Ex Ltbrfs C. K. OGDEN -X "TT-O Bee d. fl CLARENDON PRESS SERIES INDUCTIVE LOGIC FOWLER HENRY FROWDE, M.A. PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD LONDON, EDINBURGH NEW YORK. CLARENDON PRESS SERIES OF INDUCTIVE LOGIC DESIGNED MAINL Y FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS IN THE UNIVERSITIES BY THOMAS FOWLER, D.D. SIXTH EDITION, CORRECTED AND REVISED OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS M DCCCC IV OXFORD PRINTED AT THE CLARKNDoN I'KKSS BY HORACE HART, M.A. PKINTEK TO THE L'XIVKKMIY PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION THE object of the following work is to serve as an introduction to that branch of scientific method which is known as Induction. It is designed mainly for the use of those who have not time or opportunity to con- sult larger works, or who require some preliminary knowledge before they can profitably enter upon the study of them. To the works of Mr. Mill, Dr. Whewell, and Sir John Herschel, the Author must, once for all, express his obli- gations. ' He has, however,' if he may be allowed to repeat the language already employed in the Preface to his Manual of Deductive Logic, ' endeavoured, on all disputed points, to reason out his own conclusions, feel- ing assured that no manual, however elementary, can be of real service to the student, unless it express what may be called the " reasoned opinions " of its author.' The analysis of Induction presents far more difficulties than that of Deduction, and requires to be illustrated by far more numerous and intricate examples. But, on the other hand, it is more interesting both to the VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION teacher and to the student; and, being a comparatively recent study, is less hampered by conventionalities of treatment. Since the time of Bacon, it has always, with more or less of success, claimed a place in liberal education, and many, to whom the technical terms and subtle distinctions of the older logic are justly repulsive, have experienced a peculiar delight in attempting to discover and test the grounds on which the results of modern science mainly rest. The study of Deductive Logic can be of little service unless it be supplemented by, at least, some knowledge of the principles of Induction, which supplies its pre- misses. Many of the objections directed against the study of Logic are due to the narrow conceptions which are entertained of its province, and might be easily met by showing that the study, when we include both its parts, has a much wider range than is popularly assigned to it. Though the present work is mainly intended for stu- dents in the Universities, it is hoped that it will be found to present some interest for the general reader, and that it may be useful to students of medicine and the physical sciences, as well as to some of the more advanced scholars in our Public Schools. The number of scientific examples adduced throughout the work renders it necessary, perhaps, that the Author should state emphatically that the work is intended as an PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION Vll introduction, not to science, but to scientific method. Its object is not to give a re'sume' of the sciences, physical or social, a task for which the Author would be wholly incompetent, but to show the grounds on which our scientific knowledge rests, the methods by which it has been built up, and the defects from which it must be free. Notwithstanding its frequent incursions into the domain of science, the purport of the work must be regarded as strictly logical. The examples have, as a rule, been selected from the physical rather than the social sciences, as being usually less open to dispute, and lying within a smaller compass. Wherever it has been possible, they have been given in the exact words of the author from whom they are taken. Some of the more complicated cases of inductive reasoning, such as those which deal with Progressive Causes or Intermixture of Effects, have, if alluded to at all, been only briefly noticed. Any detailed examina- tion of these more intricate questions seemed to lie without the scope of the treatise. The student who has leisure to pursue the subject will find ample information in the pages of Mr. Mill's Logic. It only remains for the Author to express his grateful acknowledgments to those who have assisted him in the execution of the work. These are, in the first place, due to Dr. Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, through whose hands the sheets have passed, and who, in addition to Via PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION revising the proofs, has, from time to time, offered many very valuable suggestions. They are due also, in no small degree, to Sir John Herschel and Professor Bar- tholomew Price, who most kindly undertook to revise the scientific examples ; to Professors Rolleston and Clifton, who have frequently allowed the Author to con- sult them on questions connected with the subjects of their respective chairs, and to the Rev. G. W. Kitchin, the Organising Secretary of the Clarendon Press Series. The Author must, however, be regarded as alone re- sponsible for any errors which may occur either in the theoretical portion of the work or in the examples. LINCOLN COLLEGE, Oct. 30, 1869. PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION [The student is requested to read this Preface in connexion with Chapter III.] SINCE the publication of my second Edition, there has appeared an important work on Scientific Method, entitled ' The Principles of Science/ by Professor Stanley Jevons, of Owens College, Manchester. - To this book I have made occasional references in the foot-notes to my present edition. But, as I differ entirely from Professor Jevons on the fundamental question of the validity of our induc- tive inferences, I think it desirable to offer a few remarks on this point in the present place, rather than to intro- duce controversial matter into the body of the work. Mr. Jevons over and over again asserts the uncertainty, or the mere probability, of all inductive inferences. Thus, for instance, in his chapter on the Philosophy of Induc- tive Inference, he says : ' I have no objection to use the words cause and causation, provided they are never allowed to lead us to imagine that our knowledge of nature can attain to certainty V And again : ' We can never recur too often to the truth that our knowledge of 1 Vol. i. p. 260. X PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION the laws and future events of the external world is only probable 2 .' Once more : ' By induction we gain no certain knowledge ; but by observation, and the inverse use of deductive reasoning, we estimate the probability that an event which has occurred was preceded by con- ditions of specified character, or that such conditions will be followed by the event V At the same time, I am quite unable to reconcile with these passages other passages, such as those in which Mr. Jevons says : ' We know that a penny thrown into the air will certainly fall upon a flat side, so that either the head or tail will be uppermost V or, ' I can be certain that nitric acid will not dissolve gold, provided I know that the substances employed really correspond to those on which I tried the experiment previously 5 .' But, waiving the question of inconsistency, I maintain as against Mr. Jevons that many of our inductive infer- ences have all the certainty of which human knowledge is capable. Is the law of gravitation one whit less certain than the conclusion of the 47th Proposition of the First Book of Euclid? Or is the proposition that animal and vegetable life cannot exist without moisture one whit less certain than the truths of the multiplication table ? Both these physical generalisations are established by the 2 Vol. i. p. 271. 3 Id. p. 257. 4 Id. p. 228. Mr. Jevons, however, curiously enough is not cer- tain about the truth of the Law of Gravitation. See below. 5 Id. p. 270. CERTAINTY OF INDUCTIVE REASONING XI Method of Difference, and, as actual Laws of Nature, admit, I conceive, of no doubt. But it may be asked if they will always continue to be Laws of Nature ? I reply that, unless the constitution of the Universe shall be changed to an extent which I cannot now even con- ceive, they will so continue, and that no reasonable man has any practical doubt as to their continuance. And why? Because they are confirmed by the whole of our own experiences, which in both these cases is of enormous extent and variety, by the experience of our ancestors, and by all that we can ascertain of the past history of nature, while their reversal would involve the reversal of almost all the other laws with which we are acquainted. Still, it must be confessed that all our inferences from the present to the future are, in one sense, hypothetical, the hypothesis being that the circumstances on which the laws themselves depend will continue to be the same as now, that is, in the present case, that the constitution of nature, in its most general features, will remain un- changed ; or, to put it in still another form, that the same causes will continue to produce the same effects. What would happen if this expectation were ever frustrated, it is absolutely impossible for us to say, so completely is it assumed in all our plans and reasonings. We may say, then, that there are many inductions as to the actual constitution of nature which we may accept with certainty, while, with respect even to the distant Xll PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION future, we may accept them with equal certainty, on the hypothesis that the general course of nature will not be radically changed. And if the general course of nature were changed, might not the change affect our faculties as well as the objects of our knowledge ; and, in that case, are we certain that we should still regard things that are equal to the same thing as equal to one another, or assume that a thing cannot both be and not be in the same place at the same time ? There is, in fact, no limit to the possibility of scepticism with regard to the per- sistency either of the laws of external nature or of the laws of mind. But all our reasonings depend on the hypothesis that the most general laws of matter and the most general laws of mind will continue to be what they are, and of the truth of this hypothesis no reasonable man entertains any practical doubt 6 . There is, then, I contend, no special uncertainty attaching to the truths arrived at by induction. They are, indeed, like all other truths, relative to the present constitution of nature and the present constitution of the human mind, but this is a limitation to which all our knowledge alike is subject, and which it is vain for us to attempt to transcend. Syllogistic reasoning implies a particular constitution of the mind, as much as indue- fi Thus Mr. Jevons, who, when he begins to theorise, has doubts as to the truth of the Law of Gravitation, has no doubt, when he throws a penny tip into the air, that it will fall on a flat side. JEVONS' THEORY OF INDUCTION Xl'ii tive reasoning implies a particular constitution of nature. Both mind and nature might, of course, be radically changed by an omnipotent power, but what the con- sequences of that change might be it is utterly impossible for us to say. The uniformity of nature, the trustworthiness of our own faculties these are the ultimate generalisations which lie at the root of all our beliefs, and are the con- ditions of all our reasonings. It is, of course, always possible to insinuate doubts as to either, but, however curious and entertaining such doubts may be, they have no practical influence even on those who originate them. Even Mr. Jevons himself, we have seen, when not under the dominion of his theory, speaks of some of the results of induction as certain, and we can hardly conceive men of science commonly speaking of the most firmly established generalisations of mechanics, optics, or chemistry, simply as conclusions possessing a high degree of probability. Still, Mr. Jevons, appearing not in the character of a physicist, but of a logician, tells us that ' the law of gravitation itself is only probably true 7 .' It would be interesting to learn what is the exact amount of this ' probability,' or, if it be meant that we can only be certain that the force of gravity is acting here and now, it would be an interesting enquiry to ascertain what is 7 p. 3o. XIV PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION the exact value of the 'probability' that it is at this moment acting in Manchester as well as in Oxford, or that it will be acting at this time to-morrow as well as to-day. But, if the conclusions of Induction are thus uncertain, where, according to Mr. Jevons, are we to find certainty ? ' Certainty belongs only to the deductive process and to the teachings of direct intuition V Does it then belong to the conclusions of deduction? Apparently not, for, at the very beginning of the work 9 , we are told that 'in its ultimate origin or foundation, all knowledge is inductive/ and Mr. Jevons is, of course, too practised a logician to suppose that the conclusion can be more certain than the premisses. The conclusions of geo- metry, therefore, partake of the same ' uncertainty ' as the results of the physical sciences, and the region of ' certainty ' is confined to our direct intuitions and to the rules of syllogism (supposing, that is, a difference to be intended between the 'deductive process' and deductive results). I venture to suggest that this small residuum of ' certainty ' would soon yield to solvents as powerful as those which Mr. Jevons has applied to the results of induction (and apparently also of deduction) ; and that, therefore, its inherent 'uncertainty' is no special charac- teristic of that method, but one which it shares with all our so-called knowledge. 8 P 309- 9 P- M- ALL REASONING HYPOTHETICAL XV The fact is that in all reasoning, whether inductive or deductive, we make, and must make, assumptions which may theoretically be questioned, but of the truth of which no man, in practice, entertains the slightest doubt. Thus, in syllogistic reasoning, we assume at every step the trustworthiness of memory ; we assume, moreover, the validity of the premisses, which, as Mr. Jevons acknowledges, must ultimately be guaranteed either by induction or direct observation ; lastly, we assume the validity of the primary axioms of reasoning, which, ac- cording to different theories, are either obtained by induction or assumed to be necessary laws of the human mind. In this sense, all reasoning and all science is hypothetical, and the assumption of the Uni- formity of Nature does not render inductive reasoning hypothetical in any special sense of the term. For, if the Laws of the Uniformity of Nature and of Universal Causation admit of exceptions or are liable to ultimate frustration, so, for aught we know, may the axioms of syllogistic reasoning or the inductions by which we have established the trustworthiness of our faculties. And, if the conceptions of uniformity and causation be purely relative to man, so, for aught we know, may be the so-called laws of thought themselves 10 . Induction 10 According to the view of the nature and ultimate origin of human knowledge, accepted both by Mr. Jevons and myself, it is, in fact, no paradox but a mere truism to say that the fundamental axioms of reasoning are themselves only particular uniformities of xvi PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION would only be hypothetical in a special sense, if \ve had any reasonable ground for doubting the truth of the hypotheses 11 on which it rests. But as, ' in its ultimate origin or foundation, all knowledge ' (including, of course, that of the laws which govern the syllogistic process itself) ' is induc- tive/ Professor Jevons must either employ the word ' certain ' in a variety of senses, or he must be prepared with the philosophers of the New Academy to maintain the uncertainty of all knowledge whatsoever. Such, as it appears to me, are the inconsistencies and paradoxes into which a very able writer has been led by a tendency to over-refinement, and, still more perhaps, by a desire to apply the ideas and formulse of mathematics to the explanation of logical problems. I must further express my dissidence from Mr. Jevons' statement that all inductive inference is preceded by nature, arrived at by the same evidence and depending for their justification on the same grounds as those ultimate generalisations on causation to which we give the special names of the Law of Universal Causation and the Law of the Uniformity of Nature. II I need hardly say that I am not here using the word ' hypothesis ' in the sense of an unverified assumption. Reasoning, both in- ductive and deductive, is found on analysis to depend, in the last resort, on certain assumptions or hypotheses, but then the truth of these assumptions or hypotheses is guaranteed by the whole experience of the human race, past and present, and beyond this guarantee I conceive that there is no other attainable. In other words, all truth is relative to our faculties of knowing, and this condition it is in vain for us to attempt to transcend. JEl'ONS' THEORY OF INDUCTION hypotheses 12 , from his theory that Induction is simply the Inverse Method of Deduction, and, above all, from what appears to me to be the exceedingly misleading parallel drawn between Nature and a ballot - box. ' Events/ says Mr. Jevons, ' come out like balls from the vast ballot-box of Nature ".' Now the balls were placed in the ballot-box by human hands ; the number and character of them may have been due merely to caprice or chance; moreover, they are all isolated entities having no connexion with each other. Would it be possible to find a stronger contrast to the works of Nature? If natural phenomena did indeed admit only of the same kind of study as the drawing of balls from a ballot-box, Mr. Jevons' conception of Induction would undoubtedly be the true one, and I should agree with him that ' no finite number of particular verifications of a supposed law will render that law certain.' But, just because we believe that the opera- tions of Nature are conducted with an uniformity for which we seek in vain amongst the contrivances of men, do we regard ourselves as capable, in many cases, of predicting the one class of events with certainty, while the other affords only matter for more or less probable conjecture. Intimately connected with Mr. Jevons' depreciation of the value of the inductive inference is his statement that 12 See chap. i. pp. 11-13, of this work. ls Vol. i. p. 275. b XVI 11 PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION Induction is simply the inverse method of Deduction. If Induction simply consists in framing hypotheses, deducing consequences from the hypotheses, and then comparing these consequences with individual facts for the purpose of verifying them by specific experience 14 , I grant that the procedure must, in most cases, be very untrustworthy. In my first Appended Note to my Section on Hypothesis, I have examined this account of Induction, which is virtually identical with that of Dr. Whewell. In opposition to it, I maintain the following theses, which are explained and defended in the course of my work : i . That our inductions are not always preceded by hypotheses (and it might bo added that, even where they are, the hypothesis itself must rest originally on some basis of fact, that is to say, on some induction or other, however imperfect ; for a hypothesis must always be suggested by some- thing of which we have had experience) ; 2. That the mere verification of our hypotheses by specific experi- ence is not sufficient to constitute a valid induction, unless the instances conform with the requirements of one of the inductive methods, or (as in the case of the fundamental laws of inductive reasoning) be coextensive with the whole experience of mankind. Induction. 1 maintain, may or may not employ hypothesis, but what is essential to it is the inference from the particular 14 Vol. i. pp.307, 38- ASSUMPTIONS OF REASONING XIX to the general, from the known to the unknown, and the nature of this inference it is impossible to re- present adequately by reference to the forms of deduction rj . 15 For the word ' adequately,' I ought to substitute the expression, ' without a considerable amount of circumlocution,' as the essential difference between inductive and deductive reasoning consists, not so much in the form of the argument, as in the nature of the assump- tions made : scientific induction postulating, in addition to the assumptions made in deductive reasoning, the laws of Universal Causation and of Uniformity of Nature, in its strictest sense (see p. 9, note 7) ; and Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem, the latter law in its vaguer sense. I think it may be useful to the student here to transcribe a note which first appeared in the 9th, and is now repeated, with some modifications, in the loth edition of my Deductive Logic (p. 75, note 3). ' If we state explicitly all the assumptions made in the inductive process, the conclusion is contained in the premisses, and the form of the reasoning becomes deductive ; but it is seldom that we do state our assumptions thus explicitly. The most essential distinction, however, between inductive and deductive reasoning consists not in the form of the inferences, but in the nature of the assumptions on which they rest. Deductive reasoning rests on certain assumptions with regard to language and co-existence (namely, the Law of Con- tradiction, the Law of Excluded Middle, and the Canons of Syl- logism), while inductive reasoning assumes over and besides these laws the truth of the Laws of Universal Causation, of the Uniformity of Nature and, as implied in the latter, of the Conservation of Energy ; or, if it be of the unscientific description which is known as Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem, it merely assumes, instead of them, the vague and wide principle that the unknown resembles, or will resemble, the known. It hardly needs to be added that all reasoning alike assumes the trustworthiness of present con- sciousness and of memory. Amongst the assumptions or pre-suppositions of reasoning, I have not included the so-called Law of Identity ; as to say that all A is A, b 2 XX PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION Mr. Jevons' statement that 'induction is really the reverse process of deduction' I am wholly unable to reconcile with the following statements which occur in the very same page 16 : 'In its ultimate origin or foundation all knowledge is inductive/ and ' only when we possess such knowledge, in the form of general propositions and natural laws, can we usefully apply the reverse process of deduction to ascertain the exact information required at any moment.' When we com- pare these statements, the circle seems complete. A precedes B, and B precedes A. A depends for its validity on B, and B depends for its validity on A. No wonder that human reasoning affords us no ' certain ' results. In offering these criticisms on some fundamental points of difference between Mr. Jevons and myself, I am far from denying the utility of many portions of his work, especially the chapters on the Methods of Measurement and on Hypothesis. In the present Edition of this work, I have occa- sionally availed myself of the ' Inductive Logic ' of Mr. Bain, a work which, though it does not, in my or a thing is the same as itself, appears to me to be an utterly un- meaning proposition. Mr. Mill (Examination of Hamilton, ch. 21), in attempting to give a meaning to this maxim, really transforms it into a perfectly distinct proposition, namely, that Language may express the same idea in different forms of words.' 11 Vol. i. p. 14. PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION XXI opinion, supersede Mr. Mill's Logic, supplies on some points a valuable complement to it. In this, as in the last Edition, I have to acknowledge the kindness of Professor Park of Belfast, whose cor- rections and suggestions have enabled me to make both my works more accurate and serviceable than they would otherwise have been. LINCOLN COLLKGE. l-'eb. 24, 1876. *^* In the third Edition some new matter was in- troduced, bearing mainly on the following subjects : Uniformities of Coexistence, the Historical Method, the distinction between Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem and the Method of Agreement, the constant alternation in practice of the inductive and deductive processes, and the Argument from Universal Consent. In the fourth Edition the principal alterations were the introduction of new foot-notes on the definition of Induction and on the Plurality of Causes, and some additional remarks on the nature of the Method of Residues and on Empirical Laws. In the fifth Edition, the alterations were more nu- merous than in either of the two preceding editions. Through the kindness of my friend, Mr. George Griffith of Harrow, I was enabled to state some of the scientific examples in a more precise form than in the preceding xxil PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION editions, notably those on Double-Weighing (p. 47), on the ' Red Flames ' seen during a total eclipse of the Sun (pp. 50-1), and on Spectrum Analysis as applied to the constitution of the Sun and other heavenly bodies (pp. 165-7). The principal alterations or additions in the logical matter were on pp. 204-5 ( tne Historical Method), p. 206 (the Comparative Method), pp. 277-8 (the Fallacy of ' Exaggerated Comparison '), and the addition of an important foot-note (note 15, p. xix) to the ' Preface to the Third Edition,' on the peculiar nature of Inductive Reasoning and on the assumptions made in it. The following foot-notes were either new or contained additional matter: n. 4, p. 6 ; n. n, p. 13 ; n. 22, p. 23; n. 41, pp. 107-8; n. 5, p. 129; n. 27, p. 166 ; n. 44, p. 191 ; n. 54, p. 205 ; n. 55, pp. 205-7 ; n. 63, p. 214; n. 24, pp. 281-2; n. 26, p. 282; n. 29, p. 283; n. 80, p. 343. Besides a few corrections in some of the scientific examples, occasioned by recent discoveries, the principal difference between this (the sixth) and former editions is the addition and alteration of certain passages in the notes on the Argument from Final Causes, pp. 342-4, and (in common with the fourth and fifth editions) the addition of an important foot-note to p. 127 on the Pluraliiy of Causes. C. C. C. Aug. 18, 1892. CONTENTS I. The Nature of Inductive Inference 3 II. Processes subsidiary to Induction . . ... 39 i. Observation and Experiment .... 39 2. Classification, Nomenclature, and Terminology 52 (1) Classification ...... 52 (2) Nomenclature ...... 89 (3) Terminology . . . . . .92 3. Hypothesis 97 III. The Inductive Methods 124 Method of Agreement . . . . . .130 Method of Difference 148 Double Method of Agreement . . . . .160 Method of Residues . . . . . . 173 Method of Concomitant Variations (including the Historical Method) 183 IV. Imperfect Inductions . . . . . . .219 Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem . . .219 Argument from Analogy . . . . . .226 Imperfect applications of the Inductive Methods (or Incomplete Inductions) ..... 237 XXIV CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE V. The Relation of Induction to Deduction, and Verification 241 VI. The Fallacies incident to Induction .... 254 A. Fallacies incident to the subsidiary processes . . 254 I. Fallacy of Non-observation, consisting in neglect either (i) of some of the instances (including Fallacy arising from the confusion between Ab- solute and Relative Frequency) . . . 254 or (2) of some of the circumstances attendant on a given instance ...... 268 II. Fallacy of Mai-observation (including Fallacy of Exaggerated Comparison) . . . . 272 ill. Errors incidental to the operations of Classification, Nomenclature, Terminology, and Hypothesis . 278 B. Fallacies incident to the Inductive process itself, or Falla- cies of Generalisation ...... 279 iv. Error originating in the employment of the Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem (including the ille- gitimate use of the Argument from Authority and of that from Universal Consent) .... 280 v. Errors common to the employment of the various In- ductive Methods 298 (1) Mistaking a for the cause of b, when the real cause is c (of which one instance is neglecting to take account of the Plurality of Causes) . 300 (2) Mistaking a for the sole cause, when a and c are the joint causes, either as (a) both contributing to the total effect . . 306 or (/3) being both essential to the production of any effect whatever 309 (3) Mistaking joint effects for cause and effect . 314 CONTENTS XXV fAGE (4) Mistaking the remote cause for the proximate cause, or the reverse 318 (5) Neglecting to take into account the mutual action (mutuality) of cause and effect . . 322 (6) Inversion of cause and effect .... 325 vi. False analogy (including the illegitimate use of the Argument from Antiquity, and of the Argu- ment from Final Causes) .... 329 357 KK TTpoyivv 6V TTIKTII fiiSacncaXio, cocrTrep Kai tv mis ilvu\vTiKi>is \fyop.(if' f] fjLtv yap 8C 7rays fK T&V Kndo\ov. Et(T\v npa <'p^at f'^ wr 6 , or a, l>, and c. CLASSIFICA TION 55 the entire subject under investigation. ' The general pro- blem of classification/ says Mr. Mill 10 , 'in reference to these [namely, scientific] purposes may be stated as follows: To provide that things shall be thought of in such groups, and those groups in such an order, as will best conduce to the remembrance and to the ascertain- ment of their laws.' The sciences of Botany and Zoology are rightly re- garded as furnishing the best examples of Scientific Clas- sification. The excellence of the classifications which they present may be referred to two reasons. The first is the extraordinary multiplicity of the different kinds of animals and plants which are found on the surface of the globe : this fact has, from the earliest times, exercised man's ingenuity in the attempt to name them and reduce them to order. The second reason may be found in the imperfection of these sciences in their present condition : the difficulty of discovering laws of succession, or, in other words, relations of cause and effect, in the animal and vegetable kingdoms has naturally led scientific enquirers to concentrate their attention on the far easier task of describing and arranging the objects themselves. Mineralogy, though its classifications are less systematic and complete, is also, in the present state of the science, mainly occupied in attempting the work of classification. The best means, perhaps, of making the student ac- quainted with the nature of scientific classification is to compare the method of natural classification (which aims 10 Mill's Logic, Bk. IV. ch. vii. i. 56 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION at being strictly scientific) with that of artificial classifica- tion (which, so far as it is artificial, is not scientific), giving illustrations from the sciences of Botany and Zoology. An examination of the natural system will enable us to lay down certain rules for scientific classi- fication, and I shall conclude with such remarks as may seem necessary in order to preserve the student from erroneous impressions. A natural system of Classification aims at classifying objects according to the whole of their resemblances and differences, so far as these are recognised by the science in whose service the classification is made. But amongst these resemblances and differences some are found to be invariably attended by a number of others, and conse- quently these, as the more important, are selected as the characters by which to discriminate the higher divisions of the series, the less important characters being, through- out the whole series, subordinated to the more important. This successive subordination of characters and the con- sequent coincidence of the groups formed by our classi- fications with what appear to be the great divisions of nature are the peculiarities which mainly distinguish a natural system. An artificial system, on the other hand, is one which selects arbitrarily some point of difference amongst the objects to be classified, and then, so far as possible, makes this or similar points the basis of its classifications. No system, however, as we shall see presently, is purely artificial. Though of little use, except as a preliminary effort, for the purposes of science, CL AS SI PICA TION 57 an artificial system possesses one great advantage. As it bases its divisions, where possible, on some one property, and that generally something which at once strikes the eye (one of the earliest of the modern attempts to classify plants took for its basis the form of the corolla), it is peculiarly easy of application, and can be much more readily learnt than a natural system. It thus often serves the purposes of a key, by which we may easily discover the place of a group in a natural system. I now proceed to offer illustrations. In Botany, the most celebrated artificial system is that known as the Linnasan, though Linnaeus also did much towards the establishment of a natural system. In this system, which was a great advance on preceding artifi- cial systems, the main basis of classification is the number of stamens and pistils which are to be found in the flowering plant. The character is, however, to some extent modified by other considerations, such as the relative lengths of the stamens, the shape of the fruit, &c. ; so far as these modifications are admitted, the Linncean system approaches to a natural system. The annexed Tables (extracted from Balfour's Manual of Botany ") will give the student some idea of the manner in which ,the Classes (higher divisions) and the Orders (divisions intermediate between the Classes and Genera) are con- stituted according to the Linnsean system. It should be premised that the stamens are the male organs, and the pistils the female organs of a plant. 11 716, 717- 58 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION TABULAR VIEW OF THE CLASSES OF THE LINN^EAN SYSTEM. A. Flowers present, or evident Stamens and Pistils (Phanerogamia). I. Stamens and Pistil in every flower. 1. Stamens free. a. Stamens of equal length, or not differing in certain pro- portions ; in number I Class I. Monandria. 2 II. Diandria. 3 III. Triandria. 4 IV. Tetrandria. 5 V. Pentandria. 6 VI. Hexandria. 7 VII. Heptandiia. 8 VIII. Octandria. 9 IX. Enneandria. 10 X. Decandria. 12-19 -^I- Dodecandria. 20 | inserted on Calyx XII. Icosandria. or more { on Receptacle ... XIII. Polyandria. /'. Stamens of different lengths ; two long and two short XIV. Didynamia. four long and two short XV. Tetr adynamia. 2. Stamens united ; by Filaments in one bundle... XVI. Monadelphia. in two bundles XVII. Diadelphia. in more than two bundles XVIII. Polyadelphia. by Anthers (Compound flowers) XIX. Syngenesia. with Pistil on a Column XX. Gynandria. II. Stamens and Pistil in different flowers ; on the same Plant XXI. Moncecia. on different Plants XXII. Dioecia. III. Stamens and Pistil in the same or in different flowers on the I XXIII. Polygamia. same or on different Plants ; Pi. Flowers absent, or Stamens and Pistils ) XXIV. Cryptogarma. not evident .. ) CLASSIFICA TION 59 The Classes are sub-divided into Orders, as will be seen from the next Table, on a less uniform plan than that on which they were themselves constituted. TABULAR VIEW OF THE ORDERS OF THE LINN^AN SYSTEM. Class!., Monogynia' 8 i Free Style. II. Digynia 2 Free Styles. III. Trigynia 3 IV. Tetragynia 4 V. Pentagynia 5 VI. Hexagynia 6 VII. >Heptagynia 7 VIII. Octogynia 8 IX. Enneagyaia 9 X. Decagynia 10 - XI. Dodecagynia 12-19 XII. Polygynia 20 and upwards. XIII. / ( Gymnospermia Fruit formed by four Achania. XIV. ] Angiospermia Fruit, a two-celled Capsule with ( many seeds. Siliculosa Fruit, a Silicula. Siliquosa Fruit, a Siliqua. v / Triandria, Decandria, &c. (number of Stamens), as in R. V 1 i, / 1^ 1 XVIII. ( Polygamia /Equalis Florets all hermaphrodite. Superflua Florets of the disk hermaphro- dite, those of the ray pistilli- ferous and fertile. Frustranea ... Florets of the disk hermaphro- dite, those of the ray neuter. Necessaria ... Florets of the disk staminiferous, those of the ray pistilliferous. Segregata ... Each floret having a separate involucre. Monogamia Anthers united, flowers compound. 12 It must not be supposed that all the Orders, Monogynia, &c., exist in each of the first thirteen Classes. When an Order is absent, the next Order which is present takes its place in the numerical arrangement. Thus, if the Order Trigynia be absent, and the next Order which is present be Tetragynia, as in Class IV, this latter will rank as the third Order. 60 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION XX } XXI ( M nan dria, Diandria, &c. (number of Stamens), as in the XXIL ( Classes ' {Moncecia Hermaphrodite, staminiferous and pistilliferous flowers on the same plant. Dicecia on two plants. Tricecia on three plants. IFilices Ferns. Musci Mosses. Hepaticse Liverworts. Lichenes Lichens. Algre Sea-weeds. Fungi Mushrooms. ' Even as an artificial method/ says Professor Balfour 13 , ' this system has many imperfections. If plants are not in full flower, with all the stamens and styles perfect, it is impossible to determine their class and order. In many instances, the different flowers on the same plant vary as regards the number of the stamens. Again, if carried out rigidly, it would separate in many instances the species of the same genus ; but, as Linnaeus did not wish to break up his genera, which were founded on natural affinities, he adopted an artifice by which he kept all the species of a genus together. Thus, if in a genus nearly all the species had both stamens and pistils in every flower, while one or two were monoecious or dioecious, he put the name of the latter in italics, in the classes and orders to which they belonged according to his method, and referred the student to the proper genus for the description.' The species of the Linnasan system coincide with those of the natural system. The same is mostly the case with 13 Balfour's Manual of Botany, 718. CLA SSI PICA TION 6 1 the genera, or next higher divisions. The Linnoean system is, therefore, far from being purely artificial. In fact, when we come to the lower groups of vegetables (genera and species), we are compelled to discriminate them one from another by a multiplicity of characters, so that a purely artificial system of botany would be impossible. The framers of natural systems of botany, instead of selecting some one character, such as the number of stamens and pistils, as the basis of the higher divisions, attempt to discover a number of characters, any one of which, if employed as the instrument of division, would give the same results as any of the others. This coin- cidence of divisions founded on various characters is a proof that we have reached some real distinction in nature. The main division of plants into cellular and vascular, or acotyledonous and cotyledonous, and the sub-division of vascular or cotyledonous plants into monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous, furnish remark- able instances of such a coincidence, and may conse- quently be regarded as corresponding with grand divisions in nature itself. ' In taking a survey of the Vegetable Kingdom, some plants are found to be composed of cells only, and are called Cellular ; while others consist of cells and vessels, especially spiral vessels, and are denominated Vascular. If the embryo is examined, it is found in some cases to have cotyledons or seed-lobes, in other cases to want them : and thus some plants are cotyledonous, others 62 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION acotyledoncus ; the former being divisible into monocotyh- donous, having one cotyledon, and dicotyledonous, having two [or more] cotyledons. The radicle, or young root of acotyledons, is heterorhizal, that of monocotyledons is endorhizal, that of dicotyledons, exorhizal. When the stems are taken into consideration, it is seen that marked differences occur here also, acotyledons being acrogenous, monocotyledons endogenous, and dicotyledons exogenous. The venation of leaves, parallel, reticulated, or forked, establishes the same great natural divisions ; and similar results are obtained from a consideration of the flowers, monocotyledons and dicotyledons being phanerogamous and acotyledons cryptogamous' ' Thus, the following grand natural divisions are ar- rived at : 1. Cellular. ..Acotyledonous. Heterorhizal. Acroe:enous. \ *' J I gamous. TT i \ Monocotyledonous. Endorhizal. Endogenous. ) Phanero- 2. ascv ar. j rjj co tyledonoiis. Exorhizal. Exogenous. \ gamous 14 .' Having established these Primary Divisions of the vegetable kingdom, the botanist, guiding himself as far as possible by the same principles as those on which the primary divisions were formed, proceeds to divide and sub-divide till at last he arrives at species, which are usually defined to be collections of individuals so nearly resembling each other that they may be supposed to be descended from a common stock. Thus, the Class ' Dicotyledones or Exogenaj ' is sub-divided into four 14 Balfour's Manual of Botany, 723, 724. CL A SSI PICA TION 63 sub-classes, one of which is the ' Thalamiflorav cha- racterised as having ' calyx and corolla present, petals distinct and inserted into the thalamus or receptacle, stamens hypogynous.' This sub-class is divided into a number of orders (sixty in Professor Balfour's Manual], one of which is Hypericaceae, the Tutsan or St. John's- wort family, thus described : 'Sepals 4-5, separate or united, persistent, usually with glandular dots, unequal ; rcstivation imbricated. Petals 4-5, oblique, often with black dots, aestivation contorted. Stamens hypogynous, in- definite in number; generally polyadelphous, very rarely 10, and monadelphous or distinct ; filaments filiform : anthers bilocnlar, with longitudinal dehiscence ; carpels 2-5, united round a central or basal placenta ; styles the same number as the carpels, usually separate ; stigmas capitate or simple. Fruit either fleshy or cap- sular, multilocular, and multivalvular, rarely unilocular. Seeds usually indefinite in number, minute, anatropal, usually exalbu- minous ; embryo usually straight. Herbaceous plants, shrubs, or trees, with exstipulate entire leaves, which are usually opposite and dotted. Flowers often yellow.' In this order there are fifteen known genera, one of which is the Hypericum, which is thus described in Irvine's Handbook of British Plants: c Hypericum, St. John's-wort. Herbaceous plants or shrubs, with opposite simple, entire leaves, which are usually furnished with pellucid dots (reservoirs of essential oil). Sepals five, free or united at the base, ovate, slightly unequal, permanent. Petals as many as the sepals, obtuse, spreading. Stamens indefinite, com- bined at the base into three or five sets, with small roundish anthers. Ovary with three-five cells or carpels and as many style?, with simple stigmas. Fruit capsular, rarely baccate, three-five-celled, with numerous seeds.' 