker 1: such effects is to be considered as the most probable,
2:19:18
Speaker 1: all else being considered. Four. Where more than one hypothesis
2:19:23
Speaker 1: is so advanced, each one of which seemingly possessing equal value,
2:19:27
Speaker 1: then further observation and experiment is necessary. A later stage
2:19:31
Speaker 1: of the inquiry will probably uncover and reveal certain additional
2:19:34
Speaker 1: facts which are explainable only by one particular hypothesis and
2:19:38
Speaker 1: not by the others. Or possibly one such hypothesis may
2:19:42
Speaker 1: be found to include the others as minor and constituent
2:19:45
Speaker 1: factors or elements three verification by testing. In this process
2:19:51
Speaker 1: of inductive reasoning, there is performed a subsequent investigation in
2:19:55
Speaker 1: which there is tested out the application of the tentatively
2:19:58
Speaker 1: adopted working hypothesis to additional particular cases or to new
2:20:03
Speaker 1: individual objects and things. The test is conducted for the
2:20:07
Speaker 1: purpose of ascertaining whether or not the hypothesis works out
2:20:10
Speaker 1: satisfactorily in such application. Each case in which it is
2:20:15
Speaker 1: found to work out satisfactorily tends to strengthen it. But
2:20:19
Speaker 1: if there are found one or more cases in which
2:20:21
Speaker 1: it will not work out satisfactorily, provided that the failure
2:20:25
Speaker 1: cannot be accounted for or explained the way logically and rationally,
2:20:29
Speaker 1: it is weakened to that extent. If such failures are numerous,
2:20:32
Speaker 1: the result may be the rejection of the hypothesis in question,
2:20:36
Speaker 1: though here allowance must always be made for possible disturbing causes,
2:20:40
Speaker 1: and a search for these should be conducted. Experience having
2:20:44
Speaker 1: demonstrated the need of such precaution. The process and method
2:20:48
Speaker 1: of verifying in hypothesis have been humorously illustrated by the
2:20:51
Speaker 1: story of Cinderella. The glass slipper constitutes the facts of
2:20:56
Speaker 1: the case. It symbolizes the given series of phenomena. Cinderella
2:21:01
Speaker 1: is the hypothesis, or rather one of the hypotheses. For
2:21:05
Speaker 1: each one of her rival sisters is also an hypothesis.
2:21:09
Speaker 1: The process of testing for verification consists of trying the
2:21:13
Speaker 1: glass slipper in turn on the feet of the several
2:21:15
Speaker 1: rival candidates. The hypotheses of the rival sisters are each
2:21:19
Speaker 1: found invalid, the glass slipper will fit the foot of
2:21:22
Speaker 1: none of them, even though they cut off their toes
2:21:25
Speaker 1: and heels in order to make the facts square with
2:21:27
Speaker 1: the theory. When, however, the Cinderella hypothesis is tested by
2:21:31
Speaker 1: applying it to the facts of the glass slipper low
2:21:35
Speaker 1: the fit is found to be perfect. The hypothesis is
2:21:39
Speaker 1: verified and raised to the rank of a verified theory. Later,
2:21:42
Speaker 1: when Cinderella marries the Prince, it may perchance be elevated
2:21:47
Speaker 1: to the exalted position of a law or even that
2:21:49
Speaker 1: of a principle. Rules of verification. The test of verification
2:21:55
Speaker 1: is not merely simple observation, but rather experimental observation i e. D.
2:22:00
Speaker 1: Observation resulting from a test trial or experiment conducted on
2:22:05
Speaker 1: scientific principles in which the possibilities of error are largely eliminated.
2:22:10
Speaker 1: The success of the test, trial, and experiment is determined
2:22:14
Speaker 1: by the proportion of cases found to be explainable by
2:22:17
Speaker 1: reason of the hypothesis. The greater the number of cases
2:22:20
Speaker 1: so explained and accounted for, the greater degree of probability
2:22:24
Speaker 1: and validity must be attached to the hypothesis, and the
2:22:27
Speaker 1: more perfect will be deemed the induction. The facts and
2:22:30
Speaker 1: the hypothesis must agree with each other. The greater the agreement,
2:22:34
Speaker 1: the greater the probability, validity and degree of verification. A
2:22:39
Speaker 1: reasonable number of failures is usually sufficient to discredit an hypothesis,
2:22:44
Speaker 1: unless such can be explained by the presence and action
2:22:46
Speaker 1: of a disturbing agency. Once a promising theory of astronomy
2:22:51
Speaker 1: was seemingly discredited by the erratic movement of a certain planet.
2:22:55
Speaker 1: Later a disturbing agent was detected in the form of
2:22:58
Speaker 1: a certain previously undiscovered planet, which had served to pull
2:23:01
Speaker 1: the first named planet out of place. The discovery of
2:23:04
Speaker 1: the new planet explained the discrepancy and canceled the evidence
2:23:08
Speaker 1: against the theory. If the hypothesis is found materially wrong
2:23:12
Speaker 1: and therefore discredited. Two alternative courses are open viz. One
2:23:17
Speaker 1: to discard the hypothesis and then to seek for a
2:23:20
Speaker 1: new and better one, or two to modify the faulty
2:23:24
Speaker 1: hypothesis in some minor degree, and to then test it
2:23:27
Speaker 1: once more in its new form. This frequently cures the
2:23:30
Speaker 1: trouble and settles the matter satisfactorily. The law of parsimony.
2:23:36
Speaker 1: The law of parsimony, carefully applied, often results satisfactorily in
2:23:40
Speaker 1: deciding between two or more promising hypothesis. This law is
2:23:45
Speaker 1: stated as follows. One explanation should not be unnecessarily extended, multiplied,
2:23:51
Speaker 1: or complicated, but should be limited so far as is possible,
2:23:54
Speaker 1: and rendered simple so far as is possible. Two, all
2:23:59
Speaker 1: else being equal, a simple explanation should be preferred to
2:24:02
Speaker 1: a complex one, a limited explanation to a more extended one,
2:24:06
Speaker 1: A close ready immediate explanation to a remote one. Three.
2:24:12
Speaker 1: An unknown must not be accounted for or explained by
2:24:15
Speaker 1: one still less knowable or still more unknown when a
2:24:18
Speaker 1: known explanation is at hand. The law of parsimony has
2:24:22
Speaker 1: also been called the law of the economy of thought.
2:24:26
Speaker 1: It is a valuable and efficient, though comparatively little known
2:24:30
Speaker 1: principle of logical thought. We advise you to commit it
2:24:33
Speaker 1: to memory and to apply it reasoning power Practical Logic
2:24:39
Speaker 1: by William Walker Atkinson, nineteen twenty two. The Law of
2:24:44
Speaker 1: logical causation. You are now invited to consider that important
2:24:49
Speaker 1: law of logical reasoning known as the law of logical causation.
2:24:53
Speaker 1: This law represents the universal experience of human thought, rationally
2:24:57
Speaker 1: applied and directed. The law of logical causation is expressed
2:25:01
Speaker 1: in a sixth of the seven axioms of logical reasoning,
2:25:04
Speaker 1: which is as follows. Six the axiom of logical causation.
2:25:09
Speaker 1: Every change, happening, event, or entrance into or exit from
2:25:14
Speaker 1: existence proceeds from precedent conditions or causes. Given the same
2:25:18
Speaker 1: causative factors, the same material elements, and the same environmental conditions,
2:25:23
Speaker 1: the same results and effects will follow in all cases
2:25:26
Speaker 1: so determined and conditioned. This axiom states a truth which
2:25:31
Speaker 1: is verified by all human experience, is supported by the
2:25:34
Speaker 1: common sense reports of the race, and is substantiated by
2:25:37
Speaker 1: the judgment of the keenest logical and philosophical thought. It
2:25:42
Speaker 1: is regarded as self evident truth and as a proposition,
2:25:45
Speaker 1: which may be taken for granted. It is assumed in
2:25:48
Speaker 1: all logical thought and is implied in all true reasoning.
2:25:52
Speaker 1: The following consideration is not intended to be offered as
2:25:55
Speaker 1: proof of its truth, but is designed merely to elucidate
2:25:58
Speaker 1: and make clearer the manifest station of this principle in
2:26:01
Speaker 1: the world of thought and things. The law of causation
2:26:05
Speaker 1: is expressed in popular terms as follows. Everything that happens
2:26:08
Speaker 1: is the result of a cause. Without a cause, nothing happens.
2:26:13
Speaker 1: A more technical statement is all changes in things, and
2:26:17
Speaker 1: therefore all actions, movements, events, happenings, and occurrences involving change
2:26:23
Speaker 1: are the results or effects of certain antecedent activities, conditions, forms,
2:26:28
Speaker 1: or states of things, known as causes. These causes being present,
2:26:33
Speaker 1: the results and effects must occur. These causes being absent,
2:26:37
Speaker 1: the results and effects cannot occur. The following statements of
2:26:42
Speaker 1: technical authoritative writers of the subject may serve to illustrate
2:26:45
Speaker 1: further the natural principle operating through this law. Jevins says,
2:26:49
Speaker 1: the cause of an event means the circumstances which must
2:26:52
Speaker 1: have preceded in order that the event should happen. Baldwin says,
2:26:57
Speaker 1: every event is the result or sequel of some previous
2:27:00
Speaker 1: event or events, without which it could not have happened,
2:27:03
Speaker 1: and which, being present, it must take place. Mcgilvury says
2:27:07
Speaker 1: causation is the relation of cause to effect. The cause
2:27:12
Speaker 1: of any event is a preceding event without which the
2:27:14
Speaker 1: event in question would not have occurred. Both causes and
2:27:18
Speaker 1: effects are always events, not things, but things in action.
2:27:23
Speaker 1: The complete cause would be all the indispensable previous events.
2:27:27
Speaker 1: But as all inquiry that is of any value is
2:27:30
Speaker 1: confined within limits, the question as to the cause of
2:27:33
Speaker 1: an event is not generally a demand for the complete
2:27:36
Speaker 1: inventory of indispensable previous events, but some event, which, in
2:27:40
Speaker 1: connection with other events taken for granted, is needed to
2:27:43
Speaker 1: account for the event under discussion. If we deny the
2:27:47
Speaker 1: law of causation, we may as well deny the existence
2:27:50
Speaker 1: of all natural law and order, for natural law and
2:27:53
Speaker 1: order cannot proceed from chance, but is clearly the manifestation
2:27:57
Speaker 1: of the law of causation. A law is the way
2:28:00
Speaker 1: things act and proceed, and all things are discovered to
2:28:03
Speaker 1: act and proceed according to orderly sequence and logical order.
2:28:07
Speaker 1: This universal fact attests the validity of the law of causation.
2:28:12
Speaker 1: The ancients employed the term the cosmos to indicate the
2:28:15
Speaker 1: world conceived as proceeding according to law and order, the
2:28:18
Speaker 1: opposite conception and term being that of chaos, or the
2:28:22
Speaker 1: world conceived as lacking law and order, and hence the
2:28:25
Speaker 1: world conceived as existing in a state of lawlessness, disorder,
2:28:29
Speaker 1: and confusion. The position of modern science is that so
2:28:33
Speaker 1: forcibly expressed by one of its pioneers in the axiom
2:28:36
Speaker 1: the universe is governed by laws. The only alternative is
2:28:41
Speaker 1: the conception of a world of chance. The latter is
2:28:44
Speaker 1: unthinkable in view of the discovery of the constant and
2:28:47
Speaker 1: invariable operation of the law of causation in the universe.
2:28:52
Speaker 1: Logical thought recognizes the existence of chance only in the
2:28:55
Speaker 1: sense and signification of the unknown, unperceived, or remote causes
2:29:00
Speaker 1: of an event. It denies the existence of chance in
2:29:04
Speaker 1: the sense and signification of absence or lack of causes.
2:29:08
Speaker 1: A leading reference work says chance is a word which
2:29:12
Speaker 1: in its original and strict meaning may be defined as
2:29:14
Speaker 1: the causelessness of an event. But with the growing insight
2:29:18
Speaker 1: into the universal prevalence of causality, chance in this sense
2:29:21
Speaker 1: of the term is no longer regarded as possible, The
2:29:25
Speaker 1: word continues to be used in a different sense, viz.
2:29:28
Speaker 1: The unknown cause or causes of an event. The cause
2:29:32
Speaker 1: or causes may be entirely unknown, or unknown only in detail.
2:29:38
Speaker 1: In either case there is a lack of predictability, And
2:29:41
Speaker 1: in so far as an event is unpredictable, it is
2:29:43
Speaker 1: said to be due to chance. The unpredictable event is
2:29:47
Speaker 1: itself called an accident, sometimes also itself a chance dot.
2:29:52
Speaker 1: You will notice that in the axiom of causation is
2:29:55
Speaker 1: stated that not only every change, happening, or event, but
2:29:59
Speaker 1: also every entrance into or exit from existence comes under
2:30:03
Speaker 1: the law and proceeds from precedent conditions or causes. An
2:30:07
Speaker 1: event is that which comes, arrives, or happens. Events arise
2:30:13
Speaker 1: from and are accompanied by changes in things. Every change
2:30:17
Speaker 1: in things implies a cause or causes producing the change.
2:30:20
Speaker 1: It is logical to posit a necessary cause to account
2:30:23
Speaker 1: for every change. Now, every entrance into or exit from
2:30:28
Speaker 1: existence is a change or becoming. Consequently, every coming into
2:30:33
Speaker 1: existence or exit from existence must have its cause. But
2:30:37
Speaker 1: note this important fact. If there be positive a something
2:30:40
Speaker 1: or somewhat which is eternal and which therefore has never
2:30:44
Speaker 1: come into existence, or entered into existence, or become existent,
2:30:49
Speaker 1: then the existence of that something or somewhat does not
2:30:51
Speaker 1: imply the necessary precedent existence and action of a cause,
2:30:55
Speaker 1: and logically we have no right to demand a cause
2:30:58
Speaker 1: for such. Consequently, each in every school of philosophy, metaphysics,
2:31:04
Speaker 1: or theology equally is entitled to be absolved from the
2:31:07
Speaker 1: necessity of explaining by cause the fact of the existence
2:31:10
Speaker 1: of its own particular positive, eternal, ultimate principle, law, process,
2:31:15
Speaker 1: or being upon some one of which all philosophies, systems
2:31:18
Speaker 1: of metaphysics, and theologies base their respective reasoning. If there
2:31:23
Speaker 1: exists anything that is eternal, then such thing must of
2:31:26
Speaker 1: necessity be causeless. Only that which is conceived as coming
2:31:31
Speaker 1: into or entering into existence requires the positing of a
2:31:35
Speaker 1: cause to explain such becoming. As Bounds says, it is
2:31:39
Speaker 1: not existence as such that demands a cause, but a
2:31:42
Speaker 1: changing existence. It is entrance and exit only that give
2:31:46
Speaker 1: rise to this demand. Whatever manifests them must have a cause.