64 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION This genus is divided into sub-genera or sections, one of which is thus described : 'Stems herbaceous. Stamens in three parcels (triadelphous). Styles three. Capsule three-celled, three-valved.' The sub-genus or section is again divided into sub- sections, one of which is characterised as having ' stems round, sepals with ciliary glands.' This sub-section con- tains amongst its species the well-known Hypericum Pulchrum, ' Elegant St. John's-wort/ thus described : ' Stems erect, bent at the base, round, glabrous, simple or branch- ing. Leaves ovate, clasping, coriaceous, smooth, with numerous translucent dots. Flowers in opposite panicled cymes. Sepals obovate, roundish, with a point, ciliated, with nearly sessile glands. Petals oblong, ribbed, with black sessile glands 15 .' The first peculiarity which strikes us in these descrip- tions is the large number of characters which is employed in constituting even the higher divisions of the series. Instead of describing merely the number and distribution of the stamens, as in the Linnaean system, we have, even in the description of the Order, a reference to almost every part of the plant. We next notice the much greater definiteness which the characters assume, as we descend lower in the series. Thus, to take the sepals as an instance, the description of the sub-class simply informs us of the presence of a calyx, while each suc- cessive division (except the sub-genus) gives us more and more definite information as to the number, posi- tion, form, &c. of the sepals which constitute the calyx. 15 See Irvine's Handbook of British Plants, under Order CIII. CLA SSI PICA T1ON 65 Again, we observe that, in the lower divisions, the stem, leaves, sepals, and petals are the characters which are brought into greatest prominence, whereas the stamens and the various parts of the pistil (the carpels, styles, and stigmas), which are employed in the higher divisions, disappear from the lower, as no longer affording grounds of difference. Now the stamens and pistil, inasmuch as any peculiarity in them is generally accompanied by a larger number of peculiarities in other parts of the plant, are usually of far more importance than the corolla (petals) and calyx (sepals), and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that the grounds of difference furnished by them would be likely to be exhausted in the higher divisions. At the same time we see that, in the instance we have taken, the sepals and petals furnish grounds of difference at a very early stage of the classification, and consequently that even the less important characters are often used concurrently with others to determine the higher divisions. In Zoology, the advantage of a natural over an artificial classification is more readily recognised than in Botany, the structure and functions of animals being more fa- miliar and apparent than those of plants. A division of animals, for instance, which adopted the number of limbs as its sole distinguishing character and thus brought together, as quadrupeds, the ox and the frog, would be so absurd on the face of it, as to be rejected at once. ' No arrangement of animals/ says Dr. Whewell K , ' which, in 16 History of the Inductive Sciences, Bk. XVI. ch. vLL F 66 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION a large number of instances, violated strong and clear natural affinities, would be tolerated because it answered the purpose of enabling us easily to find the name and place of the animal in the artificial system. Every system of Zoological arrangement may be supposed to aspire to be a natural system/ He then proceeds to give an instance of an attempt to constitute an artificial classifi- cation in the ichthyological branch of Zoology. ' Bloch, whose ichthyological labours have been mentioned, fol- lowed in his great work the method of Linnaeus ' (who devoted much of his attention to the classification of animals as well as of plants). ' But towards the end of his life he had prepared a general system, founded upon one single numerical principle the number of fins ; just as the sexual system of Linnaeus is founded upon the number of stamina : and he made his subdivisions ac- cording to the position of the ventral and pectoral fins ; the same character which Linnaeus had employed for his primary division. He could not have done better, says Cuvier, if his object had been to turn into ridicule all artificial methods, and to show to what absurd com- binations they may lead.' ' By the natural method] says M, Milne Edwards " (whose remarks on Zoological Classifications and the Primary Divisions and Classes of the Animal Kingdom 17 See Milne Edwards' Zoologie (in the Cours tttmentaire cThistoire naturelle}, septieme edition, 364, 365. There is an English translation of this work by Dr. R. Knox. I have followed it, except in a few places where it does not accurately represent the original. CLASSIFICA TION 67 are well worthy of the attention of all students of induc- tive logic), ' the divisions and subdivisions of the animal kingdom are founded on the whole of the characters furnished by each animal, arranged according to their degree of respective importance ; thus, in knowing the place which the animal occupies, we also know the more remarkable traits of its organisation, and the manner in which its principal functions are exercised. ' The rules to be observed in arriving at a natural classification of the animal kingdom are of extreme sim- plicity, but often there is much difficulty in the appli- cation. They may be reduced to two, for the object of the zoologist in establishing such a classification is, ' i st. To arrange animals in natural series, according to the degree of their respective affinities, that is to say, to distribute them in such a manner that those species which most nearly resemble each other may occupy the nearest places, while the distance of two species from each other may, in some sort, be the measure of their non-resemblance. ' 2nd. To divide and subdivide this series according to the principle of subordination of characters, that is to say, by reason of the importance of the differences which these animals present amongst them/ The Primary Divisions of the animal kingdom, accord- ing to the natural system, are four, there being four types of structure and of nervous organisation, to which animal life conforms. ' These four principal forms may be understood by a F 2 68 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION reference to four well-known animals the dog, the cray- fish or lobster, the snail, the asterias or sea-star. 'In order that the zoological classification might be a faithful representation of the more or less important modifications introduced into the structure of animals, it was necessary to distribute these beings into four principal groups or divisions; and this is, in fact, what Cuvier did. 'The animal kingdom is divided into vertebrate animals, articulated or annulated animals, molluscs and zoophytes. ' The fundamental differences distinguishing these four primary divisions depend chiefly on the mode of arrange- ment of the different parts of the body and on the con- formation of the nervous system. It is easy to under- stand the importance of these two dominant characters : to feel and to move is the especial character of animal life, and these two functions belong to the nervous system. It might readily, then, be anticipated that the mode of conformation of this system would exert a powerful influence over the nature of animals, and would furnish characters of primary importance in classification. ' The general disposition or mode of reunion of the different parts of the body exercises an equally important influence, as modifying the localisation of the functions and the division of the physiological result 18 .' Vertebrate animals are thus described : 'The vertebrate animals resemble man in the more important points of their structure ; almost all the parts of their bodies are 18 Milne Edwards, 372, 373. CLASSIFICA TION 69 in pairs, and disposed symmetrically on the two sides of a medial longitudinal plane; their nervous system is highly developed, and is composed of nerves and ganglions, and of a brain and spinal marrow. To these characteristics we may add that the principal muscles are attached to an internal skeleton, composed of separate pieces, connected together, and disposed so as to protect the more important organs, and to form the passive instruments of loco- motion ; that the more important part of this skeleton forms a sheath for the brain and spinal marrow, and results from the reunion of annular portions, called vertebrae ; that the apparatus for the circulation is very complete, and that the heart offers at least two distinct reservoirs ; that the blood is red ; that the limbs are almost always four in number, and never more ; finally, that there exist distinct organs lodged in the head for sight, hearing, smell, and taste 19 .' The Primary Division (embranchement) ' Vertebrate Animals' is subdivided into the five classes, Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Batrachia, Fishes, of which Mammals are thus described : 'Organs of lactation. Hot blood. Circulation complete, and heart with four cavities. Pulmonary respiration simple. Lobes of the cerebellum reunited by an annular protuberance. Lower jaw articulated directly with the cranium. The body generally covered with hairs. Viviparous.' ' There exist considerable differences amongst the mammalia, and these modifications of structure serve as the basis for the division of the class into groups of an inferior rank, called orders. Most of these groups are so distinct as to admit of no doubt in respect of their limits : they constitute, in fact, natural divisions ; but in others the line of demarcation is by no means so distinct. 19 Milne Edwards, 374. 70 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION Thus a mammal may have points of resemblance so close to two groups as to render it almost indifferent to which it be referred. To some naturalists, differences appear important which are disregarded by others, and hence a want of agreement on the subject of classification has always prevailed. ' The method followed here is nearly the same as that proposed by Cuvier. It rests mainly on the differences mammals show in respect of their extremities and teeth, differences which always imply a crowd of others in habits, structure, and even intelligence. ' Keeping in view the ensemble of these characters, the class mammalia may be divided into two groups, the monodelphic and didelphic. 1 The monodelphic or monodelphian are the more numerous, and are distinguished chiefly by their mode of development. At birth they are already provided with all their organs, and before birth they derive their nourishment from the mother by means of a pla- centa. Their brain is more perfect than the didelphian, by the presence of a corpus callosum uniting the two cerebral hemispheres. Finally, the walls of the abdo- men have no osseous supports attached to the margins of the pelvis, as we find in the second great class of mammals. The mammals thus organised have been subdivided into two groups, namely, ordinary mam- mals and pisciform mammals. ' The ordinary mammals are organised principally to live on solid ground ; the skin is provided with hairs. CLASSIFICA TION 7 1 These animals are further subdivided into ten orders : the bimana, quadrumana, cheiroptera, insectivora, rodentia, edentata, carnivora, amphibia, pachydermata, and ruminantia. The first eight of these orders have flexible fingers and toes, with nails covering only the dorsal aspect of the toe or finger, and comparatively small ; hence they have been called unguiculata : the last two, namely the pachydermata and ruminantia, have the extremity of the finger and toe entirely en- closed in a hoof; they are thus called ungulata. ' The order bimana includes only man : in him alone the arms are destined for prehension, the limbs for progression and support in the erect attitude. Thus, his natural position on the soil is unmistakeably vertical. The teeth are of three kinds, and have their edges oa the same plane ; they are frugivorous : finally, the brain is more perfect, more highly developed, than in any other animal 20 .' Here the Order is co-extensive with the Species, but usually the Order is divided into Genera, and each Genus into Species. Thus, the Order ' Carnivora ' is divided into the Genera ' cat,' ' hyaena/ ' dog/ ' bear/ &c. Again, the Genus 'dog' comprises the dog properly so called, the wolf, and the fox. The Genus ' cat' com- prises not only the cat properly so called, but the tiger, lion, panther, &c. It may be as well to add an account of the characters which distinguish respectively the Order ' Carnivora/ the 20 Milne Edwards, 409-412. 72 Genus 'Felis,' and the Species 'Leo/ in order to serve as an example or illustration of the manner in which these several degrees in the scale of Classification are usually described : 'The order of carnivora is composed of ordinary unguiculated mammals ; the form of their dentition is complete, but they have no opposing thumb. According to the mode of life of these animals, their intestinal canal is short; their jaws and their muscles strong, in order to seize and devour their prey ; their head from this circumstance seems large. The jaws are short, thus favouring their strength, and the form of the temporal-maxillary articulation proves that the teeth are made for tearing and cutting, not for grinding or masticating. The canine teeth are large, long, and very powerful ; the incisors, six in number in each jaw, small ; the molars, some- times adapted merely for cutting, in others surmounted with rounded tubercles, presenting no conical points, arranged as in the insectivora. One of these molar teeth is usually much longer and more cutting than the others, and has therefore been called the carnivorous molar tooth ; behind these (on each side) are one or two molars, almost flat, and between the carnivorous molar and the canine a variable number of false molars. The food of the animal, whether exclu- sively composed of flesh or mixed with other matters, may be judged of by the varying proportions of these cutting or tuber- culated molars. ' Animals of this order have generally the toes armed with claws adapted to hold and to tear their prey ; usually also they have no collar-bones. 1 The following are the characteristics of the genus ' Felis/ and of the species ' Leo': ' Their jaws are short, and are acted on by muscles of extra- ordinary strength ; their retractile nails, concealed between the toes in a state of repose by means of elastic ligaments, are never blunted. Their toes are five in number on the anterior limbs, and four on those behind. Their hearing is exceedingly fine, and CLASSIFICA TION 73 the best developed of all their senses. They see well by day and night, but they are not far-sighted ; in some the pupil is elongated vertically, in others it is round. They make great use of the organ of smell ; they consult it before eating, and often when anything disturbs them. Their tongue is covered with horny and very rough points. Their coat is in general soft and fine, and the surface of the body very sensible to the touch ; their whiskers especially seem to be instruments of great sensibility. Though of prodigious vigour, they generally do not attack animals openly, but employ cunning and artifice. They never push their prey to flight, but, watching by the margins of rivers and pools in covert, they spring at once on their victim. ' At the head of this genus stands the lion, measuring frequently twelve feet in length, or over six feet to the setting on of the tail ; about three feet in height, and characterised by the square head, the tuft of hair terminating the tail, and in the male by the mane which flows from the head and neck 21 .' The process by which the Zoologist constitutes the Primary Divisions of animal life, and then descends from these to the Species, is distinguished by the same pecu- liarities as those which we remarked in reviewing the natural classifications of the Botanist. In one step or other of the classification almost every known charac- teristic of a species will be found. As we descend the series, the characters gain in definiteness and, as a rule, lose in importance. Moreover, even in the higher divi- sions of the series, numerous characters are used, and those not always of great apparent importance. Thus, that 'the body is generally covered with hairs' is one of the characters of Mammalia. The student will now be in a position to understand 21 Milne Edwards, 414. 74 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION the rules which may be laid down for the right conduct of a Natural Classification. I. Not only the lower, but the higher groups of the series should be so constituted as to differ from one another by a multitude of characters. It is only when, as is the case in the primary divisions of Botany and Zoology, we arrive at the same divisions from a variety of different considerations, that we can feel assured that our groups really correspond with distinctions in Nature. It is this coincidence, in the higher groups of the series, of divisions formed on different principles, that distin- guishes a Natural from an Artificial Classification. II. The more important characters should be selected for the purpose of determining the higher groups. This is called the principle of the subordination of characters. But how are we to determine the relative importance of characters ? ' We must consider as the most important attributes,' says Mr. Mill 22 , 'those which contribute most, either by themselves or by their effects, to render the things like one another, and unlike other things; which give to the class composed of them the most marked individuality ; which fill, as it were, the largest space in their existence, and would most impress the attention of a spectator who knew all their properties but was not specially interested in any.' This account is perfectly true, but it seems to be hardly sufficiently definite. The following criteria may be proposed for the purpose of discriminating between the more and the less important 22 Mill's Logic, Bk. IV. ch. vii. 2. CLASSIFICATION 75 properties of natural objects, (i) A character which is found to furnish an invariable index to the possession of certain other characters is of more importance than a character which furnishes no such index. Thus, the internal structure of an animal is of more importance than its size, and the mode of fructification of a plant than the colour of its flowers. (2) Amongst such cha- racters, a character is regarded as of more or less impor- tance, according as it accompanies a greater or smaller number of other differences. Thus, in the classification of animals, the characters from which the classes ungui- culata and ungulata are so called are of more importance than the form of the teeth, which is used in distinguishing the orders. For the same reason, the mode of growth of flowering plants (which leads to the distinction of endogenous and exogenous plants) is of far more im- portance, as a character, than the number of stamens or pistils. Hence, in constituting the higher divisions of a series we must look for those characters which are accompanied by the largest number of differences. III. The classification should be gradual, proceeding by a series of divisions and subdivisions. When the group to be classified consists of an enormous number of species, as in the case of animals and plants, the necessity of observing this rule is obvious. To descend at once from the Primary Divisions to, say, Genera and Species, would render the Classification comparatively worthless. The object of a classification being to bring together those groups which resemble each other and to 76 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION separate those groups which differ from each other, we must take account of degrees of resemblance and difference, so that, as a rule, the number of gradations will increase with the number of groups to be classified. Both in Botany and Zoology, the grand divisions which seem now to be universally recognised are Primary Divisions or Sub-Kingdoms (embranchements), Classes, Orders, Genera, and Species. Between these divisions various other divisions are interpolated, according to the seeming requirements of each particular system, and often according to the views of each individual author. More- over, below Species are often reckoned Varieties, and even Varieties are sometimes subdivided, this being especially the case when animals have become domesticated or plants cultivated. Taking as an instance the Anthyllis Vulneraria (Common Lady's Finger), the divisions and subdivisions of a natural classification may be illustrated thus 23 : I. PRIMARY DIVISION . . . Cotyledones. II. CLASS Dicotyledones. Subclass ..... Calyciflorae. III. ORDER Leguminosce. Suborder Papilionacea:. Tribe . .... Lotea. 1 . Subtribe Gcnisteae. IV. GENUS Anthyllis. Submenus or .Section . . . Vulneraria. V. SPECIKS Vulneraria 2 *. Variety ..... Dillenii. Race ...... Floribus coccineis. Variation Foliis hirsutissimis. 23 Balfour's Manual of Botany, 725. zt It is not uncommon in the classificatory sciences, as in this CLASSIFICA TION 77 In very extensive groups, other divisions may be inter- polated ; thus a subgenus or section is often divided into a subsection. On the other hand, many of these divi- sions often disappear ; if a genus consist of only a small number of species, and there be no very striking points of difference amongst them, we may descend at once, without any intermediate divisions, from the Genus to its various Species. Sometimes, even, an order may contain only a single genus, or a genus a single species, in which case the t\vo may be regarded as coextensive. In the case of Man, we saw that we descend at once from the Order to the varieties, the Order Bimana being coextensive with the genus and species Homo, so that here three even of the grand divisions are coincident. IV. The groups should be so arranged, that those which have the closest affinities may be brought nearest to each other, while the distance of one group from another may be taken as a measure of their dissimilarity. The observation of this rule would result in what Mr. Mill calls ' the arrangement of the natural groups into a natural series.' For the purposes of subsequent induction, it is plain that it is of the utmost importance not widely to dissever groups which present many phe- nomena in common, or which we even suspect may do so. The object aimed at by this rule is, to a great extent, attained by the observation of the Subordination instance, to assign the same name to a higher and lower division, the lower division exhibiting in a marked manner the characters possessed in common by the various members of the higher division. 78 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION of Characters (Rule 2), according to which, the higher the place of the division in the series, the more important is the collection of characters which serves to constitute it. If Rule 2 were duly observed, it would be impossible for any two widely dissimilar groups to be brought into juxtaposition in the lower divisions of the series. Thus, the ox and the frog, the primrose and the mushroom, would in any natural system be at considerable distances from each other. But it is not sufficient to observe the rule of the Subordination of Characters. The arrange- ment of the cognate groups in each division should be such that at the head of the series may come those groups which are most like the groups of the preceding division, while at the bottom of the series may come those groups which are most like the groups of the subsequent division. Thus, suppose that we have Orders A, B, C, of which B resembles A more than C does, and that A is subdivided into the genera a a" a" f b f b" c ; B into the genera m f m" n o p f p" ; C into the genera x f x" y' , y" ^ y"' , 2 (of which the genera repre- sented by the earlier letters of the alphabet are more akin to each other than those represented by the later, and conversely) : in our arrangement we ought to place c in juxtaposition with m m", and p' p" in juxtaposition with x x", the remaining groups being arranged, as above, on the same principle. If such an arrangement could be effected, it is plain that those groups which presented in the greatest intensity the principal pheno- mena of the class of objects under investigation would CLASSIFICATION 79 come first in the series, and that those which presented them in the least intensity would come last. In Zoology, for instance, those groups would come first which pre- sented in the greatest intensity the principal phenomena of animal life, and in Botany those which presented in the greatest intensity the principal phenomena of veget- able life. It is, of course, seldom, in the arrangement of natural objects, that we are able to draw up an exact table of precedence amongst the groups of any division, but we are often able to say that this or that group or collection of groups (a or a a" a"'} should rank first in the series, or that it should rank before some other group or collection of groups. Thus, no zoologist would hesitate to assign to man (the Order Bimana) the highest place in any classification of Mammalia, while he would place next the Order Quadrumana, and in this Order he would select apes, and, amongst apes, the anthropoid apes, to be brought into closest juxtaposition with man. This rule is obviously of most difficult application. It points out an ideal to be aimed at, but one which is never likely to be perfectly realised. So many are the properties to be taken into consideration in every natural object, that it is often impossible to say that this object is, on the whole, more like another than that. The groups of the higher divisions may often, those of the lower may sometimes, be tabulated in some order of precedence ; but there remains a large number of cases to which the rule is inapplicable, or to which, at least, it has not yet been successfully applied. This is especially 8o PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION the case in Botany, where, though, in respect of com- plexity of structure and perfection of organism, Vascular plants may be ranked above Cellular, and Dicotyledons above Monocotyledons, there are many cases among the subdivisions, especially of Monocotyledons and Dicoty- ledons, where no order of precedence can as yet be satisfactorily established. But, even if the rule were of universal application, and if we were perfectly acquainted with all the properties of bodies and their relative value, it w r ould not follow that we could establish what Dr. Whewell, in his opposition to this doctrine of Classifica- tion by Series, calls ' a mere linear progression in nature.' There might still be many Orders, Genera, or Species, which, to use a familiar expression, we should be obliged to bracket. ' It w r ould surely be possible,' says Mr. Mill 25 , 'to arrange all places (for example) in the order of their distance from the North Pole, though there would be not merely a plurality, but a whole circle of places at every single gradation in the scale.' Remark i. A natural classification is supposed to be complete, when it has descended as low as species, a species being regarded as a group consisting of indi- viduals, all of which have descended from a common stock. Or, if the process be reversed, and the classifica- tion be an ascending instead of a descending one, species are regarded as the starting-point of the naturalist, and it is supposed that the problem before him is to group them 25 Bk. IV. ch. viii. i. Note. CLASSIFICA TION 8 1 under higher divisions. But a species may, as we have seen, be divided into varieties, sub-varieties, &c. Now, in what consists the difference between the relation of a variety to a species and the relation of a species to a genus ? To this question a very large section of natur- alists now maintain that no satisfactory answer can be given. If it be said that varieties of the same species may be developed in the course of time, but that species themselves must be regarded as distinct, it may be asked on what grounds this supposition rests. Different vari- eties of the same species are certainly more like each other than different species of the same genus, just as species of the same genus have more resemblance than genera of the same order, or members of any lower division than members of any higher division ; but, given a larger amount of time, is there more difficulty in sup- posing a common 'stock for the different species of a genus than for the different varieties of a species ? This is the question originated with so much ability by Mr. Darwin in his work on the Origin of Species. His own solution of the question is well known. ' It will be seen,' he says 26 , ' that I look at the term species, as one arbi- trarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere 26 Darwin's Origin of Species, ch. ii. G 82 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION convenience' sake.' It does not fall within my province to discuss the question of the ' Origin of Species/ but it is desirable that the student should be aware that the practice of naturalists in stopping at species, as if they were the ' infimse species ' of the old logicians below which divisions need not proceed, is far from being universally accepted. . Remark 2. As our knowledge of the external world becomes enlarged, the number of natural groups, recog- nised by the classificatory sciences, is being continually increased. Botanists and zoologists (especially the former) are constantly discovering or recognising new varieties, frequently new species, and occasionally, even, new genera and orders. 'The known species of plants,' says Dr. Whe- well 27 , ' were 10,000 at the time of Linnaeus, and are now [A.D. 1858] probably 60,000.' The increase in the num- ber of recognised varieties, sub-varieties, &c., is even still more rapid. One common effect of these constant dis- coveries and recognitions is to bridge over what previously appeared to be gaps in nature, thus illustrating the fact that there are but few breaks in natural phenomena, that there pervades nature a Law of Continuity, according to which a group seldom occurs to which some other group may not be found very closely allied. So complete, some- times, is this continuity, that it becomes very difficult to distinguish the groups by any fixed characters. Two 27 History of Scientific Ideas, Bk. VIII. ch. ii. 6. Of course, since Dr. Whcwell's time, the number has, again, been constantly on the increase. CLASSIFICATION 83 species (say) are discriminated, and then a third group is found which partakes of the character of each of the others. This is constituted a new species, and then a fourth group is found intermediate between this and the first, and so on. ' It has been shown/ says Dr. Car- penter, as quoted by Sir W. Grove 28 , ' that a very wide range of variation exists among Orbitolites, not merely as regards external form, but also as to plan of develop- ment ; and not merely as to the shape and aspect of the entire organism, but also with respect to the size and configuration of its component parts. It would have been easy, by selecting only the most divergent types from amongst the whole series of specimens which I have examined, to prefer an apparently substantial claim on behalf of these to be accounted as so many distinct species. But after having classified the specimens which could be arranged around these types, a large proportion would yet have remained, either presenting characters intermediate between those of two or more of them, or actually combining those characters in different parts of their fabric ; thus showing that no lines of demarcation can be drawn across any part of the series that shall definitely separate it into any number of groups, each characterised by features entirely peculiar to itself.' We certainly find in nature a persistency of type, which is the result of the laws of hereditary transmission ; if there were no such persistency, the attempt to group natural 28 Essay on Continuity, printed at the end of the Fifth Edition of The Correlation of Physical Forces, pp. 326, 327. G 2 84 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION objects would be fruitless and absurd. But, at the same time, when we have succeeded in establishing groups, we constantly find that there are individual members diverging more or less from the ordinary type, and forming intermediate links between proximate classes. To adopt and alter a metaphor employed by Dr. Whe- well, natural classes may be regarded as the forests of neighbouring hills, the hills being seldom separated by well-defined valleys, and the valleys being frequently interspersed with straggling trees or clumps. Remark 3. It sometimes happens that one of the characters by which classes or groups are distinguished, one from another, is to be found, not invariably, but only usually or occasionally in the members of the group. Thus, in the description of the Order Rosacea;, we find that ' the seeds are erect or inverted, usually exalbumin- ous. . . . Flowers sometimes unisexual.' Such indefinite descriptions would be entirely out of place in an artificial classification, but in a natural classification, where the entire assemblage of the characters must be taken into consideration, a character, though not found invariably, or even though found but seldom, may still be valuable in distinguishing a group. Remark 4. The most important characters are not always those by which a group is most easily recognised. For the purpose of recognition, some external and pro- minent character or set of characters is generally best adapted. Thus, if we wished to determine whether a plant were monocotyledonous or dicotyledonous, our CLASSIFICATION 85 easiest course would be to examine the stem ; if the stem were endogenous, we should know that the plant was a monocotyledon, if exogenous, that the plant was a dicotyledon. A single character is often sufficient to determine the place of a plant or animal in a series, because we already know that the possession of this character is a sign of the possession of the various other characters which are enumerated in the description of the natural class. The method of determining, by means of one or a few characters, the place of a natural object in a classification, is often called Diagnosis or Characteristick. 'The Characteristick/ says Dr. Whe- well 29 , ' is an Artificial Key to a Natural System. As being Artificial, it takes as few characters as possible; as being Natural, its characters are not selected by any general or prescribed rule, but follow the natural affinities.' 'The genera Lamium and Galeopsis (Dead Nettle and Hemp Nettle) are each formed into a separate group in virtue of their general resemblances and differences, and not because the former has one tooth on each side of the lower lip, and the latter a notch in its upper lip, though they are distinguished by these marks.' Note. Dr. Whewell maintains that natural classes are determined, not by definition, that is, by an enumeration of characters, but by type, that is, by resemblance, more or less complete, to some one member of the class, round which the others are grouped. Thus, according to this 29 History of Scientific Ideas, Bk. VIII. ch. ii. 7. 