2:31:51
Speaker 1: Whatever does not manifest them can dispense with a cause. However,
2:31:55
Speaker 1: in this particular instruction, we are dealing only with natural things,
2:31:59
Speaker 1: things which become objects of perception and conception. All such
2:32:03
Speaker 1: things are temporal things, things which have come into existence,
2:32:07
Speaker 1: which manifest constant change during their period of existence, and
2:32:11
Speaker 1: which are destined to pass out of existence all through
2:32:13
Speaker 1: a process of becoming. Such things, then are clearly under
2:32:18
Speaker 1: the law of causation. In the present consideration, therefore, we
2:32:23
Speaker 1: are dealing only with things that come, dwell, awhile, and
2:32:26
Speaker 1: then go all under the law of change, and therefore
2:32:30
Speaker 1: under the law of causation. The importance of the law
2:32:33
Speaker 1: of causation is realized more fully when it is recognized
2:32:36
Speaker 1: that in the cause or causes of an event happening,
2:32:39
Speaker 1: change or entrance into existence are to be found. That
2:32:43
Speaker 1: because reason and explanation of the occurrence. When you know
2:32:47
Speaker 1: the cause or causes, then you are aware of the
2:32:50
Speaker 1: reasons explaining and accounting for the effect or result. When
2:32:55
Speaker 1: you say that such and such a thing happened because
2:32:57
Speaker 1: of so and so, then that so and so represents
2:33:00
Speaker 1: the cause or causes because of which the thing happened, occurred, changed,
2:33:05
Speaker 1: per made its entrance into existence, or passed out of existence.
2:33:09
Speaker 1: So you see there are great principles involved in the
2:33:13
Speaker 1: law of causation. The application of the principles of the
2:33:17
Speaker 1: law of causation in logical reasoning is performed chiefly in
2:33:20
Speaker 1: certain phases of inductive reasoning, which formed the subject of
2:33:23
Speaker 1: the preceding section of this book devoted to the consideration
2:33:27
Speaker 1: of the law of induction. Inductive reasoning is actively concerned
2:33:31
Speaker 1: with the discovery of the unknown causes of known effects
2:33:34
Speaker 1: and results of known events, happenings, changes, entrances into exits
2:33:39
Speaker 1: from existence, in short, with the relations of cause and
2:33:43
Speaker 1: effect existing between all things. At that point of our
2:33:47
Speaker 1: instruction in which inductive reasoning was considered in detail, your
2:33:50
Speaker 1: attention was directed to the general laws and principles involved
2:33:54
Speaker 1: in that form of logical reasoning. However, at this point
2:33:58
Speaker 1: we think it proper to call your attention to some
2:34:00
Speaker 1: special rules observed by trained reasoners in those processes of
2:34:04
Speaker 1: inductive reasoning having to do with the operation of the
2:34:07
Speaker 1: law of causation. Difficulties of discovering causal relations. The following
2:34:13
Speaker 1: general classes of difficulties experienced in determining the relation of
2:34:17
Speaker 1: cause and effect manifesting in correlated things should be carefully
2:34:20
Speaker 1: noted by you. Frequently, the knowledge of the precise nature
2:34:25
Speaker 1: of the difficulty will prevent you from committing a fallacy
2:34:27
Speaker 1: of reasoning or from indulging in false reasoning. Along these
2:34:31
Speaker 1: particular lines, it will also serve to indicate at least
2:34:34
Speaker 1: the general direction in which lies the true solution of
2:34:37
Speaker 1: some difficult problems arising in the study of cause and effect.
2:34:41
Speaker 1: One causes beyond experience, where the cause lies outside of
2:34:46
Speaker 1: human experience, or at least out of the experience of
2:34:49
Speaker 1: the individual, and is therefore not to be comprehended or understood.
2:34:53
Speaker 1: The remedy is one. If it be found that while
2:34:56
Speaker 1: one's individual experience does not include the possible knowledge the
2:35:00
Speaker 1: unknown cause, then he should seek the solution in the
2:35:03
Speaker 1: experience of acknowledged authorities on the subject in question, care, however,
2:35:07
Speaker 1: being taken to satisfy himself that the authority actually is
2:35:11
Speaker 1: possessed by those claiming it or reputed to possess it,
2:35:15
Speaker 1: rather than depending merely upon their unwarranted and impudent assumption
2:35:19
Speaker 1: of it or upon the uncritical judgment of those who
2:35:21
Speaker 1: attribute it to such persons. Two, If it be found
2:35:25
Speaker 1: that the knowledge of the unknown cause necessarily lies out
2:35:28
Speaker 1: of all human experience, then the question should be put aside,
2:35:31
Speaker 1: because the mind is unable to apprehend any knowledge other
2:35:35
Speaker 1: than that originally based upon human experience. Failure to act
2:35:38
Speaker 1: upon this principle results merely in circular reasoning. The mind
2:35:43
Speaker 1: traveling about like the squirrel in his wheel, ever moving
2:35:46
Speaker 1: but never really advancing two joint causes. Where there are
2:35:51
Speaker 1: two or more causes acting conjointly, thereby rendering it difficult
2:35:55
Speaker 1: to determine which is the predominant cause or to eliminate
2:35:59
Speaker 1: from the problem the asas associated causes. Then the remedy
2:36:02
Speaker 1: is to observe other cases in which some one of
2:36:04
Speaker 1: the several possible causes has by itself operated to produce
2:36:07
Speaker 1: similar results independent of the other possible causes. If any
2:36:12
Speaker 1: one of the said possible causes is found to be
2:36:14
Speaker 1: capable of producing an effect identical with or quite similar
2:36:17
Speaker 1: to the effect under observation without the possible presence or
2:36:21
Speaker 1: action of the other possible causes, and where the other
2:36:24
Speaker 1: possible causes are not found to be capable of so
2:36:26
Speaker 1: producing such identical or similar effects, then it is logical
2:36:30
Speaker 1: to reason that the successful possible cause is the true cause.
2:36:34
Speaker 1: In the absence of such decisive result of the test,
2:36:37
Speaker 1: you must either label the question as undecided or else
2:36:41
Speaker 1: tentatively assume that the effect is the result of the
2:36:44
Speaker 1: several possible causes necessarily acting conjointly. Tests along these lines
2:36:49
Speaker 1: will frequently eliminate certain of the factors as non essential
2:36:52
Speaker 1: in the joint action, thus narrowing the unanalysed combination to
2:36:56
Speaker 1: the remaining factors. Three modifying causes. Where there are found
2:37:01
Speaker 1: to exist some modifying or counteracting cause or causes which
2:37:05
Speaker 1: tend to confuse the investigator and to cloud the result
2:37:08
Speaker 1: of his investigation, then the remedy is that of elimination.
2:37:12
Speaker 1: See the below stated rule of elimination for plurality of
2:37:16
Speaker 1: possible causes. Where there are found present and active several
2:37:20
Speaker 1: possible causes, either of which seems to be sufficient to
2:37:23
Speaker 1: account for the effect, then here again the remedy is
2:37:26
Speaker 1: found in elimination. See the rules stated below. Five Cause
2:37:31
Speaker 1: or coeffect. Where to the casual reasoner, there seems to
2:37:35
Speaker 1: be found in a supposed cause the sufficient explanation of
2:37:38
Speaker 1: the effect. But where to the more careful reasoner the
2:37:41
Speaker 1: supposed cause appears to be possibly merely a co effect
2:37:44
Speaker 1: of the true unknown cause, rather than that true cause itself.
2:37:47
Speaker 1: Then here again the remedy is that of elimination see
2:37:50
Speaker 1: the rules stated below. Six. Coincidence where the apparent relation
2:37:56
Speaker 1: of cause and effect is seen probably or possibly to
2:37:59
Speaker 1: be the result of mere coincidence, the relation of cause
2:38:03
Speaker 1: and effect probably or possibly being merely a relation of
2:38:06
Speaker 1: time and place arising from a concurrent happening i e.
2:38:09
Speaker 1: A happening at the same time and in the same place,
2:38:12
Speaker 1: though without any true logical relation of cause and effect
2:38:15
Speaker 1: existing between the respective happenings. Then once more the remedy
2:38:19
Speaker 1: is found in elimination. See the below stated rule eight.
2:38:24
Speaker 1: Reversal of relation. Where the apparent cause is suspected really
2:38:28
Speaker 1: to be the effect and the supposed effect really to
2:38:31
Speaker 1: be the cause, then the remedy lies in testing the
2:38:34
Speaker 1: apparent cause and the apparent effect apart from each other
2:38:37
Speaker 1: and under different conditions. In such case, careful observation and
2:38:42
Speaker 1: experiment are necessary. Rule of elimination. The rule of elimination above,
2:38:48
Speaker 1: referred to in several cases, is as follows. Test each
2:38:52
Speaker 1: possible or probable cause separately and apart from other possible
2:38:56
Speaker 1: or probable causes of a certain effect, with the end
2:38:59
Speaker 1: and purpose of a line eliminating from the problem. Such
2:39:01
Speaker 1: apparent causes which may be discovered to be incapable of
2:39:04
Speaker 1: meeting the logical causal requirements of the case, which requirements
2:39:08
Speaker 1: the true cause must fulfill the particular possible or probable
2:39:12
Speaker 1: cause which is left after all the others have been eliminated.
2:39:16
Speaker 1: Provided that it itself successfully meets the requirements of the case,
2:39:20
Speaker 1: is then to be accepted as the true cause, at
2:39:23
Speaker 1: least so long as no other candidate for the office
2:39:26
Speaker 1: of true cause, also meeting the requirements, presents itself and
2:39:30
Speaker 1: challenges the holder of the office. Illustrations of elimination. The
2:39:35
Speaker 1: following examples serve to illustrate the rule of elimination, which,
2:39:39
Speaker 1: in one form or another, is employed by the most
2:39:42
Speaker 1: careful thinkers. One a gun is discharged, the savage tries
2:39:47
Speaker 1: to fire it again while still unloaded. He fails. He
2:39:53
Speaker 1: then places a shell within it and finds that it
2:39:55
Speaker 1: goes off. Henceforth he eliminates the unloaded gun from the
2:39:59
Speaker 1: case category of possible causes or casual conditions of gun firing. Two.
2:40:05
Speaker 1: A person is made sick by something eaten at a dinner,
2:40:08
Speaker 1: but he does not know just which particular dish was tainted.
2:40:12
Speaker 1: He proceeds to test the thing by elimination. He remembers
2:40:16
Speaker 1: that he ate soup, meat, fish, bread, and vegetables. He
2:40:21
Speaker 1: discovers that a number of other persons also were made
2:40:24
Speaker 1: sick at that dinner, while others still were not so affected.
2:40:28
Speaker 1: He examines the latter class and finds that all of
2:40:31
Speaker 1: them mate meat, and that some of them mate soup
2:40:33
Speaker 1: and bread or vegetables, as the case might be. He
2:40:37
Speaker 1: eliminates all of these articles of food as probable factors
2:40:41
Speaker 1: of the illness by reason of the fact that many
2:40:43
Speaker 1: of the well persons had eaten of each. When he
2:40:46
Speaker 1: reaches the item of fish, however, he finds that none
2:40:49
Speaker 1: of the well persons had partaken of it. Further inquiry
2:40:53
Speaker 1: reveals the fact that all of the sick persons had
2:40:56
Speaker 1: eaten it. He reasons from this that the fish was
2:40:59
Speaker 1: the tainted article of food which caused his sickness. If
2:41:03
Speaker 1: he alone had been made sick, his test would have
2:41:05
Speaker 1: shown either a that his particular portion of some article
2:41:09
Speaker 1: of food had been tainted, or b that his stomach
2:41:12
Speaker 1: was in bad order, or c that some particular combination
2:41:16
Speaker 1: of food had disagreed with him by reason of some
2:41:19
Speaker 1: personal idiosyncrasy. We have here several elements of possible cause
2:41:23
Speaker 1: and effect and the detection of the true cause. Try
2:41:27
Speaker 1: to discover each. It will give you good practice and exercise. Three.
2:41:32
Speaker 1: Nitroglycerin is discovered to be explosive. A man, wishing to
2:41:37
Speaker 1: discover the prime explosive factors of the composite article, tried
2:41:40
Speaker 1: separately the several constituent ingredients i e. Glycerin and the
2:41:44
Speaker 1: nitric and other acids which composed it. He found that
2:41:48
Speaker 1: none of the several separated ingredients exploded, and that no
2:41:52
Speaker 1: other than a certain special combination of these exploded. In
2:41:56
Speaker 1: the case of many explosives, the explosion occurs only when
2:41:59
Speaker 1: the set several ingredients are combined in certain proportions. Hence
2:42:04
Speaker 1: the conclusion that all of these factors, in certain combination
2:42:07
Speaker 1: and coordination are the necessary factors of the cause and
2:42:11
Speaker 1: constitute the true cause of the effect. Four. A man
2:42:15
Speaker 1: finds that his cup of tea is bad. He tries
2:42:18
Speaker 1: the experiment of using a different brand of tea boiling
2:42:21
Speaker 1: it in the same kind of water. This results in
2:42:24
Speaker 1: another bad cup of tea. He then separately tries both
2:42:28
Speaker 1: brands of tea using a different kind of water from
2:42:31
Speaker 1: that first used. Both cups are found good. He decides
2:42:35
Speaker 1: that something was wrong with the water, and that the
2:42:37
Speaker 1: water was the true cause of the effect. Five A
2:42:41
Speaker 1: scientific man fills a receiver full of air and causes
2:42:45
Speaker 1: a bell to ring within the closed receiver. He hears
2:42:48
Speaker 1: the sound. Then he exhausts the air from the receiver
2:42:51
Speaker 1: and causes the bell to swing. He hears no sound. Hence,
2:42:56
Speaker 1: he reasons that the effect i e. The sound of
2:42:59
Speaker 1: the bell, which was present in one case and absent
2:43:02
Speaker 1: in the other, resulted from the discovered essential cause i e.
2:43:05
Speaker 1: The presence of their air which conducted the sound waves.
2:43:09
Speaker 1: Six a man finds a room well lighted. He notices
2:43:13
Speaker 1: a number of peculiar glowing globes about the room. He
2:43:16
Speaker 1: had never seen an electric light lamp before. He experiments
2:43:20
Speaker 1: by turning off the globes one after the other, and
2:43:23
Speaker 1: then turning them on again one by one. He finds
2:43:26
Speaker 1: that the light in the room decreases by reason of
2:43:28
Speaker 1: the first action and increases by reason of the second. Therefore,
2:43:33
Speaker 1: he reasons that the peculiar glowing globes are the true
2:43:35
Speaker 1: cause of the light in the room. Seven A man
2:43:39
Speaker 1: weighs a barrel filled with flower. He finds that it
2:43:42
Speaker 1: registers two hundred and ten pounds. He knows that the
2:43:45
Speaker 1: empty barrel alone weighs fourteen pounds. He reasons that he
2:43:50
Speaker 1: has one hundred and ninety six pounds of flower in
2:43:52
Speaker 1: that barrel, which is the cause of that part of
2:43:54
Speaker 1: the effect which was not attributable to the barrel. These
2:43:58
Speaker 1: are trifling examples and ill strations. You may say, well,
2:44:03
Speaker 1: they are so, provided that you fail to grasp the
2:44:05
Speaker 1: basic principle involved in each. But these basic principles are
2:44:10
Speaker 1: precisely the ones employed by the great scientists, and by
2:44:14
Speaker 1: reason of which they have made their great discoveries of
2:44:16
Speaker 1: laws and principles. Perhaps, however, you may grasp these principles
2:44:21
Speaker 1: better when we present to you illustrations of certain fallacies
2:44:24
Speaker 1: resulting from a failure to apply them. Here are a
2:44:28
Speaker 1: few familiar and typically illustrative cases involving such fallacies. One
2:44:34
Speaker 1: mistaken causes the rooster thought that his crowing caused the
2:44:37
Speaker 1: sun to rise, because always just after he crowed up
2:44:41
Speaker 1: came the sun. His fallacy was exposed when one day
2:44:45
Speaker 1: he overslept himself and the sun rose without his crowing. Again,
2:44:50
Speaker 1: in ancient times, from the coincidence of the simultaneous appearance
2:44:54
Speaker 1: of a comet and an epidemic of the plague, it
2:44:56
Speaker 1: was reason that the comet was the cause of the plague.
2:45:00
Speaker 1: The fallacy was exposed when it was shown that other
2:45:02
Speaker 1: comets had appeared without the coincident appearance of the plague,
2:45:06
Speaker 1: and likewise that other plagues had appeared when no comet
2:45:09
Speaker 1: accompanied them. Again, a child reasoned that because deaths in
2:45:13
Speaker 1: that town were always preceded by the visits of a physician,
2:45:17
Speaker 1: therefore the doctors were the causes of the deaths. You
2:45:21
Speaker 1: may expose this fallacy for yourself. Again, Ignorant and violently
2:45:26
Speaker 1: prejudiced people have sought to attribute the occurrence of bad crops,
2:45:29
Speaker 1: unfavorable seasons, bad weather in harvesting season, et cetera, to
2:45:34
Speaker 1: the fact that a particular political party happened to be
2:45:36
Speaker 1: in power. You may smile at this, but cases of
2:45:40
Speaker 1: this kind actually have been experienced. Other cases, just as
2:45:44
Speaker 1: silly are those in which a certain administration or political
2:45:48
Speaker 1: party in power has been held to be the cause
2:45:50
Speaker 1: of things which were utterly beyond its power to effect
2:45:53
Speaker 1: one way or another, and which proceeded from entirely different causes.
2:45:58
Speaker 1: Two confusion of cause and effect. Some ignorant persons think
2:46:02
Speaker 1: that the eruptive pimples, which are the symptoms of certain diseases,
2:46:05
Speaker 1: are really the cause of the disease instead of its effect. Again,
2:46:10
Speaker 1: it might be argued that silk hats are the cause
2:46:12
Speaker 1: of civilization, because the greater the degree of civilization, the
2:46:16
Speaker 1: greater the number of high hats appearing on the streets.
2:46:19
Speaker 1: Again that for the same reasons, automobiles are the cause
2:46:23
Speaker 1: of prosperity instead of an effect of it. Again that
2:46:27
Speaker 1: for the same reasons, straw hats are the cause of
2:46:30
Speaker 1: hot weather. Again that certain royal personages where the respective
2:46:35
Speaker 1: causes of the high degree of culture, prosperity, and progress
2:46:39
Speaker 1: during certain periods, instead of their being merely incidental and
2:46:42
Speaker 1: coincidental facts. This is quite a common fallacy. The foregoing
2:46:47
Speaker 1: examples may seem to be absurdly exaggerated cases of fallacy
2:46:51
Speaker 1: of this kind, but others of the same general character,
2:46:54
Speaker 1: and equally contrary to reason, are being manifested by presumably
2:46:58
Speaker 1: intelligent persons every day in as the year, and often
2:47:01
Speaker 1: are undetected and unexposed. When you train your mind along
2:47:05
Speaker 1: the lines of practical logic, you will, by habit escape
2:47:08
Speaker 1: perpetrating these offenses against logical reasoning, and will instinctively recognize
2:47:13
Speaker 1: and detect such when seriously and solemnly advanced by others.
2:47:17
Speaker 1: This is quite worthwhile, is it not that Jevins Rules
2:47:22
Speaker 1: of Discovery of causes and effects? Concluding our consideration of
2:47:27
Speaker 1: the subject of the application of the law of cause
2:47:29
Speaker 1: and effect, we would call your particular and especial attention
2:47:33
Speaker 1: to the well known, generally accepted, and very practical and
2:47:36
Speaker 1: useful rules laid down by Professor Jevins, that eminent teacher
2:47:40
Speaker 1: of logic, which rules will serve to aid you in
2:47:43
Speaker 1: discovering in identifying true cases of cause and effect. These
2:47:47
Speaker 1: rules are as follows. One, whenever we can alter the
2:47:52
Speaker 1: quantity of the things experimented on, we can apply the
2:47:55
Speaker 1: following rule for discovering which are causes and which our
2:47:57
Speaker 1: effects viz. Vary the quantity of one thing, making it
2:48:01
Speaker 1: at one time greater and at another time less, And
2:48:04
Speaker 1: if you observe any other thing which varies just at
2:48:07
Speaker 1: the same times, it will in all probability be in effect. Two.
2:48:11
Speaker 1: When things very regularlyan frequently, there is a simple rule
2:48:15
Speaker 1: by following which you can judge whether changes are connected
2:48:18
Speaker 1: together as causes and effects. This rule is as follows,
2:48:22
Speaker 1: Those things which change at exactly the same times are
2:48:25
Speaker 1: in all likelihood connected together. The above and the previously
2:48:29
Speaker 1: presented rules, when applied by common sense and according to experience,
2:48:34
Speaker 1: will render you an efficient reasoner along the lines of
2:48:36
Speaker 1: the relations of cause and effect, and such lines really
2:48:40
Speaker 1: extend over a vast field of your practical thought. Knowledge
2:48:44
Speaker 1: of the causes and effects of things under consideration is
2:48:47
Speaker 1: sometimes the most valuable of all possible knowledge. The second
2:48:52
Speaker 1: and concluding part of the axiom of logical causation states,
2:48:55
Speaker 1: given the same causative factors, the same material elements, and
2:48:59
Speaker 1: the same same environmental conditions, the same results and effects
2:49:03
Speaker 1: will follow in all cases so determined and conditioned. This
2:49:07
Speaker 1: principle is so intimately and absolutely bound up with, correlated to,
2:49:11
Speaker 1: and coordinated with, the first principle announced in that axiom
2:49:15
Speaker 1: that it inevitably, invariably, and infallibly follows as an absolute
2:49:20
Speaker 1: necessity of the truth of the former, the two cannot
2:49:23
Speaker 1: be divorced. Reason has joined these two together so firmly
2:49:27
Speaker 1: that they cannot be put asunder. To deny either or
2:49:31
Speaker 1: both is equivalent to asserting the reign of chance rather
2:49:34
Speaker 1: than that of law and order, to regarding the universe
2:49:37
Speaker 1: as chaos rather than as the cosmos. This truth is
2:49:41
Speaker 1: expressed in many strong phases employed by eminent thinkers. For instance,
2:49:46
Speaker 1: from the same causes, the same effects proceed. What is
2:49:50
Speaker 1: true at certain times under certain conditions will be true
2:49:54
Speaker 1: under similar circumstances at all times. It is based upon
2:49:58
Speaker 1: the realization that nature proceeds according to fixed and certain law,
2:50:02
Speaker 1: according to a uniform, constant, invariable routine, and sequence of
2:50:06
Speaker 1: orderly trend, that the universe is governed by law and
2:50:10
Speaker 1: not by chance, and proceeds according to rule and not
2:50:13
Speaker 1: in any higgeldy piggoldy irregular, non uniform course. If we
2:50:18
Speaker 1: deny the validity of natural law, we may as well
2:50:21
Speaker 1: stop thinking at all, for the most important part of
2:50:24
Speaker 1: our thought is based upon the conception and premise of
2:50:26
Speaker 1: universal law and order. We are justified in believing in
2:50:30
Speaker 1: nature's common course, for all experience supports such belief, and
2:50:35
Speaker 1: all logical reasoning verifies it. It has been said that
2:50:39
Speaker 1: we do not ask for the reasons of this uniformity,
2:50:42
Speaker 1: we cannot help believing in it, even if we try
2:50:44
Speaker 1: not to do so. It is a necessity of rational thought,
2:50:49
Speaker 1: reasoning power practical logic. By William Walker Atkinson, nineteen twenty two.
2:50:56
Speaker 1: The law of logical deduction. You are now in to
2:51:00
Speaker 1: consider that important law of logical reasoning known as the
2:51:03
Speaker 1: law of logical deduction. This law represents the universal experience
2:51:08
Speaker 1: of human thought, rationally applied and directed. The law of
2:51:12
Speaker 1: logical deduction is expressed in the seventh of the seven
2:51:15
Speaker 1: Axioms of logical reasoning, which is as follows, seven Axiom
2:51:20
Speaker 1: of logical deduction. What is true of the class as
2:51:23
Speaker 1: a whole must be true of each, every and all
2:51:26
Speaker 1: the individuals composing that class. The principle law and truth
2:51:31
Speaker 1: embodied in this axiom is employed in all logical reasoning.
2:51:35
Speaker 1: It is regarded as self evident truth, properly to be
2:51:38
Speaker 1: taken for granted. It is assumed in all logical thought,
2:51:42
Speaker 1: and is implied in all true reasoning. The law of
2:51:45
Speaker 1: logical deduction from the earliest times has been recognized and
2:51:48
Speaker 1: employed in logical reasoning. In fact, until the rise into
2:51:53
Speaker 1: favor of inductive reasoning, the logicians held that deduction was
2:51:56
Speaker 1: the only valid form of logical inference. At present, it
2:52:00
Speaker 1: is clearly perceived that inasmuch as the material for all
2:52:03
Speaker 1: deduction must be furnished ready made by induction, and inasmuch
2:52:07
Speaker 1: as induction must be verified by subsequent deduction, consequently, these
2:52:11
Speaker 1: two great forms of logical reasoning cannot be divorced one
2:52:14
Speaker 1: from the other. Some ardent advocates of inductive reasoning, in fact,
2:52:19
Speaker 1: goes so far as to claim that deduction is really
2:52:22
Speaker 1: nothing more or less than a method of making practical
2:52:25
Speaker 1: application of the results of induction, and that the conclusions
2:52:28
Speaker 1: reached by deduction have been previously implicitly asserted in the
2:52:31
Speaker 1: judgments passed upon the individual objects when they are admitted
2:52:35
Speaker 1: into their respective logical classes. We shall, however, not enter
2:52:40
Speaker 1: here into such technical discussion, particularly as we believe that
2:52:44
Speaker 1: in this as in most cases, the truth is to
2:52:46
Speaker 1: be found in the middle course between the two extremes.
2:52:50
Speaker 1: Deduction is the logical process whereby we deduce by inference
2:52:54
Speaker 1: and unknown particular truth from two already known general truths.
2:52:59
Speaker 1: As has been said by an eminent logician, it is
2:53:02
Speaker 1: getting some knowledge from other knowledge. Again, it has been
2:53:06
Speaker 1: stated as finding out what is true if certain other
2:53:09
Speaker 1: things are true. Examples of deduction follow all men are mortal.
2:53:14
Speaker 1: Socrates is a man, Therefore Socrates is mortal. All horses
2:53:20
Speaker 1: are animals. This creature is a horse. Therefore this creature
2:53:24
Speaker 1: is an animal. All magnets attract steel. This piece of
2:53:27
Speaker 1: steel is a magnet. Therefore this piece of steel will
2:53:31
Speaker 1: attract other steel. All mushrooms are good to eat. This
2:53:35
Speaker 1: fungus is a mushroom. Therefore this fungus is good to eat.
2:53:40
Speaker 1: No fish is a warm blooded mammal. The whale is
2:53:43
Speaker 1: a warm blooded mammal. Therefore the whale is not a fish.
2:53:47
Speaker 1: All a is b. This thing is an a. Therefore
2:53:51
Speaker 1: this thing is b. In the above stated examples, you
2:53:54
Speaker 1: find that there are two already known facts, two propositions,
2:53:58
Speaker 1: two judgments. These are called of premises. There is also
2:54:02
Speaker 1: a third fact, a newly discovered fact, a third judgment.
2:54:06
Speaker 1: This is called the conclusion or deduced judgment. A premiss
2:54:11
Speaker 1: is a proposition antecedently supposed or proved from two of
2:54:15
Speaker 1: which a conclusion is drawn by deductive inference. The most
2:54:19
Speaker 1: general of the two premisses is known as the major premiss,
2:54:22
Speaker 1: though less general is known as the minor premis. For instance,
2:54:27
Speaker 1: in the classical illustration the major premis is all men
2:54:31
Speaker 1: are mortal. The minor premis is Socrates is a man.
2:54:35
Speaker 1: The conclusion is Socrates is mortal. The syllogism. To the
2:54:40
Speaker 1: average student, one of the most forbidding things revealed in
2:54:43
Speaker 1: formal logic is that bearing the unfamiliar name of the syllogism.
2:54:48
Speaker 1: The name itself seems to suggest terrifying possibilities in the
2:54:51
Speaker 1: form of technicalities and academic hair splitting, and a cursory
2:54:55
Speaker 1: examination of the distinction between the manifold forms of the
2:54:58
Speaker 1: syllogism is calculated to ac to this feeling of apprehension.