86 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION theory, the Class Mammalia would be determined, not by an enumeration of characters, but by resemblance, more or less complete, to some typical specimen, say Dog ; the genus Dog would be determined not by an enumeration of the characters which are common to the dog, wolf, and fox (the species comprised in the genus), but by approximation to the type-species dog : similarly, the Order Rosaceae would be determined not by an enumeration of characters, common to a large number of genera, but by the resemblance, more or less complete, of these genera to the type-genus Rosa. Dr. Whewell's view will be understood from the following extract : ' In a Natural Group the class is steadily fixed, though not precisely limited ; it is given, though not circumscribed ; it is determined, not by a boundary line without^but by a central point within ; not by what it strictly excludes, but by what it eminently includes ; by an example, not by a precept; in short, instead of Definition we have a Type for our director. ' A Type is an example of any class, for instance, a species of a genus, which is considered as eminently possessing the characters of the class. All the species, which have a greater affinity with this Type-species than with any others, form the genus, and are ranged about it, deviating from it in various directions and different degrees. Thus a genus may consist of several species, which approach very near the type, and of which the claim to a place with it is obvious ; while there may be other species which straggle further from this central CLASSIFICA TION 87 knot, and which yet are clearly more connected with it than with any other. And even if there should be some species of which the place is dubious, and which appear to be equally bound by two generic types, it is easily seen that this would not destroy the reality of the generic groups, any more than the scattered trees of the inter- vening plain prevent our speaking intelligibly of the distinct forests of two separate hills. ' The Type-species of every genus, the Type-genus of every family, is, then, one which possesses all the characters and properties of the genus in a marked and prominent manner. The Type of the Rose family has alternate stipulate leaves, wants the albumen, has the ovules not erect, has the stigmata simple, and besides these features, which distinguish it from the exceptions or varieties of its class, it has the features which make it prominent in its class. It is one of those which possess clearly several leading attributes ; and thus, though we cannot say of any one genus that it nmst be the Type of the family, or of any one species that it must be the Type of the genus, we are still not wholly to seek : the Type must be connected by many affinities with most of the others, of its group ; it must be near the centre of the crowd, and not one of the stragglers 30 / 30 History of Scientific Ideas, Bk. VIII. ch. ii. 3. art. 10. Mr. Mill (Logic, Bk. IV. ch. vii. 3, 4) examines Dr. \Yhewel 1's views at considerable length. He appears to me, in this examination, to insist too emphatically on what he calls 'distinctions of kind,' and to assert, without sufficient warrant, that ' the species of Plants are not only real kinds, but are probably, all of them, real lowest kinds, 88 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION There is much force in what Dr. Whewell here says, but his main position appears to me to be incorrect. May not the various steps in the process of Classification be described as follows ? We, first, observe a general resemblance amongst a variety of groups. Prompted by the observation of this resemblance, we determine to constitute the groups into a distinct class. But it is not sufficient simply to enumerate the groups which the class contains; it is incumbent upon us to state the principle on which the classification is made. This statement consists in an enumeration of those characters which are common to all the members of the newly-con- stituted class, and which, at the same time, distinguish them from the members of other classes, with the addi- tion, in some cases, of certain characters which belong to most, or even to a few only, of the members of the class. Thus, the class is determined (or 'given' to use Dr. Whewell's expression) by an enumeration of char- acters. But, when the class is once familiar to us, the repetition of the class-name suggests, not the characters, but some typical specimen of the class, some one group which stands out prominently as possessing the characters by which the class was determined ; and it is by reference to this central specimen, as it were, that we fix the posi- tion of the other groups and adjudicate on the claims of Infimrc Species, which if we were to subdivide into sub-classes, the subdivision would necessarily be founded on definite distinctions, not pointing (apart from what may be known of their causes or effects) to any difference beyond themselves.' NOMENCLATURE 89 any newly-discovered group to take its place by the side of the others. Thus, the type-species, type-genus, or typical order, may be of the greatest service as a con- venient embodiment of the characters, but the characters must be enumerated, and the class determined, before we can select our typical example. (2) OF NOMENCLATURE. Nomenclature is intimately connected with Classifica- tion. The groups, whether natural or artificial, into which objects are distributed, could neither be recol- lected by ourselves 'nor communicated to others unless they were fixed by the imposition of names. A Nomen- clature is a collection of such names, applied to the members of the various divisions and subdivisions which constitute a classification. The number of natural groups, however, is so enormously large, that it would be next to impossible to devise, and, if possible to devise, it would be impossible to remember, distinct names for each group. Thus, the known species of plants, for instance, now probably far exceeds 60,000, and, if we took into ac- count varieties, sub-varieties, &c., the number of groups would be represented by many multiples of this sum. Some artifice, therefore, is necessary by which a com- paratively small number of names may be made to distinguish a large number of groups. Botany and Chemistry furnish admirable examples of the employ- ment of such an artifice, and some knowledge of the principles which guide the imposition of names in those 90 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION two sciences (a knowledge which may be easily acquired) would probably be of more service to the student than anything which he might learn from a body of rules for Nomenclature in general. In Botany, the higher groups (including genera) have distinct names. Thus, we have Dicotyledones, Rosacese, Rosa, &c. But, when we arrive at the species, these are known by the generic name with the addition of some distinctive attribute. Thus, the genus Geranium is re- presented in the British Isles by thirteen species, called respectively Geranium phaeum, G. nodosum, G. sylva- ticum, G. pratense, G. sanguineum, G. pyrenaicum, G. pusillum, G. dissectum, G. columbinum, G. rotundi- folium, G. molle, G. lucidum, G. robertianum. The specific names are selected from various considerations; sometimes in honour of an individual (as Equisetum Mackaii, Rosa Wilsoni), sometimes from the country or the district in which the plant abounds, sometimes from the soil which is most favourable to it, sometimes from some peculiarity in the plant itself. So arbitrary and fanciful sometimes are these names, that Linnaeus (as we are told by Dr. Whewell 31 ) ' gave the name of Bau- hinia to a plant with leaves in pairs, because the Bauhins were a pair of brothers, that of Banisteria to a climbing plant, in honour of Banister, who travelled among mountains.' It is plain that a name which describes some peculiarity in the plant itself is of most service to the learner ; but any name, easily remembered, serves 31 History of Scientific Ideas, Bk. VIII. ch. ii. 6. NOMENCLATURE 91 the main purpose of a nomenclature, which is to distin- guish one group from another. Varieties, sub-varieties, &c., are distinguished from each other on the same principle as species. Thus, as we have seen, of the species Anthyllis Vulneraria there is a variety Dillenii, and of the variety Anthyllis Vulneraria Dillenii there is a ' race ' Floribus coccineis, and of the race there is a ' variation ' Foliis hirsutissimis. The nomenclature of Zoology is now generally constructed on the same principle as that of Botany. In some systems of Miner- alogy, three names are employed, namely, those of the Order, Genus, and Species, as, for instance, Rhombohe- dral Calc Haloide. The nomenclature of Chemistry, or, at least, of In- organic Chemistry, which, in some respects, furnishes an interesting example of a scientific nomenclature, is constructed on the principle of making the prefixes and affixes of the words employed significant of the nature of the substances for which they stand. Thus, we have the affixes ide, ic, ot^, ate, ite, &c., and the prefixes mono, di, tri, sesqtii, c., each having a special significance, though, unfortunately, not always an unambiguous one. It would transcend the limits of this work to give an account, sufficiently clear and precise, of the Nomen- clature of Inorganic Chemistry (which, moreover, is at present in a transitional state), but the student, who is anxious to gain some idea of the principles on which it is constructed, can refer to Watts' Dictionary of Chemistry, vol. iv. art. Nomenclature. 92 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION (3) OF TERMINOLOGY. A Nomenclature of a Science is, as we have seen, a collection of names of groups. A Terminology is a collection of the names (or terms) which distinguish either the properties or the parts of the individual objects which the science recognises. Thus, when we speak of the genus ' Rosa,' we are employing the nomenclature of Botany; but, when we say that the individuals of the genus ( Rosa ' have ' their corolla imbricated before flower- ing, their styles with lateral insertion, their carpels nu- merous,' &c., we are employing not the nomenclature, but the terminology, of the science. In botany we have an almost perfect example of a complete and judiciously constructed terminology. ' The formation of an exact and extensive descriptive language for botany,' says Dr. Whewell 32 , ' has been executed with a degree of skill and felicity, which, before it was attained, could hardly have been dreamt of as attainable. Every part of a plant has been named ; and the form of every part, even the most minute, has had a large assemblage of descriptive terms appropriated to it, by means of which the botanist can convey and receive knowledge of form and structure, as exactly as if each minute part were presented to him vastly magnified. This acquisition was part of the Linnaean Reform. " Tourne- fort," says Decandolle, " appears to have been the first who really perceived the utility of fixing the sense of terms 32 History of Scientific Ideas, Bk. VIII. ch. ii. 2. TERMINOLOGY 93 in such a way as always to employ the same word in the same sense, and always to express the same idea by the same word ; but it was Linnaeus who really created and fixed this botanical language, and this is his fairest claim to glory, for by this fixation of language he has shed clearness and precision over all parts of the science." ' It is not necessary here to give any detailed account of the terms of botany. The fundamental ones have been gradually introduced, as the parts of plants were more carefully and minutely examined. Thus the flower was successively distinguished into the calyx, the corolla, the stamens, and the pistils : the sections of the corolla were termed petals by Columna ; those of the calyx were called sepals by Necker. Sometimes terms of greater generality were devised ; as perianth to include the calyx and corolla, whether one or both of these were present; pericarp for the part inclosing the grain, of whatever kind it be, fruit, nut, pod, &c. And it may easily be imagined that descriptive terms may, by definition and combination, become very numerous and distinct. Thus leaves may be called pinnatifid, pinnatipartite, pinnatisect, pinnatilobate, palmatifid, palmatipartite, &c., and each of these words designates different combinations of the modes and extent of the divisions of the leaf with the divisions of its outline. In some cases arbitrary numerical relations are introduced into the definition : thus a leaf is called bilobate when it is divided into two parts by a notch; but, if the notch go to the middle of its length, it is bifid ; if it go near the base of the leaf, it is bipartite ; if to the base, it is bisect. 94 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION Thus, too, a pod of a cruciferous plant is a siliqua if it be four times as long as it is broad, but if it be shorter than this it is a silicula. Such terms being established, the form of the very complex leaf or frond of a fern is exactly conveyed by the following phrase : " fronds rigid pinnate, pinnae recurved subunilateral pinnatifid, the segments linear undivided or bifid spinuloso-serrate."' A Terminology, I have said, comprises the terms appropriated to express, not only the parts of objects, but also their properties. Thus, in the foregoing ex- ample, the words ' sepals,' ' petals,' &c., express parts of the plant, the words 'pinnatifid,' ' bilobate,' &c., which are applied to the shape of the leaves, express characters or properties. A complete terminology must be so con- structed as to express every shade of difference in all those properties which are recognised in a scientific treatment of the object. Thus, if colour be regarded as of importance in the description of a plant, mineral, &c., it is essential that there shall be some appropriate term by which to describe every shade of colour. But there are few terms which, from their mere signification, can call up any precise idea in the mind. Hence it is necessary to fix by convention the precise meaning of every technical term employed in science. Again, to appropriate the words of Dr. Whewell, ' The meaning of technical terms can be fixed in the first instance only by convention, and can be made intelligible only by presenting to the senses that which the terms are to signify. The knowledge of a colour by its name TERMINOLOGY 95 can only be taught through the eye. No description can convey to a hearer what we mean by apple-green or French grey. It might, perhaps, be supposed that, in the first example, the term apple, referring to so familiar an object, sufficiently suggests the colour in- tended. But it may easily be seen that this is not true; for apples are of many different hues of green, and it is only by a conventional selection that we can appropriate the term to one special shade. When this appropriation is once made, the term refers to the sen- sation, and not to the parts of this term ; for these enter into the compound merely as a help to the memory, whether the suggestion be a natural connexion as in "apple-green," or a casual one as in "French grey." In order to derive due advantage from technical terms of this kind, they must be associated immediately with the perception to which they belong ; and not connected with it through the vague usages of common language. The memory must retain the sensation ; and the tech- nical word must be understood as directly as the most familiar word, and more distinctly. When we find such terms as tin-white or pinchbeck-brown, the metallic colour so denoted ought to start up in our memory without delay or search 33 .' When we have fixed, by convention, the meaning of a term, it must invariably be employed in this sense, and in no other. The least vagueness or inconsistency in the use of terms may interpose a fatal obstacle in the way, not only of the learners, but 33 History of Scientific Ideas, Bk. VIII. ch. ii. 2. 96 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION even of the promoters of a science. The progress of the Mechanical Sciences and of what are commonly called Physics was long retarded by the vague and unintelligent use of such words as ' heavy/ ' light/ ' hot/ ' cold/ ' moist/ ' dry/ &c. Even still such words as ' force/ ' fluid/ ' attraction/ ' ether/ &c., are often employed without sufficient precision. A Terminology, as remarked by Dr. Whewell 34 , is in- dispensably requisite in giving fixity to a Nomenclature. Thus, in Botany, ' the recognition of the kinds of plants must depend upon the exact comparison of their re- semblances and differences ; and, to become a part of permanent science, this comparison must be recorded in words.' Dr. Whewell devotes the last Book of his Novum Organon Renovatum to a series of aphorisms on the ' Language of Science/ including both Nomenclature and Terminology. These aphorisms afford one of the best examples of Dr. Whewell' s style and mode of treat- ment, and will well repay the attention of the student who is desirous of acquainting himself further with the methods of the Classificatory Sciences. Mr. Mill has some chapters (Logic, Bk. IV. chs. iii-vi) on ' Naming ' and the ' Requisites of a Philosophical Language/ and, in addition to the passage already referred to, Dr. Whe- well treats these subjects in his History of Scientific Ideas, Bk. I. ch. ii; Bk. VIII. ch. ii. 2 and 6; Bk. VIII. 84 Novum Organon Renovatum, Bk. IV. Aphorism ii. HYPOTHESIS 97 ch. iii. art. 5. In Mr. Bain's Inductive Logic, there is a special chapter (Bk. IV. ch. iii) on Classification, and another (Bk. V. ch. vi) on the Sciences of Classification. 3. On Hypothesis. When the mind has before it a number of observed facts, it is almost irresistibly driven to frame for itself some theory as to the mode of their co-existence or succession. It is from this irresistible impulse to refer to some law the various phenomena around us that all science as well as all scientific error has sprung. In some cases, as we have seen in the first chapter 35 , a single observation or experiment may at once establish a true theory or valid induction, independently of any previous suppositions on our part. But, in all the more intricate branches of enquiry, true theories have usually been preceded by a number of false ones, and it has not unfrequently occurred that the false theories have been mainly instrumental in conducting to the true. Thus, the elliptical theory of planetary motion was preceded by the circular theory, with its various modifications, and the undulatory theory of light by the emission theory. Rather than rest satisfied with a number of disconnected facts, men have often imagined the most absurd relations between phenomena, such as that a comet was the har- binger of war, or that the future could be foretold by birds. These theories, assumptions, or suppositions, when employed provisionally in scientific enquiry and 35 See pp. ii, 12. H 98 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION falling short of ascertained truths, are called hypotheses, and have already been alluded to in the first chapter. The word ' hypothesis/ as commonly employed, is ex- clusive of propositions which rest upon absolute proof, whether inductive or deductive, and is generally used in contradistinction to them. Thus, we speak of a science being only in a hypothetical stage, or of a hypothesis being converted into an induction or being brought deductively under some general law already ascertained to be true. On the other hand, we should hardly dignify with the name of ' hypothesis' a supposition which, at least in the eyes of its framer, did not possess some amount of plausibility. A hypothesis 36 may be de- scribed as a supposition made without evidence or without sufficient evidence, in order that we may deduce from it conclusions agreeing with actual facts. If these conclu- sions are correctly deduced, and really agree with the facts, a presumption arises that the hypothesis is true. More- over, if the hypothesis relates to the cause, or mode of production of a phenomenon, it will serve, if admitted, to explain such facts as are found capable of being de- duced from it. And this explanation is the purpose of many, if not most, hypotheses. Explanation, in the scientific sense, means the reduction of a series of facts which occur uniformly but are not connected by any known law of causation into a series which is so con- nected, or the reduction of complex laws of causation 16 The following sentences, to the end of the paragraph, are slightly altered from Mr. Mill's Logic, Uk. III. ch. xiv. 4. HYPOTHESIS 99 into simpler laws. If no such laws of causation are known to exist, we may suppose or imagine a law that would fulfil the requirement ; and this supposed law would be a hypothesis. A hypothesis may be serviceable in many ways. In the first place, it may afford a solution, more or less probable, of a problem which is incapable of any definite solution, or which, at least, has not yet been definitely solved. Thus, many of the advocates of the Darwinian hypothesis maintain that it is the most probable solution of an insoluble problem. Secondly, what was at first started as a hypothesis may ultimately be established by positive proof, as has been the case with the elliptical theory of planetary motion, and, as many suppose, with the undulatory theory of light. Thirdly, even though a hypothesis may ultimately be discovered to be false, it may be of great service in pointing the way to a truer theory. Thus, as already remarked, the circular theory of planetary motion, and the supplementary theory of epicycles and eccentrics, undoubtedly contributed to the formation of the hypothesis which was eventually proved to be true. Kepler himself tried no less than nineteen different hypotheses, before he hit upon the right one, and his ultimate success was doubtless in no slight degree due to his unsuccessful efforts. There is hardly any branch of science in which it might not be affirmed that, without a number of false guesses, true theories could never have been attained. Lastly, a hypothesis, whether true or false, if it be applicable to all the H 2 100 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION known facts, serves as a means of binding those facts together, of colligating them, to use a technical phrase, and thus, by presenting them under one point of view, plainly marks off the phenomena to be explained. A theory, like the Phlogistic theory in Chemistry, or the theory of epicycles and eccentrics (which, by being sufficiently extended, might have been made to include all the phenomena of planetary motion), may thus have been of the greatest service in the history of science, simply by keeping before the minds of investigators the precise phenomena which demanded an explanation. The formation of hypotheses is obviously the work of the imaginative faculty, a faculty of hardly less importance in science than in art. To lay down rules for the ex- ercise of this faculty has hitherto been found futile. The object of Inductive Logic is rather to restrain the ex- uberant, than to excite the sluggish, imagination. The latter office is best fulfilled by recounting the great achievements of science, and thus arousing the ambition and kindling the enthusiasm of her votaries. The former (which is no less necessary) may be promoted by de- termining the conditions to which a hypothesis must conform, in order that it may rank as a provisional explanation of facts, and before it is entitled to demand the honours of a rigorous inductive examination. These conditions may be reduced to three : I. The hypothesis must not be known or suspected to be untrue, that is to say, it must not be inconsistent with facts already ascertained or the inferences to which they HYPOTHESIS 101 lead 3T . It would be absurd, for instance, in the present state of knowledge, to propose design or compact as the cause of the divergences which are found in the various dialects of a language, or to suppose the heavenly bodies to move in perfect circles. So simple a rule as this may appear, to be superfluous, but it seems necessary to include it in the conditions to which a hypothesis must conform, as, otherwise, a perverted ingenuity might suc- ceed in framing numberless hypotheses which violated none of the preliminary conditions. II. The hypothesis must be of such a character as Jo admit of verification or disproof, or at least of being rendered more or less probable, by subsequent investiga- tions 28 . Unless this restriction were placed on the for- mation of hypotheses, there would be no limit to the wildness of conjecture in which theorists might indulge. 37 The explanation of this rule, contained in the latter clause of the sentence, has been suggested by Mr. Jevons 1 chapter on the Use of Hypothesis, a chapter which may be read with advantage by the student. His second condition of a legitimate hypothesis, which corresponds with my first, is expressed thus : ' That it do not con- flict with any laws of nature, or of mind, which we hold as true.' Principles of Science, vol. ii. p. 139. 38 It may occur to the student that I have not provided for the case where a supposition is already supported by a certain amount of probable evidence, but where it is not likely to be rendered more or less probable by further investigation. But such a supposition, though it would be an imperfect induction or deduction, could hardly be called a hypothesis, a term which seems always to imply some- thing provisional, something which, on further enquiry, may be either confirmed or weakened, rendered more or less probable than it now is. 102 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION It might, for instance, be maintained that falling bodies are dragged to the earth by the action of invisible spirits, and, wild as such a theory would be, there is nothing positively to disprove it. Granted that, like many other products of imagination, such a theory might possibly be true, it would still fall without the scope of science. The aim of science is proof, present or prospective, and consequently what neither admits of proof, nor, so far as we can foresee, is ever likely to admit of it, or even of ap- proximation to it, is no fitting object of scientific enquiry. As affording a caution against the unrestrained exercise of the imagination in scientific speculation, it may be useful to adduce a few instances of suppositions or hypotheses, which were probably considered as perfectly satisfactory by those who proposed them or amongst whom they were prevalent, which would now be regarded by all competent authorities as absurd, and which still do not admit of being distinctly disproved. It was once very generally held that the position of the planets with reference to the earth at any par- ticular moment determines not only the course of human events at that time, but the subsequent life of each person born under the ' conjuncture.' Such an absurd theory is now probably held by no single person of sound understanding ; but. so complicated is the web both of society and of individual life, and so easy would it be to explain ' apparent exceptions ' by having recourse to ' counteracting causes/ that, if any ingenious person were to maintain and defend this theory, it would probably HYPOTHESIS 103 be impossible to disprove it. Palmistry affords another instance of the same kind. The interlacing of the lines on the palms of the hands is said to indicate a man's ' fortunes.' Such a notion is too absurd to be discussed ; but, if maintained, how could it be disproved ? It might always be said that the general theory of palmistry was true, though there might be some error in the particular rules by which the ' fortune ' in question was foretold 39 . The early history of Geology is full of hypotheses of this kind. The following examples of theories, which no scientific man would now entertain, but which hardly admit of disproof, are extracted from Lyell's Principles of Geology : 'Andrea Mattioli, an eminent botanist, the illustrator of Dioscorides, embraced the notion of Agricola, a skilful German miner, that a certain " materia pinguis," or " fatty !9 The superstitions connected with dreams afford a similar in- stance : ' The ancients were convinced that dreams were usually supernatural. If the dream was verified, this was plainly a prophecy. If the event was the exact opposite of what the dream foreshadowed, the latter was still supernatural, for it was a recognised principle that dreams should sometimes be interpreted by contraries. If the dream bore no relation to subsequent events unless it were trans- formed into a fantastic allegory, it was still supernatural, for allegory was one of the most ordinary forms of revelation. If no ingenuity of interpretation could find a prophetic meaning in a dream, its supernatural character was even then not necessarily destroyed, for Homer said there was a special portal through which deceptive visions passed into the mind, and the Fathers declared that it was one of the occupations of the daemons to perplex and bewilder us with unmeaning dreams.' Lecky's History of European Morals, vol. i. p. 385. * Lyell's Principles of Geology, ch. iii. 104 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION matter," set into fermentation by heat, gave birth to fossil organic shapes. Yet Mattioli had come to the conclusion, from his own observations, that porous bodies, such as bones and shells, might be converted into stone, as being permeable to what he termed the " lapidifying juice." In like manner, Falloppio of Padua conceived that petrified shells were gene- rated by fermentation in the spots where they are found, or that they had in some cases acquired their form from " the tumultuous movements of terrestrial exhalations." Although celebrated as a professor of anatomy, he taught that certain tusks of elephants, dug up in his time in Apulia, were mere earthy concretions ; and, consistently with these principles, he even went so far as to consider it probable that the vases of Monte Testaceo at Rome were natural impressions stamped in the soil. In the same spirit, Mercati, who published, in 1574, faithful figures of the fossil shells preserved by Pope Sixtus V. in the Museum of the Vatican, expressed an opinion that they were mere stones, which had assumed their peculiar configuration from the influence of the heavenly bodies: and Olivi of Cremona, who described the fossil remains of a rich museum at Verona, was satisfied with considering them as mere " sports of nature." Some of the fanciful notions of those times were deemed less unreasonable, as being some- what in harmony with the Aristotelian theory of spontaneous generation, then taught in all the schools. For men who had been taught, in early youth, that a large proportion of living animals and plants was formed from the fortuitous concourse of atoms, or had sprung from the corruption of organic matter, might easily persuade themselves that organic shapes, often imperfectly preserved in the interior of solid rocks, owed their existence to causes equally obscure and mysterious.' ' As to the nature of petrified shells, Quirini conceived that, as earthy particles united in the sea to form the shells of mollusca, the same crystallizing process might be effected on the land ; and that, in the latter case, the germs of the HYPOTHESIS 105 animals might have been disseminated through the sub- stance of the rocks, and afterwards developed by virtue of humidity. Visionary as was this doctrine, it gained many proselytes even amongst the more sober reasoners of Italy and Germany ; for it conceded that the position of fossil bodies could not be accounted for by the diluvial theory.' It has been maintained by theologians, more ardent than discreet, that all fossils were the creations of the Devil, whose object was either to mimic the Almighty or to tempt mankind to disbelieve the Mosaic account of the creation. Such theories admit of no refutation ; every argument, grounded on the resemblance of fossil remains to living organisms, shows only more distinctly, to those who have once embraced the idea, the success of the alleged agent as a mimic or as an impostor. Other instances of hypotheses which violate this rule are afforded by the Vortices of Descartes and the Crystalline Spheres of the ancient astronomers, both of which were imagined for the purpose of accounting for the pheno- mena of planetary motion. Both of these hypotheses have been subsequently disproved by the free passage of comets through the spaces supposed to be occupied, according to the one theory, by the Vortices, according to the other, by the solid Crystalline Spheres. But at the time they were first started, there was no reasonable ground for supposing that, if untrue, they could be dis- proved, and, what is more important, there was no possibility of proving them or even rendering them more probable ; they were simply freaks of imagination, incapable of proof and, to all appearance, of disproof. 106 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION Another theory more absurd even than that of the solid crystalline spheres, but which has not, like that, been positively disproved, is the curious hypothesis by which Lodovico delle Colombe endeavoured to reconcile the Aristotelian doctrine that the moon was a perfect body with the recent discoveries of Galileo, who, by the aid of his telescope, had found that its surface was full of hollows, and was consequently charged by his enemies with taking a fiendish delight in distorting the fairest works of nature; the apparently hollow parts, suggested Lodovico, were filled with a pure transparent crystal, and so both the astronomer and the Stagirite were right. It will be observed that I regard hypotheses as ad- missible, even though they are not likely ever to be positively proved or disproved, provided that the ac- cumulation of further evidence is likely to render them more or less probable. Between such theories and the theories just exemplified, which are neither supported nor likely to be supported by any evidence whatever, there is the widest difference, and, while the one have no place in Science, the other, I conceive, have a legi- timate claim to further consideration. The ideal of Science, it is true, is proof; but, while it can never recognise mere freaks of fancy, it is often compelled to rest content with probabilities. Instances of hypo- theses such as I have in view are the Darwinian hypothesis and the Meteoric theory of the repair of Solar Heat, to be noticed presently. III. The hypothesis must be applicable to the descrip- HYPOTHESIS 107 tion or explanation of all the observed phenomena, and, if it assign a cause, must assign a cause fully adequate to have produced them. A hypothesis, which does not satisfy this requirement, may be at once rejected. Thus, when the circular theory of planetary motion was found inapplicable to describe several of the phenomena, it was rightly abandoned, and the theory of epicycles and eccentrics, which, though erroneous, was fully adequate to explain all the known phenomena, was substituted for it. One of the most familiar instances of an inadequate hypothesis is the theory started by Voltaire, there is little doubt in irony, that the marine shells found on the tops of mountains are Eastern species, dropped from the hats of pilgrims, as they returned from the Holy Land. Such a theory would obviously be inadequate to account (i) for the numbers of the shells, (2) for the fact that they are found imbedded in the rocks, (3) for their existence far away from the tracks of pilgrims, to say nothing of the fact that many of these shells bear no resemblance to recent Eastern species, while none resemble them exactly. The contrast between an adequate and an inadequate hypothesis is well illustrated by two of the rival hypo- theses by which it is attempted to account for the gener- ation and the maintenance of solar heat. These are respectively the Meteoric Theory and the Theory of Chemical Combustion. In speaking of the former theory, Professor Tyndall says 41 : 41 Heat a Mode of Motion, 3rd ed. 689-693. Sir William Thomson (better known now as Lord Kelvin), however, from various 108 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION ' I have already alluded to another theory, which, however bold it may at first sight appear, deserves our serious atten- tion the Meteoric Theory of the Sun. Kepler's celebrated statement, that " there are more comets in the heavens than fish in the ocean," implies that a small portion only of the total number of comets belonging to our system are seen from the earth. But besides comets, and planets, and moons, a numerous class of bodies belong to our system which, from their smallness, might be regarded as cosmical atoms. Like the planets and the comets, these smaller asteroids obey the law of gravity, and revolve in elliptic orbits round the sun. It is they which, when they come within the earth's atmo- sphere, and are fired by friction, appear to us as meteors and falling stars. ' On a bright night, twenty minutes rarely pass at any part of the earth's surface, without the appearance of at least one meteor. Twice a year (on the I2th of August and I4th of November) they appear in enormous numbers. During nine hours in Boston, when they were described as falling as thick as snowflakes, 240,000 meteors were observed. The number falling in a year might, perhaps, be estimated at hundreds or thousands of millions, and even these would constitute but a small portion of the total crowd of asteroids that circulate round the sun. From the phenomena of light and heat, and by direct observation on Encke's comet ' (the inference from which ' observation,' however, it may be remarked, is very doubtful), ' we learn that the universe is filled by a resisting considerations, arrived at the conclusion that ' the sun's expenditure [of heat], though originated, is not maintained by mechanical im- pact; the low rate of cooling and the consequent constancy of the emission being considered by him as due, in great part, to the high specific heat of the matter of the sun.' See Tyndall's Heat, &c., 701. Other physicists (see Young on the Sun, pp. 270-7) conjecture that the heat of the sun is partly due to its gradual contraction and the increase of temperature thus generated. HYPOTHESIS 109 medium, through the friction of which all the masses of our system are drawn gradually towards the sun. And though the larger planets show, in historic times, no diminution of their periods of revolution, it may be otherwise with the smaller bodies. In the time required for the mean distance of the earth to alter a single yard, a small asteroid may have approached thousands of miles nearer to the sun. ' Following up these reflexions, we should be led to the conclusion that, while an immeasurable stream of ponderable meteoric matter moves unceasingly towards the sun, it must augment in density as it approaches its centre of convergence. And here the conjecture naturally rises, whether that vast nebulous mass, the Zodiacal Light, which embraces the sun, may not be a crowd of meteors. It is at least proved that this luminous phenomenon arises from matter which circulates in obedience to planetary laws ; hence, the entire mass of the zodiacal light must be constantly approaching, and incessantly raining its substance down upon the sun. ' It is easy to calculate both the maximum and the minimum velocity, imparted by the sun's attraction to an asteroid circu- lating round him. The maximum is generated when the body approaches the sun from an infinite distance ; the entire full of the sun being then exerted upon it. The minimum is that velocity which would barely enable the body to revolve round the sun close to his surface. The final velocity of the former, just before striking the sun, would be 390 miles a second, that of the latter 276 miles a second. The asteroid, on striking the sun, with the former velocity, would develope more than 9000 times the heat generated by the combustion of an equal asteroid of solid coal ; while the shock, in the latter case, would generate heat equal to that of the combustion of up- wards of 4000 such asteroids. It matters not, therefore, whether the substances falling into the sun be combustible or not ; their being combustible would not add sensibly to the tremendous heat produced by their mechanical collision. 110 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION 'Here, then, we have an agency competent to restore his lost energy to the sun, and to maintain a temperature at his surface which transcends all terrestrial combustion. In the fall of asteroids we find the means of producing the solar light and heat. It may be contended that this showering down of matter necessitates the growth of the sun : it does so ; but the quantity necessary to maintain the observed calorific emission for 4000 years, would defeat the scrutiny of our best instruments. If the earth struck the sun, it would utterly vanish from perception ; but the heat developed by its shock would cover the expenditure of a century.' Of the other theory, Professor Tyndall says 42 : 'Sir William Thomson adduces the following forcible considerations to show the inadequacy of chemical com- bination to produce the sun's heat. " Let us consider," he says, " how much chemical action would be required to produce the same effects. . . . Taking the former estimate, 2781 thermal units 43 centigrade (each 1390 foot pounds) or 3,869,000 foot pounds, which is equivalent to 7000 horse- power, as the rate per second of emission of energy from every square foot of the sun's surface, we find that more than 0.42 of a pound of coal per second, 1500 Ibs. per hour, would be required to produce heat at the same rate. Now if all the fires of the whole Baltic fleet (this was written in 1854] were heaped up and kept in full combustion over one or two square yards of surface, and if the surface of a globe all round had every square yard so occupied, where could H Heat a Mode of Motion, 700. 