2:55:02
Speaker 1: But really, the only difficult feature of the syllogism in
2:55:06
Speaker 1: its simpler forms, at least, is its name. As a
2:55:10
Speaker 1: matter of fact, you use syllogism every day in your
2:55:13
Speaker 1: ordinary thinking, and have always done so, though perhaps you
2:55:16
Speaker 1: have not realized the fact a syllogism is simply the
2:55:21
Speaker 1: regular logical form of every logical argument or process of
2:55:24
Speaker 1: deductive reasoning. Each of the examples given above to illustrate
2:55:29
Speaker 1: the principle of deduction is a syllogism. The classical example
2:55:33
Speaker 1: is all men are mortal, Socrates is a man. Therefore
2:55:38
Speaker 1: Socrates is mortal. Each syllogism consists of three elements, viz.
2:55:43
Speaker 1: The major premis, the minor premiss, and the conclusion. The
2:55:47
Speaker 1: major premis contains the most universal term in the above example,
2:55:52
Speaker 1: this is mortal. The minor premis contains the most particular
2:55:56
Speaker 1: term in the above example, this is Socrates. The conclusion
2:56:01
Speaker 1: contains the most particular term as its subject and the
2:56:04
Speaker 1: most universal term as its predicate, as for instance, Socrates
2:56:09
Speaker 1: is mortal. There is also a middle term which does
2:56:12
Speaker 1: not appear in the conclusion, but which appears in the
2:56:15
Speaker 1: minor premiss and the major premiss. In the above example,
2:56:18
Speaker 1: that middle term is man or men. The major premise
2:56:23
Speaker 1: of a syllogism has been previously arrived at by means
2:56:26
Speaker 1: of induction. The minor premiss is the result of previous
2:56:30
Speaker 1: induction re deduction, as the case may be. The conclusion
2:56:34
Speaker 1: is the judgment obtained by the present process of deduction.
2:56:38
Speaker 1: The three elements of the syllogism are known as propositions.
2:56:43
Speaker 1: A proposition is a judgment between two concepts, formally expressed
2:56:47
Speaker 1: in words. You may think that the idea of the
2:56:50
Speaker 1: syllogism is purely technical and artificial, having nothing to do
2:56:54
Speaker 1: with plain practical every day thinking. But if so you
2:56:58
Speaker 1: are mistaken. You employ the syllogism constantly when you think
2:57:02
Speaker 1: in the form of reasoning, argument, or decision, though you
2:57:06
Speaker 1: employ it more or less unconsciously. When you see a
2:57:09
Speaker 1: wasp moving towards you, you seem to say to yourself merely,
2:57:13
Speaker 1: I must look out for that wasp. But your mind
2:57:15
Speaker 1: really is thinking, though for the most part more or
2:57:18
Speaker 1: less unconsciously all wasp sting, that insect is a wasp,
2:57:23
Speaker 1: therefore that insect stings. If it were not for your
2:57:27
Speaker 1: previously acquired knowledge of your major premiss i e. All
2:57:30
Speaker 1: wasp sting, and of your minor premiss i e. That
2:57:34
Speaker 1: insect is a wasp, you would not be able to
2:57:37
Speaker 1: arrive at your more or less unconscious conclusion i e.
2:57:41
Speaker 1: That insect stings, which in turn arouses your desire and
2:57:44
Speaker 1: will to look out for that wasp. You follow the
2:57:48
Speaker 1: same general course when you move away from the place
2:57:50
Speaker 1: at which you hear the rattlesnakes is warning. You follow
2:57:54
Speaker 1: it when you retreat rapidly from the presence of the skunk,
2:57:57
Speaker 1: though you do not stop to analyze your thought into
2:57:59
Speaker 1: its elements, or to translate it into words. You follow
2:58:03
Speaker 1: it when you gently lay down the stick of strange
2:58:06
Speaker 1: looking substance, when someone calls out to you, look out,
2:58:09
Speaker 1: that is dynamite. You use it when you know that
2:58:13
Speaker 1: a particular pauper pays no taxes, though your mind only
2:58:16
Speaker 1: unconsciously goes through the thinking stages of he is a pauper.
2:58:20
Speaker 1: Paupers do not pay taxes, therefore he does not pay taxes.
2:58:25
Speaker 1: In short, you employ it, though more or less unconsciously,
2:58:29
Speaker 1: in every thinking process of deduction, by means of which
2:58:32
Speaker 1: a decision or judgment is reached. If you will take
2:58:36
Speaker 1: the trouble to analyze any thought leading up to a
2:58:38
Speaker 1: deductive judgment, you will find that each step or stage
2:58:41
Speaker 1: of the syllogism has been employed. But here is an
2:58:45
Speaker 1: important point. In ordinary thought and deductive thinking, there is
2:58:49
Speaker 1: a slurring, suppression or omission from conscious thought of one
2:58:53
Speaker 1: or more of the three respective propositions composing the syllogism.
2:58:57
Speaker 1: The missing proposition, however, still will exists in the mind
2:59:01
Speaker 1: of the thinker in his subconscious or unconscious fields of mentation.
2:59:06
Speaker 1: They are always taken for granted or implied, even though
2:59:09
Speaker 1: one may not be conscious of their presence. When you
2:59:13
Speaker 1: analyze even the most informal argument or simplest deductive inference,
2:59:17
Speaker 1: you will find that the missing elements are always there
2:59:20
Speaker 1: in the mind. Logicians apply to the results of this
2:59:23
Speaker 1: slurring or leaving out process the term nthemine, meaning in
2:59:28
Speaker 1: the mind. You are not required to remember this name. However,
2:59:32
Speaker 1: you may think of it simply as a short cut syllogism,
2:59:36
Speaker 1: for that is exactly what it is. Short Cut syllogisms
2:59:40
Speaker 1: vary greatly in particular form, but are reducible to three
2:59:43
Speaker 1: general classes. Here follow examples of each of the three classes.
2:59:49
Speaker 1: With major premise omitted. We are a free people, therefore
2:59:53
Speaker 1: we are happy. Here the major premis i e. All
2:59:57
Speaker 1: free people are happy, is unexpressed, though existing in the mind,
3:00:02
Speaker 1: with minor premise omitted. Poets are imaginative, therefore Byron was imaginative.
3:00:09
Speaker 1: Here the minor premise I e. Byron was a poet
3:00:12
Speaker 1: is unexpressed, though existing in the mind, with conclusion omitted,
3:00:17
Speaker 1: all braggarts are cowards. Bombasts is a braggart. Here the
3:00:22
Speaker 1: conclusion I e. Therefore Bombasts is a coward is unexpressed,
3:00:27
Speaker 1: though existing in the mind, and also probably intended to
3:00:31
Speaker 1: be called into the mind of the listener or reader.
3:00:34
Speaker 1: This last form is often employed very effectively in debate
3:00:37
Speaker 1: or public speaking. The Frenchman's characteristic shrug of the shoulders
3:00:42
Speaker 1: is really a syllogistic short cut, in which the conclusion
3:00:45
Speaker 1: is unexpressed in words, though existing in the mind and
3:00:49
Speaker 1: suggested by the gesture. Also, when you say I allow
3:00:53
Speaker 1: you to draw your own conclusion, you are employing this
3:00:56
Speaker 1: form of short cut, often quite effectively. You will find
3:01:00
Speaker 1: it excellent mental exercise and practice to restore a short
3:01:04
Speaker 1: cut syllogism to its original and complete form. Stanley Williams
3:01:09
Speaker 1: says it is one of the finest exercises of the
3:01:11
Speaker 1: mind that it is possible to employ and exercise superior
3:01:15
Speaker 1: even to geometry in other branches of mathematics, because in
3:01:18
Speaker 1: it we are dealing with the practical, every day inference
3:01:21
Speaker 1: of our reason. Such practice will enable you readily to
3:01:25
Speaker 1: detect fundamental fallacies advanced in the reasoning or arguments of
3:01:28
Speaker 1: other persons. As an illustrative example of this form of practice,
3:01:33
Speaker 1: we offer the following. This thing will sink in water,
3:01:36
Speaker 1: for it is a stone restored to syllogistic form. It
3:01:40
Speaker 1: is all stones sink in water. This thing is a stone.
3:01:44
Speaker 1: Therefore this thing will sink in water. The text books
3:01:48
Speaker 1: of formal Logic will give you a terrifying list of
3:01:51
Speaker 1: the numerous forms of propositions and syllogisms. This list frequently
3:01:56
Speaker 1: discourages the practical man and drives him away from a
3:01:59
Speaker 1: further investigatation of the subject. But inasmuch as all of
3:02:03
Speaker 1: such forms may be reduced to the few simple forms
3:02:06
Speaker 1: referred to by us in this section of this book,
3:02:08
Speaker 1: and inasmuch as the technical distinctions are of very little
3:02:11
Speaker 1: real practical value to the person who desires merely to
3:02:15
Speaker 1: become familiar with the working principles of practical logic, we
3:02:19
Speaker 1: shall omit further reference to them here. In addition, the
3:02:23
Speaker 1: textbooks of formal Logic present a number of highly technical
3:02:26
Speaker 1: rules which govern the logical forms of the syllogism. These
3:02:29
Speaker 1: also we shall omit. With the aid of common sense
3:02:33
Speaker 1: and a knowledge of the fundamental principles of practical logic,
3:02:37
Speaker 1: one may easily dispense with these hair splitting distinctions. There are, however,
3:02:42
Speaker 1: several basic rules under which deductive reasoning must proceed in
3:02:46
Speaker 1: order to be valid, and which if violated, result in
3:02:49
Speaker 1: fallacy or false reasoning. This becoming sophistry when deliberately employed
3:02:53
Speaker 1: to deceive others or oneself. These basic rules we now
3:02:58
Speaker 1: ask you to consider. They are as following. One the
3:03:02
Speaker 1: terms must be unequivocal and not ambiguous. Two, the premises
3:03:07
Speaker 1: must represent actual facts. Three particular terms must not be
3:03:12
Speaker 1: employed as universal terms. Four the conclusion must contain nothing
3:03:17
Speaker 1: which is not involved in the premises. You are now
3:03:20
Speaker 1: invited to consider carefully. The following more detailed statements concerning
3:03:24
Speaker 1: each of the above stated general rules of deductive reasoning,
3:03:28
Speaker 1: together with examples illustrating each rule. One, the terms must
3:03:32
Speaker 1: be unequivocal and not ambiguous, i e. They must be clear, plain,
3:03:37
Speaker 1: and not employed in more than one meaning or sense.
3:03:41
Speaker 1: This because the same term employed in the same argument
3:03:45
Speaker 1: in more than one of its meanings practically becomes two
3:03:47
Speaker 1: terms or more. In such case, one premise may contain
3:03:51
Speaker 1: the term employed in one sense, while in the other
3:03:54
Speaker 1: premise the same term may be employed in another sense,
3:03:57
Speaker 1: which would result in false reasoning and absurd conclusions. This
3:04:02
Speaker 1: was a favorite device of the ancient sophists. It is
3:04:04
Speaker 1: employed frequently in more or less involved and disguised form
3:04:08
Speaker 1: by many sophistical speakers and writers of our own time
3:04:11
Speaker 1: and lands. Here is a classical illustration. A man says,
3:04:16
Speaker 1: I am lying. If he is lying, he is telling
3:04:19
Speaker 1: the truth. If he is telling the truth, he is lying.
3:04:23
Speaker 1: Other examples of fallacy arising from a violation of this
3:04:26
Speaker 1: rule follow feathers are light. Light is contrary to darkness.
3:04:30
Speaker 1: Therefore feathers are contrary to darkness. No courageous thing flies.
3:04:36
Speaker 1: All eagles fly. Therefore eagles are not courageous. All artists design.
3:04:42
Speaker 1: All designing persons are untrustworthy. Therefore all artists are untrustworthy.
3:04:48
Speaker 1: Vice ran in the family. The police ran in the family.
3:04:52
Speaker 1: Therefore the police were vicious. No cat has two tails.
3:04:56
Speaker 1: Every cat has one more taale than no cat. Therefore
3:05:00
Speaker 1: every cat has three i e. One more than two tails.
3:05:05
Speaker 1: One form of this fallacy consists in placing the mental
3:05:08
Speaker 1: or verbal accent or stress upon the wrong term, as
3:05:11
Speaker 1: for example, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
3:05:15
Speaker 1: All that is not against thy neighbor is for him.
3:05:18
Speaker 1: Therefore thou shalt bear false witness for thy neighbor. The
3:05:22
Speaker 1: above examples, in more complex and subtle form, illustrate the
3:05:26
Speaker 1: favorite devices of certain sophistical reasoners, debaters, and teachers. Another
3:05:31
Speaker 1: variety of this form of fallacy consists of the use
3:05:34
Speaker 1: of the words all or similar terms in one place
3:05:38
Speaker 1: as a collective term denoting a combined and united whole,
3:05:41
Speaker 1: and in another place as a singular term denoting any
3:05:45
Speaker 1: each or every single individual or object forming a part
3:05:48
Speaker 1: of a whole. Example, the statement that any man can
3:05:52
Speaker 1: carry away all the sticks in this pile, meaning to
3:05:55
Speaker 1: carry away all the sticks singly, one by one, is
3:05:58
Speaker 1: far different from the assertion that any man can carry
3:06:01
Speaker 1: away all such sticks at once in a single load. Likewise,
3:06:06
Speaker 1: the statement that no man can carry away all the
3:06:09
Speaker 1: sticks in this pile, meaning to carry them away in
3:06:11
Speaker 1: a single load, is far different from saying that no
3:06:14
Speaker 1: man could carry away all of them one by one.
3:06:18
Speaker 1: This form of fallacy is far more common than you
3:06:21
Speaker 1: might imagine from the above stated simple examples. It becomes
3:06:25
Speaker 1: more dangerous when expressed in more complex and involved form.
3:06:29
Speaker 1: Another variety of the same form consists in confusing the
3:06:33
Speaker 1: meaning of a grammatical phrase. Example, the animals walked in
3:06:37
Speaker 1: two by two two and two make four. Therefore the
3:06:41
Speaker 1: animals walked in by fours. You have said that what
3:06:44
Speaker 1: you bought in the market yesterday, you ate today. You
3:06:47
Speaker 1: bought raw meat in the market yesterday. Therefore you ate
3:06:51
Speaker 1: raw meat to day. You have said that it is
3:06:54
Speaker 1: not true that virtue consists of utility. If this be true,
3:06:57
Speaker 1: then virtue lacks utility. There for you hold that utility
3:07:01
Speaker 1: is a thing lacking in virtue. Patriotism is the last
3:07:05
Speaker 1: rest of a scoundrel. Therefore every patriot is a scoundrel.