43 The thermal unit is the quantity of heat necessary to raise the temperature of a pound of water one degree. If the degree be centi- grade, this is equivalent to the heat generated by a pound weight falling from a height of 1390 feet against the earth. The term foot- pound expresses the energy requisite to lift one pound to the height of a foot. HYPOTHESIS III a sufficient supply of air come from to sustain the com- bustion? Yet such is the condition we must suppose the sun to be in, according to the hypothesis now under con- sideration. ... If the products of combustion were gaseous, they would, in rising, check the necessary supplies of fresh air ; if they were solid and liquid (as they might be if the fuel were metallic), they would interfere with the supply of elements from belo'w. In either or in both ways, the fire would be choked, and I think it may be safely affirmed that no such fire could keep alight for more than a few minutes, by any conceivable adaptation of air and fuel. If the sun be a burning mass it must be more analogous to burning gunpowder than to a fire burning in air ; and it is quite conceivable that a solid mass, containing within itself all the elements required for combustion, provided the products of combustion are permanently gaseous, could burn off at its surface all round, and actually emit heat as copiously as the sun. Thus, an enormous globe of gun-cotton might, if at first cold, and once set on fire round its surface, get to a permanent rate of burning, in which any internal part would become heated sufficiently to ignite, only when nearly ap- proached by the burning surface. It is highly probable indeed that such a body might for a time" be as large as the sun and give out luminous heat as copiously, to be freely radiated into space, without suffering more absorption from its atmosphere of transparent gaseous products than the light of the sun actually does experience from the dense atmo- sphere through which it passes. Let us therefore consider at what rate such a body, giving out heat so copiously, would burn away ; the heat of combustion could probably not be so much as 4000 thermal units per pound of matter burned, the greatest thermal equivalent of chemical action yet ascertained falling considerably short of this. But 2781 thermal units (as found above) are emitted per second from each square foot of the sun ; hence there would be a loss of about 0.7 112 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION of a pound of matter per square foot per second ... or a layer half a foot thick in a minute, or 55 miles thick in a year. At the same rate continued, a mass as large as the sun is at present would burn away in 8000 years. If the sun has been burning at that rate in past time he must have been of double diameter, of quadruple heating power, and of eight- fold mass only 8000 years ago. We may therefore quite safely conclude that the sun does not get its heat by chemical action . . . and we must therefore look to the meteoric theory for fuel." ' A hypothesis which fulfils these three conditions is a legitimate hypothesis, though it must conform to still more rigorous requirements before it can be accepted as a complete Induction, or even be regarded as possessing any great amount of probability. Thus, the Meteoric Theory, though it is not yet proved, and perhaps never may be proved, to be the true explanation of the pheno- menon of solar heat, is perfectly tenable as a hypothesis. For, to take the conditions in the reverse order to that in which they have been enumerated above, the impact of a large number of meteors on a body of considerable density, such as the sun probably i, would be competent or adequate to produce the given effect ; the theory in question is likely, if not to be proved or disproved, at least to be rendered more or less probable by the progress of astronomical science ; lastly, we do not know, nor have we any reason to suppose, that the hypothesis is an untrue explanation of the facts. But, though legi- timate as a hypothesis, before we could accept the Meteoric theory as a Valid or Complete Induction, HYPOTHESIS 113 that is to say, an ascertained truth, we should require to know not only that there is a large number of meteors circulating round the sun, that these meteors have a tendency to fall into the central body, and that, if they were falling or had fallen in sufficient quantities, they would be competent or would have been competent to produce the present amount of solar heat, but also that they do, as a matter of fact, fall in sufficient quantities to account for the phenomenon, or, at least, that nothing else but the showering down of asteroids and meteors could account for it. It was by availing himself of the latter mode of proof that Newton demonstrated the existence in the sun of a central force attracting the planets towards it. Assuming Kepler's hypothesis (then sufficiently verified by obser- vation to be universally accepted as a true statement of the facts), that equal areas are described by the radii vectores of the planets in equal times, Newton showed that this fact could be due to only one cause, namely, the deflexion of the planets from their rectilinear course by a force acting in the direction of the sun's centre. The existence of the central force was, at first, started by him as a hypothesis. ' He then proved that,' on the supposition of the existence of such a force, ' the planet will describe, as we know by Kepler's first law that it does describe, equal areas in equal times ; and, lastly, he proved that, if the force acted in any other direction whatever, the planet would not describe equal areas in equal times. It being thus shown that no other hypo- i 114 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION thesis would accord with the facts, the assumption was proved ; the hypothesis became an inductive truth. Not only did Newton ascertain by this hypothetical process the direction of the deflecting force; he proceeded in exactly the same manner to ascertain the law of variation of the quantity of that force. He assumed that the force varied inversely as the square of the distance ; showed that from this assumption the remaining two of Kepler's laws might be deduced ; and, finally, that any other law of variation would give results inconsistent with those laws, and inconsistent, therefore, with the real motions of the planets, of which Kepler's laws were known to be a correct expression 4 V It will be noticed that the course of demonstration pursued in this instance is the following: (i) we have certain observed facts ; (2) these observed facts are generalised in what are called Kepler's Laws; (3) we have the assumption of the central force ; (4) it is shown that the central force will account for Kepler's Laws, and therefore, of course, for the particular facts of ob- servation on which those Laws were founded ; (5) it is shown (and this, together with the next step, is what properly constitutes the demonstration) that this assump- tion is the only one which will account for the Laws or the particular facts expressed by them ; (6) it is inferred inductively, by means of the Method of Difference (to be hereafter described), that the assumption of the central force, as it will account for, and is the only supposition " Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch. xiv. 4. HYPOTHESIS 115 which will account for, the observed facts, must be accepted as true; (7) Kepler's Laws (which had hitherto been accepted as correct statements of observed facts, though they had not yet been explained by reference to any cause competent to account for them) are now proved deductively from what we have ascertained to be the Valid Induction of the Central Force. A Hypothesis can only be converted into a Valid Induction 45 by the application of one or other of the Inductive Methods (to be described in the next Chapter), or, if we insist on strict accuracy of proof, of such of them as furnish absolutely certain conclusions. Note i. According to the view here taken, which agrees with that of Mr. Mill, a hypothesis cannot claim to be regarded as an established truth, till it has con- formed to the requirements of one or other of the inductive methods, or has been shown to admit of being deduced from some previously established In- duction. Thus, when Newton proves the existence of a central force, deflecting the planets from the recti- lineal course which they would otherwise describe and 45 Though a hypothesis is usually contrasted with a Valid or Complete Induction, it must not be forgotten that we have admitted, as legitimate, hypotheses which are never likely to rest on more than probable evidence. These can, of course, receive accessions of proof only by the same means as those by which we establish Imperfect Inductions. It should also be remembered that the truth of a hypothesis may be demonstrated by deductive as well as by induc- tive methods. I 2 Il6 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION making them describe curves round the sun, by showing that no other supposition would account for the fact that their radii vectores describe equal areas in equal times, he is, as Mr. Mill says, employing the Method of Difference. The demonstration ' affords the two instances, ABC, a b c and B C, b c, A represents central force ; A B C, the planets plus a central force ; B C, the planets as they would be without a central force. The planets with a central force give a (areas proportional to the times), {together with other effects be}; the planets without a central force give b c (a set of motions) without a. This is the Method of Difference in all its strictness. It is true, the two instances which the method requires are obtained in this case, not by experiment, but by a prior deduction. But that is of no consequence. It is immaterial what is the nature of the evidence from which we derive the as- surance that ABC will produce a b c, and B C only b c ; it is enough that we have that assurance. In the present case, a process of reasoning furnished Newton with the very instances, which, if the nature of the case had ad- mitted of it, he would have sought by experiment 4G .' Dr. Whewell, who does not acknowledge the utility of Mr. Mill's methods, appears to regard the inductive pro- cess as consisting simply in the framing of successive hypotheses, the comparison of these hypotheses with the ascertained facts of nature, and the introduction into 46 Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch. xiv. 4. I have slightly altered this passage, as it stands in Mill, and as it stood in my earlier editions, so as to make it plainer to the student. HYPOTHESIS 117 them of such modifications as that comparison may render necessary 47 . The first requisite in a hypothesis, according to Dr. Whewell, is that it shall explain all the observed facts. But its probability, he urges, will be considerably enhanced, if, in addition to explaining observed facts, it' enables us to predict the future. ' Thus the hypotheses which we accept ought to explain phenomena which we have observed. But they ought to do more than this: our hypotheses ought to foretell phenomena which have not yet been observed ; at least all phenomena of the same kind as those which the hypothesis was invented to explain. For our assent to the hypothesis implies that it is held to be true of all particular instances. That these cases belong to past or to future times, that they have or have not already occurred, makes no difference in the applicability of the rule to them. Because the rule prevails, it includes all cases ; and will determine them all, if we can only cal- culate its real consequences. Hence it will predict the results of new combinations, as well as explain the ap- pearances which have occurred in old ones. And that it does this with certainty and correctness, is one mode in which the hypothesis is to be verified as right and useful 4 V * 7 A theory of Induction almost identical with that of Dr. Whewell (though, I venture to suggest, not so clearly stated or so carefully guarded) has been recently propounded by Professor Stanley Jevons in his Principles of Science. This theory, together with other points of difference between Professor Jevons and myself, I have noticed in the Preface to the third edition, reprinted in the present one. * 8 Novum Organon Renovatum, Bk. II. ch. v. art. 10. Il8 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION Curiously enough, the first hypothesis which Dr. Whewell cites, as having fulfilled both these conditions, is also one which eventually proved to be false. ' For example, the Epicyclical Theory of the heavens was confirmed by its predicting truly eclipses of the sun and moon, configurations of the planets, and other celestial phenomena ; and by its leading to the con- struction of Tables by which the places of the heavenly bodies were given at every moment of time. The truth and accuracy of these predictions were a proof that the hypothesis was valuable, and, at least to a great extent, true ; although, as was afterwards found, it involved a false representation of the structure of the heavens.' A theory may thus not only enable us to explain known facts, but even to predict the future, and still be untrue. Notwithstanding, however, the infelicitous character of the example selected, Dr.Whewell attaches the greatest impor- tance to the fulfilment of this condition by a hypothesis. ' Men cannot help believing that the laws laid down by discoverers must be in a great measure identical with the real laws of nature, when the discoverers thus determine effects beforehand in the same manner in which nature herself determines them when the occasion occurs. Those who can do this must, to a considerable extent, have detected nature's secret ; must have fixed upon the con- ditions to which she attends, and must have seized the rules by which she applies them. Such a coincidence of untried facts with speculative assertions cannot be the work of chance, but implies some large portion of truth HYPOTHESIS 119 in the principles on which the reasoning is founded. To trace order and law in that which has been observed, may be considered as interpreting what nature has written down for us, and will commonly prove that we under- stand her alphabet. But to predict what has not been observed, is to attempt ourselves to use the legislative phrases of nature ; and, when she responds plainly and precisely to that which we thus utter, we cannot but sup- pose that we have in a great measure made ourselves masters of the meaning and structure of her language. The prediction of results, even of the same kind as those which have been observed, in new cases, is a proof of real success in our inductive processes.' But what appears to Dr. Whewell to establish the truth of a hypothesis beyond all question is what he calls a Consilience of Inductions. ' We have here spoken of the prediction of facts of I he same kind as those from which pur rule was collected. But the evidence in favour of our induction is of a much higher and more forcible character when it enables us to explain and determine cases of a kind different from those which were contemplated in the formation of our hypothesis. The instances in which this has occurred, indeed, impress us with a conviction that the truth of our hypothesis is certain. No accident could give rise to such an extraordinary coincidence. No false supposition could, after being adjusted to one class of phenomena, exactly represent a different class, where the agreement was unforeseen and uncontemplated. That rules springing from remote and unconnected quarters 120 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION should thus leap to the same point, can only arise from that being the point where truth resides. 'Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether different have thus jumped together, belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains. And, as I shall have occasion to refer to this peculiar feature in their evidence, I will take the liberty of describing it by a particular phrase; and will term it the Consilience of Inductions. ' It is exemplified principally in some of the greatest discoveries. Thus it was found by Newton that the doctrine of the Attraction of the Sun varying according to the Inverse Square of the distance, which explained Kepler's Third Law, of the proportionality of the cubes of the [mean] distances to the squares of the periodic times of the planets, explained also his First and Second Laws, of the elliptical motion of each planet ; although no connexion of these law : s had been visible before. Again, it appeared that the force of Universal Gravitation, which had been inferred from the Perturbations of the moon and planets by the sun and by each other, also accounted for the fact, apparently altogether dissimilar and remote, of the Precession of the equinoxes. Here was a most striking and surprising coincidence, which gave to the theory a stamp of truth beyond the power of ingenuity to counterfeit 49 .' It is undeniable that a theory which thus appears to afford an explanation of different classes of facts strikes 49 Novum Organon Renovatum, Bk. II. ch. v. art. n. HYPOTHESIS 121 the imagination with considerable force, and that its very simplicity furnishes primd fade evidence of its truth. But what is required before a hypothesis can be placed beyond suspicion is formal proof, and that, it appears to me, is furnished by Mr. Mill's 'methods/ and not by Dr. Whewell's requisitions of explanation, prediction, and consilience of indue/ions. For the questions at issue between Mr. Mill and Dr. Whewell, see Whewell's Novum Organon Rcnovatum (where his views are stated in their latest and most matured form), Bk. II. ch. v. 3, and Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch. xiv. 6. Note 2. In attempting to determine the conditions to which a legitimate hypothesis must conform, I have avoided the employment of the expressions vera causa and adcequata causa. In the first place, a hypothesis may simply attempt to find a general expression for a number of isolated facts without referring them to any cause, as was the case with the various hypotheses respecting the shape of the planetary orbits, and hence to speak as if a hypothesis always assigned a cause is an undue limita- tion of the meaning of the word. But to the expression vera causa there is a more special exception. Its meaning is ambiguous. Is it the actual cause which produces a phenomenon, or a cause which we know to be actually existent, or a cause analogous to an existent cause ? The student will find a criticism of this expression (first employed by Newton) in Dr. Whewell's Philosophy of Discovery, ch. xviii. 5, &c. The expression cannot 122 PROCESSES SUBSIDIARY TO INDUCTION have been used in the first, which is its most obvious, sense, for, as Dr. Whewell says, 'although it is the philosopher's aim to discover such causes, he would be little aided in his search of truth, by being told that it is truth which he is to seek.' But in the second of the two remaining senses, the requirement, as would now be generally acknowledged, is too stringent, and, if it had been invariably observed, would have prevented us from reaping some of the greatest discoveries in science, while in the last it is so vague as to be of no practical service. It has been attempted to affix other meanings to the phrase ; but there can be little doubt that Newton, having in mind the Vortices of Descartes, intended to protest against the introduction of causes of whose ex- istence we have no direct knowledge, and consequently laid down a rule, which the subsequent history of science has shown to be needlessly stringent. Note 3. We sometimes find the expression a 'gra- tuitous hypothesis.' By this phrase is meant the assump- tion of an unknown cause, when the phenomenon is capable of being explained by the operation of known causes, or the introduction of an extraneous (though it may be known) cause, when the phenomenon is capable of being accounted for by the causes already known to be in operation. Of the latter case we should have instances, where a man is supposed to have acted at the suggestion of another, though his own motives would supply a sufficient explanation of his conduct, or where HYPOTHESIS 123 a man is supposed to have been poisoned, though he was already known to have been suffering from a fatal disease. Of the former case we should have instances in the crystalline spheres of the ancient astronomers and in the masses of crystal which were supposed by Lodovico delle Colombe to fill up the cavities of the moon (there being no instances known to us of the existence of crystal in these huge masses, and the phenomena being capable of explanation without making the supposition); in the caloric (which was supposed to be a distinct substance) of the early writers on heat ; in the ' electrical fluid ' of the early electricians ; and in the diroppotai of Democritus or the ' intentional species ' of the Peripatetics, which, being invented for the purpose of explaining the per- ception of material objects by the mind, were themselves equally in need of explanation. In all these instances, under whichever of the two cases they may fall, the objection to the hypothesis is that it seems ' not to be needed.' I have said nothing of 'gratuitous hypotheses' in the text, as a hypothesis, though it may appear to be gra- tuitous, may still be legitimate, and may even ultimately turn out to be true. CHAPTER III On the Indiictive Methods. INDUCTION has been defined to be a legitimate inference from the known to the unknown. But the unknown must not be entirely unknown. It must be known to agree in certain circumstances with the known, and it is in virtue of this agreement that the inference is made. Now, how are we to ascertain what are the common circumstances which justify the inductive infer- ence ? X and Y may both agree in exhibiting the circum- stances a, b, c, but it will not follow because X exhibits the quality m, that therefore this quality will also neces- sarily be found in Y. Nor even, if twenty, thirty, a hundred, or a thousand cases could be adduced in which the circumstances a, b, c were found to be accompanied by the circumstance m, would it follow necessarily (it might not even follow probably) that the next case in which we detected the circumstances a, b, c would also exhibit the quality m. We might pass through a field con- taining thousands of blue hyacinths, but this fact would not justify us in expecting that the next time we saw INDUCTIVE METHODS 125 a hyacinth, it would be a blue one. This form of induc- tion (Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicerti) may have no value whatever. In most cases, the condemnation passed on it by Bacon 1 is perfectly just: 'Inductio quse pro- cedit per enumerationem simplicem res puerilis est, et precario concludit, et periculo exponitur ab instantia con- tradictoria, et plerumque secundum pauciora quam par est, et ex his tantummodo qure proesto sunt, pronunciat.' But, when we have reason to think that any instances to the contrary, if there were such, would be known to us, the argument may possess considerable value, and when, as in the case of the Laws of Causation and of the Uniformity of Nature, we feel certain, from a wide and uncontra- dicted experience, that there are no cases to the contrary, no stronger argument (to us individually) can be adduced. It is not often, however, that an Inductio per Enumera- tionem Simplicem can afford us this certainty 2 . Our trustworthy inductions are, in the majority of cases, the result of our detecting some fact of causation among the observed phenomena. We find, for instance, that, amongst the observed phenomena, a, b, c, d of X, a is the cause of c, and, consequently, if we observe the phenomenon a in Y, we infer that, if there are no counteracting cir- cumstances, Y will possess the quality c as well ; or, if we 1 Novum Organum, Lib. I. aph. cv. 3 It must be remembered that a complete enumeration of instances, when we know the enumeration to be complete, inasmuch as it leaves no room for an inference from the known to the unknown, does not furnish an inductive but a deductive argument. See Elements of De ductive Logic, Part III. ch. i. appended Note 2. 126 INDUCTIVE METHODS observe the phenomenon c in Y, we infer that it is not unlikely 3 that a may be present as well. The problem of Induction, therefore, resolves itself (except in the cases in which we may legitimately employ Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem, or the cases in which we have no other resource) into the problem of detecting facts of Causation. Certain rules for this purpose have been laid down by Mr. Mill, called by him the Experimental Methods, but which I shall describe as the Inductive Methods. These Methods, it will be noticed as we proceed, are all methods of elimination, or devices by which we are enabled to argue from a comparatively small number of instances with the same certainty as if they were ever so numerous. Before proceeding to state and explain these Rules or Methods, it may be useful to make some preliminary remarks on the nature of the causal relations which subsist among phenomena. (1) The same cause, unless there are counteracting circumstances, that is, other causes which prevent it from acting or which modify its action, is invariably followed by the same effect. (2) As already shown (Chapter I. pp. 13-16), several causes may have co-operated in producing any given effect. In this case, it is not unusual to speak of the ' combination of causes ' or the ' sum of the causes.' 3 I say 'not unlikely,' for c might be due to some other cause as well as a, and, therefore, the presence of c does not enable us to infer with certainty the presence of a, as does that of a the presence of c. INDUCTIVE METHODS 127 (3) The same effect may be due to several distinct causes, or combinations of causes, being due sometimes to one and sometimes to another, and, hence, though we may always argue from a particular cause to its effect, we cannot always argue from an effect to any particular cause. Thus, ignition may be due, not only to the con- centration of the rays of solar heat, but also to friction, electricity, &c. This fact has given occasion to the expression ' Plurality of Causes,' for which a recent writer (Mr. Carveth Read) has proposed to substitute the expression ' Vicariousness of Causes,' in order to distinguish clearly the case of alternative from that of co-operating or concurrent causes, noticed in the last paragraph *. * It is sometimes doubted whether the same effect is ever really due to different causes, and it may be conceded, I think, that dif- ferent causes never do produce precisely the same aggregate of effects. Together with certain common effects, they produce certain divergent effects, and it is the presence of these, indeed, that enables us to determine the particular cause which has been at work in the par- ticular instance. There is, however, nothing in this circumstance inconsistent with the occurrence of some one or more effects common to all the causes. Thus, the whole group of effects produced severally by heat, electricity, impact, differs widely, but, at the same time, the motion of a needle may be a common part of the effect in all three instances, and, when we see the needle in motion, we may be unable to say to which of the three causes motion is due. Similar considerations may be applied to the cases of ignition, and death, which are favourite illustrations of the operation of a plurality of causes. Taking A, B, C, D as causes or combinations of causes, and a, b, c, &c. as individual portions of the aggregate effects produced by the causes, we may conceive A as producing a be de, B as pro- 128 INDUCTIVE METHODS (4) It frequently happens that between the original cause and the ultimate effect there intervene a number of intermediate causes. Thus, suppose we make an experiment by which motion is converted into heat, heat into electricity, and electricity into chemical affinity; we may, roughly speaking, say that motion has been the cause of the chemical affinity, or chemical affinity the effect of the motion, but, speaking strictly, we ought to enumerate the intervening causes. (5) Sometimes a number of effects appear to be produced simultaneously by the same cause. Thus, it would appear that there are many cases in which, if one of the agents, motion, heat, light, electricity, magnetism, and chemical affinity, is excited, the rest are developed simul- ducing d ef g h, C as producing c d e i k /, D as producing c in n o. In this case, e may be regarded as an effect due to any one of the causes A, B, C, D, though the ' attendant circumstances,' as they are often called, are widely different in each instance. If, therefore, we were to state the doctrine of Plurality or ' Vicariousness ' of Causes exactly, we should say, not that the same effect may be due to dif- ferent causes, but that, of the total effects due to different causes, a certain portion is often found to be common to all. For purposes of practice, however, the ordinary mode of statement is sufficiently precise. It seems hardly necessary to remark that it is no valid objection to the doctrine of Plurality of Causes that we are sometimes able to detect between the alternative causes and the identical effect some set of conditions which is the same in all cases. This discovery only removes the plurality of causation one step further back, and the doctrine can only be consistently denied by those who maintain that at no single point in the series of receding causes can we find the same effect produced, or capable of being produced, by distinct causes. INDUCTIVE METHODS 129 taneously & . These simultaneous effects, whether we conceive that they are really or only apparently simul- taneous, would be called joint or common effects of the cause. Similarly the expression 'joint effects' would be employed for the effects produced by the same cause on different bodies, or different portions of the same body. Thus, if a blow bruises my forehead, and at the same time gives me a headache, the bruise and the headache may be called joint effects of the blow. These joint effects may be, as it were, in different degrees of descent from the same cause. Thus, if the headache incapacitates me for work, my incapacity for work and the bruise on my forehead will be joint effects, but in different degrees of descent from the original cause. Any phenomena which are connected, either as cause and effect, and that either immediately or remotely, or as joint effects, and that either in the same or in different degrees of descent from the same cause, may be spoken of as being causally connected, or as causal relations, or as being related to one another through some fact of causation. I now proceed to the statement of the Inductive Methods. 5 See Grove's Correlation of Physical Forces, Concluding Remarks. What Sir W. Grove calls ' Force ' would now be denominated ' Energy,' and the doctrine of the ' Correlation of Physical Forces ' would be subsumed under that of the ' Conservation of Energy.' 130 INDUCTIVE METHODS METHOD OF AGREEMENT. CANON 6 . If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investi- gation have only one other circumstance in common, that circumstance may be regarded, with more or less of proba- bility, as the cause (or effect} of the given phenomenon, or, at 'least, as connected with it through some fact of causation. Wherever the phenomenon a is found, we observe that b is found, either invariably or frequently 7 , in conjunction with it. This fact leads us to suspect that there is some causal connexion between them. On what grounds, and under what circumstances, are we justified in drawing such an inference ? And what is the particular character of the inference which we are justified in drawing ? The answer to these questions involves many difficulties, of which I shall now attempt to offer a solution. When antecedents and consequents are discriminated in this discussion, antecedents will be represented by Roman capitals, A, B, C, &c., and consequents by Greek characters, a, /?, y, &c. When circumstances are not distinguished as antecedents and consequents, I shall employ the small Roman letters, a, b, c, &c, 6 The statement of the Canons is taken, with some modifications, from Mr. Mill's Logic. The authorities for the various examples, when these are not of a familiar character, are cited at the foot of the page. 7 I add ' or frequently,' as it is not necessary that the conjunction should be invariable. The student need not, however, at present trouble himself with this distinction, which will be fully explained below. See pp. 137-8, 145-7. METHOD OF AGREEMENT 131 Now, suppose that we have A B followed by a ft, and A C by a y ; it might, at first sight, appear that A must be the cause of a, or, if we were attempting to ascertain the effect of a given cause (which, however, is a much rarer application of this method), that a must be the effect of A. And there is much plausibility in this sup- position, for, provided that all the other circumstances remain the same, whatever can, in any given instance, be excluded, or, to use the technical term, eliminated without prejudice to a phenomenon, cannot have any influence on it in the way of causation, nor, making the same proviso, can an effect which disappears be due to a cause which continues to operate. Thus, if we were attempting to find the cause of a given effect a, it might be argued that B cannot be its cause, for it is absent in one of the cases where a is present, and similarly of C ; but that a must be due to some cause; and, consequently, it is due to A, the only antecedent remaining. Or, if we were attempting to find the effect of a given cause A, it might be argued that /8 cannot be its effect, for it is absent in one of the cases where A is present, and simi- larly of y ; but that, as a has been permanently present, A must be its cause. If it were not for the fact that the same event may be due to a great number of distinct causes (as is exemplified in the familiar cases of motion, death, disease, &c.), this reasoning would be perfectly just. Now it will be observed that, when B was re- moved, it was replaced by C. It is, therefore, conceivable that a may have been due to B in the first instance, and K 2 132 INDUCTIVE METHODS to C in the second, it being, of course, in each case, only a portion of the effect, the remaining portions being re- spectively /?, y, and A having been throughout inoperative. This consideration, it is plain, vitiates the reasoning, whether we are attempting to discover the effect of a given cause or the cause of a given effect. Thus, suppose that there are two distinct drugs,, either of which is potent to remove a given disease, and that, in administering each of them, we mix it with some perfectly inert sub- stance, which is the same in each case ; if the principles of the above reasoning were correct, and we were justified in neglecting to take account of what may be called the Plurality of Causes, we should be at liberty to argue (if we were seeking the cause of a given effect) that the restoration of the patients to health was, in each case, due to the inert substance, or (if we were seeking the effect of a given cause) that the inert substance was the cause of their restoration to health. But, if the Method of Agreement is open to so serious an objection, it may be asked on what grounds is it recognised as an Inductive Method ? The answer is that, by the multiplication and variation of instances, the possible error due to the Plurality of Causes may be rendered less and less probable, till, at last, for all practical purposes, it may be regarded as having disap- peared. Thus, if to the instances A B, a/3 ; A C, ay ; we can add A D, a8 ; A E, ae, &c. &c. ; it is plain that we may, at each step, be very considerably diminishing the possibility of an error in our reasoning, and, after a METHOD OF AGREEMENT 133 certain number of instances, may be justified in feeling morally certain that we have avoided it. It is not likely that, in a number of instances, each agreeing in some one circumstance (besides the phenomenon which is being investigated) but differing as widely as possible in all other circumstances, the same event should in each case, or in a majority of cases, or in even a great number of cases, be due to different causes. The chance of an inert substance being successively mixed with two potent drugs, and of the effects which are really due to them being erroneously ascribed to it, is, in the present state of medical science, but a very slight one ; but the prob- ability is obviously considerably diminished, if instead of two such errors we suppose three, instead of three we suppose four, and so on. For the sake of simplicity, I have assumed groups of two antecedents and two consequents (A B, a/?; A C, ay ; &c. &c.), but it is extremely seldom that we find in nature combinations so simple. We have usually a vast mass of antecedents and a vast mass of consequents (or, to state the same proposition in more scientific lan- guage, a vast mass of antecedents all, or most of them, contributing to a complex effect), and hence it often becomes a matter of extreme difficulty to discover a collection of instances which, presenting the phenomenon in question, agree in only one other circumstance or even in a small number of other circumstances. The diffi- culty, therefore, of rigidly satisfying the requirements of the Method must be added to what Mr. Mill calls its 134 INDUCTIVE METHODS characteristic imperfection, namely, the uncertainty at- taching to its conclusions from the consideration of the Plurality of Causes. But there is still a third difficulty incident to the Method of Agreement, which however is, in a majority of cases, of a theoretical rather than a practical nature. If we insisted literally on the fulfilment of the condition that the instances presenting the given phenomenon should have only one other circumstance in common, it would be simply impossible to find such instances. All instances will be found to agree in a number of circum- stances which are immaterial to the point under inves- tigation. Thus, if we are enquiring into the properties of a group of external objects, they will all agree in the fact that they are subject to the action of gravity, and probably also in the facts that they are surrounded by atmospheric air and exposed to the light of the sun ; but, if these facts do not affect the subject of our enquiry, we may pass them over as if they had no existence. When, therefore, we employ the expression ' only one circum- stance in common,' we must be understood to mean 'only one material circumstance/ and to exclude all circumstances which a wide experience or previous in- ductions have shown to be immaterial to the question before us. It need hardly be added that, in forming this judgment as to the material or immaterial character of the circumstances, the greatest caution is often required. But, suppose we have ascertained (when enquiring into the cause of a given effect) that the instances agree METHOD OF AGREEMENT 135 in only one antecedent (or rather one material ante- cedent), namely A, and that we have so multiplied and varied the instances as to have satisfied ourselves that we have excluded the possibility of a Plurality of Causes, are we justified in drawing the inference that A is the cause of a? We are so justified, for a must be due to something which went before it, and, as it has been shown that it is not due to any of the other antecedents, it must be due to A. Similarly, if our object be to enquire into the effect of a given cause A, we are justified, if we discover a consequent a, of which we can assure ourselves that it is not due to any of the other antecedents, in regarding it as the effect of A. Hitherto, we have supposed the antecedents and con- sequents to be discriminated. But, suppose that we have a number of phenomena abcde, adefg, &c., in which we cannot discriminate them, how will the conclusions of the Method of Agreement be affected ? There will, as in the former cases, obviously be the difficulties arising from Plurality of Causes, and the complexity of the phenomena. Supposing, however, these to be overcome, and two circumstances only, a and b, to have been ascer- tained to be common to all the instances, what conclusion shall we be justified in drawing with reference to the connexion between a and b? It is only reasonable to suppose that they must be causally connected in some way, else their connexion would be a mere casual coincidence : a supposition which we assume to have been excluded by the number and variety of the in- 136 INDUCTIVE METHODS stances examined. But they need not necessarily stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect, for they may be common effects (in the same, or in different de- grees of descent) of some cause which has itself ceased to operate. In social and physiological phenomena this is frequently the case. A disease will leave effects behind it which will continue to co-exist for years after the disease itself has passed away, and which, though not standing to each other in the relation of cause and effect, are thus causally connected. The social condition of any old country is, to a great extent, an aggregate of such effects, the original cause or causes of which have long ceased to have any existence. It should be noticed that the Method of Agreement is mainly, though not exclusively, a Method of Observation rather than of Experiment, and that it is applied far more frequently for the purpose of enquiring into the causes of given effects than into the effects of given causes. The reason of this peculiarity is that in trying an experiment, or in enquiring into the effect of a given cause, we are generally able to employ one of the other Methods, which, as will be seen hereafter, are not exposed to the same difficulties as the Method of Agreement. It should also be noticed that where, after a careful elimination and an examination of a sufficiently large number of instances, we have, instead of two, some three, four, or more circumstances common to all the instances, we may, with much probability, regard them all, unless we know or suspect any of them to be immaterial cir- METHOD OF AGREEMENT 137 cumstances, as being causally connected. If the common circumstances be a, b, c, d, this is all that we can infer. But, if they be A, B, C, a, we may infer that the cause of a is certainly either A or B or C, or some two of them acting jointly, or all acting together, while those common antecedents, which do not either constitute or contribute to the cause, probably stand in some causal relation to it, and consequently to its effect a. Similar conclusions may be drawn, if the common circumstances left after elimination be A, a, (3, y. Thus, for instance, a, (3, y might all be joint effects of A, or a might be its im- mediate effect, and /?, y effects of a, and so on. It is perhaps not superfluous to remind the student that, in the application of this Method, he should be peculiarly careful not to overlook any instance in which the given phenomenon is unaccompanied by the other circumstance. Such an instance should at once