3:07:10
Speaker 1: Such sophistical quibbles and tricks distinguish shyster lawyers, smart alec debaters,
3:07:15
Speaker 1: and others of their kind. They are beneath contempt when
3:07:18
Speaker 1: employed in argument with serious intent, and they are so
3:07:21
Speaker 1: employed far oftener than you might suspect. Did you ever
3:07:25
Speaker 1: hear of the shyster who asked the witness under cross
3:07:28
Speaker 1: examination the question have you quit beating your wife? And
3:07:32
Speaker 1: insisted upon a yes or no answer? The man had
3:07:36
Speaker 1: never beaten his wife. Imagine his dilemma. Another variety of
3:07:41
Speaker 1: the same class of fallacy is that in which the
3:07:43
Speaker 1: principles of a general law are sought to be applied
3:07:46
Speaker 1: to a particular case in which the circumstances are entirely different. Example,
3:07:51
Speaker 1: all who kill are murderers, soldiers kill. Therefore soldiers are murderers.
3:07:57
Speaker 1: This sophistry is discovered when one refers to the definition
3:08:01
Speaker 1: of murder, which is illegally killing a human being with malice.
3:08:05
Speaker 1: A forethought, Yet public men of a certain type have
3:08:08
Speaker 1: sought persistently to perpetrate this sophistry, and thus to influence
3:08:12
Speaker 1: the public mind in certain directions. Once more, the sophistry
3:08:17
Speaker 1: that in Esip's fable, the fast hair was beaten by
3:08:20
Speaker 1: the slow tortoise. Of the two horses entered in this race,
3:08:23
Speaker 1: one is fast, the other slow. Therefore the slow horse
3:08:27
Speaker 1: should win this race. Here, of course, Esip's tortoise one
3:08:32
Speaker 1: in spite of its slowness, not because of it. Two.
3:08:37
Speaker 1: The premises must represent actual facts, i e. They must
3:08:41
Speaker 1: represent facts derived from one's own careful observation and experiment,
3:08:45
Speaker 1: or from his own logical reasoning, or else from carefully
3:08:48
Speaker 1: considered and accepted reports of the experiences, observations, or reasoning
3:08:53
Speaker 1: of others deemed to be capable and in a position
3:08:55
Speaker 1: to observe, experiment or reason carefully incorrectly, and to judge
3:09:00
Speaker 1: udge with logical precision. The importance of this rule becomes
3:09:04
Speaker 1: apparent when one realizes the truth of the ancient aphorism.
3:09:07
Speaker 1: One can prove anything whatsoever if you be permitted to
3:09:10
Speaker 1: assume certain premises, this without violating a single technical rule
3:09:14
Speaker 1: of deduction. Admitting the premises of an argument or process
3:09:19
Speaker 1: of reasoning, the conclusion proceeds certainly, inevitably and invariably to
3:09:23
Speaker 1: a logical conclusion, without regard to the actual truth of
3:09:27
Speaker 1: the premises so employed. But remember always that a logical
3:09:31
Speaker 1: conclusion is never truer than are the premises from which
3:09:34
Speaker 1: it is deduced, even though the processes of reasoning or
3:09:38
Speaker 1: argument be logically perfect. If you start with the major
3:09:41
Speaker 1: premise that all white is black, you may reason with
3:09:44
Speaker 1: absolute logical correctness to the conclusion that this is black snow.
3:09:49
Speaker 1: Your premises must represent correct observation, experiment, and the experience
3:09:54
Speaker 1: of yourself or of others deemed to be competent authorities.
3:09:58
Speaker 1: Your own experience might must be subjected to logical inspection
3:10:02
Speaker 1: and must bear the test of logical induction and deduction.
3:10:06
Speaker 1: The evidence of other persons must be subjected to logical
3:10:09
Speaker 1: and critical inspection and judgment. The two main factors determining
3:10:14
Speaker 1: the degree of the validity of this last mentioned class
3:10:16
Speaker 1: of evidence are as follows one ability and two veracity,
3:10:21
Speaker 1: but alas such associated virtues are rare. For some able
3:10:26
Speaker 1: men lack veracity, and many voracious men lackability to observe
3:10:31
Speaker 1: reason and judge. Many a good man and true lacks
3:10:35
Speaker 1: critical perception and logical judgment. Such a man is particularly
3:10:39
Speaker 1: dangerous because his virtue is apt to be mistaken for
3:10:42
Speaker 1: the ability which he really lacks. Again, a man may
3:10:46
Speaker 1: be very able in his own particular line of thought
3:10:48
Speaker 1: and work, but still like a child or a dunce
3:10:51
Speaker 1: in certain other lines. The man recognized as an authority
3:10:56
Speaker 1: in one line may be an ignoramus in another line.
3:10:59
Speaker 1: A failure to receive this has led astray public opinion
3:11:02
Speaker 1: and personal belief in very many cases, some of which
3:11:05
Speaker 1: may have come under your own observation. The authority to
3:11:09
Speaker 1: be valid must be real and not merely assumed. Common
3:11:13
Speaker 1: sense must be employed in deciding upon the validity of
3:11:16
Speaker 1: the opinions of claimed authorities. The authority should be subjected
3:11:20
Speaker 1: to the test question, how do you know you are
3:11:24
Speaker 1: justified in being from Missouri? In this respect, fallacy of
3:11:29
Speaker 1: begging the question this is quite common, and it frequently
3:11:32
Speaker 1: deceives even careful persons whose attention has not been directed
3:11:35
Speaker 1: to the logical principle violated in it. It consists of assuming,
3:11:40
Speaker 1: taking for granted, or asking others to do so, a premise,
3:11:44
Speaker 1: usually a major premise, which is not based upon logical
3:11:47
Speaker 1: reasoning or upon actual human experience and judgment. It is
3:11:52
Speaker 1: true that all reasoning or argument must begin with a
3:11:55
Speaker 1: proposition not actually proved at the time, and which is
3:11:58
Speaker 1: to be taken for granted as representing valid human experience
3:12:02
Speaker 1: and judgment, something which is assumed to be self evident
3:12:05
Speaker 1: and requiring no further proof or demonstration. Otherwise the reasoning
3:12:10
Speaker 1: process would be like running back along the links of
3:12:13
Speaker 1: an endless chain. One must begin somewhere, but such self
3:12:18
Speaker 1: evident truth must really be one based on universal human experience,
3:12:22
Speaker 1: a well verified hypothesis, or a valid logical deduction from these.
3:12:26
Speaker 1: A mere assumption or claim will not answer Likewise, it
3:12:31
Speaker 1: is a logical and contrary to common sense to hold
3:12:34
Speaker 1: that a proposition or premise must be accepted as true
3:12:37
Speaker 1: and valid until it is actually disproved. The contrary is true.
3:12:41
Speaker 1: The rule is that the burden of proof lies upon
3:12:44
Speaker 1: the person advancing the proposition. He who affirms must prove
3:12:48
Speaker 1: if called upon to do so. A favorite device of
3:12:51
Speaker 1: some debaters, writers of a certain type, and some persons
3:12:55
Speaker 1: engaged in argument is to shift the burden of proof
3:12:59
Speaker 1: and to hold that unless the proposition is disproved, it
3:13:01
Speaker 1: must be admitted to the argument. The absolute rule is
3:13:05
Speaker 1: the proposition must be positively proved if demanded. No mere
3:13:09
Speaker 1: negative failure to disprove it can constitute or serve as
3:13:12
Speaker 1: positive proof of the proposition. The fallacy of begging the
3:13:17
Speaker 1: question is a very common and often a very dangerous one.
3:13:21
Speaker 1: It appears in many forms and under many disguises. It
3:13:25
Speaker 1: is particularly dangerous because especially insidious when it appears in
3:13:29
Speaker 1: disguised form. In the major premise, here, the formal conclusion
3:13:33
Speaker 1: becomes merely an echo or repetition of the original proposition,
3:13:37
Speaker 1: the latter being cleverly injected into the argument without being
3:13:40
Speaker 1: subjected to logical inspection or proof. Once admitted to the argument,
3:13:45
Speaker 1: the proposition, thus boldly assumed, becomes the valid basis for
3:13:49
Speaker 1: subsequent deduction and reasoning of a perfectly logical character. The
3:13:54
Speaker 1: unsupported proposition is treated as if it were really the
3:13:57
Speaker 1: conclusion of a previous process of syllogistic reas, whereas it
3:14:01
Speaker 1: really is merely taken for granted or assumed without valid basis.
3:14:06
Speaker 1: In effect, it is really a case of attempting to
3:14:09
Speaker 1: prove a conclusion by itself without the presence of supporting premises.
3:14:14
Speaker 1: Many public speakers commit this fallacy, often quite deliberately. Experience
3:14:20
Speaker 1: has shown them that, usually in a popular phrase, they
3:14:23
Speaker 1: can get away with it. Aaron Burr illustrated the practice
3:14:27
Speaker 1: in his celebrated cynical statement that truth is that which
3:14:30
Speaker 1: is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. Bulwer makes one of
3:14:34
Speaker 1: his characters, an unusually clever rascal, say, whenever you are
3:14:38
Speaker 1: about to utter something astonishingly false, always begin with it
3:14:42
Speaker 1: is an acknowledged fact, et cetera. Or it is admitted
3:14:46
Speaker 1: by all, et cetera. Or no thinking person denies et cetera.
3:14:51
Speaker 1: Or it is a truth undeniable, et cetera. The same
3:14:55
Speaker 1: character advises that when one is called upon for the
3:14:57
Speaker 1: proof of something, admitting of no logical proof, he should
3:15:01
Speaker 1: look solemn and striking his breast, should say I find
3:15:05
Speaker 1: it here. Another form of begging the question consists of
3:15:09
Speaker 1: the use of question begging epithets i e. Of terms
3:15:13
Speaker 1: or epithets, suggesting or conveying unpleasant or evil associated meanings,
3:15:18
Speaker 1: and thus serving to arouse prejudice against or even to
3:15:21
Speaker 1: damn the thing by the use of the epithet or
3:15:23
Speaker 1: term which really has not been proved to apply to
3:15:26
Speaker 1: the thing in question at all, and of which the
3:15:28
Speaker 1: thing is possibly entirely innocent and free. Thus we often
3:15:33
Speaker 1: hear arguments in which it is boldly asserted without the
3:15:36
Speaker 1: slightest proof, be it noted that such and such an
3:15:40
Speaker 1: idea is atheistic, anarchistic, unpatriotic, or immoral, the audience bearer
3:15:46
Speaker 1: or reader being asked to swallow whole without investigation or thought,
3:15:50
Speaker 1: the idea represented by such terms. It is a case
3:15:54
Speaker 1: of giving a dog a bad name, and thus causing
3:15:57
Speaker 1: him to be stoned to death. Jevins said, as we
3:16:00
Speaker 1: should always be on our guard against being misled by
3:16:03
Speaker 1: question begging epithets. The fallacy of circular reasoning is another
3:16:08
Speaker 1: variety of this general class of fallacy. Like the other
3:16:11
Speaker 1: varieties and forms, it is quite common and often is
3:16:15
Speaker 1: quite dangerous. It consists of attempting to prove a proposition
3:16:19
Speaker 1: by itself, or proving a series of propositions, one by
3:16:23
Speaker 1: the other in a vicious circle. In its simplest form,
3:16:26
Speaker 1: it is perpetrated by simply attempting to demonstrate or to
3:16:29
Speaker 1: prove a thing by means of its own definition, as
3:16:32
Speaker 1: for example, glass breaks because it is brittle. It is
3:16:35
Speaker 1: brittle because it breaks easily. Or we can see through
3:16:39
Speaker 1: glass because it is transparent. It is transparent because we
3:16:42
Speaker 1: can see through it. Or the girl is dumb because
3:16:45
Speaker 1: she lacks the power of speech. She lacks the power
3:16:48
Speaker 1: of speech because she is mute. An extension of the
3:16:52
Speaker 1: false principle is found in arguments or syllogisms in which
3:16:55
Speaker 1: the major premise is merely the unproved conclusion, stated in
3:16:58
Speaker 1: different terms, but having the same essential meaning. More complex
3:17:03
Speaker 1: and consequently more dangerous forms are as follows. My church
3:17:07
Speaker 1: is the true church because it was established by God,
3:17:10
Speaker 1: and God could have established none other. It must have
3:17:13
Speaker 1: been established by God because it is the true church,
3:17:16
Speaker 1: and such could have been established by none other than God.
3:17:20
Speaker 1: You will notice how convincing this seems at first hearing.
3:17:23
Speaker 1: But you will perceive that not even a single iota
3:17:26
Speaker 1: of proof, not even a single trace of logical argument,
3:17:29
Speaker 1: is offered in the whole statement. There is not even
3:17:32
Speaker 1: the slightest evidence, proof, or reasoning presented to show any
3:17:35
Speaker 1: connection between God and the establishment of truth of that
3:17:38
Speaker 1: particular church. Yet persons are deceived by just such false
3:17:42
Speaker 1: reasoning concerning many important subjects. Again, my political party is
3:17:47
Speaker 1: honest because it advocates honest principles. The principles advocated by
3:17:52
Speaker 1: it must be honest because they are advocated by an
3:17:55
Speaker 1: honest party. Once More, the Koran is infallibly true because
3:18:00
Speaker 1: Allah inspired it. We know that Allah inspired it because
3:18:03
Speaker 1: it is so stated in the Qur'an. Finally, the man
3:18:07
Speaker 1: is truthful because he states so himself, being truthful, that
3:18:11
Speaker 1: which he states must be truth. Circular reasoning, however, is
3:18:16
Speaker 1: most successfully employed in long arguments, where its detection is difficult,
3:18:20
Speaker 1: while in simpler form the same false reasoning would be
3:18:23
Speaker 1: readily detected. Frequently it is perpetrated by the use of synonyms,
3:18:28
Speaker 1: which are suggested and assumed to express more than the
3:18:31
Speaker 1: original term employed in the proposition, but which really do
3:18:34
Speaker 1: not do so. A particularly dangerous and subtle form is
3:18:38
Speaker 1: that in which, as mc gilvury says, there are two
3:18:41
Speaker 1: or more syllogisms interrelated in such a way that the
3:18:43
Speaker 1: conclusion of each syllogism is the premise of some other.
3:18:47
Speaker 1: In this way, the conclusion or what is proved in
3:18:51
Speaker 1: one syllogism is used in another syllogism as a basis
3:18:54
Speaker 1: of proof for a proposition, which in its turn, ultimately
3:18:57
Speaker 1: comes to be used as a basis of proof for
3:19:00
Speaker 1: the first syllogism. Read over this last statement until you
3:19:04
Speaker 1: thoroughly understand it. When you are able to do this,
3:19:07
Speaker 1: you will be prepared to give battle to the vicious circle.
3:19:10
Speaker 1: Three Particular terms must not be employed as universal terms.
3:19:15
Speaker 1: That is to say, terms denoting only part or some
3:19:18
Speaker 1: of a class of things must not be so used
3:19:21
Speaker 1: that they seem to denote all or the whole of
3:19:23
Speaker 1: that class. In order that you may thoroughly understand this rule,
3:19:28
Speaker 1: we shall now call your attention to the essential distinction
3:19:31
Speaker 1: between particular terms and universal terms, expressed in the form
3:19:34
Speaker 1: of particular judgments and universal judgments, respectively. Particular judgments are
3:19:40
Speaker 1: judgments which are not general, i e. Which do not
3:19:43
Speaker 1: include all or the whole of the class of things
3:19:46
Speaker 1: to which it applies, but which instead include only a
3:19:50
Speaker 1: part portion or some of that class, or at least
3:19:54
Speaker 1: some of that class. Particular judgments are marked by the
3:19:58
Speaker 1: presence in them of the words some, certain, a few, many, most,
3:20:03
Speaker 1: or similar terms indicating that merely a part, portion, or
3:20:06
Speaker 1: at least some of the entire class is denoted. The
3:20:10
Speaker 1: terms this and these also usually denote particularity, but in
3:20:15
Speaker 1: exceptional cases they are sometimes employed to denote whole classes.
3:20:19
Speaker 1: Exactness of meaning should be ascertained when such terms are
3:20:22
Speaker 1: employed in forms possible of being interpreted in either way.
3:20:27
Speaker 1: Examples of particular judgments are as follows, Some bread is biscuit,
3:20:31
Speaker 1: certain snakes are venomous, many men are vain, most mules
3:20:35
Speaker 1: are stubborn. A few negroes are albinos. That Virginian is
3:20:39
Speaker 1: a Republican. This Irishman is a Protestant. When particular judgments
3:20:44
Speaker 1: are announced or employed, they indicate expressly that only a
3:20:47
Speaker 1: part or portion of a general class is involved in
3:20:50
Speaker 1: a statement. In them is also implied the fact that
3:20:53
Speaker 1: there is something left in the class. Here, however, is
3:20:57
Speaker 1: an important point to remember, in connection with that applied
3:21:00
Speaker 1: something left in the class, viz. That the remaining portion
3:21:04
Speaker 1: so left in the class may lack the characteristics affirmed
3:21:07
Speaker 1: of the portion denoted by the particular term, or it
3:21:09
Speaker 1: may not lack them. By employing the particular term ie
3:21:14
Speaker 1: some or its equivalents, we may mean either one that
3:21:18
Speaker 1: the remaining or other part or portion lacks the characteristic
3:21:21
Speaker 1: in question, or two that our certain knowledge of the
3:21:24
Speaker 1: class extends merely to that particular part or portion indicated
3:21:28
Speaker 1: by the particular term and involved in the particular judgment,
3:21:31
Speaker 1: or three that there remains a general doubt or possible
3:21:35
Speaker 1: indecision concerning the remaining part. The meaning at least some
3:21:40
Speaker 1: covers each and all of the above stated three respective contingencies. Therefore,
3:21:45
Speaker 1: this meaning should always be kept in mind when dealing
3:21:47
Speaker 1: with particular terms or particular judgements. In deductive reasoning, universal
3:21:52
Speaker 1: judgments are judgments which are general, ie, which include the
3:21:56
Speaker 1: entire class of things to which it applies all the parts, portions,
3:22:01
Speaker 1: or individuals in that class, and not merely a part, portion,
3:22:05
Speaker 1: or sum of the class. For instance, when we say
3:22:09
Speaker 1: that all men are mortal, we mean that the entire
3:22:11
Speaker 1: class of men possess the characteristic of mortality. Universal judgments
3:22:17
Speaker 1: are marked by the presence in them of the words all, every, each, any,
3:22:21
Speaker 1: the whole, or similar terms denoting all the number or class.
3:22:25
Speaker 1: Also by no I e. Not any of the number
3:22:28
Speaker 1: or class. Universality either takes in the entire number or class,
3:22:33
Speaker 1: or else leaves out the entire number or class. The
3:22:36
Speaker 1: principle is the same in both cases. Examples, all men
3:22:40
Speaker 1: are mortal, every dog is an animal, each man was armed.
3:22:44
Speaker 1: Any dog will eat meat. The whole family was present,
3:22:47
Speaker 1: or no dog is a cat. None of the family
3:22:50
Speaker 1: were absent. Not any of the fishes have warm blood.
3:22:54
Speaker 1: Note the following important point. Universality is also sometimes implied
3:22:59
Speaker 1: and tacitly in indicated in certain particular terms employed for
3:23:02
Speaker 1: convenience to denote entire numbers or classes of things, and
3:23:06
Speaker 1: not merely single individual things. For instance, man is mortal.
3:23:11
Speaker 1: Here the term man is employed in the universal sense
3:23:14
Speaker 1: and meaning of all men, and therefore becomes a universal term,
3:23:18
Speaker 1: the judgment becoming a universal judgment. Terms like the horse
3:23:23
Speaker 1: or the cow, et cetera, or a horse or a
3:23:27
Speaker 1: cow meaning any horse or any cow are also frequently
3:23:31
Speaker 1: employed in this way. When so employed, they become universal
3:23:34
Speaker 1: terms and mark universal judgments. In such cases, the universality
3:23:40
Speaker 1: of the judgment is tacitly indicated. The magic words all, each, every, any,
3:23:45
Speaker 1: et cetera, always being implied care must always be taken
3:23:50
Speaker 1: to determine whether such terms are employed in the ordinary
3:23:53
Speaker 1: particular sense and meaning, or instead in this special universal
3:23:57
Speaker 1: sense and meaning. Many grave fallacies arise from confusing or
3:24:02
Speaker 1: confounding universals in particulars in this way. Examples of fallacies
3:24:07
Speaker 1: arising from a violation of the rule now under consideration
3:24:10
Speaker 1: are as follows. White is a color. Black is a color,
3:24:14
Speaker 1: Therefore black is white. Here colour is used in its
3:24:17
Speaker 1: universal sense of all color instead of its particular sense
3:24:21
Speaker 1: of some color. The same fallacious use of particular terms
3:24:25
Speaker 1: for universal terms results in the following several false conclusions.
3:24:29
Speaker 1: All birds are bipeds. No man is a bird, therefore
3:24:33
Speaker 1: no man is a biped. Some Chinamen are highbinders. This
3:24:37
Speaker 1: man is a Chinaman. Therefore this man is a high binder.
3:24:41
Speaker 1: Some Russians are Bolsheviks. Ivan is a Russian, therefore Ivan
3:24:46
Speaker 1: is a Bolshevik. Biscuit is bred. This loaf is bred,
3:24:49
Speaker 1: therefore this loaf is a biscuit. Indians are Americans. John
3:24:54
Speaker 1: Smith is an American, therefore John Smith is an Indian.
3:24:58
Speaker 1: All thieves are human. The bishop is human, therefore the
3:25:02
Speaker 1: bishop is a thief. But why multiply examples. The principle
3:25:08
Speaker 1: is plain once it is grasped. Once understood, it is
3:25:12
Speaker 1: seen to apply to countless cases, and is found to
3:25:15
Speaker 1: be violated in the reasoning and arguments of many persons
3:25:18
Speaker 1: who should or do no better. When used for the
3:25:21
Speaker 1: purpose of deceiving, it becomes sophistry or casuistry, and it
3:25:26
Speaker 1: is often so used, particularly by subtle suggestions and in
3:25:29
Speaker 1: disguised form. Here is the essential principle. Terms denoting merely
3:25:34
Speaker 1: some must not be used to denote all. When we
3:25:38
Speaker 1: say that all dogs are animals, we do not mean
3:25:41
Speaker 1: all animals, but rather we mean some animals, the particular
3:25:45
Speaker 1: mark some being implied and tacitly indicated fully stated, the
3:25:51
Speaker 1: judgment or proposition would be as follows. All dogs are
3:25:54
Speaker 1: some animals, i e. That all the dogs there are
3:25:57
Speaker 1: in existence constitute a part portion or some of the
3:26:01
Speaker 1: entire class of animals, not all or the whole of
3:26:04
Speaker 1: the animal class. The implication would be that also there
3:26:08
Speaker 1: are some animals which are not dogs, as well as
3:26:11
Speaker 1: that some animals which are dogs. The following diagram with
3:26:16
Speaker 1: accompanying explanation will be found helpful in fixing and keeping
3:26:20
Speaker 1: this principle in your mind. It is based upon the
3:26:23
Speaker 1: analysis of the familiar trick judgment stated as follows, biscuit
3:26:28
Speaker 1: is bread, but bread is not biscuit. Analyzed, this judgment
3:26:32
Speaker 1: means all biscuit is some bread, some bread is all biscuit,
3:26:36
Speaker 1: with the implication that there is also some bread which
3:26:39
Speaker 1: is not any biscuit. Stated more simply, we have all
3:26:44
Speaker 1: biscuit is bread, but all bread is not biscuit. There
3:26:47
Speaker 1: is some bread which is not biscuit, but there is
3:26:50
Speaker 1: no biscuit which is not bread. There are three rules
3:26:53
Speaker 1: governing deductive reasoning, which are derived from a number of
3:26:56
Speaker 1: more technical ones set forth in works upon formal logic.
3:27:00
Speaker 1: Practical logic employs these derivative rules, considering them sufficient for
3:27:05
Speaker 1: its general purposes. These rules are as follows. I One
3:27:10
Speaker 1: premiss at least must be universal. This because of the
3:27:13
Speaker 1: fact that from two particular premisses no logical conclusion can
3:27:17
Speaker 1: be drawn. An example of the violation of this rule
3:27:21
Speaker 1: is found in the syllogism some men are mortal. Socrates
3:27:25
Speaker 1: is a man, therefore Socrates is what. The only logical
3:27:30
Speaker 1: conclusion possible is that Socrates may be either mortal or
3:27:34
Speaker 1: not mortal, he must be one or the other. He
3:27:36
Speaker 1: cannot be both. But this is no more than the
3:27:39
Speaker 1: law of opposition and law of excluded Middle tell Us.
3:27:43
Speaker 1: There is no definite conclusion possible from two particular premises.
3:27:47
Speaker 1: One premiss at least must be universal. Two if one
3:27:52
Speaker 1: premiss is particular, the conclusion also must be particular. This
3:27:56
Speaker 1: because of the fact that a universal conclusion can be
3:27:59
Speaker 1: drawn only from two universal premises. Examples, from the universal
3:28:04
Speaker 1: premiss all birds lay eggs and the particular premiss some
3:28:08
Speaker 1: animals are birds, we may logically deduce merely the particular
3:28:12
Speaker 1: conclusion that some animals lay eggs. But we cannot logically
3:28:16
Speaker 1: deduce the universal conclusion that all animals lay eggs. But
3:28:21
Speaker 1: on the other hand, from the following two universal premisses
3:28:24
Speaker 1: all finches are birds all sparrows are finches, we may
3:28:28
Speaker 1: logically deduce the universal conclusion that all sparrows are birds. Three,
3:28:33
Speaker 1: the conclusion must contain nothing that is not involved in
3:28:36
Speaker 1: the premises. This because, as the conclusion is necessarily made
3:28:41
Speaker 1: up of the material of the two premisses, any addition
3:28:44
Speaker 1: to this material would be an unwarranted and illogical introduction
3:28:47
Speaker 1: or dragging in a foreign matter or extra material, which,
3:28:51
Speaker 1: in the words of Pooh Bah, have nothing to do
3:28:53
Speaker 1: with the case. Such foreign matter, thus dragged into the case, is,
3:28:59
Speaker 1: as the lawyers say, incompetent, immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent. Yet
3:29:05
Speaker 1: this fallacy, often deliberately employed as specious sophistry, is frequently
3:29:10
Speaker 1: perpetrated and often succeeds in accomplishing its purpose. The fallacy
3:29:15
Speaker 1: consists in the statement of irrelevant conclusions. In one of
3:29:19
Speaker 1: its phases. The irrelevant conclusion is caused by the employment
3:29:22
Speaker 1: of certain terms as universal terms in the conclusion, while
3:29:26
Speaker 1: in the premises they were used as particular terms. We
3:29:29
Speaker 1: have already considered this form of the fallacy. The second
3:29:33
Speaker 1: phase consists of the introduction into the conclusion of judgments
3:29:36
Speaker 1: entirely foreign and alien to the issue, and which are
3:29:39
Speaker 1: not in any way logically involved in the premises. This
3:29:43
Speaker 1: last mentioned form is sometimes known as non sequitur, meaning
3:29:47
Speaker 1: it does not follow. Nonsequitur is marked by the introduction
3:29:52
Speaker 1: or dragging in of points not at issue in an
3:29:55
Speaker 1: argument or course of reasoning, i e. Points having nothing
3:29:58
Speaker 1: at all to do with the case under consideration, or
3:30:01
Speaker 1: points having no possible logical relation to the original premises.
3:30:06
Speaker 1: Examples follow. All men are rational. Socrates is a man,
3:30:10
Speaker 1: therefore Socrates is truly noble. Episcopacy is of scriptural origin.
3:30:16
Speaker 1: The Church of England is an episcopal church. Therefore the
3:30:20
Speaker 1: Church of England should be supported by tithes. The Church
3:30:24
Speaker 1: is a good institution. The state is a good institution.
3:30:27
Speaker 1: Therefore the Church and the state should be united. The
3:30:31
Speaker 1: evidence shows that John Smith is a liar. All murderers
3:30:35
Speaker 1: are liars. Therefore John Smith should be hanged. This place
3:30:40
Speaker 1: is called Stoney Stratford. I was never so bitten by
3:30:43
Speaker 1: fleas in my life as here. Therefore, rightly is this
3:30:46
Speaker 1: place called Stony Stratford. More cleverly disguised forms of this fallacy,
3:30:51
Speaker 1: yet involving the same essential principle, pass muster every day
3:30:55
Speaker 1: in argument, debate, in serious discussion. Remember the adage, if
3:31:00
Speaker 1: it does not follow logically from the premises, it is
3:31:03
Speaker 1: foreign to the issue. There is another fallacy frequently appearing
3:31:07
Speaker 1: in reasoning and argument, but one which is not referred
3:31:10
Speaker 1: to in the specific rules of logical reasoning. We wish
3:31:14
Speaker 1: to direct your attention to it. It is known as
3:31:17
Speaker 1: the fallacy of prejudice. It is quite common and often
3:31:21
Speaker 1: quite dangerous. You should give it careful consideration and honest thought.