lead him to suspect that some third common circumstance, which may be the true cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon, has escaped his attention, but this, if it be the case, does not necessarily vitiate his conclusion. If the given phe- nomenon be the consequent, and this other circumstance the antecedent, such an instance may only point to some other and independent cause of the phenomenon in ad- dition to the cause he supposes himself to have ascer- tained. If, on the other hand, the given phenomenon be the antecedent, and this other circumstance the con- sequent, such an instance may only point to a counter- acting cause which, in this exceptional case, frustrates 138 INDUCTIVE METHODS the supposed effect. The only condition essential to an application of the Method of Agreement is that the cases on which the inference is founded shall pre- sent only two circumstances in common. It is not necessary that these circumstances should invariably be found in conjunction, provided that in the cases where they are found in conjunction no other common cir- cumstance can be detected. I shall recur to this subject below 8 . In the statement of the Canon, I have thought it desirable to introduce the expression ' with more or less of probability,' in order to show that, under no circum- stances, does an inference drawn in accordance with the Method of Agreement attain to absolute and formal cer- tainty, though, as we have seen, it may attain to moral certainty. As familiar examples of the employment of the Method of Agreement, the following may be adduced : After taking a particular kind of food, whatever else I may eat or drink, and however various my general state of health, the temperature of the air, the climate in which I am living, and my divers other surroundings, I am invari- ably ill; I am justified in regarding the food as the probable cause of my illness, and avoid it accordingly. This ex- ample furnishes a good illustration both of the difficulties and of the possible cogency of the Method of Agree- ment. What made me ill on each of two, three, or four occasions, may have been some viand different from the 8 See pp. 145-7. METHOD OF AGREEMENT 139 one in question, but it is very unlikely, if the number of occasions on which the inference is based be con- siderable, that it has been a different viand on each of them. I find that a certain plant always grows luxuriantly on a particular kind of soil ; if my experience of the other conditions be sufficiently various, I am justified in concluding that the soil probably possesses certain chemi- cal constituents which are peculiarly favourable to the production of the plant. Trade is observed to be in a languishing condition wherever there exist certain restrictions, such as high duties, difficulties thrown in the way of landing or loco- motion, &c.; if it could be ascertained that these countries agreed in no other respect which could influence the condition of trade, except in being subject to these restrictions, it might be inferred with considerable proba- bility that the commercial depression was due to the restrictions as a cause. In all these cases, it will be seen that the great diffi- culty consists in ascertaining that the supposed cause is the only circumstance, or the only material circum- stance, which, in addition to the phenomenon itself, the various instances possess in common. I now append a few instances of a less familiar nature : The occurrence of Aurora Borealis has, under me- teorological conditions of very different character, been invariably found to be accompanied by considerable magnetic disturbances. It is rightly inferred that there 140 INDUCTIVE METHODS is some causal connexion between magnetic disturbance and the occurrence of the Aurora Borealis. It has been observed uniformly, and under a variety of circumstances, that, wherever an indiscriminate system of almsgiving has prevailed, the population has, sooner or later, become indolent and pauperised. This fact may be noticed especially in the neighbourhood of large monasteries, in parishes where large sums of money are distributed in the shape of ' doles/ in places which are the residence of rich and charitable but injudicious persons, and the like. The reason is not difficult to discover. The unfortunate recipients of the charity are left without the ordinary motives to exertion, and con- sequently, when the abnormal supply ceases, or becomes too small for the wants of an increased population, being without self-reliance or any special skill, they have no resource but beggary. After a variety of experiments on substances of the most different kinds, and under the most different cir- cumstances, it has been found that, as a body passes from a lower degree of temperature to a higher, it in- variably undergoes a change of volume, though that change may not always be in the same direction, it being, in the great majority of cases, in the direction of expan- sion, but, occasionally, in that of contraction. Hence it has been inferred that change of volume is an invariable effect of change of temperature (it being understood, of course, that pressure and other circumstances, as, for instance, the chemical condition of the body, remain the same). METHOD OF AGREEMENT 141 It has been supposed by some writers on physics that we may go further than this conclusion, and state that augmentation of temperature is invariably followed by augmentation of volume, and diminution of temperature by diminution of volume, the exceptions of water 9 as well as of bismuth and of the casting-metals generally (which suddenly expand at the moment of solidification) being explained as anomalies due to some interfering cause. We are, however, at present so little acquainted with the intimate constitution of bodies, that it might be rash to state the proposition in this form, and, stated as above, it is open to no exception 10 . * Water follows the general rule, and continues to contract in bulk as its temperature is lowered, till it reaches about 39 Fahrenheit or 4 Centigrade, when it begins to expand, and continues to do so till after its conversion into ice, so that a given weight of water at the temperature (say) of 37, or when frozen, occupies more space than it occupied at (say) the temperature of 40. This anomaly is some- what boldly explained by Sir W. Grove as due to the setting in of the process of crystallization, which he supposes to begin at 39, and to interfere with the ordinary law of contraction and expansion. (See Grove's Correlation of Physical Forces, fifth ed. p. 58, &c.) 10 I adduce this instance as an example of the Method of Agree- ment rather than of the Method of Concomitant Variations, because the argument, as here stated, rests rather upon the variation of circumstances and the great diversity of bodies in which the law is found to hold good, than upon the relation between the various degrees of expansion or contraction and the various degrees of temperature in the same body. Had the stress been laid upon the latter consideration, the argument would undoubtedly have been an instance of the Method of Concomitant Variations. It frequently happens, in fact, that two or more Methods are combined in the same proof. In the present instance, as will be seen below, the argument as applied to each particular kind of body 142 INDUCTIVE METHODS The following example, which also illustrates the caution necessary to be observed in framing a general proposition, is extracted from Sir John Herschel's Dis- course on the Study of Natural Philosophy u : 'A great number of transparent substances, when exposed, in a certain particular manner, to a beam of light which has been prepared by undergoing certain reflexions or refractions (and has thereby acquired peculiar properties, and is said to be "polarized"}, exhibit very vivid and beautiful colours, disposed in streaks, bands, &c. of great regularity, which seem to arise within the substance, and which, from a certain regular succession observed in their appearance, are called " periodical colours." Among the substances which exhibit these periodical colours occur a great variety of transparent solids, but no fluids and no opaque solids. Here, then, there seems to be sufficient community of nature to enable us to use a general term, and to state the proposition as a law, viz. transparent solids exhibit periodical colours by exposure to polarized light. However, this, though true of many, does not apply to all transparent solids, and therefore we cannot state it as a general truth or law of nature in this form ; although the reverse proposition, that all solids which exhibit (mercury, for instance) is an argument based on the Method of Concomitant Variations ; but when we proceed to extend the experi- ment to other bodies, and then argue from the variety of the bodies examined that a body, in passing from one degree of temperature to another, invariably undergoes a change of volume, it appears to me that we are no longer employing the Method of Concomitant Varia- tions but the Method of Agreement. It must be borne in mind that the object of our enquiry is not strictly the effects of heat (for the total effects of heat, inasmuch as we cannot wholly exhaust any body of its heat, must be unknown to ns), but the effects of a change of temperature. 11 9- METHOD OF AGREEMENT 143 such colours in such circumstances are transparent, would be correct and general. It becomes necessary, then, to make a list of those to which it does apply ; and thus a great number of substances of all kinds become grouped together in a class linked by this common property. If we examine the individuals of this group, we find among them the utmost variety of colour, texture, weight, hardness, form, and com- position ; so that, in these respects, we seem to have fallen upon an assemblage of contraries. But, when we come to examine them closely in all their properties, we find they have all one point of agreement, in the property of double refrac- tion, and therefore we may describe them all truly as doubly refracting substances. We may, therefore, state the fact in the^/orm, " Doubly refracting substances exhibit periodical colours by exposure to polarized light;" and in this form it is found, on further examination, to be true, not only for those particular instances which we had in view when we first pro- pounded it, but in all cases which have since occurred on further enquiry, without a single exception ; so that the proposition is general, and entitled to be regarded as a law of nature.' The experiments by which Dr. Wells 12 established his Theory of Dew afford a remarkable example of the Method of Agreement. By employing various objects of different material under a variety of circumstances, 12 Dr. Wells' Memoir on the Theory of Dew, which had become very scarce, was reprinted by Longmans and Co. in 1866. It is very brief, and well deserves to be carefully read by every student of scientific method. Sir John Herschel {Natural Philosophy, 168) speaks of the speculation as ' one of the most beautiful specimens ' he can call to mind ' of inductive experimental enquiry lying within a moderate compass.' Mr. Mill also employs it as one of his Miscellaneous Examples in Bk. III. ch. ix. of his Logic. 144 INDUCTIVE METHODS he showed that, whatever the texture of the object, the state of the atmosphere, &c., it is an invariable condition of the deposition of dew that the object on which it is deposited shall be colder than the surrounding atmo- sphere, the greater coldness of the object being itself produced by the radiation of heat from its surface. This, to quote the words of Sir John Herschel, is the case not only with ' nocturnal dew/ but with ' the analo- gous phenomena of ' the moisture which bedews a cold metal or stone when we breathe upon it ; that which appears on a glass of water fresh from the well in hot weather; that which appears on the inside of windows when sudden rain or hail chills the external air; that which runs down our walls when, after a long frost, a warm moist thaw comes on.' It is by the Method of Agreement that we discover the symptoms of a disease, the signs of a political revolution, national characteristics, the order of superposition among geological strata, grammatical rules, and the like. The first division of Bacon's instanticc solitaries coin- cides with the cases contemplated in the Method of Agreement, as the second coincides with the cases con- templated in the Method of Difference. The example employed in the first is so remarkable both in itself, and as an anticipation of Newton's Speculations on Colour, that I may adduce it as an additional instance of the Method of Agreement : 'Exempli gratia: si fiat inquisitio de natura colon's, instanti< solitaries sunt prismata, gemma? crystallinoe, qua; METHOD OF AGREEMENT 145 reddunt colores, non solum in se, sed exterius supra parietem. Item rores, &c. Istae enim nil habent com- mune cum coloribus fixis in floribus, gemmis coloratis, metallis, lignis, &c. praeter ipsum colorem. Unde facile colligitur, quod color nil aliud sit quam modificatio ima- ginis lucis immissae et receptse : in priore genere, per gradus diversos incidentiae ; in posteriore, per texturas et schematismos varies corporis. Istae autem instantice sunt solitaries quatenus ad similitudinem 1S .' In attempting to ascertain the cause of a given effect, a, it may happen that we find a particular antecedent, A, frequently, but not invariably, accompanying it. If, in those cases which present both a and A, no other common circumstance can be detected, we may infer that A is probably a cause of a. I say ' a cause,' for the fact that a may be present without A is a proof that A is not the only cause. My meaning will be plain from the following example : We compare instances in which bodies are known to assume a crystalline structure, but which have no other point of agreement ; in the great majority of instances, though not in all, we find that these bodies have assumed their crystalline structure during the process of solidifica- tion from a fluid state, either gaseous or liquid, and, so far as we can ascertain, these cases have no other cir- cumstance in common. From these facts it may be reasonably inferred that the passage from a fluid to 13 Novum Organum, Lib. II. aph. xxii. L 146 INDUCTIVE METHODS a solid state is a cause, though not the only cause, of crystallization u . Again, when A is frequently, though not invariably, followed by a, and there is, so far as we can ascertain, no other common antecedent, we are justified in sus- pecting that A is a cause of a, and that, in the cases where a does not occur, the operation of A is counter- acted by some other cause. If, for example, a certain occupation or mode of living is found to be usually, though not invariably, attended by a particular form of disease, we seem to be justified in regarding this occupation or mode of living as a cause of the disease, and in explain- ing the few cases in which the disease does not occur as due to exceptional and counteracting circumstances. Similarly, when a and b are found in frequent, though not invariable, conjunction ir ', and, in the cases where 14 This example is adopted, with considerable modifications, from one which occurs in Mr. Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch. viii. i. I am indebted to Sir John Herschel for pointing out to me that Mr. Mill's example (which I had originally adopted as it stood) is too broadly stated. ' The solidification of a substance from a liquid [it should be fluid] state" is not ' an invariable,' but only an usual ' antecedent of its crystallization.' The reader will find several exceptions noticed in Watts' Dictionary of Chemistry, art. Crystallization. 15 The invariable conjunction of two phenomena, when the pre- sence of the one implies the presence of the other, and the absence of the one the absence of the other, is a case falling under the Double Method of Agreement, to be explained presently ; but those cases, in which we simply know that a given phenomenon is invari- ably preceded or invariably followed by another, fall under the Method of Agreement just discussed. If a given phenomenon is, so far as we know, invariably preceded by another, this fact justifies METHOD OF AGREEMENT 147 they are found together, there occurs, so far as we can ascertain, no other common circumstance, we are justified in suspecting that there exists some causal connexion between them. The student, who is acquainted with the science of Medicine, will find a good illustration of the extreme difficulty attending the application of the Method of Agreement, as well as of the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference (to be noticed presently), in the disputes which still occur as to the cause of the mental disease which is known as Atactic Aphasia, that is, the condition in which, with reference to certain sounds, the patient has lost the power of co-ordinating the muscles of speech. The French physiologist, M. Broca, laid down the posi- tion that this disease is invariably due to a lesion of the third frontal convolution of the left hemisphere of the brain, the disease being invariably attended by the specific lesion, and the lesion never occurring without the disease. His followers maintain that the instances are decisive in favour of this theory, while the apparent exceptions admit us in suspecting (though it does not prove"! that the antecedent is not only a cause, but the only cause, of the given phenomenon. Such a conclusion can only be proved (even approximately) by the Double Method of Agreement. It is, however, as already pointed out, not in the invariableness of the conjunction, but in the fact that the instances examined present, so far as we can ascertain, only two phenomena in common, that the cogency of the Method of Agree- ment consists. But of this fact invariableness of antecedence (or of consequence) furnishes one of the strongest proofs, inasmuch as such invariableness implies a very wide variation of circumstances ; hence the stress laid upon it in some of the examples adduced above. L 2 148 INDUCTIVE METHODS of a satisfactory explanation ; his opponents, on the other hand, assert that there are well-established cases both of atactic aphasia without the specific lesion, and of the lesion without aphasia 16 . METHOD OF DIFFERENCE. CANON. If an instance in which the phenomenon under investi- gation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance in common save one, that one oc- curring only in the former ; the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect, or cause, or a necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon. The circumstances a, b, c are found in conjunction with d, e, f, and the omission or disappearance of the cir- cumstance a is found to be attended by the disappearance of the circumstance d. It is inferred that a and d are so connected that one is cause (or a necessary part of the cause) and the other effect. If, moreover, it can be ascertained that a is the antecedent and d the con- 16 See a paper by Dr. William Ogle in the St. George's Hospital Reports, vol. ii. ; a Pamphlet by Dr. Frederic Bateman of Norwich, published by J. E. Adlard, Bartholomew Close, London, 1868 ; Dr. Reynolds' System of Medicine, vol. ii. pp. 442-444 ; and various reports of discussions published in the Lancet and other medical journals. I have to thank my friends, Professors Acland and Rolleston, for their kindness in supplying me with information on this interesting subject, and regret that my space prevents me from pursuing it at greater length. METHOD OF DIFFERENCE 149 sequent, or that, though there are instances in which d occurs without a, there are no instances in which a occurs without d, we may proceed to infer (in the latter case, on the ground that a phenomenon may have more than one cause, but that a cause, unless counteracted by some other cause, must be attended by its effect) that a is the cause, and d the effect. Similarly, if the circumstances a, b, c are found in conjunction with d, e, f, and the introduction of the circumstance x into the former set of phenomena is found to be attended by the appearance of the cir- cumstance y in the latter set of phenomena (so that they may be represented respectively as a, b, c, x ; d, e, f, y), it may be inferred that x and y are related as cause and effect; or, if x be the antecedent and y the con- sequent, or the appearance of x be invariably attended by the appearance of y while the appearance of y is not invariably attended by the appearance of x, that x is the cause and y the effect. The reasons on which the Canon rests are obvious. All other circumstances remaining the same, if the introduction or omission of any circumstance be followed by a change in the remain- ing circumstances, that change must be due to such introduction or omission, as an effect to a cause ; or, if two new circumstances enter simultaneously, without producing any other change in the phenomenon, these two circumstances (except on the improbable suppo- sition that they are two causes exactly counteracting each other) must be related as cause and effect, though we may be unable to say which of the two is cause and 150 INDUCTIVE METHODS which effect. ' The Method of Agreement,' says Mr. Mill, ' stands on the ground that whatever can be eli- minated is not connected with the phenomenon by any law. The Method of Difference has for its foundation that whatever can not be eliminated is connected with the phenomenon by a law.' In the Method of Differ- ence, the instances agree in everything, except in the possession of two circumstances which are present in the one instance and absent in the other. In the Method of Agreement, the various instances compared (for here we generally require more than two instances) agree in nothing, except in the possession of two circumstances which are common to all the instances. One Method is called the Method of Agreement, because we compare various instances to see in what they agree ; the other is called the Method of Difference, because we compare an instance in which the phenomenon occurs with another in which it does not occur, in order to see in what they differ. Instances of the Method of Difference are not far to seek. A piece of paper is throw r n into a stove ; we have no hesitation in regarding its apparent consumption as the effect of the heat of the fire, for we feel assured that the sudden increase of temperature is the only new circumstance to which the piece of paper is exposed, and that, therefore, any change in the condition of the paper must be due to that cause. A bullet is fired from a gun, or a dose of prussic acid is administered, and an animal instantly falls down dead. There is no hesitation in METHOD OF DIFFERENCE 151 ascribing the death to the gun-shot wound or the dose of poison. Nor is this confidence the effect of any wide experience, for, if it were the first time that we had seen a gun fired or a dose of poison administered, we should have no hesitation in ascribing the altered condition of the animal to this novel cause ; we should know that there was only one new circumstance operating upon it, and, consequently, that any change in its con- dition must be due to that one circumstance. In all these instances, there is the introduction of a new antecedent, x, to which the new consequent, y, must be due. But, if the omission of one circumstance be attended by the omission of another, we may argue with equal confidence. I withdraw my hand from this book which is resting upon it, and the book instantly falls to the ground ; there is no hesitation in referring the altered position of the book to the withdrawal of my support. A man is deprived of food, and he dies ; we have no hesitation in ascribing the disappearance of the phenomenon we call life to the withdrawal of the means by which it is main- tained. In these instances, we have certain antecedents, followed by certain consequents, and, observing the simultaneous or successive disappearance of A and a, we have no hesitation in connecting the two as cause and effect. All crucial instances (instantias 17 crucis, as they are 17 ' Inter praerogativas instantiarum ponemus loco decimo quarto instantias crucis ; translate vocabulo a crucibus, quje, erectse in biviis, indicant et signant viarum separationes. Has etiam instantias 152 INDUCTIVE METHODS called by Bacon) are applications of the Method of Dif- ference. A crucial instance is some observation or ex- periment which enables us at once to decide between two or more rival hypotheses. It will be familiar to every one in the form of the chemical test, as where we apply an acid for the purpose of determining the character of a metal, or a metal for the purpose of detecting latent poison. According to the metaphor, there are two or more ways before us, and the observation or experiment acts as a ' guide-post ' (crux) in determining us which to take. The following beautiful example of a Crucial Instance is borrowed from Sir John Herschel 18 . ' A curious example is given by M. Fresnel, as decisive, in his mind, of the question between the two great opinions on the nature of light, which, since the time of decisorias, etjudiciales, et in casibus nonnullis instantias oraculi, et mandati, appellare consuevimus. Earum ratio talis est. Cum in inquisitione naturae alicujus, intellectus ponitur tanquam in asquili- brio, ut incertus sit, utri naturarum e duabus, vel quandoque pluribus, causa naturse inquisitas attribui ant assignari debeat, propter com- plurium naturarnm concursum frequentem et ordinarium ; instantia crucis ostendunt consortium unius ex naturis (quoad naturam in- quisitam) fidum et indissolubile, alterius autem varium et separabile ; Tinde terminatur qusestio, et recipitur natura ilia prior pro causa, missa altera et repudiata. Itaque hujusmodi instantise snnt maxima lucis, et quasi magnse auctoritatis ; ita ut curriculum interpretationis quandoque in illas desinat, et per illas perficiatur. Interdum autem instantia crucis illre occurrnnt et inveniuntur inter jampridem notatas ; at ut plurimum novse sunt, et de industria atque ex com- posite qusesitse et applicatre, et diligentia sedula et acri tandem erutzE.' Novtim Organum, Lib. II. aph. xxxvi. 18 Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, 218. METHOD OF DIFFERENCE 153 Newton and Huyghens, have divided philosophers ; '- that is, between what is called 'the emission theory/ according to which light consists of actual particles emitted from luminous bodies, and what is called 'the undulatory theory/ according to which light consists in the vibrations of an elastic medium pervading all space. ' When two very clean glasses are laid one on the other, if they be not perfectly flat, but one or both in an almost im- perceptible degree convex or prominent, beautiful and vivid colours will be seen between them ; and, if these be viewed through a red glass, their appearance will be that of alternate dark and bright stripes. These stripes are formed between the two surfaces in apparent contact, as any one may satisfy himself by using, instead of a fiat plate of glass for the upper one, a triangular-shaped piece, called a prism, like a three- cornered stick, and looking through the inclined side of it next the eye, by which arrangement the reflexion of light from the upper surface is prevented from intermixing with that from the surfaces in contact. Now, the coloured stripes thus produced are explicable on both theories, and are appealed to by both as strong confirmatory facts ; but there is a dif- ference in one circumstance according as one or the other theory is employed to explain them. In the case of the Huyghenian doctrine, the intervals between the bright stripes ought to appear absolutely black ; in the other, half bright, when so viewed through a prism. This curious' case of dif- ference was tried as soon as the opposing consequences of the two theories were noted by M. Fresnel, and the re- sult is stated by him to be decisive in favour of that theory which makes light to consist in the vibrations of an elastic medium 19 .' 19 Mr. Mill (Logic, Bk. III. ch. xiv. 6) maintains that it does not follow from this experiment that ' the phenomena of light are results 154 INDUCTIVE METHODS The following is an example of a similar kind. It had been determined, from theoretical considerations, that, on the assumption of the undulatory theory, the velocity of light must be less in the more highly refract- ing medium, while, according to the emission theory, it ought to be greater. When M. Foucault had invented his apparatus for determining the velocity of light, it became possible to submit the question to direct ex- periment ; and it was established by himself and M. Fizeau that the velocity of light is less in water (the more highly refracting medium) than in air, in the in- verse proportion of the refractive indices. The result is, therefore, decisive in favour of the undulatory, or, at least, against the emission theory 20 . There is no science, perhaps, in which the Method of Difference is so extensively used as the science of Chemistry, and that because chemistry is emphatically a science of experiment. Almost any chemical experiment will serve as an instance of the Method of Difference. Mix, for example, chloride of mercury with iodide of potassium, and the result will be a colourless liquid at the top of the vessel with a brilliant red precipitate at of the laws of elastic fluids, but at most that they are governed by laws partially identical with these.' But, though the experiment may not be decisive as in favour of the Undulatory Theory, it is un- doubtedly decisive as against the Emission Theory. It may be necessary to add that the term ' fluids ' would now be repudiated by those who hold the Undulatory Theory. 20 See Lloyd's H r ave Theory of Light, 3rd ed. Arts. 41, 42 ; Ganot's Physics, English translation, i2th edition, Art. 506. METHOD OF DIFFERENCE 155 the bottom. There can be no hesitation in ascribing this result to the mixture of the two liquids ; and two similar experiments will enable us to determine that the chlorine has been set free from the mercury and united with the potassium, which itself has been set free from the iodine with which it was previously united, while the iodine has united with the mercury, the former pro- ducing chloride of potassium (dissolved in the colourless liquid), the latter iodide of mercury (the red precipitate). The science of Heat (or, as Dr. Whewell proposes to call it, Thermotics) also furnishes excellent examples of the Method of Difference. The following instances are adapted from Professor Tyndall's Heal a Mode of Mo lion 21 : 'Here is a brass tube, four inches long, and of three- quarters of an inch interior diameter. It is stopped at the bottom and screwed on to a whirling table, by means of which the upright tube can be caused to rotate very rapidly. These two pieces of oak are united by a hinge, in which are two semicircular grooves, intended to embrace the brass tube. Thus the pieces of wood form a kind of tongs, the gentle squeezing of which produces friction when the tube rotates. I partially fill the tube with cold water, stop it with a cork to prevent the splashing out of the liquid, and now put the machine in motion. As the action continues, the temperature of the water rises, and now the tube is too hot to be held in the fingers. Continuing the action a little longer, the cork is driven out with explosive violence, the steam which follows it producing by its precipitation a small cloud in the atmo- sphere.' 31 Third Edition, ch. i. 14-16. 156 INDUCTIVE METHODS In this experiment it will be noticed that only one new antecedent is introduced, namely the motion of the ma- chine ; hence the increased temperature of the water and the various effects which follow upon it are due to the motion as a cause. The experiment, then, shows that heat is generated by the action of mechanical force. The converse of this proposition, namely that heat is consumed in mechanical work, or, as it is often stated, transmuted into mechanical energy, is proved by the two next experiments. ' This strong vessel is filled at the present moment with compressed air. It has lain here for some hours, so that the temperature of the air within the vessel is now the same as that of the air of the room without it. At the present mo- ment this inner air is pressing against the sides of the vessel, and if this cock be opened a portion of the air will rush violently out. The word " rush," however, but vaguely ex- presses the true state of things ; the air wJtich issues is driven out by the air behind it ; this latter accomplishes the work of urging forward the stream of air. And what will be the con- dition of the working air during this process ? It will be chilled. The air executes work, and the only agent it can call upon to perform the work is the heat to which the elastic force with which it presses against the sides of the vessel is entirely due. A portion of this heat will be consumed, and a lowering of temperature will be the consequence. Observe the experiment. I will turn the cock, and allow the current of air from the vessel to strike against the face of the pile 22 . 22 That is, the thermo-electric pile, a delicate instrument for indicating very small changes of temperature. It is by means of this instrument that it has recently been shown that we receive heat (though, of course, in infinitesimal quantities) from the moon's rays. METHOD OF DIFFERENCE 157 The magnetic needle instantly responds ; its red end is driven towards me, thus declaring that the pile has been chilled by the current of air.' ' Here moreover is a bottle of soda-water, slightly warmer than the pile, as you see by the deflexion it produces. Cut the string which holds it, the cork is driven out by the elastic force of the carbonic acid gas ; the gas performs work, in so doing it consumes heat, and now the deflexion produced by the bottle is that of cold.' The last experiment furnishes a good instance of the extreme simplicity of the examples by which scientific truths may often be illustrated. The uncertainty which, as we have seen, always at- taches to conclusions arrived at by the Method of Agree- ment renders it desirable that they should, wherever it is possible, be confirmed by an application of the Method of Difference. A beautiful instance of such a confirma- tion is adduced by Mr. Mill in the case of Crystallization. The Method of Agreement has already led us to the conclusion that the solidification of a substance from a fluid state is a very frequent antecedent of its crystal- lization, and so, probably, one, at least, of its causes. But the Method of Difference completes the evidence, and enables us to state positively that it is a cause. ' For in this case we are able, after detecting the antece- dent A, to produce it artificially, and, by finding that a follows it, verify the result of our induction. The importance of thus reversing the proof was nevermore strikingly manifested than when, by keeping a phial of water charged with siliceous particles undisturbed for years, a chemist (I believe Dr. Wol- 158 INDUCTIVE METHODS laston) succeeded in obtaining crystals of quartz ; and in the equally interesting experiment in which Sir James Hall produced artificial marble, by the cooling of its materials from fusion under immense pressure : two admirable ex- amples of the light which may be thrown upon the most secret processes of nature by well-contrived interrogation of her zz .' It will be noticed that the Method of Difference is specially adapted to the discovery of the effects of given causes, whereas, where it is our object to discover the cause of a given effect, we are usually compelled to have recourse to the Method of Agreement. The Method of Agreement is, in fact, mainly a Method of Observation, whereas the Method of Difference is mainly a Method of Experiment. We may indeed arrange the conditions of an experiment so as to satisfy the requirements of the Method of Agreement, and Nature may (as in the familiar case of lightning) herself satisfy the requirements of the Method of Difference, but, as a rule, it will be found that arguments based on observations fall under the former, and arguments based on experiments under the latter Method. It is hardly necessary to add that, wherever we have our choice between the two methods, we should invariably select the Method of Difference. 23 Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch. viii. i. I have been obliged, in accordance w,th what has been said on p. 146, to state, with con- siderable modifications, the conclusion in this instance as arrived at by the Method of Agreement. The account of the application to it of the Method of Difference has been stated in Mr. Mill's own words. METHOD OF DIFFERENCE 159 In the employment of the Method of Difference, the greatest care should be taken to introduce only one new antecedent, or at least only one new antecedent which can influence the result. As the whole force of the argument based on this Method depends on the assump- tion that any change which takes place in the phenome- non is due to the antecedent then and there introduced, it is plain that we can place no reliance on our conclusion unless we feel perfectly assured that no other antecedent has intervened. If, for instance, it is our object to as- certain the temperature of the atmosphere, we must take the greatest care that our thermometer is not affected by the heat radiated from or conducted by other bodies. The most curious examples of the disregard of this caution may be found in the History of Medicine. Something perfectly inert has been administered to a patient in combination with some powerful drug, some important alterations in his diet, or some strict regime; then the effects of the drug, diet, or regime have been unwittingly ascribed to the inert substance. Had the ancients recognised that instead of one cause acting on falling bodies, as appeared to them to be the case, there were really two, the action of gravity tending downwards and the resistance of the atmosphere pressing upwards, they could never have fallen into the gross error of supposing that bodies fall in times inversely proportional to their weights. l6o INDUCTIVE METHODS DOUBLE METHOD OF AGREEMENT. CANON. If I wo or more instances in which the phenomenon occurs have only one other circumstance in common, while two or more instances, falling within the same department of in- vestigation 24 , from which the phenomenon is absent have nothing in common save the absence of that circumstance ; that circumstance is the effect, or the cause, or a necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon. Moreover (supposing the requirements of the Method to be rigorously fulfilled}, the circumstance proved by the Method to be the cause is the only cause of the phenomenon. The uncertainty attaching to the Method of Agreement may, even where it is impossible to have recourse to the Method of Difference, be, to some extent, remedied by the employment of what is called by Mr. Mill the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference, or the Indirect Method of 34 In recent editions I have inserted in the statement of the Canon the words ' falling within the same department of investigation,' because, as has been pointed out to me, the student might otherwise not see that, for the purposes of comparison, the positive and negative instances must be in part materid. Thus, if the subject of enquiry is language, the negative as well as the positive instances must be sought in the department of language ; or, if the subject of enquiry lies within the sphere of morals, or of physical forces, or of living organisms, the negative as well as the positive instances must be sought within those respective departments. Practically, however, there is no occasion for definite rules on this head, as the common- sense of the investigator is quite sufficient to keep him within the limits of the enquiry. DOUBLE METHOD OF AGREEMENT 161 Difference. This Method consists in a double employ- ment of the Method of Agreement and a comparison of the results thus obtained, the comparison assimilating it to the Method of Difference. We, first of all, compare cases in which the phenomenon occurs, and, so far as \ve can ascertain, find them to agree in the possession of only one other circumstance. But, though \ve may not be justified in regarding this inference as certain, we may increase our assurance by proceeding to compare cases in which the phenomenon does not occur. If these cases agree in nothing but the non-possession of the circum- stance which the other cases agreed in possessing, we have a set of negative instances agreeing in nothing but the absence of the given phenomenon and the absence of the aforesaid circumstance. The set of negative instances may now be compared with the set of positive instances, and we may argue thus : The positive in- stances agree in nothing but the presence of the given phenomenon and this other circumstance, and the nega- tive instances agree in nothing but the absence of the given phenomenon and this other circumstance. Hence we may regard it as a highly probable inference that they are connected together as cause and effect. I say ' highly probable/ for, as we are not absolutely certain that the conditions of the Method of Agreement have been satisfied in the case of the positive instances, so, from the extreme difficulty of proving a negative, we must be still less certain that they have been satisfied in the case of the negative instances. What (in addition M 162 INDUCTIVE METHODS to another advantage, to be noticed presently) is gained by the Method is a sort of double assurance, so far as the assurance goes. If the one set of instances agreed in nothing but the presence of the two circum- stances, and if the other set of instances agreed in nothing but the absence of the two circumstances, then we should be able to infer, by the Method of Difference, that the introduction of the given phenomenon (which we will suppose to be the consequent) always follows on the introduction of the other circumstance (which we will suppose to be the antecedent), and, vice versa, that the removal of the given phenomenon always follows on the removal of the other circumstance, or, in other words, that the given phenomenon is the effect and the other circumstance the cause. But this Method, supposing its conditions to be rigorously satisfied, possesses one advantage peculiar to itself. The Single Method of Agreement, as we have seen, is always theoretically open to the objection arising from Plurality of Causes, but this Method, if the set of negative instances be perfect, is not only free from that objection, but also sustains the conclusion that the in- ferred cause is the only cause of the phenomenon in question (or, in case we do not know which is ante- cedent and which is consequent, that a and b are so connected that one of them is the cause and the only cause of the other). ' In the joint method/ says Mr. Mill 2 "', ' it is supposed not only that the instances in 25 Mill's Logic, Bk. III. oh. x. 2. DOUBLE METHOD OF AGREEMENT 163 which a is agree only in containing A, but also that the instances in which a is not agree only in not containing A. Now, if this be so, A must be not only the cause of a, but the only possible cause : for, if there were another, as for example B, then in the instances in which a is not, B must have been absent as well as A, and it would not be true that these instances agree only in not containing A.' It may be asked, then, if the negative branch of the argument be so forcible, why should we employ the posi- tive branch ? It is by means of the positive branch that we are, as it were, put on the track of the one other cir- cumstance in which the instances presenting the given phenomenon agree, and by means of the negative branch that we prove the accuracy of our conclusion. ' It is generally,' continues Mr. Mill, ' altogether impossible to work the Method of Agreement by negative instances without positive ones : it is so much more difficult to exhaust the field of negation than that of affirmation.' It is plain that the conditions of the Joint Method can only be rigorously fulfilled where there is an invariable conjunction between two phenomena, so that the two are (unless counteracting circumstances intervene) always present together and always absent together. For, if A be the only cause of a, the effect a cannot be present without the cause A, nor can the cause A be present without being attended by the effect a. Hence (bearing in mind, of course, what has already been said on pp. 48-9, 134, of the exclusion of immaterial circumstances)) invari- able conjunction may be regarded as a sign that the con- M 2 164 INDUCTIVE METHODS ditions of this Method are fulfilled, and it is from the observation of such an invariable conjunction that the argument frequently proceeds. In such cases, the number of instances, both positive and negative, which have been observed, is supposed to be so great and of such variety as to have excluded all other common circumstances except the presence or absence of the two phenomena in question. The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference (or the Indirect Method of Difference, or, as I should prefer to call it, the Double Method of Agreement) is being continually employed by us in the ordinary affairs of life. If, when I take a particular kind of food, I find that I invariably suffer from some particular form of illness, whereas, when I leave it off, I cease to suffer, I entertain a double assurance that the food is the cause of my illness. I have observed that a certain plant is invariably plentiful on a particular soil ; if, with a wide experience, I fail to find it growing on any other soil, I feel con- firmed in my belief that there is in this particular soil some chemical constituent, or some peculiar combination of chemical constituents, which is highly favourable, if not essential, to the growth of the plant. Dr. Wells' Essay on the Theory of Dew presents an extremely instructive instance of the application of the Double Method of Agreement : ' It appears' (I am here quoting from Mr. Mill 26 ) 'that the instances in which much dew is deposited, which are very various, agree in this, and, so far as we are able to observe, 26 Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch. ix. 3. DOUBLE METHOD OF AGREEMENT 165 in this only, that they either radiate heat rapidly or conduct it slowly : qualities between which there is no other circum- stance of agreement than that, by virtue of either, the body tends to lose heat from the surface more rapidly than it can be restored from within. The instances, on the contrary, in which no dew, or but a small quantity of it, is formed, and which are also extremely various, agree (as far as we can observe) in nothing except in not having this same property. We seem, therefore, to have detected the characteristic difference between the substances on which dew is produced, and those on which it is not produced. And thus have been realized the requisitions of what we have termed the Indirect Method of Difference, or the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference.' Several beautiful illustrations of the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference may be found in the recent discoveries made by means of Spectrum Analysis. I shall select one which is peculiarly interesting on account of its employment in the attempt to determine the consti- tution of the sun and some of the other heavenly bodies. A very thin sheet of light proceeding from incandescent hydrogen is passed through a prism, and it is invariably found (with the exception of the third case mentioned in note 27) that in the spectrum thus obtained there are, in proportion to the intensity of the light, one, two, or more bright lines occupying precisely the same rela- tive position. Moreover, very thin sheets of white light proceeding from various incandescent substances are passed through incandescent hydrogen, and the emergent light is then separated into its constituent elements by a prism. In the spectra thus obtained it is 166 INDUCTIVE METHODS found that there are invariably (with the above-named exception) dark (or, under certain circumstances, bright 27 ) lines occupying exactly the same positions in the spectrum as the lines above mentioned. Hence it is inferred, by the Method of Agreement, that a sheet of light, whether it proceed directly from incandescent hydrogen itself, or be transmitted through it from some other incandescent substance, will (allowing for the above exception) invari- ably produce these lines. But, if we try the same experiments with any other element than incandescent hydrogen, although we may obtain bright or dark lines, we never find these lines occupying the same positions in the spectrum as the lines in question. Here, then, we have the negative instances of the Double Method ; and it is inferred (subject, of course, to the assumption that our knowledge of the negative in- stances is sufficiently complete) that the presence in the spectrum of these lines is invariably due either to a sheet of light proceeding directly from incandescent hydrogen, or to a sheet transmitted through it from some other incandescent substance; that is to say, that one or other of these is the cause, and the only cause of the presence 27 The darkness of the lines is due to the property possessed by incandescent media of absorbing sheets of light of the same refran- gibility as those emitted by them. When the absorption exerted upon the transmitted light is more than compensated by the luminosity of the hydrogen light, these lines, instead of being dark, appear bright, as is also the case when the sheet of light proceeds directly from incandescent hydrogen itself. There is still a third case. When the hydrogen emits as much light as it absorbs, there will be no line, dark or bright. DOUBLE METHOD OF AGREEMENT l6j in the spectrum of these particular lines. When these lines are bright, it is doubtful whether the rays proceed directly from incandescent hydrogen or have been transmitted through it, but, when they are dark, the sheets must have been transmitted. Wherever, there- fore, dark lines occupying these positions occur in the spectrum we may infer (deductively) the passage of the sheet of light through a medium composed wholly or partially of incandescent hydrogen. But we detect such lines in the spectrum of the sun and several of the stars, and hence (unless we suppose it possible or not improbable that there is in the sun or other stars some element agreeing in this respect with hydrogen, but differing in others) we may conclude that the sun and these other stars are surrounded with an atmo- sphere of incandescent hydrogen 28 . The following examples are selected from a subject of a widely different character, the History of Language. M. Auguste Brachet, in his Historical Grammar of the a It must be understood that, in this example, I have not stated the historical steps by which the discovery was arrived at, but simply attempted to give a logical analysis of the arguments by which it would now be established. It was the exact coincidence of the bright lines in the hydrogen spectrum with the dark lines in the solar spectrum, which first led to the belief that hydrogen enters into the constitution of the solar atmosphere. It is now, however, ren- dered possible, through an ingenious contrivance, to separate, as it were, the solar atmosphere from the glowing body within it, and thus to obtain these lines bright instead of dark. The student will find a brief account of these discoveries in Professor Stokes' Address to the British Association in 1869. 1 68 INDUCTIVE METHODS French Tongue 29 , lays down the position that there are three sure tests by which we can discriminate between popular words derived from the Peasant Latin (lingua Latina rustica) by a regular process, and Latin words of learned origin imported into Modern French by scholars. These tests are (i) the continuance of the tonic accent; (2) the suppression of the short vowel; (3) the loss of the middle or medial consonant. It will be seen that it is by the employment of the Double Method of Agreement that M. Brachet arrives at these conclusions. ' Look at such words (i. e. words of popular origin) carefully, and you will see that the syllable accented in Latin continues to be so in French ; or, in other words, that the accent remains where it was in Latin. This continuance of the accent is a general and absolute law : all words belonging to popular and real French respect the Latin accent ; all such words asportlque from porticus, or viatiqite from vidticum, which break this law, will be found to be of learned origin, introduced into the language at a later time by men who were ignorant of the laws which nature had imposed on the transfor- mation from Latin to French. We may lay it down as an infallible law, that The Latin accent continues in French in all words of popular origin ; all wonts ^vhich violate this law are of learned origin : thus LATIN. POPULAR WORDS. LEARNED WORDS. Alumine ali'ui all (mine Angelus dnge angcliis Bl&sphemum blame blaspheme Cancer chancre canclr Computum compte (Olllplit Debitum dette ctibit D6cima dime dt'cime, &c. ~i that these latter circumstances would be mainly determined by the former. For it is by the exercise of reason that man learns, in an infinite variety of ways, to adapt him- self to the various circumstances which surround him, that he discovers the means of gratifying his higher tastes, and that he is enabled to enter into the feelings and understand the wants of others. On this relation between the state of the intellectual faculties and the aggregate of circumstances which constitute civilisation, the student may consult Mr. Mill's Logic, Bk. VI. ch. x. 7. The term ' Historical,' as designating this Method, is somewhat SUMMARY OF RESULTS 207 Briefly to review these Methods, it will be seen that we can only arrive at demonstrative certainty by means of one or other of the Methods of Difference, Residues, or Concomitant Variations, while the Method of Agreement and the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference give conclusions only of more or less probability, a probability, however, which sometimes amounts to moral certainty. The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference, or the Double Method of Agreement, possesses one advantage over all the other Methods, namely that, supposing it to have been satisfactorily ascertained by this Method that A is the cause of a, it will follow that it is the only cause. It should also be borne in mind that a wide distinc- tion exists between those cases in which the induction indicates the precise character of the causal connexion which subsists between two or more phenomena and those in which it simply points out that there exists a causal connexion of some kind or other. In the latter case a new induction is required in order to show what the nature of the causal connexion is. It may be noticed, finally, that the Inductive Methods are strictly reducible to two only, the Method of Agree- ment and the Method of Difference ; the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference being a double employment of the Method of Agreement, supplemented by an employ- misleading, because, though the facts to which the Method is ap- plied may be mainly supplied by history, they are also, to a large extent, taken from the contemporary observation of tribes and peoples living in different stages, or different phases, of civilisation with reference to the matters of enquiry. 208 INDUCTIVE METHODS ment of the Method of Difference, the Method of Con- comitant Variations being a series of employments of the Method of Difference, and the Method of Residues, though employed in an inductive enquiry, being rather of the nature of a deductive than an inductive method. Nole i. In the preceding chapter no allusion, or only a casual one, has been made to a circumstance which frequently occasions an insuperable difficulty in the appli- cation of the Inductive Methods, namely, the Intermixture of Effects. It has been supposed that the antecedents A, B, C, D, &c. are followed by the consequents a, /3, y, 8, e, &c., the effects being regarded as heterogeneous and not homogeneous. But, suppose the effect of A to be a, of B to be , of C to be y, of D to be , and of E to be , the 2 32 total effect of A, B, C, D, E will be - + . It is obvious 2 6 how difficult it would be in this case to discover either the exact portion of the effect which is due to each cause or the several causes which operate to produce the total effect. We might have, in fact, as in mechanical action and reaction, A producing a and B producing a, each cause thus neutralising the effect of the other, so that we might entertain no suspicion that the causes A and B were in operation at all. In these cases, our main re- source is Deduction. Having ascertained separately by one or other of the various inductive methods, or from previous deductions, the effects, say of A, B, C, D, we INTERMIXTURE OF EFFECTS 209 calculate deductively their combined effect, and then, by subtracting, according to the Method of Residues, the sum of the known causes from the total aggregate of causes and the known portion of the effect from the total effect, we simplify, if we do not solve, the problem. On the insufficiency, under ordinary circumstances, of the Inductive Methods, without the aid of Deduction, to grapple with cases of this kind 56 , and on the nature of the assistance rendered by Deduction, the reader may con- sult Mr. Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch. x. 4-8, and ch. xi. In cases of this kind, where the action of one cause is augmented, diminished, or wholly counteracted by that of another, it must not be supposed that any part of its appropriate effect has failed to be produced, even though it may have disappeared wholly or partially in the total 56 Since the appearance of the first edition of this work, it has been pointed out by Mr. Bain that ' Concomitant Variation is the only one of the [Inductive] Methods that can operate to advantage in such cases.' I take the liberty of transcribing the passage : ' If a cause happens to vary alone, the effect will also vary alone, and cause and effect may be thus singled out under the greatest compli- cations. Thus, when the appetite for food increases with the cold, we have a strong evidence of connexion between those two facts, although other circumstances may operate in the same direction. ' The assigning of the respective parts of the sun and moon, in the action of the Tides, may be effected, to a certain degree of exactness, by the variation of the amount according to the positions of the two attracting bodies. ' By a series of experiments of Concomitant Variations, directed to ascertain the elimination of nitrogen in the human body under varieties of muscular exercise, Dr. Parkes obtained the remarkable conclusion, that a muscle grows during exercise and loses bulk during the subsequent rest.' Bain's Logic, Bk. III. ch. viii. 6. P 210 INDUCTIVE METHODS result. An object may remain at rest, when subject to two equal forces acting in opposite directions, but we cannot say of either of these forces that it is in- operative : each, it is true, prevents any visible effect resulting from the other ; but then this is the very effect which it produces, and the correct mode of describing either of the opposing forces would be to say that it has a tendency to make the given object move with a certain velocity in a certain direction. The student cannot too constantly bear in mind that every cause invariably produces its full effect, though other causes may prevent that effect from manifesting itself with all the intensity with which it would manifest itself, if it acted alone; that there are, strictly speaking, no exceptions to laws of nature, though these laws, in their manifold action and reaction, may modify or even neutralise each other. The aphorism ' Every rule has an exception/ is only true, even in Grammar, either because the rule is inexactly stated or because it conflicts with some other rule known or unknown. Note 2. The Canons for the Inductive Methods were first stated by Mr. Mill, and the importance now attached to them in most analyses of inductive enquiries is mainly due to his influence. The methods are, however, as Mr. Mill himself states, ' distinctly recognised ' in Sir John Herschel's Discourse on the Study of Natural Phi- losophy, so often quoted in this work, ' though not so clearly characterised and denned, nor their correlation so fully shown, as has appeared to me desirable.' In ANTICIPATED BY BACON 211 the Second Book of Bacon's Novum Organum, \ve find some approximations, very rough, it is true, to formal inductive methods. The ' instantiae crucis ' have already been adduced as examples of the Method of Difference, and the ' instantiae solitarise ' as comprising examples of both the Method of Agreement and the Method of Difference ; but the part of the Novum Organum to which I am now alluding, and which is intended to be of more universal application than the ' instantice crucis ' and the ' instantiae solitariae,' is contained in the early Aphorisms of the Second Book. Certain Tables of Instances are there given for the purpose of providing materials with which to conduct an investigation into what Bacon called the ' Form 57 ,' corresponding pretty nearly, at least in this connexion, with what we should call the ' Cause,' of Heat. The instances are very far from satisfying the conditions of Mr. Mill's Methods, but the principles on which they are arranged in Tables bear a close analogy to the principles on which the Canons are constructed. The best mode, perhaps, of enabling the student to perceive the extent of the resem- blance is to state the conditions with which the instances in Bacon's Tables would be required to conform, in order to satisfy the requirements of Mr. Mill's Methods. If the 'Instantiae convenientes in natura calidi' 58 were 57 On the meaning attached by Bacon to the word ' Form,' and its relation to ' Essence ' and ' Cause,' see the Introduction to my Edition of the Novum Organum, 8. 58 JVavuvi Organum, Lib. II. Aph. xi. P 2 212 INDUCTIVE METHODS so related to one another that, besides the given pheno- menon (heat), only one other circumstance were common to them all, that other circumstance might be regarded, with more or less probability, as the cause (or effect) of heat, or, at least, as connected with it through some fact of causation. Such instances would then come under the Method of Agreement. If one instance in the Table of Agreement (' Instantias convenientes in natura calidi ') were so related to one of the instances in the Table of Privation ('Instantise in proximo, quse privantur natura calidi ') 69 as to have every circumstance in common with it, except that the former, besides presenting the phenomenon of heat which is supposed to be absent in the latter, also presented some other circumstance which was absent from the latter, this other circumstance would be the cause (or effect), or a necessary part of the cause, of heat. We should here have the Method of Difference. If, in the ' Tabula graduum, sive comparative in calido 60 ,' Ave could discover some one phenomenon which increased and diminished proportionately with the increase and diminution of heat, that phenomenon would be the cause or the effect of heat, or, at least, connected with it through some fact of causation, and the conditions would thus conform with the requirements of the Method of Concomitant Variations. If it could be shown that this phenomenon and heat were the only circumstances which varied concurrently, then the phenomenon Avould 59 Nffvum Organwn, Lib. II. Aph. xxii. M Id. Aph. xiii. ANTICIPATED BY BACON 213 be proved to be either the cause or the effect of heat, and would conform with the requirements of the rider to this last Method (p. 186). The ' Exemplum exclusive, sive rejectionis naturarum a forma calidi ' el (which is based on the foregoing Tables) bears some, though, it must be acknowledged, a very slight, resemblance to the Method of Residues. These ' rejectiones ' consist in excluding some possible explana- tion of the phenomenon, either because an instance, which does not present the phenomenon, does present the assigned cause, or because an instance, which does present the phenomenon, does not present the assigned cause 62 (and similarly with regard to increase and de- crease). As an example of the former case, we may take the following ' rejectio ' : ' Per radios lunae (which were then supposed to be cold) et aliarum stellarum rejice lucem et lumen.' As examples of the latter, we may take the two following : ' Per radios solis, rejice naturam ele- mentarem (that is, ' terrestrial nature,' which is composed of ' the four elements ') ; Per ignem communem, et maxime per ignes subterraneos (qui remotissimi sunt, et plurimum intercluduntur a radiis coelestibus) rejice na- turam coelestem.' By a succession of these ' rejectiones/ we limit the number of possible explanations, amongst which we are to look for the true one. Bacon's 'rejec- 61 Novum Orgamtin, Lib. II. Aph. xviii. 63 The latter, of course, is not a legitimate argument. The effect may be due to several distinct causes, a fact which was not recognised by Bacon. See my notes on Novum Organum t Lib. II. Aph. xvi. 214 INDUCTIVE METHODS tions,' however, not being, as a matter of fact, exhaustive, lead to a purely negative result ; they may save us from unnecessary trouble in seeking for a cause where it cannot be found, but they do not, like the Method of Residues, leave a definite number of antecedents which either constitute the cause, or amongst which we know that the cause is to be sought. It is plain that if there were a certain number only of possible causes of the given phenomenon, and by the method of rejections we could exclude all but one, this one remaining cause would be the undoubted cause of the given phenomenon. This case Bacon appears to have regarded as the perfect type of Induction, and as alone capable of affording certainty 63 . Note 3. Dr. Whewell (in a pamphlet published in 1849, which is now embodied in the Philosophy of Dis- covery} questions the utility of the Four Methods. * 3 It must be understood that, in this note, I am simply comparing the 'Tables' of Bacon with the ' Methods' of Mr. Mill. On the relation of the ' Tables ' to each other and on the special importance attached by Bacon to the ' Rejections,' the student may consult 9 of the Introduction to my edition of the Novnm Organum (Clarendon Press) and my notes to the earlier aphorisms of the Second Book. In comparing the logical procedure of Bacon and Mill, it should be carefully borne in mind that Bacon contemplated the concurrent use of all the Tables, as preparatory to his Method of Rejections, and regarded the construction of the Tables and the subsequent ap- plication to them of the Method of Rejections as constituting only one process. On the other hand, each of Mr. Mill's Methods may be worked independently, and lead to a final conclusion. 61 See Philosophy of Discovery, ch. xxii. The criticism of Mr. CRITICISMS OF THEM 215 'Upon these methods,' he says, 'the obvious thing to remark is that they take for granted the very thing which is most difficult to discover, the reduction of the pheno- mena to formulae such as are here presented to us.' He also objects that, as a matter of fact, no discoveries have ever been made by the employment of these methods. ' Who will carry these formulae through the history of the sciences, as they have really grown up, and show us that these four methods have been operative in their formation ; or that any light is thrown upon the steps of their progress by reference to these formulas ? ' The first objection is, as Mr. Mill points out, of the same character with the objections raised by Locke and other writers of the eighteenth century against the Rules of Syllogistic Reasoning. The reply, in either case, is that Logic does not profess to supply arguments, but to test them. Men have certainly reasoned, and reasoned with the greatest success, without any conscious use of the rules of Logic. But it is the province of a system of Logic to analyse the arguments commonly employed, to discriminate between those which are correct and those which are incorrect, and thus to enable men to detect, in the case of others, and to avoid, in their own case, erroneous methods of reasoning. To think of appro- priate arguments is undoubtedly more difficult than to lest them ; but this fact does not obviate the necessity of submitting them to a test. Nor is it a more real objec- Mill's Methods will be found in 38-48. Mr. Mill replies in a note at the end of Bk. III. ch, ix. 2l6 INDUCTIVE METHODS tion that men, who know nothing of the technical rules of Logic, often reason faultlessly themselves, and show remarkable acuteness in detecting inconclusive reasoning in the arguments of others. Many men speak gram- matically without having learnt any system of grammar ; in the same manner, many men reason logically with- out having learnt any system of Logic. But the great majority of men, there can be little doubt, may derive assistance from both one and the other. Grammar fulfils its functions when it raises the student to the level of the most correct speakers ; similarly, Logic fulfils its functions when it raises the student to the level of the best reasoners. As applied to the syllogistic rules and formulae, this defence would now be generally admitted, but it holds equally good of the methods under which it may be shown that our inductive arguments may ulti- mately be arranged. ' The business of Inductive Logic,' says Mr. Mill, 'is to provide rules and models (such as the Syllogism and its rules are for ratiocination) to which if inductive arguments conform, those arguments are conclusive, and not otherwise. This is what the Four Methods profess to be, and what I believe they are universally considered to be by experimental philoso- phers, who had practised all of them long before any one sought to reduce the practice to theory.' With regard to the second objection, that these me- thods have not been operative in the formation of the sciences, Dr. Whewell seems to ignore the distinction between the conscious and the unconscious employment CRITICISMS OF THEM 21 7 of a method. It is undoubtedly true that in records of scientific investigations we seldom find the formal lan- guage in which the Inductive Canons are expressed. It seems to me equally true that in such records we inva- riably detect the employment of the Canons themselves. Discoveries are of two kinds : they are either entirely the result of patient research, or they are first suggested to the mind by some brilliant thought, and afterwards verified by rigorous proof. In the former case, the discoverer must have made sure of his ground as he proceeded, and, so far as his method was inductive, he could only do so by appealing, consciously or uncon- sciously, to one or more of the inductive methods ; if he acted otherwise, he arrived at a true result by mere accident. In discussing the latter case, I must repeat what has already been stated, that it is not the office of Logic, either inductive or deductive, to suggest thoughts, but to analyse and to lest them. Now, in the case we are supposing, the discovery really consists of two parts the original conception and the subsequent process by which it is determined to be the true explanation of the phenomenon. However striking and appropriate the conception, we have no right to regard it as the true explanation of the phenomenon till it has been subjected to the most rigorous investigation. This in- vestigation must be either inductive or deductive, or both. But, so far as it is inductive, it must conform with the requirements of the Inductive Canons, or else it will not result in positive proof, or even approximate 2l8 INDUCTIVE METHODS closely to it. As in the former case, unless the dis- coverer has, consciously or unconsciously, reasoned in strict conformity with the requirements of Logic, he has no right to feel any confidence in the result of his researches. It may be added that appropriate conceptions, pro- mising to be fertile in scientific results, are only likely, as a rule, to occur to persons whose minds have been habitually disciplined by the strict observance, conscious or unconscious, of the laws of reasoning. Originality is not a quality, as some seem to think, which admits of no psychological explanation. I have not thought it desirable to discuss more recent criticisms of the Inductive Methods, because, apart from the stress which they lay on the difficulty of satisfying the conditions of the Canons (a difficulty which is ac- knowledged on all sides to exist, at least in many cases), I cannot think that they have added materially to the objections raised by Dr. Whewell. . The student is particularly requested to read, in connexion with this chapter, the ' Preface to the Third Edition/ reprinted at the beginning of the Book. This Preface deals with certain controverted points respecting the certainty of Inductive Reasoning and the nature of the assumptions made in it, with which, though they could not conveniently be introduced into the body of the book, it is desirable that the student should acquaint himself. CHAPTER IV Of Imperfect Inductions. AN argument from the particular to the general, or from particulars to adjacent particulars, may fall short of absolute proof, or even of moral certainty, while it com- mends itself as possessing more or less of probability. Arguments of this character may be called Imperfect Inductions. Under this head fall imperfect applications of the experimental or inductive methods, the argument from analogy, and incomplete cases of Inductio per enu- merationcm simplicem. The Inductio per enumerationem simplicem is, as already noticed *, when complete \Inductio Completa\ a deductive, and not an inductive, argument. When incomplete, it is an inductive argument, for it is an inference of the general from the particular or the unknown from the known. This form of Induction affords certainty only when, as in the case of the Laws of Universal Causation and of the Uniformity of Nature, or of the Mathematical Axioms, 1 Sec p. 125, note 2, and Deductive Logic, Part III. chap. i. ap- pended note 2. 220 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS it is grounded upon universal experience, and we feel assured that, if there had been at any time or were now in any place any instance to the contrary, it would not have escaped our notice. But, in ordinary cases, the incomplete Inductio per enumerationem simplicem affords only a presumption, sometimes very slight, sometimes tolerably strong, in favour of the position which it is adduced to establish. I perceive, say in five, ten, or twenty cases, that the phenomenon a is attended by the phenomenon b, and, knowing of no cases in which the one phenomenon is not attended by the other, I begin to suspect that a and b are connected together in the way of causation. Such a surmise may afterwards be proved by the aid of one or other of the five methods to be correct, and, in that case, it is taken out of the category of inductions per enumerationem simpliccm, and becomes an instance of a scientific induction. But, if neither proved nor disproved, it still has a certain amount of probability in its favour, that amount depending on the two following considerations: (i) the number of positive instances which have occurred to us; (2) the likelihood, if there be any negative instances, of our having met with them. The first of these considerations deserves little weight, unless supported by the other. A native of the North of Europe, some centuries ago, might, if the mere accumulation of positive instances were sufficient, have taken it for a certain truth that all men had white complexions. His own personal observa- tion, as well as the reports of travellers and the traditions INDUCTIO PER ENUM. SIMP. 221 of his race, would have furnished numberless instances in favour of the position. But, before drawing the in- ference, he ought to have reflected that he possessed information about a small portion only of the inhabitants of the earth's surface, that a difference of climate might produce a difference of complexion, and that there was no reason for supposing that the anatomical structure of man, or the various characteristics which we denominate human, are necessarily connected with a skin of one particular colour. But, on the other hand, we may affirm with tolerable certainty that all the varieties of beings possessing the physical structure of man have the ca- pacity of articulate speech ; for, if there were any races exhibiting the one set of phenomena without the other, there is every probability, with our present knowledge of the earth's surface, that we should be acquainted with their existence. In this instance the first consideration, which in itself would deserve little weight, is converted into a certainty almost absolute by the support which it derives from the second. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the mind of the student that a_mere enumeratio simplex, that is, a mere assemblage of positive instances, unless we have reason to suppose that, were there any instances to the contrary, they would have become known to us, is simply worthless. ' Inductio qu& procedit per enumeralionem simplicem res puerilis est.' But if the enumeratio simplex be accompanied by a well-grounded conviction that there are no instances to the contrary, it may afford a very 222 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS high degree of probability, and, if we can assure our- selves that there are no instances to the contrary, to us individually it will afford certainty. It might seem that an Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem is always an employment of the Method of Agreement. But there is this essential difference. The Method of Agreement is a method of elimination, select- ing some and rejecting other instances, and founding its conclusion not on the quantity but on the character of the instances which it selects. The Inductio per Enu- merationem Simplicem, on the other hand, depends for its validity on the number of instances ; the instances, indeed, must be gathered from every available field, and hence sometimes we speak of their variety as well as their quantity, but the one essential characteristic of the method is that it does not select, but accumulate instances. A few well-selected instances are often suffi- cient to satisfy the requirements of the Method of Agreement. The same number, when we abstract the grounds on which they were selected, would be utterly insufficient to justify an Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem. It may in fact be remarked of all the Experimental Methods that they are devices for saving labour. The range of our experience is often insufficient to justify an argument founded on an Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem, but by means of the Experimental or In- ductive Methods we so select our instances, as to bring the particular case which we are investigating under the INDUCT1O PER ENUM. SIMP. 223 general laws of Universal Causation and the Uniformity of Nature. The validity of the induction in question is thus artificially connected with the validity of these uni- versally accepted inductions, and we are enabled to argue from the truth of the latter to that of the former. Uncontradicted experience, of course, implies a great variety of instances, and, from this point of view, every well-grounded Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem might be represented as an application of the Method of Agreement. But to represent it in this form would often weaken its force. For, while our experience may be so wide as to justify us in affirming the constant union of two or more circumstances, the number of other common circumstances, known or suspected, with which these are found in invariable combination, may be so large as to render it impossible for us to satisfy even approximately the conditions of the Method of Agreement. Here, as elsewhere, an argument often admits of being stated in two ways, and it is the office of the logician to state it in that form in which it carries the largest amount of conviction, or rather offers the most satisfactory kind of proof. It is, as I have already pointed out in the First Chapter 2 , by means of an Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem that we establish what have been called ' Inductions of Co-existence.' This is the case, when, as the result of a wide experience, two phenomena * Pp. 7-9- 224 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS are found to be invariably co-existent, but we have no evidence to connect them as cause and effect, or even as effects of the same cause. Such are the attributes which are found to be invariably united in the same Natural Kinds, that is to say, in the same species of plants, animals, and minerals; such are the two pro- perties of Inertia and Gravity which are found united in all matter. In all these cases, there is probably some causal connexion, hitherto undetected, between the co- existing phenomena; but while we are unable to apply with any success the more refined inductive methods, we must content ourselves with regarding the uniformity as simply one of co-existence. If we made any pro- gress towards the discovery of a causal connexion, the uniformity would be transferred to another category, and would rank amongst the inductions discussed in the last chapter. Meanwhile, these inductions, de- pending simply on uncontradicted experience, and being at present inaccessible to the Methods of Elimination, must be regarded as generalisations awaiting further investigation 3 . The term 'Empirical Generalisation' or 'Empirical 3 For a further discussion of the Uniformities of Co-existence, the reader is referred to Mr. Bain's Logic, Kk. III. ch. iii. I am disposed to estimate more highly than Mr. Bain the probability that these uniformities might, if our knowledge were extended, be ultimately resolved into Uniformities of Causation, and hence they do not appear to me to require any separate or detailed treatment in a work on Logic. EMPIRICAL LAWS 225 Law ' might be conveniently appropriated to express those secondary laws (as distinct from Ultimate Laws of Nature 4 ) which are the result of an Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem. Though these expressions are employed with great latitude, it is usually regarded as characteristic of an Empirical Law or Generalisation that it can only be received as true within the limits of the data from which it is derived, that at another time, at another place, or under different circumstances from those under which the observations were made, it might be found to break down 5 . It is true that, owing to the conflict of causes, this description applies to many of the conclusions arrived at by means of the Inductive 4 Some of these Ultimate Laws of Nature, such as the Law of Universal Causation, the Law of the Conservation of Energy, the invariable co-existence of Inertia with Gravity, &c., appear to rest simply on uncontradicted experience, that is to say, on an Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem, and still it would seem paradoxical to speak of them as merely ' Empirical Laws.' An Empirical Law might, perhaps, be defined as a secondary law, the causal derivation of which is not yet known or even surmised with any probability, or as a subordinate generalisation arrived at by an Inductio per Enu- merationem Simplicem ; definitions which, it will be perceived, are really identical. I have, however, avoided any special discussion of what are called ' Empirical Laws,' both on account of the extremely indeterminate use of the expression, and because such a discussion is calculated, in my opinion, needlessly to perplex the student by the complicated questions to which it leads. The advanced student can refer to Mr. Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch, xv., and Bk. V. ch. v. 4, but he will be introduced, I venture to suggest, to more difficulties than he will find solved. 5 See Herschel's Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, 187, and Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch. xvi. 4. Q 226 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS Methods, but it is peculiarly applicable to the results of the Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem, and it would be extremely convenient to possess an expression by which the results of this method might be at once distinguished from those of scientific induction on the one hand, and those of analogy (to be discussed pre- sently) on the other. Instances of Empirical Laws in this restricted sense are such generalisations as that certain animals or flowers e are of a certain colour, that certain tribes of men are less capable of civilisation than others, and, perhaps, that certain appearances of sky are indicative of certain changes of weather. There are, of course, some cases in which it is difficult to determine whether a given conclusion has been arrived at by the Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem or by an im- perfect application of the Method of Agreement, that is to say, whether it is based on instances taken indifferently, or on selected instances. Another form of imperfect induction is the Argument from Analogy 7 . Here we do not argue from a number 6 The colours of flowers, however, seem to be in a fair way of being accounted for by the peculiarities of their mode of fertilisation. See a most interesting work on the Colours of Flowers, by Mr. Grant Allen, published in Macmillans' Nature Series, 1882. 7 It will be observed that the word ' Analogy ' is here employed in the sense of ' resemblance.' In the stricter and more ancient meaning of the term, it signifies an equality of relations (laurrjs ^oycuv}. See Aristotle's Ethics, Bk. v. 3 (8). The reader will find the two significations of the word ' Analogy ' discriminated in the Elements of Deductive Logic, Part III. ch. i. foot-note 2. ANALOGY 227 of instances, as in the case of Inductio per Enumerati- onem Simplicem, but from a number of points of resem- blance. The argument is not, that, because S, T, U, V, W, &c. exhibit the union of m with a, b, c, we may therefore expect to find m in Z, or wherever else a, b, c may occur; but that, because X and Y (any two or more instances) agree in the possession of certain qualities a, b, c, we may expect to find the quality m which is presented by X exhibited also in Y. The argument is based, not on the number of instances in which the two sets of qualities are found united, but on the number of qualities which are found to be common to two or more instances : the argument is not that I have so often observed a, b, c in conjunction with m Archbishop Whately defines Analogy as a resemblance of Rela- ti6ns. This definition, if intended to represent the ancient signifi- cation of the word, is incorrect. The Aristotelian Analogy is an equality, not a resemblance of relations. The instance given in Rth. Nic. i. 6 (i 2) is that, in man, the reason (Vous) bears to the living principle (^vx*?) ^ e same relation that the faculty of vision (o^ts) bears to the body (<7a)/xa) : us yap tv aw/xtm fy's, iv ^vxi? vovs. The assertion, in this instance, it will be noticed, is that the relation to each other of the two former members of the analogy is, not similar to, but the same as, that of the two latter. The Aristotelian term dvaXoyia, in fact, exactly corresponds with the term Proportion as employed by mathematicians, and it was by the word Proportio, when not availing themselves of the Greek word Analogia itself, that the Romans expressed this form of argument. See Quinctilian, Inst. Orat. i. 6 : ' Analogia: quam proxime ex Grseco transferentes in \aJiva\aSi proportionem vocaverunt, hsec vis est : Ut id, quod dubium est, ad aliquid simile, de quo non quseritur, referat ; ut incerta certis probet.' I am indebted for this quotation to Mr. Austin's Lectures en Jurisprudence, vol. iii. p. 255. Q 2 228 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS that I believe these qualities to be conjoined invariably, but that I know X and Y to resemble each other in so many points that I believe them to resemble each other in all. Thus, because the moon resembles the earth in being a large spheroid revolving round another body, as well as in various other particulars, it may be argued that it probably resembles the earth also in sustaining animal and vegetable life on its surface. But, if every ground of resemblance furnishes a probable reason for assigning to the one body any property known to belong to the other, it is evident that every ground of dissimilarity will also furnish a probable reason for denying of the first body any property known to belong to the second. In estimating, therefore, the value of an analogical argument, we must strike a balance between the known points of resemblance and the known points of difference, and according as the one or the other preponderate, and in the proportion in which the one or the other prepon- derate, is the weight of the argument to be regarded as inclining. If, for instance, the phenomenon A is known to resemble the phenomenon B in four points, whereas the known points of difference between them are three, and it is discovered that some new property belongs to A but it is uncertain whether it also belongs to B, the value of the analogical argument that it does belong to B will be represented by 4 : 3. Before, however, we are justified in drawing this in- ference, it is necessary to observe certain cautions. ANALOGY 229 In the first place, we must have no evidence that there is any causal connexion between the new property and any of the known points of resemblance or difference. If we have such evidence, the argument ceases to be analogical, and, if not a perfect induction, is an imper- fect induction of the kind to be described presently. We know, for instance, that animal and vegetable life on the surface of the earth could not exist without moisture ; but, so far as we are able to ascertain, there is no moisture on the surface of the moon. Hence we appear to be justified in concluding, not by analogy, but by the Method of Difference (assuming, of course, the accuracy of the observations), that animal and vegetable life, in the sense ordinarily attached to those terms, are not to be found on the moon's surface 8 . Again, we happen to know two men who bear a considerable resemblance to each other in character and opinions. One of these men acts in a par- ticular way, and we infer, analogically, that the other will act similarly. But, suppose we ascertain that the act of the former man was due to some particular characteristic, say avarice. The inference will now no longer depend on the ratio of the known points of resemblance to the known points of difference in the characters and opinions of the two men, that is, on analogy, but it will depend mainly on the presence or absence, the strength or weak- 8 See the essay Of the Plurality of Worlds (usually attributed to Dr. Whevvell), ch. ix. sect. 7-9. The whole of this essay furnishes excellent examples of the employment of the Argument from Analogy, and also illustrates the extreme caution and delicacy which are requisite in estimating its value. 230 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS ness, of this particular characteristic in the second man, and, in a subsidiary degree, on the presence or absence, the strength or weakness, of corroborating or counter- vailing motives ; that is, it will depend, not on analogy, but on other modes of induction. Secondly, though there must be no evidence to con- nect the property in question with any of the known points of resemblance or difference, there must, on the other hand, be no evidence to disconnect it. If there be such evidence, the point of resemblance or difference with which we know or believe it to be unconnected must, in estimating the value of the analogy, be left out of consideration. The reason is obvious. When we are enquiring whether this property is more likely to be connected with the known points of resemblance or the known points of difference, it is plain that we must only take into account those points with which there is, at least, some chance of its being connected. Thirdly, we must have no reason to suspect that any of the known points of resemblance or difference, of which the argument takes account, are causally connected with each other. If the compared phenomena agree in the possession of the properties a, b, c, d, e, and of these properties b is an effect of (or causally connected with) a, and d is an effect of (or causally connected with) c, the only properties which ought to be taken into account in estimating the value of the analogy are a, c, e. The moon is supposed to differ from the earth in having no clouds and no water, but, as these two properties ANALOGY 231 are mutually connected in the way of cause and effect, they can only be allowed to count as one item in instituting a comparison, for the purposes of analogy, between the known points of resemblance and the known points of difference in the two bodies. The enormous difference, on the other hand, between the maximum and minimum temperature of any place on the moon's surface, owing to the extreme length of the lunar days and nights and the absence of any sensible atmo- sphere, constitutes a distinct point of difference, and, as such, furnishes an additional argument against the habitation of the moon. When we ask to which side the argument from analogy inclines, we are asking whether it is more probable that the property in question (known to belong to the one phenomenon, but not known either to belong or not to belong to the other) is connected, by way of causation, with one of the known points of resemblance, or with one of the known points of difference : but, in calculating the probability, it is essen- tial that every point should, so far as we know, be in- dependent of every other; for it is only in virtue of each being supposed to be an ultimate property or to point to an ultimate property that it has any claim to be taken into the account. Thus, if any two of the properties are found to be joint effects of the same cause or to stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect, they furnish only one argument instead of two. If we say of A that he is likely, under some particular con- juncture of circumstances, to act in the same manner as 232 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS B, because they are both of them vain and selfish, we shall not strengthen our argument by adding a number of characteristics which are deducible from vanity and selfishness, or by adducing a number of individual acts in which these qualities have been exhibited. Fourthly, it is only when we have reason to suppose that we are acquainted with a considerable proportion of the properties of two objects, that the argument from analogy can have much weight. If we know only a few properties out of a large number, they may happen to be precisely those which are exceptional rather than repre- sentative, points of similarity where the objects them- selves are mainly dissimilar, or points of dissimilarity where the objects are mainly similar. Thus, we 'know that in some respects the planet Mars closely resembles the earth, as, for instance, in having an atmosphere, a surface distributed into land and water, and probably a temperature in which life similar to that on our own globe might exist : but it would be very rash to conclude from these data that it also resembles the earth in sus- taining animal and vegetable life on its surface; for, though life, such as we understand it, does not appear to be impossible on the planet Mars as it appears to be on many of the other celestial bodies, the number of properties with which we are acquainted is so small as compared with the number of properties with which we are unacquainted that there is little or nothing on which to ground even a probable conclusion. On the other hand, the analogy by which Kepler boldly extended the ANALOGY 233 three laws gained from the observation of the motion of Mars to the remaining planets was a perfectly sound one ; for the orbit of a planet, as compared with the condition of its surface, is a very simple phenomenon, and what was known of the orbits of the other planets made it appear more likely that they would correspond with the orbit of Mars than that they would differ from it. The value of the Argument from Analogy, then, we see, depends on the ratio of the ascertained points of resemblance to (i) the ascertained points of difference, (2) the entire assemblage of the properties of the ob- jects compared. If the ascertained resemblances are numerous, the ascertained differences few, and we have reason to think that we are well acquainted with the objects compared, the argument from analogy is very forcible. If, on the other hand, the ascertained resem- blances only slightly exceed in number the ascertained differences, or if we have reason to suppose that there are numerous properties in the compared objects with which we are unacquainted, the value of the argument from analogy may be very slight. It is commonly said that the value of an argument from analogy ranges from certainty to zero. If it reaches certainty, the argument becomes a complete induction; if it falls to zero, it ceases to be an argument at all ; if the probability is expressed by less than one-half, that is, if the number of ascertained resemblances be less than the number of ascertained differences, it is usual to say that analogy 234 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS is against the possession by the one object of a quality known to belong to the other, or, in other words, in favour of their differing in the possession of this quality rather than agreeing in it. ' Besides the competition between analogy and diver- sity/ says Mr. Mill 9 , ' there may be a competition of conflicting analogies.' An object may be known to resemble one object in some particulars and another in others, and it may be a question with which of the two it ought to be classed, or which of the two it is the more likely to resemble in some unknown property. Thus, for some time it was a question whether a sponge was an animal or a vegetable substance ; and it is often by conflicting analogies that we attempt to determine to which of two or more masters a painting or a statue should be ascribed. The extreme caution which is requisite in employing the Argument from Analogy may be illustrated by the follow- ing scientific errors which have resulted from a hasty and inconsiderate employment of this mode of reasoning. Sir W. Grove, in his Correlation of Physical Forces 10 , while combating the once fashionable doctrine of elec- trical fluids, brings into juxta-position two very interest- ing instances of hasty analogies. ' The progressive stages,' he says, ' in the History of Phy- sical Philosophy will account in a great measure for the adoption by the early electricians of the theories of fluids. 9 Mill's Logic, Bk. III. ch. xx. 2. 10 Fifth edition, p. 135. ANALOGY 235 ' The ancients, when they witnessed a natural phenomenon, removed from ordinary analogies, and unexplained by any mechanical action known to them, referred it to a soul, a spiritual or preternatural power : thus amber and the magnet were supposed by Thales to have a soul ; the functions of digestion, assimilation, &c., were supposed by Paracelsus to be effected by a spirit (the Archaeus). Air and gases were also at first deemed spiritual, but subsequently became invested with a more material character ; and the word gas, from geist, a ghost or spirit, affords us an instance of the gradual transmission of a spiritual into a physical conception. ' The establishment by Torricelli of the ponderable char- acter of air and gas, showed that substances which had been deemed spiritual and essentially different from ponderable matters were possessed of its attributes. A less superstitious mode of reasoning ensued, and now aeriform fluids were shown to be analogous in many of their actions to liquids or known fluids. A belief in the existence of other fluids, differing from air as this differed from water, grew up, and, when a new phenomenon presented itself, recourse was had to a hypothetic fluid for explaining the phenomenon and con- necting it with others ; the mind, once possessed of the idea of a fluid, soon invested it with the necessary powers and properties, and grafted upon it a luxuriant vegetation of imaginary offshoots.' Most of my readers will be aware of the difficulties experienced by the early geologists in accounting for the fact that the strata of our own and other northern countries often contain remains of animals and shells akin to those which are now to be found only in the torrid zone. This difficulty is easily explained by sup- posing a different distribution of land and water over the 236 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS surface of the globe from that which at present exists. But we must pause before we admit the inference that, because these animals and shells are akin to those which are now found only in warm climates, they must, there- fore, have subsisted in a similar temperature. 'When reasoning on such phenomena' says Sir Charles Lyell n , ' the reader must always bear in mind that the fossil individuals belonged to species of elephant, rhinoceros, hippo- potamus, bear, tiger, and hyaena, distinct from those which now dwell within or near the tropics. Dr. Fleming, in a discussion on this subject, has well remarked that a near resemblance in form and osteological structure is not always followed, in the existing creation, by a similarity of geo- graphical distribution ; and we must therefore be on our guard against deciding too confidently, from mere analogy of anatomical structure, respecting the habits and physiological peculiarities of species now no more. " The zebra delights to roam over the tropical plains ; while the horse can maintain its existence throughout an Iceland winter. The buffalo, like the zebra, prefers a high temperature, and cannot thrive even where the common ox prospers. The musk ox, on the other hand, though nearly resembling the buffalo, prefers the stinted herbage of the arctic regions, and is able, by its periodical migrations, to outlive a northern winter. The jackal (Cants aureus] inhabits Africa, the warmer parts of Asia, and Greece ; while the isatis (Cants lagopus) resides in the arctic regions. The African hare and the polar hare have their geographical distribution expressed in their trivial names ; " and different species of bears thrive in tropical, temperate, and arctic latitudes. 4 Recent investigations have placed beyond all doubt the 11 Lyell's Principles of Geology, ch. vi. (ninth edition) ; ch. x. (tenth edition). INCOMPLETE INDUCTIONS 237 important fact that a species of tiger, identical with that of Bengal, is common in the neighbourhood of Lake Aral, near Sussac, in the forty-fifth degree of north latitude ; and from time to time this animal is now seen in Siberia, in a latitude as far north as the parallel of Berlin and Hamburgh. Hum- boldt remarks that the part of Southern Asia now inhabited by this Indian species of tiger is separated from the Hima- laya by two great chains of mountains, each covered with perpetual snow, the chain of Kuenlun, lat. 35 N., and that of Mouztagh, lat. 42, so that it is impossible that these animals should merely have made excursions from India, so as to have penetrated in summer to the forty-eighth and fifty- third degrees of north latitude. They must remain all the winter north of the Mouztagh, or Celestial Mountains. The last tiger, killed in 1828, on the Lena, in lat. 52^, was in a climate colder than that of Petersburg and Stockholm.' Neither through Analogy nor through Induction by Simple Enumeration can we establish a fact of Causa- tion, though the conclusions of either of these methods may suggest to us such a fact. When we begin to suspect that any one circumstance or set of circum- stances is the cause or the effect of another, or con- nected with it in the way of causation, we ought at once to attempt to apply, if possible, one or more of the Experimental Methods. If we can satisfy ourselves that their conditions, or those of any one of them, have been rigorously fulfilled, we have, of course, obtained a Valid Induction, giving us either absolute or moral certainty. But something considerably short of a rigorous fulfilment of these conditions may still lead to a conclusion, pos- sessing more or less of probability. We may, for in- 238 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS stance, to take the Method of Agreement, feel uncertain whether a and b (any two circumstances) are the only material circumstances which the cases we have examined exhibit in common; but still we may have examined so many, so various, and so well selected instances, that we may be justified in regarding it as highly probable that the two circumstances stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect, or are, at least, connected in the way of causation. Similarly, to take the Method of Difference, in the act of introducing a new antecedent, we may have unwittingly introduced some other new antecedent, or, in omitting an antecedent, we may have unwittingly introduced or omitted some other antecedent ; but still we may have exercised such extreme caution as to justify us in feeling an assurance amounting almost, though not altogether, to certainty that the experiment has been rightly performed. The less our assurance of this fact, the slighter is the probability of the con- clusion. There remains one case, which is attended with some perplexity. It sometimes happens that, though we may be unable to establish a fact of causation between two particular phenomena, we may be able to show that some one phenomenon stands in a causal relation to some one or other of a definite number of other phenomena. Thus, supposing a vegetable to be transplanted to a distant part of the world, we may be able to assure ourselves, by excluding other causes of difference, that INCOMPLETE INDUCTIONS 239 any new qualities which it may assume are due either to difference of climate, or to difference of soil, or to both these causes conjointly, though our knowledge may not enable us to assign amongst these alternatives the particular cause or combination of causes to which the effect is due. Now ought such an Inference to be classified as a perfect or an imperfect Induction? If we content ourselves with stating the alternatives, the inference should be regarded, so far as it goes, as a Perfect Induction ; for within the limits stated the con- clusion may be considered absolutely certain. But if, on any grounds, we suppose one of these alternatives to be more probable than the others, and we state this as our conclusion, the inference is, of course, only a pro- bable one, and should rank as an Imperfect Induction. The same remarks will apply to those cases in which there is any uncertainty as to the nature of the fact of causation. If the inference be, say, that the two pheno- mena either are one cause and the other effect, or stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect, though we may be unable to determine which of the two is cause and which is effect, or are both of them effects of the same cause (adding any other alternatives which the particular case may require), the inference is, so far as it goes, a Perfect Induction. But, if one or some only of these alternatives be selected, on any grounds short of absolute or moral certainty, to the exclusion of the others, the inference is only probable, and must be re- garded as merely an Imperfect Induction. 240 IMPERFECT INDUCTIONS Briefly to sum up the contents of this chapter, Im- perfect Inductions are the results either of an Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem (to which I propose to appropriate the expression 'Empirical Generalisations'), or of the Argument from Analogy (which I call Ana- logies), or of an imperfect fulfilment of one or other of the Inductive Methods (to which we might, perhaps, advantageously appropriate the expression ' Incomplete Inductions'). In the two former cases there can be no more than an intimation of a Fact of Causation, while in the last we conceive ourselves to be on the way towards establishing one. CHAPTER V On the relation of Ind?iction to Deduction, and on Verification. THE results of our inductions are summed up in general propositions, which are not unfrequently stated in the shape of mathematical formulae. These general propositions, the results of inductive reasoning, become, in turn, the data from which deductive reasoning pro- ceeds. Though the major premiss of any single deduc- tive argument may itself be the result of deduction, it will invariably be found, as pointed out long ago by Aristotle 1 , that the ultimate major premiss of a chain of deductive reasoning is a result of induction. There must be some limit to the generality of the propositions under which our deductive inferences can be subsumed, and, when we have reached this limit, the only evidence on which the ultimate major premiss can repose, if it depend on evidence at all, must be inductive. Thus, most of the deductions in the science of Astronomy, and 1 'H nev 5f] tnaycayfi apx*] fOTt not TOV KaOo\ov, 6 5e av\\oyiff}*o> tfc Ttav Ka06\ov. Elalv dpa <^>x a ' * & v & ov\\oyicr/j.os, ation and Reasoning in Politics, vol. i. p. 386. 310 FALLACIES INCIDENT depends not only on the application of a lighted match and the supply of fuel, but also on the presence of atmospheric air, or rather of the oxygen which it con- tains, though, from the universal presence of air, we are less apt to think of the latter cause than of the former ones. The importance, however, of not overlooking this consideration is shown by the extent to which we can augment the temperature by constantly bringing fresh currents of air into contact with any heated mass, as well as by the similar and familiar phenomenon of the in- creased brightness with which a fire burns on a frosty day, owing to the better draught. The importance of bearing in mind that an event depends upon a concurrence of causes may be further illustrated by the boiling-point of water. The point at which water (by which I mean pure water) boils depends slightly on the nature of the vessel, but mainly upon two causes or conditions, the temperature of the water and the pressure of the atmosphere. Now, as the latter varies at different heights and in different states of weather, water does not always boil at the same tempera- ture, the boiling-point being, as a rule, diminished by i for every 590 feet that we ascend, so that, whereas at the sea level water boils at about 212 Fahrenheit, on the top of Mont Blanc it boils at about 185. It is obvious that any one, not bearing in mind this fact, might be exposed to the greatest practical inconveniences. The following quotations from Dr. Paris' Pharmaco- logia will furnish a sufficient illustration of the importance TO INDUCTION 31 1 of this consideration and of the errors which may result from neglecting it. ' In some cases of irritability of stomach, the addition of a small quantity of opium will impart efficacy to a remedy otherwise inert ; an emetic will often thus be rendered more active, as I have frequently witnessed in my practice. In some states of mania, and affections of the brain, emetics will wholly fail, unless the stomach be previously influenced and prepared by a narcotic. I have often also found that the system has been rendered more susceptible of the influence of mercury by its combination with antimony and opium. So, again, when the system is in that condition which is indicated by a hot and dry skin, squill will fail in exciting expectoration ; but administer it in conjunction with am- monia, and in some cases with Antimonial Wine and a saline draught, and its operation will be promoted. As a diuretic, Squill is by no means active, when singly ad- ministered, but Calomel, or some mercurial, when in com- bination with it, appears to direct its influence to the kidneys, and in some unknown manner to render these organs more susceptible of its influence 5i V ' It has been determined by the most ample experience that substances will produce effects upon the living system, when presented in a state of simple mechanical mixture, very different from those which the same medicinal ingredients will occasion when they are combined by the agency of chemical affinity. To illustrate this by a simple case, a body suspended in a mixture in the form of a powder, will act very differently if held in solution by a fluid. The relative effects of alcohol in the form of what is termed " spirit," and in that of wine, may be explained upon the same principle ; in the former case it is in a state of mixture, in the latter in 5 "' Phartnacologia, p. 388. 312 FALLACIES INCIDENT that of combination. It has been demonstrated, beyond all doubt, that a bottle of port, madeira, or sherry, actually con- tains as much alcohol as exists in a pint of brandy ; and yet how different the effect ! a fact which affords a very striking illustration of the extraordinary powers of chemical combina- tion in modifying the activity of substances upon the living system B V ' It has been very generally supposed that substances, whose application does not produce any sensible action upon the healthy system, cannot possess medicinal energy ; and, on the contrary, that th"ose which occasion an obvious effect must necessarily prove active in the cure or palliation of disease. To this general proposition, under certain limita- tions and restrictions, we may perhaps venture to yield our assent ; but it cannot be too early, nor too forcibly impressed upon the mind of the young practitioner, that medicines are, for the most part, but relative agents, producing' their effects in reference only to the state of the living frame. \Ye must, therefore, concur with Sir Gilbert Blane in stating that the virtues of medicines cannot be fairly essayed, nor beneficially ascertained, by trying their effects on sound subjects, because that particular morbid condition does not exist which they may be exclusively calculated to remove ; thus, in a robust state of the body, the effects of steel, in commendation of which, in certain diseases, professional opinion is unanimous, may be wholly imperceptible. Bitter tonics, also, may either prove entirely inert, or they may give strength, relax the bowels, or induce constipation, according to the particular condition of the patient to whom they are administered ; so again, in a healthy state of the stomach, a few grains of soda or magnesia will not occasion the least sensible effect, but, where that organ is infested with a morbid acid, immediate relief will follow the ingestion of the one, and purgation that ic Pharmacologia, pp. 426, 427. TO INDUCTION 313 of the other. By not reasoning upon such facts, physicians have, in my opinion, very unphilosophically advanced to conclusions respecting the inefficacy of certain agents. They have administered particular preparations in large doses, and, not having observed any visible effects, have at once denounced them as inert. I might allude, for instance, to the tris-nitrate of bismuth, a substance which, however powerless in health, I am well satisfied, from ample experience, is highly efficacious in controlling certain morbid states of the stomach. Dr. Robertson has well observed that disease calls forth the powers, and modifies the influence of medicines. That which agitates the calm of health may soothe the irri- tation of illness, and that, which without opposition is inert, may act powerfully where it meets with an opponent. Ex- periments should be made on the sick, in order to determine how the sick will be affected, and nothing should be pro- nounced feeble, merely because it has done nothing where there was nothing to be done 67 .' To adduce one more illustration : insanity, though sometimes due to a number of causes, each one of which simply contributes to and augments the affection, which would still exist, though in a weaker degree, even if some of them were absent, appears at other Limes to be the joint result of a number of causes, the presence of every one of which seems to be essential to the pro- duction of any effect so definite as to deserve the name of mental derangement. The train, in these cases, appears to be laid by a number of precedent circumstances, and the addition of some one other circumstance seems to be the spark which produces the conflagration. 87 Phannacologia, pp. 133, 134. 3 14 FALLACIES INCIDENT 'When we are told,' says Dr. Maudsley 5 ' 1 , 'that a man has become deranged from anxiety or grief, we have learned very little if we rest content with that. How does it happen that another man, subjected to an exactly similar cause of grief, does not go mad ? It is certain that the entire causes cannot be the same where the effects are so different ; and what we want to have laid bare is the conspiracy of conditions, internal and external, by which a mental shock, inoperative in one case, has had such serious consequences in another. A complete biographical account of the individual, not neg- lecting the consideration of his hereditary antecedents, would alone suffice to set forth distinctly the causation of his insanity. If all the circumstances, internal and external, were duly scanned and weighed, it would be found that there is no accident in madness ; the disease, whatever form it might take, by whatsoever complex concurrence of con- ditions, or by how many successive links of causation, it might be generated, would be traceable as the inevitable consequence of certain antecedents, as plainly as the ex- plosion of gunpowder may be traced to its causes, whether the train of events of which it is the issue be long or short. The germs of insanity are sometimes latent in the founda- tions of the character, and the final outbreak is perhaps the explosion of a long train of antecedent preparations.' (3) The phenomena of insanity also furnish a good illustration of the next source of error, the mistaking of joint effects for cause and effect. In this, as in many other diseases, symptoms are often mistaken for causes. Thus, it is not uncommon to hear violent religious ex- citement or inordinate grief adduced as causes of insanity, whereas these are probably merely incipient K Physiology and Pathology of J\ find, Part II. ch. i. p. 225. TO INDUCTION 315 symptoms, due, in the vast majority of cases, to precisely the same combination of physical and mental causes, which, when they operate with greater intensity, ulti- mately issue in definite and unmistakable insanity. We have an instructive instance of the same error in some of the speculations respecting the origin of fevers. In Abdominal Typhus (the so-called Typhoi'd or Enteric Fever of the English Physicians) the febrile symptoms (Pyrexia, Erethism, &c.) have been ascribed to certain lesions of the glandular structures of the intestines ; but a wider observation has shown that the other symptoms often precede by some time the formation of the lesions, and that the fever may even run a fatal course, though it may be impossible, in a post-mortem examination, to detect the specific lesions in question. Practically, the correction of this and similar errors is of great import- ance, as much mischief may be done, and much time may be lost, by a mode of treatment which, through mistaking symptoms for causes, or co-effects for cause and effect, addresses itself only to the consequences of the malady, and leaves the real source of evil unattacked. The following anecdote, told by Dr. Paris, affords an amusing illustration of the extent to which the ignorant, in reasoning on cause and effect, may be deceived by an invariable, or even frequent, concurrence of events. ' It should,' says he 59 , ' be kept in mind, that two events may arise from a common cause, and be co-existent, and yet have not the most remote analogy to, or dependence upon. 59 Pharmacologia, p. 89. 