3:31:26
Speaker 1: Fallacy of prejudice by prejudice is meant prejudgment, unwarranted and
3:31:32
Speaker 1: unreasonable predilection for or objection to anything, especially an opinion
3:31:37
Speaker 1: or leaning favorable or adverse to anything, without just grounds
3:31:41
Speaker 1: or before sufficient knowledge. The common forms of prejudiced judgment
3:31:46
Speaker 1: are as follows. One prejudice in favor of propositions agreeing
3:31:50
Speaker 1: with our feelings, emotions, or general likes, or against propositions
3:31:55
Speaker 1: running contrary to our feelings, emotions, or likes. Prejudices in
3:32:01
Speaker 1: favor of propositions advanced by persons favorably regarded or liked
3:32:05
Speaker 1: by us, or against propositions advanced by persons unfavorably regarded
3:32:10
Speaker 1: or disliked by us. Three Prejudice in favor of opinions
3:32:14
Speaker 1: at present held and previously stated by us, or against
3:32:18
Speaker 1: opinions at present opposed and previously disputed by us. Let
3:32:22
Speaker 1: us consider briefly each of these three forms. A. It
3:32:27
Speaker 1: is quite difficult to divorce our judgments from our feelings.
3:32:31
Speaker 1: Our likes, loves, and hates tend to prejudice our judgments
3:32:34
Speaker 1: and to give us a mental slant in the direction
3:32:37
Speaker 1: of the like and against the dislike. Bernard Shaw tells
3:32:41
Speaker 1: us that most of our reasoning consists of either trying
3:32:44
Speaker 1: to excuse or justify our previous judgments and actions caused
3:32:47
Speaker 1: by our states of feeling, or else of trying to
3:32:50
Speaker 1: invent excuses for present or future judgments or actions. Likewise,
3:32:54
Speaker 1: so caused feeling and emotion resemble the tinted glass which
3:32:58
Speaker 1: colors the rays of the sun which pass through it.
3:33:02
Speaker 1: Everything we consider is apt to be seen colored in
3:33:04
Speaker 1: the tints and shades which our feelings have imparted to it.
3:33:08
Speaker 1: You should, ever, be on your guard against the interposition
3:33:11
Speaker 1: of the colored screen between your reasoning faculties and the
3:33:14
Speaker 1: objects or subjects of logical thought. Strive ever to secure
3:33:18
Speaker 1: the clear, unimpeded passage of the white light of pure reason.
3:33:22
Speaker 1: Let it shine upon the objects of your thought. Be
3:33:25
Speaker 1: we find it difficult to give the proper value to
3:33:28
Speaker 1: an opinion, proposition, or judgment announced by a person or
3:33:32
Speaker 1: persons disliked by us. Likewise, we find it quite easy
3:33:36
Speaker 1: to place an exaggerated value upon opinions, propositions, or judgments
3:33:41
Speaker 1: announced by those whom we like. Here once more feeling
3:33:45
Speaker 1: seeks to usurp the office of reason. Truth is truth
3:33:49
Speaker 1: by whomsoever stated, and untruth is none the less untruth,
3:33:53
Speaker 1: even when stated by an estimable person or one very
3:33:56
Speaker 1: dear to us. A thing is or is not so
3:34:01
Speaker 1: without regard to our opinion of or our feelings toward
3:34:04
Speaker 1: the person making one or the other of these necessary judgments.
3:34:08
Speaker 1: It is our business to find out which is which
3:34:11
Speaker 1: by reason alone, bidding feeling to step aside and to
3:34:15
Speaker 1: keep its thumb off the scale. Judgments should stand on
3:34:18
Speaker 1: their own feet. The crutches of feeling are not required.
3:34:22
Speaker 1: They are a sign of weakness on the part of reason.
3:34:25
Speaker 1: See it is characteristic of the human mind to incline
3:34:28
Speaker 1: to support even the weakest opinion or judgment already lodged
3:34:32
Speaker 1: in it, and to defend such against the attacks of
3:34:34
Speaker 1: even the strongest truths and reasons, even when the conflict
3:34:39
Speaker 1: is confined to one's own mind and no other person
3:34:42
Speaker 1: is involved in it. This remains true even though the
3:34:45
Speaker 1: preconceived opinion or judgment may have been based originally upon
3:34:49
Speaker 1: insufficient and unstable grounds of reasoning, the slightest proof and
3:34:53
Speaker 1: the weakest evidence. Nevertheless, it often requires the very strongest
3:34:57
Speaker 1: evidence and proof, the most positive reasoning, and most certain
3:35:00
Speaker 1: logic to cause us to budge an inch from our position.
3:35:04
Speaker 1: We have said to ourselves that the thing was so,
3:35:06
Speaker 1: we have expressed the same opinion to others, and to
3:35:09
Speaker 1: change is akin to backing down. The thing may be
3:35:13
Speaker 1: a poor thing, but it is our very own. We
3:35:16
Speaker 1: hate to part with it. To separate it from us
3:35:19
Speaker 1: too strongly suggests an amputation or the removal of a
3:35:22
Speaker 1: mental appendix. It is quite right and proper to hold
3:35:26
Speaker 1: fast to our opinion, but we should be sure that
3:35:28
Speaker 1: the latter is well grounded in fact and well supported
3:35:31
Speaker 1: by logical reasoning. We should endeavor to keep at least
3:35:35
Speaker 1: a fairly open mind, even though we keep a keen eyed,
3:35:38
Speaker 1: sturdy watchman at the gate. Reasoning power Practical Logic by
3:35:44
Speaker 1: William Walker Atkinson, nineteen twenty two. Some practical points. We
3:35:51
Speaker 1: desire now to call your attention to several common sense,
3:35:54
Speaker 1: practical general points, which should prove useful and helpful to
3:35:58
Speaker 1: you in the task of making up your mind concerning
3:36:00
Speaker 1: various subjects and questions toward which you have directed your
3:36:03
Speaker 1: reasoning powers and logical thought. Some of these have been
3:36:07
Speaker 1: expressly stated or else implied in some part of the
3:36:10
Speaker 1: foregoing instruction. Others arise from the experience of men in
3:36:13
Speaker 1: applying the principles which have been presented to you in
3:36:16
Speaker 1: these pages. In either case, the present reference is intended
3:36:20
Speaker 1: to be merely suggestive, not a detailed exposition. Point one,
3:36:26
Speaker 1: All logical argument, reasoning, or proof must begin with something
3:36:30
Speaker 1: necessarily taken for granted, admitted, or accepted as self evident
3:36:34
Speaker 1: and axiomatic, or else assumed for the sake of the argument,
3:36:38
Speaker 1: and accepted tentatively in order to permit the argument, discussion,
3:36:42
Speaker 1: or reasoning to begin. Without such a starting point, there
3:36:46
Speaker 1: can be no reasoning, argument, per discussion on any subject whatsoever.
3:36:50
Speaker 1: An effort to find the ultimate and fundamental proof, fact,
3:36:53
Speaker 1: or truth in any case will be endless, For the
3:36:56
Speaker 1: chain must be endless so far as we are concerned,
3:36:59
Speaker 1: inasmuch as there is a limit to our respective lives.
3:37:02
Speaker 1: While there is apparently no limit to such backward tracing
3:37:05
Speaker 1: of conclusions to their premises, these to preceding conclusions and
3:37:09
Speaker 1: their premises, and so on and on add infinitum. If
3:37:13
Speaker 1: we are to begin at all, we must begin somewhere,
3:37:16
Speaker 1: and that position of somewhere always is occupied by a
3:37:19
Speaker 1: something or somewhat which must be accepted, admitted, or assumed
3:37:23
Speaker 1: as a basis, and which must be taken for granted,
3:37:26
Speaker 1: at least tentatively. This something or somewhat is usually known
3:37:30
Speaker 1: as the first principle of the argument, discussion, or reasoning.
3:37:35
Speaker 1: Sec Point two. There can be no logical argument or
3:37:39
Speaker 1: discussion between persons who do not accept the same first principles,
3:37:43
Speaker 1: at least tentatively. Neither can there be logical reasoning on
3:37:46
Speaker 1: the part of the individual who does not accept some
3:37:48
Speaker 1: first principle, at least tentatively, in order to think intelligently
3:37:52
Speaker 1: on any subject whatsoever. A realization of the fact would
3:37:57
Speaker 1: prevent much feudal argument and discussion, and much which purposeless
3:38:00
Speaker 1: and inconclusive reasoning. Point three. The goodness or badness of
3:38:06
Speaker 1: a condition, action, or belief may be determined only by
3:38:10
Speaker 1: first agreeing upon its associated object, purpose, end, or effect.
3:38:15
Speaker 1: It is impossible to determine whether or not a thing
3:38:18
Speaker 1: is good unless we first ask and answer the question
3:38:21
Speaker 1: good for what. This brings a realization that most so
3:38:25
Speaker 1: called good or bad is purely relative, that what is
3:38:29
Speaker 1: one man's good is another man's bad. The rain that
3:38:33
Speaker 1: is welcomed by farmers in one section is dreaded by
3:38:36
Speaker 1: those in another. A rise in the market makes some
3:38:38
Speaker 1: men rich while ruining others. The point of view of
3:38:41
Speaker 1: the average practicing physician or undertaker must of necessity, be
3:38:45
Speaker 1: entirely different from that of their sought for and desired patrons.
3:38:49
Speaker 1: There must be an accepted standard, a stated good for
3:38:52
Speaker 1: this or because of that. Point four. The old proverb
3:38:57
Speaker 1: digustibus non estespotandem i e. There is no disputing about
3:39:02
Speaker 1: tastes expresses a truth which, if generally recognized, would prevent
3:39:06
Speaker 1: much feudal argument and discussion, and save much fruitless reasoning.
3:39:11
Speaker 1: Without a standard, arguments of this kind are without end.
3:39:15
Speaker 1: To each person, his own taste is a standard in
3:39:18
Speaker 1: absence of the acceptance of a higher one. As a
3:39:21
Speaker 1: writer has said, tastes differ so much among individuals, nations,
3:39:26
Speaker 1: or in different ages that it is utterly impossible to
3:39:28
Speaker 1: set up a standard of taste applicable to all men
3:39:31
Speaker 1: and to all ages of society. Not only are their
3:39:34
Speaker 1: countless individual preferences in taste, but there are also local
3:39:38
Speaker 1: standards generally accepted as authoritative, and there are even passing
3:39:42
Speaker 1: fashions of taste in all communities. There are two general
3:39:46
Speaker 1: forces at work in setting standards of taste. The current
3:39:49
Speaker 1: standards result from a balance between these two. These two
3:39:54
Speaker 1: factors are a the numberless individual tastes caused by the temperaments, education,
3:39:59
Speaker 1: or a si associations of the different persons, and be
3:40:03
Speaker 1: the comparatively uniformed standards of taste adopted or accepted by
3:40:07
Speaker 1: the majority of the most intelligent and cultured persons in
3:40:10
Speaker 1: any community at any given time. But in any case,
3:40:14
Speaker 1: there can be no logical discussion or argument concerning taste
3:40:18
Speaker 1: unless some certain or general standard be accepted or assumed
3:40:21
Speaker 1: at least tentatively. Sec five. Likewise, there can be no
3:40:26
Speaker 1: logical argument or reasoning concerning the subject of the merits
3:40:30
Speaker 1: or demerits of particular or general behavior unless a definite
3:40:34
Speaker 1: certain standard of conduct and behavior be accepted, adopted, admitted,
3:40:38
Speaker 1: or assumed at least tentatively by the reasoning person or
3:40:41
Speaker 1: the parties to the argument. This standard may be the
3:40:45
Speaker 1: law of that time and place, the accepted common general
3:40:49
Speaker 1: rule of good behavior and conduct, the accepted customs of
3:40:52
Speaker 1: that time and place, the accepted principles of ethics of
3:40:56
Speaker 1: the best thought of that time and place, or the
3:40:58
Speaker 1: moral codes, commandments, or teachings of some particular accepted religion.
3:41:03
Speaker 1: The religious standards, for instance, may consist of the Ten Commandments,
3:41:08
Speaker 1: or of Christ's two Commandments, or of the Golden Rule,
3:41:11
Speaker 1: or of the Sermon on the Mount, or of the
3:41:13
Speaker 1: teachings and rules of the Church. In other lands, this
3:41:16
Speaker 1: being true of the particular religions accepted and at least
3:41:19
Speaker 1: nominally followed by the people of the land. The legal
3:41:23
Speaker 1: standards are set by the respective laws of the states
3:41:26
Speaker 1: or countries in question. The general moral standards are represented
3:41:30
Speaker 1: by the customs and habits of the best part of
3:41:33
Speaker 1: a community. The modern ethical standards are represented by the
3:41:37
Speaker 1: following statement of Professor Davidson. It is not enough for
3:41:40
Speaker 1: a man to understand the conditions of rational life in
3:41:43
Speaker 1: his own time. He must likewise love these conditions and
3:41:47
Speaker 1: hate whatever leads to life of an opposite kind. This
3:41:50
Speaker 1: is only another way of saying that he must love
3:41:53
Speaker 1: the good and hate the evil, for the good is
3:41:55
Speaker 1: simply what conduces to rational and moral life, and the
3:41:58
Speaker 1: evil simply what leads away from it. But whatever may
3:42:02
Speaker 1: be the standard adopted, accepted, or assumed there must be
3:42:05
Speaker 1: some such standard, else all argument, discussion, or reasoning on
3:42:09
Speaker 1: the subject must be feutile, meaningless, and endless. Zero point six.
3:42:15
Speaker 1: Reasoning and argument about the nature and characteristics of things
3:42:19
Speaker 1: in general or in particular should always be conducted on
3:42:22
Speaker 1: the basis of things as they are, rather than upon
3:42:25
Speaker 1: things as they ought to be. The ought to be
3:42:28
Speaker 1: question is quite proper in its place, but its place
3:42:32
Speaker 1: is some other place. It has no place in the
3:42:34
Speaker 1: thought concerning the nature, characteristics, and present state or conditions
3:42:39
Speaker 1: of the thing or things in question. A failure to
3:42:42
Speaker 1: observe this precautionary measure is the cause of much futile
3:42:45
Speaker 1: and endless discussion, and of much muddled thinking. Nature, life, society,
3:42:51
Speaker 1: and things in general must first be known as they
3:42:54
Speaker 1: are before any improvement or progress is possible. We must
3:42:59
Speaker 1: know what things are and how they behave before we
3:43:02
Speaker 1: can reason out possibly better ways. Many persons shrink from
3:43:06
Speaker 1: seeing things as they are in nature. They are afraid
3:43:09
Speaker 1: to look facts in the face. They are afraid of
3:43:12
Speaker 1: the naked truth, evidently considering it unnice, if not indeed
3:43:17
Speaker 1: actually indecent. Your premises should be all A is B
3:43:21
Speaker 1: or this A is a B. If such be the case,
3:43:25
Speaker 1: rather than all a should be c or this a
3:43:27
Speaker 1: should be ac That is, if you are arguing or
3:43:31
Speaker 1: reasoning about the nature of or the truth concerning the
3:43:33
Speaker 1: thing in question, or of the present facts of the case,
3:43:37
Speaker 1: that should be or ought to be, or the it
3:43:40
Speaker 1: is a pity that it is not is quite another matter.
3:43:43
Speaker 1: Such requires a new premise involving an entirely different line
3:43:47
Speaker 1: of argument or course of reasoning. In logical reasoning, the
3:43:51
Speaker 1: scientific spirit, not that of the sentimentalist, should govern. This
3:43:56
Speaker 1: is not asking too much of you. If omnission sees
3:43:59
Speaker 1: and noing, then it must see and know things as
3:44:03
Speaker 1: they are. You are merely asked to endeavor to follow
3:44:05
Speaker 1: the same course to the best of your ability. Point seven.
3:44:10
Speaker 1: You will do well to realize and recognize that everything
3:44:13
Speaker 1: has its opposite, That there are always two sides to
3:44:16
Speaker 1: every question. That most statements of truth are merely half truths,
3:44:21
Speaker 1: the other half being left unstated. That truth is usually
3:44:24
Speaker 1: discovered in the middle of the road, or to be
3:44:27
Speaker 1: the golden mean between the two extremes. Truth usually is
3:44:31
Speaker 1: found to consist of a reconciliation of the opposites or
3:44:34
Speaker 1: the harmonization of the two opposing but not really contradictory
3:44:39
Speaker 1: aspects of the case. In most cases, it will be
3:44:42
Speaker 1: found that neither all A is B is true, but
3:44:46
Speaker 1: that the truth is that some A is B and
3:44:48
Speaker 1: some A is not B. Consequently, when you encounter a
3:44:52
Speaker 1: case in which each of the two sides has many
3:44:55
Speaker 1: capable adherents, and each is well supported by fact and argument,
3:44:59
Speaker 1: you may be reasonable sure that the whole truth lies
3:45:01
Speaker 1: in between the two extremes, and may be found by
3:45:04
Speaker 1: reconciliation and a broader and deeper solution. There formerly raged
3:45:09
Speaker 1: a violent dispute as to whether heredity or environment is
3:45:12
Speaker 1: the prepotent factor in shaping character. Much was said on
3:45:16
Speaker 1: each side, and each side arrayed strong facts to support it.
3:45:20
Speaker 1: Then along came Herbert Spencer, with his deeper and broader
3:45:24
Speaker 1: solution that heredity is merely the results of past environment,
3:45:28
Speaker 1: and that present environment is merely heredity in the making. Likewise,
3:45:33
Speaker 1: the same gifted philosopher harmonized the old dispute between the
3:45:36
Speaker 1: adherents of intuition of a certain kind and those of
3:45:40
Speaker 1: experience regarded as the basis of certain universal notions. He
3:45:44
Speaker 1: showed that such universal notions might be called intuitive but
3:45:47
Speaker 1: that this intuition originally arose from the actual experience of
3:45:51
Speaker 1: the race, and in time, through inheritance, become fixed in
3:45:55
Speaker 1: the race as necessary beliefs. All this brings us to
3:45:59
Speaker 1: a realistation that, as a writer has said, anything may
3:46:02
Speaker 1: be defended by logical argument or reasoning that does not
3:46:05
Speaker 1: involve a logical contradiction in terms i e. That does
3:46:09
Speaker 1: not conflict with the universal laws of thought which we
3:46:11
Speaker 1: have presented to you in this instruction zero point eight.
3:46:16
Speaker 1: Much attention of late years has been given to the
3:46:18
Speaker 1: pragmatic aspect of things, to the aspect of practical use
3:46:22
Speaker 1: and utility. The pragmatic test i e. How will it work?
3:46:27
Speaker 1: What will it do? What use is it? Is now
3:46:31
Speaker 1: being applied in every field of human thought, every branch
3:46:34
Speaker 1: of study, every important question of judgment, and of logical reasoning.
3:46:39
Speaker 1: There is in the air of the times that disposition
3:46:41
Speaker 1: to demand of everything the answer to the great question
3:46:44
Speaker 1: what of it? You will remember the three questions suggested
3:46:48
Speaker 1: by us to you in a preceding part of this
3:46:49
Speaker 1: instruction viz. What is it? How do you know it?
3:46:54
Speaker 1: What of it? This last is the pragmatic factor. There
3:46:58
Speaker 1: is found a strong tendency on the part of modern
3:47:01
Speaker 1: writers and teachers on the art of thinking to advise
3:47:03
Speaker 1: that one should not waste time and effort on reasoning
3:47:06
Speaker 1: which leads nowhere and which is purely academic in character,
3:47:10
Speaker 1: scholarly but not scientific, but should confine one's thought to
3:47:13
Speaker 1: practical questions admitting of definite answer and practical useful application.
3:47:19
Speaker 1: A writer voices this bluntly as follows, put away from
3:47:22
Speaker 1: you all questions which do not admit of a definite answer,
3:47:25
Speaker 1: and also those of which the answers can have no
3:47:28
Speaker 1: practical meaning, importance, service, or use to you. Henry Haslett
3:47:33
Speaker 1: states this idea with more gentleness as follows. The pragmatic
3:47:37
Speaker 1: method can be applied with profit to nearly all our
3:47:40
Speaker 1: positive problems. Before starting to solve a question. While deciding,
3:47:45
Speaker 1: for instance, on the validity of some nice distinction in logic,
3:47:49
Speaker 1: we should ask ourselves what practical difference will it make
3:47:52
Speaker 1: if I hold one opinion or the other? How will
3:47:55
Speaker 1: my belief influence my action? Using the word action in
3:47:59
Speaker 1: its broader sense, this may often lead our line of
3:48:03
Speaker 1: inquiry into more fruitful channels. Keep us from making fine
3:48:06
Speaker 1: but needless distinctions, help us to word our questions more
3:48:10
Speaker 1: relevantly and lead us to make the distinctions where we
3:48:12
Speaker 1: really need them. Point nine, We have, at different points
3:48:17
Speaker 1: in this instruction pointed out to you the fact that
3:48:19
Speaker 1: the best reasoning, the truest reasoning, is purposive reasoning. In fact,
3:48:25
Speaker 1: it is not too much to say that there is
3:48:27
Speaker 1: no real or true reasoning that is not reasoning with
3:48:30
Speaker 1: and for a purpose. That purpose is the discovery of
3:48:33
Speaker 1: truth the answer to a particular or general question. The
3:48:38
Speaker 1: clearer that purpose, the more clearly understood that question than
3:48:42
Speaker 1: the truer, clearer, more definite, and more effective will be
3:48:46
Speaker 1: the reasoning process. As Haslt says, we cannot think on
3:48:50
Speaker 1: general principles. To try this is like attempting to chew
3:48:54
Speaker 1: laughing gas. To think it all requires a purpose, no
3:48:58
Speaker 1: matter how vague. The best thinking, moreover, requires a definite purpose,
3:49:04
Speaker 1: and the more definite this purpose, the more definite will
3:49:06
Speaker 1: be our thinking. Therefore, in taking up any special line
3:49:10
Speaker 1: of thought, we must find just what our end and
3:49:13
Speaker 1: purpose is, and thus get clearly in mind what our
3:49:16
Speaker 1: problems are. Our first step is to get our problem
3:49:19
Speaker 1: or problems in mind and to state them as definitely
3:49:22
Speaker 1: as possible. A problem properly stated, is a problem partly solved.
3:49:28
Speaker 1: Our problems necessitating our reasoning are questions, questions demanding an answer.
3:49:34
Speaker 1: Our business is to clear away the non essential elements
3:49:37
Speaker 1: of the question and to reduce it to its simplest,
3:49:39
Speaker 1: most fundamental, and basic essential elements. You should ask yourself,
3:49:45
Speaker 1: just what is the nature of this question, and just
3:49:47
Speaker 1: what must be the nature of the answer When found.
3:49:50
Speaker 1: The analysis required for this reduction of the question to
3:49:53
Speaker 1: its simplest essential elements, and for the perception of the
3:49:56
Speaker 1: necessary general character of the sought for answer, will in
3:49:59
Speaker 1: its set you well on your way in your process
3:50:02
Speaker 1: of reasoning out that answer. Sometimes the careful examination of
3:50:06
Speaker 1: the opposite side will clear away much obstructing material. The
3:50:10
Speaker 1: analysis of the elements of the thing sought to be avoided,
3:50:13
Speaker 1: or of the elements of your ignorance, will often point
3:50:16
Speaker 1: directly and unerringly to the solution. Hegel was quite right
3:50:20
Speaker 1: in his doctrine that a thing can be fully known
3:50:22
Speaker 1: only by also fully knowing its opposite. In beginning your reasoning,
3:50:27
Speaker 1: carry in mind the homely aphorism of the old hunter,
3:50:30
Speaker 1: i e. When you start out to hunt anything, be
3:50:32
Speaker 1: sure you know just what you're hunting, or else you
3:50:35
Speaker 1: mightn't recognize it when you run across it. Point X.
3:50:39
Speaker 1: The best thinkers have found an important working principle to
3:50:42
Speaker 1: consist of the breaking up method, i e. The method
3:50:46
Speaker 1: of dividing or breaking up the subject of thought into
3:50:49
Speaker 1: convenient classes, divisions, or parts, each of these being handled
3:50:53
Speaker 1: in turn by the mind. Logical division and analysis should
3:50:57
Speaker 1: be followed in the breaking up in order that the
3:51:00
Speaker 1: best results may be obtained. The rule of the breaking
3:51:04
Speaker 1: up should be logical order, definiteness, utility. Jeremy Bentham, though
3:51:10
Speaker 1: not the originator of this method, was one of its
3:51:12
Speaker 1: most able practitioners. It has been claimed that the secret
3:51:16
Speaker 1: of his strength and originality of thought lay in this method.
3:51:19
Speaker 1: John Stuart Mill, in one of his essays, directed attention
3:51:23
Speaker 1: to Bentham's use of this method, of which he said
3:51:26
Speaker 1: it may be shortly described as the method of detail,
3:51:29
Speaker 1: of treating wholes by separating them into their parts, abstractions,
3:51:33
Speaker 1: by resolving them into things, classes, and generalities, by distinguishing
3:51:37
Speaker 1: them into the individuals of which they are made up,
3:51:40
Speaker 1: and breaking every question into pieces before attempting to solve it.
3:51:44
Speaker 1: Haslett says the systematic thinker is careful of the manner
3:51:48
Speaker 1: in which he marshals his difficulties. He knows that certain
3:51:52
Speaker 1: problems should properly be considered before certain others, and he
3:51:55
Speaker 1: saves himself labor and sometimes error by considering them in
3:51:58
Speaker 1: that order. Knowledge furnishes problems, and the discovery of problems
3:52:03
Speaker 1: itself constitutes an intellectual advance. Whenever you are thrashing out
3:52:08
Speaker 1: a subject, write down every problem, difficulty, and objection that
3:52:12
Speaker 1: occurs to you. When you get what you consider a
3:52:15
Speaker 1: satisfactory solution, see whether or not it answers all of them.
3:52:20
Speaker 1: You are advised to observe the following general rules in
3:52:23
Speaker 1: your reasoning, arguments, and discussions. Most of these points have
3:52:28
Speaker 1: been referred to or else stated in the foregoing instruction.
3:52:32
Speaker 1: One Define and understand your principal terms, and demand the
3:52:36
Speaker 1: same of your opponent. Two. Be certain of the premises employed.
3:52:40
Speaker 1: Beware of begging the question and of allowing your opponent
3:52:43
Speaker 1: to do so. Three. Proceed logically observing the laws of
3:52:48
Speaker 1: thought rationally interpreted, and insist upon your opponent doing the same.
3:52:53
Speaker 1: For avoid prejudice and unwarranted preconceived opinion, but respect your
3:52:58
Speaker 1: own opinions and do not discus, guard them unless better
3:53:01
Speaker 1: are obtained. Five. Understand and observe the distinction between particular
3:53:06
Speaker 1: judgments and universal judgments, and be on guard against confusing
3:53:10
Speaker 1: or confounding them on your own part and that of
3:53:13
Speaker 1: your opponent. Six. Admit and permit nothing in the conclusion
3:53:18
Speaker 1: which is not involved in the premises. Seven. Apply always
3:53:23
Speaker 1: to yourself and to your opponent the leading questions, what
3:53:26
Speaker 1: is it, how do you know it? What of it?
3:53:31
Speaker 1: An observance of the ten general points set forth in
3:53:33
Speaker 1: the foregoing pages, and of the several general rules briefly
3:53:37
Speaker 1: stated above, will serve to furnish you with what a
3:53:39
Speaker 1: writer has expressed as an equipment of tests and requirements,
3:53:43
Speaker 1: which would save many people from wasting their time and
3:53:46
Speaker 1: thought upon discussions, arguments, and reasoning of which they realize
3:53:50
Speaker 1: neither the origin nor the end. In your task of
3:53:53
Speaker 1: attaining efficient reasoning power, you will be aided by a
3:53:56
Speaker 1: study and the observance of the principles of the master
3:53:59
Speaker 1: formula of attainment, which forms an important element of our instruction.
3:54:04
Speaker 1: The master formula, precisely stated, is as follows. I Definite
3:54:08
Speaker 1: ideals two, insistent desire, three confident expectation four persistent determination v.
3:54:18
Speaker 1: Balanced compensation. Reduced to popular terms, it reads, you may
3:54:24
Speaker 1: have anything you want, provided that you one know exactly
3:54:27
Speaker 1: what you want, two want it hard enough, three confidently
3:54:31
Speaker 1: expect to obtain it for persistently determined to obtain it,
3:54:35
Speaker 1: and five are willing to pay the price of its attainment.