316 FALLACIES INCIDENT each other. It was a general belief at St. Kilda, that the arrival of a ship gave all the inhabitants colds. Dr. John Campbell took a great deal of pains to ascertain the fact, and to explain it as the effect of effluvia arising from human bodies ; the simple truth, however, was that the situation of St. Kilda renders a north-east wind indispensably necessary before a stranger can land, the wind, not the stranger, occasioned the epidemic.' In speculations on the history of language, languages, which recent investigation has shown to be related col- laterally, were by older philologists erroneously regarded as standing to each other in the relation of parent and child. I extract from Professor Max Miiller's Lectures on the Science of Language 60 the following illustration, which will already be familiar to many of my readers : ' A glance at the modern history of language will make this clearer. There never could be any doubt that the so-called Romance languages, Italian, Wallachian, Pro- venc,al 61 , French, Spanish, and Portuguese, were closely related to each other. Everybody could see that they were all derived from Latin. But one of the most distinguished French scholars, Raynouard, who has done more for the history of the Romance languages and literature than any one else, maintained that Provengal only was the daughter of Latin ; whereas French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese were 6J First Series. Lecture V. 61 The exact relationship of French to Provencal may be repre- sented thus : the Peasant Latin became in the South of France the Langue d'Oc (or Provenfal), and in the North the Langue d'Oil, of which the French (or the dialect of the Isle de France) was the principal dialect, and has in its modern form become the language of the nation. See Brachet's Historical Grammar (Dr. Kitchin's Translation), p. 18 ; ^th ed. pp. 22-3. TO INDUCTION 317 the daughters of Provencal. He maintained that Latin passed, from the seventh to the ninth century, through an inter- mediate stage, which he called Langue Romane, and which he endeavoured to prove was the same as the Provengal of Southern France, the language of the Troubadours. Ac- cording to him, it was only after Latin had passed through this uniform metamorphosis, represented by the Langue Romane or Provencal, that it became broken up into the various Romance dialects of Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal. This theory, which was vigorously attacked by August Wilhelm von Schlegel, and afterwards minutely criticised by Sir Cornewall Lewis, can only be refuted by a comparison of the Provencal grammar with that of the other Romance dialects. And here, if you take the auxiliary verb to be, and compare its forms in Provenqal and French, you will see at once that, on several points, French has preserved the original Latin forms in a more primitive state than Pro- vengal, and that, therefore, it is impossible to classify French as the daughter of Provengal, and as the granddaughter of Latin. We have in Provencal : sem, corresponding to the French nous somnies, etz vous etes, son ,, Us so tit, and it would be a grammatical miracle if crippled forms, such as sem, etz, and son, had been changed back again into the more healthy, more primitive, more Latin, sommes, etes, sont ; sumus, estts, sunt. Let us apply the same test to Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin : and we shall see how their mutual genealogical position is equally determined by a comparison of their grammatical forms. It is as impossible to derive Latin from Greek, or Greek from Sanskrit, as it is to treat French as a modifica- tion of Proven9al. Keeping to the auxiliary verb to be, we find that I am is in 318 FALLACIES INCIDENT Sanskrit Greek Lithuanian asmi esmi esini. The root is as, the termination mi, Now, the termination of the second person is sz\ which, together with as, or es, would make But here Sanskrit, as far back as its history can be traced, has reduced assi to asi ; and it would be impossible to suppose that the perfect, or, as they are sometimes called, organic, forms in Greek and Lithuanian, es-si, could first have passed through the mutilated state of the Sanskrit asi. The third person is the same in Sanskrit, Greek, and Lithuanian, as-ft, or es-ti ; and, with the loss of the final /, we recognise the Latin est, Gothic ist, and Russian est\ The same auxiliary verb can be made to furnish sufficient proof that Latin never could have passed through the Greek, or what used to be called the Pelasgic stage, but that both are independent modifications of the same original language. In the singular, Latin is less primitive than Greek ; for sum stands for es-um, es for es-is, cst for es-ti. In the first person plural, too, sui/nis stands for es-iinrns, the Greek es-mes, the Sanskrit 'swas. The second person es-tis is equal to Greek es-te, and more primitive than Sanskrit stha. But in the third person plural Latin is more primitive than Greek. The regular form would be as-anti ; this, in Sans- krit, is changed into santi. In Greek, the initial j is dropped, and the yEolic enti is finally reduced to eisi. The Latin, on the contrary, has kept the radical s, and it would be perfectly impossible to derive the Latin sunt from the Greek eisi' (4) A not uncommon source of error is the confusion of the proximate with the primary or remote cause of a phenomenon. To be on our guard against this error is often of the utmost practical importance : for the removal TO INDUCTION 319 of the proximate cause may only temporarily remove the effect, and the primary cause may, after a time, repro- duce it ; or, again, the removal of the primary cause may still leave the proximate cause in full action. This error is well exemplified in Mr. Lewes' account of Thirst. ' The sensation of Thirst is not merely a sensation depen- dent on a deficiency of liquid in the system, but a local sensa- tion dependent on a local disturbance : the more water these men (the prisoners confined in the Black Hole at Calcutta) drank, the more dreadful seemed their thirst ; and the mere sight of water rendered the sensation, which before was endurable, quite intolerable. The increase of the sensation, following a supply of water, would be wholly inexplicable to those who maintain that the proximate cause of Thirst is deficiency of liquid ; but is not wholly inexplicable, if we regard the deficiency as the primary, not the proximate cause : for this primary cause having set up a feverish con- dition in the mouth and throat, that condition would con- tinue after the original cause had ceased to exist. The stimulus of cold water is only a momentary relief in this case, and exaggerates the sensation by stimulating a greater flow of blood to the parts. If, instead of cold water, a little luke- warm tea, or milk-and-water, had been drunk, permanent relief would have been attained ; or if, instead of cold water, a lump of ice had been taken into the mouth, and allowed to melt there, the effect would have been very different a tran- sitory application of cold increasing the flow of blood, a continuous application driving it away. 'We must not, however, forget that, although, where a deficiency of liquid has occasione 1 a feverish condition of the mouth and throat, no supply of cold liquid will at once remove that condition, the relief of the Systemic sensation not immediately producing relief of the local sensation, never- 320 FALLACIES INCIDENT theless, so long as the system is in need of liquid, the feeling of thirst must continue. Claude Bernard observed that a dog which had an opening in its stomach drank unceasingly because the water ran out as fast as it was swallowed ; in vain the water moistened mouth and throat on its way to the stomach. Thirst was not appeased because the water was not absorbed. The dog drank till fatigue forced it to pause, and a few minutes afterwards recommenced the same hope- less toil ; but no sooner was the opening closed, and the water retained in the stomach, from whence it was absorbed into the system, than thirst quickly vanished 62 .' In studying the history of a language, it is often most important to bear in mind that words ultimately derived from one language are proximately derived through the medium of another. Thus, there will occur to the reader numberless English words which have been de- rived from the Latin through the French, as, for instance, judge, noble, emperor, governor, prince. And, to quote M. Brachet : ' When Jerome translated the Old Testament into Latin, he incorporated into his version certain Hebrew words which had no Latin equivalents, as seraphim, Gehenna, pascha, &c. ; from Latin they passed at a later time into French (serapltin, gene, paque]. But they entered French from the Latin, not from the Hebrew. The same is the case with the Arabic ; its relations with French have been purely accidental. To say nothing of those words which express oriental things, such as Alcoran, bey, cadi, caravans, dervicJic, finnan, janissaire, &c., which were brought into the west by travellers, the French language received, in the middle ages, many Arabic words from another source: the Crusades, the 13 Lewes' Physiology of Common Life, vol. i. pp. 45-47. TO INDUCTION 321 scientific greatness of the Arabians, the study of oriental philosophies, much followed in France between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, enriched the vocabulary of the lan- guage with many words belonging to the three sciences which the Arabians cultivated successfully : in astronomy it gave such words as azimuth, nadir, zenith j in alchemy, alcali, a/cool, alanibic, alchimie, Elixir, strop; in mathe- matics, algtbrC) zt!>-0, chiffre. But even so these words did not come directly from Arabic to French ; they passed through the hands of the scientific Latin of the middle ages. In fact, the oriental languages have had little or no popular or direct influence on French 6 V The non-recognition of these intermediate channels, through which the words of one language have been introduced into another, has often led to the most erro- neous theories as to the connexion of languages or the relations subsisting between the people speaking them. Thus, it was once a favourite theory that all languages are derived from Hebrew, and the occurrence in dif- ferent languages of the same words has often, without any other ground, been regarded as a proof of the con- nexion of the most diverse races. I add an example from the science of Political Economy. It has often been supposed that high prices produce high wages. A sudden rise in the price of any particular class of commodities may lead, by a desire on the part of the producers to increase the supply, and by a consequent increase in the demand for labour in that particular department, to a temporary rise in wages. 03 Historical Grammar, Translation, p. 22, note 2 ; 7th ed. p. 27, note 2. 322 FALLACIES INCIDENT But a rise in prices produces no permanent rise in wages, unless it leads to an increased accumulation of capital, that is, an augmentation of the fund available for the further production of wealth and, consequently, for the payment of wages 64 . Here the rise in prices is the remote or primary, and the increased accumulation of capital is the proximate, cause of the phenomenon ; but, as counteracting causes, such as reckless speculation or the adoption of a more luxurious style of living on the part of the capitalists, may prevent the rise in prices from being followed by an increased accumulation of capital, it is often of great importance to distinguish the two. I have, thus far, discussed those errors which originate in overlooking the presence of some third circumstance. But, even when all the circumstances except the cause and effect (or what we suppose to be such) have been eliminated, we may still commit an error, either from mistaking the cause for the effect, or from neglecting to take account of their mutual action and reaction and being thus led erroneously to assign to one of the two exclusively the whole share in the production of the ultimate effect. (5) The importance of not overlooking this latter source of error is well illustrated by the following remarks of Sir G. C. Lewis er> : " See Mill's Political Economy, Bk. II. ch. xi. a. 15 On Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, vol. i. P- 375- TO INDUCTION 323 'An additional source of error in determining political causation is likewise to be found in the mutuality of cause and effect. It happens sometimes that, when a relation of causation is established between two facts, it is hard to decide which, in the given case, is the cause and which the effect, because they act and re-act upon each other, each phenomenon being in turn cause and effect. Thus, habits of industry may produce wealth ; while the acquisition of wealth may promote industry : again, habits of study may sharpen the understanding, and the increased acuteness of the understanding may afterwards increase the appetite for study. So an excess of population may, by impoverishing the labouring classes, be the cause of their living in bad dwellings ; and, again, bad dwellings, by deteriorating the moral habits of the poor, may stimulate population. The general intelligence and good sense of the people may pro- mote its good government, and the goodness of the govern- ment may, in its turn, increase the intelligence of the people, and contribute to the formation of sound opinions among them. Drunkenness is in general the consequence of a low degree of intelligence, as may be observed both among savages and in civilized countries. But, in return, a habit of drunkenness prevents the cultivation of the intellect, and strengthens the cause out of which it grows. As Plato remarks, education improves nature, and nature facilitates education. National character, again, is both effect and cause : it re-acts on the circumstances from which it arises. The national peculiarities of a people, its race, physical structure, climate, territory, c., form originally a certain character, which tends to create certain institutions, political and domestic, in harmony with that character. These insti- tutions strengthen, perpetuate, and reproduce the character out of which they grew, and so on in succession, each new effect becoming, in its turn, a new cause. Thus a brave, energetic, restless nation, exposed to attack from neighbours, 324 FALLACIES INCIDENT organises military institutions : these institutions promote and maintain a warlike spirit : this warlike spirit, again, assists the development of the military organisation, and it is further promoted by territorial conquests and success in war, which may be its result each successive effect thus adding to the cause out of which it sprung.' The difference between the calculated and observed velocities of sound (already noticed 66 ) furnishes another illustration of the importance of attending to the mutual action of cause and effect. The wave of sound, in its passage through the air, developes heat by compression, and this heat, by augmenting the elasticity of the air, increases, in turn, the velocity with which the sound is transmitted. Thus the effect re-acts upon, and pro- motes the operation of, the original cause. It was from overlooking this fact that Newton's calculation of the velocity of sound fell short of the observed velocity by about one-sixth of the actual rate. Malthus' speculations on the increase of population illustrate another form of the same error. He found that, in many cases, population increased faster than food increased. He inferred that this increase of popu- lation once begun would continue under all circum- stances ; and that therefore a time was at hand, in many countries, when the bulk of the people would be reduced almost to a state of starvation. He did not observe that, in this case, the effect re-acts upon the cause; not, however, in the way of promoting but of retarding its 86 Pp. 181-2. TO INDUCTION 325 operation. The tendency of an increase of population is certainly to diminish the supply of food ; but, in attempting to forecast the ultimate result of this ten- dency, Malthus did not take sufficient account of the fact that the diminution in the supply of food has, in its turn, a tendency to arrest the increase of popu- lation. Instances of the tendency of an effect to re-act upon its cause, in the way of diminishing its intensity, are very frequent in human affairs. Thus, when a man discovers that he is labouring under a disease, the additional prudence which he is induced to exercise will often not only arrest or retard the progress of the disease, but lead to the prolongation of his life beyond the usual term. Again, when a deficiency of sanitary arrange- ments has led to an increased mortality or the outbreak of a pestilence, the attention thus directed to the noxious influences at work will often result in their removal, or, at least, in some considerable alleviation of them. It is plain that, in speculating on the future, these are con- siderations which ought not to be left out of account. (6) We may invert cause and effect, mistaking one for the other. This error is not infrequent in historical speculations, as, for instance, when some great event, such as the religious reformation of the sixteenth cen- tury, or the French Revolution, is assigned as the cause of a general change of opinion or of certain mental and social habits, whereas, in reality, the gradual, and often unobserved, operation of this change has been the 326 FALLACIES INCIDENT cause, and not the effect, of the historical event. In a case of this kind, however, the event may, in turn, have intensified, and, perhaps, given the sanction of authority to, the causes which produced it. Again, a particular form of government, monarchical, aristocratical, democratical, or the like, is often assigned as the cause of certain peculiarities of social feeling or national character, whereas it would probably be far more correct to regard the form of government as due, in the first instance, to these peculiarities, though it, in turn, may have intensified the causes to which it was originally due. In meteorological speculations it has been questioned whether the electrical phenomenon of lightning is the cause or effect of the sudden precipitations of rain and hail which it generally accompanies. Sir John Herschel (in opposition to the ordinary opinion 67 ) maintains that it is the effect, and argues thus : 'Whatever may be the state of the ultimate molecules of vapour, it seems impossible but that when a great multitude of them lose their vaporous state by cold, and coalesce into a drop or snow spangle, however minute, that drop will have collected and retained on its surface (according to the laws of electric equilibrium) the whole electricity of its constituent molecules, which will therefore have some finite, though very feeble tension. Now, suppose any number (1000 for instance) of such globules to coalesce, or that by successive deposition one should gradually grow to 1000 times its original volume. The diameter will be only 10, and the surface 100 times 67 Herschel's Meteorology, 135, 137. TO INDUCTION 327 increased. But the electric contents, being the sum of those of the elementary globules, will be increased one thousand- fold, and, being spread entirely over the surface, will have a tenfold density (i.e. tension). ******* ' It will easily be seen that, when thousands of these electriferous globules again further coalesce into rain drops, a great and sudden increase of tension at their surface must take place. Their electricity, then, is enabled to spring from drop to drop, and, rushing in an instant of time from all parts of the cloud to the surface, a flas~h is produced. Accordingly, in thunder-storms, it is the commonest of all phenomena to find each great flash succeeded by a sudden rush of rain at such an interval of time as may be supposed to have been occupied in its descent. The sudden precipitation of large quantities of rain, and especially of hail, which is formed in a cold region, where the insulating power of the air is great, is almost sure to be accompanied with lightning, which the usual perversity of meteorologists, where electricity is in question, long persisted, and even yet persists, with few ex- ceptions, in regarding as the cause, and not the consequence, of the precipitation.' A question has also been raised whether the copious precipitation of rain which usually takes place in the centre of a cyclone is the cause or the effect of the cyclone. The more probable view is that the partial vacuum produced by the rain-fall, and the consequent inrush of the surrounding atmosphere, is the cause of the cyclone. Mr. M'Lennan, in his Primitive Marriage, conceives that marriage by capture arose from the custom of exogamy, that is to say, from the custom which forbad 328 FALLACIES INCIDENT marriage within the tribe. Sir John Lubbock 68 , on the other hand, opposes this opinion, and regards exogamy as arising from marriage by capture, not marriage by capture from exogamy. ' Mr. M'Lennan's theory,' says he, ' seems to me quite inconsistent with the existence of tribes which have marriage by capture and yet are endogamous. The Bedouins, for instance, have un- mistakeably marriage by capture, and yet the man has a right to marry his cousin, if only he be willing to give the price demanded for her.' Professor Rogers, in his Manual of Political Economy C9 , calls in question the received opinion on the relation between the increase of population and the cultivation of inferior soils. Though I cannot accept his position, the passage will serve as an instance of the difficulty frequently experienced in determining which of two phenomena or events is cause and which is effect. ' There is not a shadow of evidence in support of the state- ment that inferior lands have been occupied and cultivated as population increases. The increase of population has not preceded but followed this occupation and cultivation. It is not the pressure of population on the means of subsistence which has led men to cultivate inferior soils, but the fact that these soils being cultivated in another way, or taken into cultivation, an increased population became possible. How could an increased population have stimulated greater labour in agriculture, when agriculture must have supplied the means on which that increased population could have ex- f ' 8 Origin of Civilization and 1 "rimitive Condition of Alan, eh. 3. 69 P- '53- TO INDUCTION 329 isted 70 ? To make increased population the cause of im- proved agriculture is to commit the absurd blunder of confounding cause and effect.' While agreeing with the ordinary theory that the pressure of population leads, in the first instance, to the cultivation of inferior lands, I should admit that the greater area of land under cultivation, by rendering possible a larger population, reacts upon and intensifies the original cause, an increased population leading to the cultivation of fresh lands, that rendering possible a still larger population, this in turn leading to the cultivation of fresh lands, and so on, till the process is arrested by counteracting causes. If this view be correct, the ordinary theory is more justly open to the charge of neglecting to take into account the 'mutuality' of cause and effect, noticed a few pages back, than of inverting their relation. VI. The Argument from Analogy, as has already been stated, consists in drawing the conclusion that, because two or more phenomena resemble each other in certain observed points, they also resemble each other in certain other points beyond the range of our observation. The conditions with which such an inference, in order to be legitimate, must conform, need not be here repeated. If the conditions be not fulfilled, we may commit the error 70 This question appears to ignore the fact that a population may have an insufficient supply of food, though what it does possess may be just competent to sustain life. 330 FALLACIES INCIDENT either of over-estimating the force of the analogy; of mistaking the direction in which it points, so as to regard an analogy which makes against a certain position as making for it, or the reverse ; or, lastly, of supposing grounds of analogy to subsist where there are really none. The two former errors have been sufficiently ex- emplified in the chapter on Imperfect Inductions. When we exaggerate the value of analogical evidence, or mistake the conclusion to be drawn from it, we may be led to do so either by over-rating the number of ascertained points of resemblance as compared with ascertained points of difference, or by miscalculating the extent of our knowledge of the phenomena. The examples referred to illustrate both sources of error. Thus, for instance, the points in which electricity re- sembles a fluid are obvious, while the points of difference are far less obtrusive, and, moreover, the unknown pro- perties of electricity are probably out of all proportion to those which we know. In this case, too, when we include the consideration of heat, light, and similar agencies, the argument from analogy may be used against, rather than in favour of, the identification of electricity with a fluid. The student need, however, hardly be reminded that an analogy which in one state of knowledge appears to be a strong one may, as knowledge advances, become extremely faint, worthless, or even positively unfavourable to the position which it was originally adduced to support. The term False Analogy is, strictly speaking, applied TO INDUCTION 331 not to those cases in which we over-estimate the value of the analogy, or mistake the direction in which the argument points, but to those cases of analogical in- ference in which there exists no ground for any analogy whatever. Two phenomena, A, B, resemble each other in the possession of the properties a, d, c. The pheno- menon A is observed also to present the property d, and hence it is inferred as probable that the same property is to be found also in B. Now it has already been pointed out that if we have any special reason for supposing d to be causally connected with any of the properties a, b, c, the argument ceases to be analogical, and becomes in- ductive. But if, on the other hand, we have any special reason for supposing that d is causally connected with none of the properties a, b, c, there is no room for any inference whatever. The whole force of the Argument from Analogy consists in the chance of d being causally connected with a, b, or c: if we have reason to believe that this is the case, the argument becomes more than analogical ; if we have reason to believe that it is not the case, we are debarred from employing the argument altogether. Thus, in a certain sense, the Argument from Analogy is based on our ignorance; it is the result of a calculation of chances, which an accession of know- ledge may invalidate, by either augmenting, diminishing, or annihilating it. Of False Analogy, in its strict sense, that is to say, the error of supposing that similarity or dissimilarity in certain points is an evidence of similarity or dissimilarity in other points, when more careful re- 332 FALLACIES INCIDENT flexion or observation would lead to the belief that there is probably no connexion whatever between the ob- served points from which the Analogy proceeds and the unobserved points to which it argues, instances are extremely numerous in almost every branch of knowledge. As this form of Fallacy is so common, I shall subjoin several examples of it. The following excellent illustration is quoted by Mr. Mill from Archbishop Whately's Rhetoric 71 : ' It would be admitted that a great and permanent diminu- tion in the quantity of some useful commodity, such as corn, or coal, or iron, throughout the world, would be a serious and lasting loss ; and again that, if the fields and coal mines yielded regularly double quantities with the same labour, we should be so much the richer: hence it might be inferred that, if the quantity of gold and silver in the world were diminished one half, or were doubled, like results would follow ; the utility of these metals, for the purposes of coin, being very great. Now there are many points of resem- blance and many of difference between the precious metals on the one hand, and corn, coal, &c. on the other: but the important circumstance to the supposed argument is that the utility of gold and silver (as coin, which is far the chief) depends on their vulue, which is regulated by their scarcity, or rather, to speak strictly, by the difficulty of obtaining them ; whereas, if corn and coal were ten times as abundant (i.e. more easily obtained), a bushel of either would still be as useful as now. But if it were twice as easy to procure gold as it is, a sovereign would be twice as large ; if only 71 Mill's Logic, Bk. V. ch. v. 6 ; Whately's Rhetoric, Part I. eh. ii. 7. The passage does not occur in the earlier editions of "Whately's Rhetoric. TO INDUCTION 333 half as easy, it would be of the size of a half-sovereign, and this (besides the trifling circumstance of the cheapness or dearness of gold ornaments) would be all the difference. The analogy, therefore, fails in the point essential to the argument.' Respect for antiquity is often urged by an argument so sweeping as to assume the form of a False Analogy. ' Who are we,' it is said, ' that we should presume to think that we know better than previous generations ? ' Now, on many matters of fact, there can be no question that the belief of previous generations, when properly examined and sifted, must be accepted as final, inasmuch as they were contemporary, or nearly contemporary, with the original sources of information. To infer from this just and limited deference the necessity of an undis- criminating submission to the opinions of our ancestors, would be an instance of the fallacy of Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem. But this, at least in many cases, seems not to be the nature of the argument, which appears rather to proceed on some such grounds as these : we reverence the opinions of the aged, because they have had more experience than we have had, and therefore, surely, on the same principle, we ought to accept the opinions of our ancestors, who lived in bygone generations. The point of resemblance is the fact of having been born at a period prior to ourselves, and hence it is inferred that the greater experience and the greater wisdom which are found to be concomitants of this fact in the case of many of our senior contemporaries 334 FALLACIES INCIDENT may also be presumed in the case of those who have long since been dead. It, of course, escapes the notice of those who have recourse to this argument, that the average age of the persons living at any one time is about the same as that of those living at any other, and that superior wisdom is the consequence not of priority of birth but of greater experience. Thus far, the fallacy may be regarded as one of False Analogy, strictly so called. But there is another consideration which turns the edge of the argument. Experience grows with time, each generation not only inheriting the accumulated experience of previous generations, but adding to the stock its own acquisitions. ' Recte enim,' says Bacon 72 , 72 Novum Organum, Lib. I. Aph. Ixxxiv. In the first edition of this work I suggested that the reference might possibly be to ./Kschylus, Prometheus Vinctus, 1. 981 : d\\* 8<5aie, vol. ii. p. 174, note 2} is perhaps unsurpassed in absurdity : ' Chrysippus maintained that cock-fighting was the final cause of cocks, these birds being made by Providence in order to inspire us by the example of their courage.' TO INDUCTION 355 not here discussing the more refined employment of it), seems to rest on the three following assumptions : (1) That God [or Nature] acts, not by laws, governing the evolution of natural objects, but after the manner of a human artificer, having in view some special end in the production of each object and of each separate part of it. (2) That all objects are designed for the good of man, or, at least, of sentient or intelligent beings. (3) That we are so well acquainted with what is, on the whole, good for ourselves, or others, or the world at large, as well as with the general plan of the universe, that we are able, in each case, to pronounce positively on the ends which God [or Nature] proposed to himself in his constructions y4 . 94 The 'principle' laid down by Descartes (JDe Principles Philo- sophies, i. 28) supplies an appropriate commentary on this assump- tion : ' Ita denique nullas unquam rationes circa res naturales a fine, quern Deus aut natura in iis faciendis sibi proposuit, desumemus ; quia non tantum nobis debemus arrogare, ut ejus consiliorum parti- cipes nos esse putemus.' It is interesting to compare the following extracts from Galileo's Sy sterna Cosmicum, Dial. III. (Sir Thomas Salisbury's translation, PP- 333, 334): ' SALV. Methinks we arrogate too much to our selves, Siiuplicius, whilst we will have it that the onely care of us is the adaquate work and bound, beyond which the Divine Wisdome and Power doth or disposeth of nothing If one should tell me that an immense space interposed between the Orbs of the Planets and the Starry Sphere, deprived of stars and idle, would be vain and useless, as likewise that so great an immensity for receipt of the fixed stars as exceeds our utmost comprehension would be superfluous, I would A a 2 356 FALLACIES INCIDENT TO INDUCTION Of these three assumptions, the first and second are, as I conceive, based on false analogies, the first trans- ferring to God [or Nature] the habit, observed in the human artificer, of producing each object with reference to some special end, and the second the motives which usually guide the artificer in the selection of those ends. The third assumption, it need hardly be added, involves a generalisation from a very narrow range of experience to operations co-extensive with all space and all time. Even though these various errors have been avoided, and the inductive process has been correctly performed, it is still possible, either through confusion of language, through mistaking the question at issue, or through drawing erroneous inferences in our subsequent de- ductions, to arrive at false conclusions. But these are considerations which properly appertain to the other branch of Logic, which is concerned with deductive reasoning. reply that it is rashnesse to go about to make our shallow reason judg of the Works of God, and to call vain and superfluous whatso- ever thing in the Universe is not subservient to us.' 'SAGR. Say rather, and I believe you would say better, that we know not what is subservient to us ; and I hold it one of the greatest vanities, yea follies, that can be in the World, to say, because I know not of what use Jupiter or Saturn are to me, that therefore these Planets are superfluous, yea more, that there are no such things in rerum natural INDEX Adaptation and Design, p. 344. Adsequata causa, why the ex- pression is not here em- ployed, 121. Adequate hypotheses, 106-112. Affirmative instances, tendency of the mind to notice, rather than negative instances, 255-259' Analogy, argument from, 226- 237- different meanings of the word, 226-227. false, fallacy of, 329-356. Antiquitas sasculi juventus muncli, origin of the apophthegm, 335- Antiquity, illegitimate use of the argument from, 333-335. Aristotle pointed out the de- pendence of deduction on induction, 241. his defective observation, 262-263. his constant employment of inductio per enumerationem simplicem, 281-283. his constant employment of the argument from final causes^ 349-351. Assumptions made in reasoning, xi-xvi, xix-xx. Astronomy, a science of observa- tion, 42, 44. peculiarly rich in examples of the Method of Residues, 175- Authority, illegitimate use of the argument from, 291-298. Average of observations, 47. 48. Averages, undue extension of conclusions based upon, 286-289. Bacon, his condemnation of in- ductio per enumerationem simplicem, 125, 281. his instantia: solitaria?, 144, 145- his instantia: crucis, 151-154. his approximation to the in- ductive methods. 211-214. difference between his pro- cedure and that of Mr. Mill, in the use of the Tables and Methods respectively, 214. his error with regard to the relation between the induc- tive and deductive pro- cesses, 248, 358 INDEX Bacon, his notice of the tendency to take account of affirma- tive rather than negative instances, 255. his criticism of the argument from final causes, 342-345. Bain, Professor, referred to on uniformities of co-existence, 8, 9, 224. his view of the origin of uni- versal beliefs, 34. quoted with reference to the Intermixture of Effects, 209. Botany, reasons for the excellence of its classifications, 55. nomenclature of, 89-91. terminology of, 92-94. Brown, Dr. Thomas, his view of the origin and nature of our conception of cause, 24-26. his objection to one of Hume's definitions of cause, 23. Causal relations, various kinds of, 126-129. Causation, can only be estab- lished by the Experimental Methods, 7-9, 224, 237. Cause, relation of, to the con- ditions of a phenomenon, 13-16. nature of our conception of, 18-30. origin of our conception of, 25-28. definition of, 23-25. is an idea sui generis, 23. error originating in mistaking a joint cause for a sole cause, 305-3I4- Cause, error originating in mis- taking joint effects for cause and effect, 314-318. error originating in the con- fusion of the proximate with the primary or remote cause of a phenomenon, 318-322. error due to neglecting to take into account the mu- tual action and reaction (mutuality) of cause and effect, 322-325. error due to the inversion of cause and effect, 325-329. Causes, exciting, 15-16. predisposing, 15-16. final, illegitimate employment of the argument from, 342- 356. Certainty, the question whether it be predicable of inductive inferences, ix-xx. Characteristick, 84, 85. Chemistry, nomenclature of, 91. method of difference exten- sively employed in, 154. Classification, 52-89. scientific, distinguished from that employed in the affairs of ordinary life, 52-55. scientific, regarded as sub- sidiary to induction, defini- tion of, 54-55. a natural system of, distin- guished from an artificial system of, 55-5?. INDEX 359 Classification, natural, rules for the right conduct of, 74-80. Classifications, though subsidiary to inductions, themselves de- pend on inductions per enu- merationem simplicem, 54. Co-existence, Inductions of, 7-9, 54, 223-224. Colligation of facts, a hypothesis serves for, 99-100. Comparative Method, 206. Comparison, Fallacy of Exag- gerated, 277-278. Conditions, relation of, to the cause of a phenomenon, 1 3- 16. Consent, Universal, argument from, 297-298. Conservation of Energy, Law of, 6, 129. Consilience of inductions, 119- 121. Continuity, law of, 82-84. Crucial instances, 151-154. Darwin, Mr., quoted on the sig- nification of the word ' spe- cies,' 81-82. referred to on the Theory of Final Causes, 342. Deduction, its relation to induc- tion, 241249 ; cp. xvii-xx. Definition, are natural classes determined by definition or type, 85-89. Descartes, his criticismof the argu- ment from final causes, 355. Diagnosis, 84, 85. Empirical generalisations or laws, 224-226. Energy, Law of the Conserva- tion of, 6, 129; cp. xix. Evolution, course of, indicates the existence and attributes of the Supreme Cause, 342- 343- Exaggerated comparison, fallacy of, 277-278. Exceptio probat regulam, the maxim explained, 309. Exceptions to rules, 2ic, 308- 39- Experiment, 39-51. how far employed by the Greeks, 40. distinguished from observa- tion, 39-40. general superiority of, over observation, 40-42. not open to us in the attempt to ascertain the cause of a given effect, 42-43. and observation, rules for the right conduct of, 45-51. Explanation, in the scientific sense, what, 98-99. Fallacies incident to induction, 254-356. of generalisation, 279-356. common to the employment of the various inductive methods, 298-329. the same instance may often be indifferently ascribed to several, 305. 3 6 INDEX Fallacy of non -observation, 254- 272. arising from confusion be- tween absolute and relative frequency, 259. of non-observation of in- stances, 254-268. of non-observation of circum- stances attendant on a given instance, 268-272. of mal- observation, 272-278. of exaggerated comparison, 277-278. arising from treating the in- ductio per enumerationem simplicem as if it were a valid induction, 279-298. of ' non causa pro causa,' 300-305. due to the neglect of a joint cause, 305-314. due to mistaking joint effects for cause and effect, 314-3 1 8. due to the confusion of the proximate with the primary or remote cause of a phe- nomenon, 318-322. due to neglecting to take into account the mutual action and reaction (mu- tuality) of cause and effect, 323-3 2 5- due to the inversion of cause and effect, 325-329. of false analogy, 329-356. due to the illegitimateemploy- ment of argument from final causes, 342-356. Final causes, fallacy due to the illegitimate employment of the argument from, 342-356. legitimate employment of the argument from, 342-344. Frequency, confusion between absolute and relative, 259. Frequency of occurrence does not always furnish an argument for the recurrence of an event, 288-289. Frustration of Effects, 307-309. Galileo, quoted on the theory of Final Causes, 355-356. Geology abounds in instances of the employment of the method of concomitant vari- ations, 193. God ; see Supreme Cause. Nature often used indefinitely f r , 354-35 6 - Hamilton, Sir W., his criticism of Hume's theory on the nature of cause, 22. Herschel, Sir John, distinctly recognises the inductive methods, 210. quoted on our tendency to notice affirmative rather than negative instances, 256-257. Historical Method, 204-207, 252. Hume, his view of the nature of our conception of cause, 18- 30. INDEX 361 Hume, injustice done to him by quoting from his treatise of Human Nature, 29-30. Hypothesis, xviii-xix, 11-13, 97-123, 248-249. always suggested by facts within our experience, xviii, 248. distinction between, and in- duction, 11-13, nz-u.'y description of, 97-99. conditions of a legitimate, 100-113. difference between Mr. Mill and Dr. Whewell as to the functions of, 115-121. views of Professor Jevons on the relation of hypothesis to induction, xvi-xix, 117. gratuitous, 122-123. Hypothetical, all reasoning is in a sense, xi-xvi ; cp. xix. Imaginative Faculty, Formation of Hypotheses the work of, 100. Inductio per enumerationcm sim- plicem, 7-9, 124-126, 219- 226. complete, 125, 219. distinction between complete and incomplete, 219-220. distinguished from the Method of Agreement, 222, 226. fallacy arising, in certain cases, from its employment as if it were a scientific in- duction, 280-298. Inductio per enumerationem sim- plicem, its employment by Aristotle, 281-283. instance of its employment in the Science of Proba- bility, 286-288. is still commonly employed in social speculations, 289- 291. Induction, ambiguous use of the word, 3. the nature of, 3-10, 124-126 ; cp. xviii, xix. defined, 9-10. docs it admit of certainty, ix-xx. distinction between, and hy- pothesis, 11-13. question whether it be from the particular to the general, or from particulars to 'ad- jacent particulars, 16-18. f its relation to deduction, 241- 249 ; cp. xvii-xx. fallacies incident to, 254-356. Inductions of Co-existence, 7-9, 54, 223-224. of Causation, 8-9, 125-126, 224. of Equality, 8-9. imperfect, 219-240. incomplete, 237-240. Inductive Methods, 124-218, 222-223. their object, 126, 216, 222- 223, 299. reducible to two only. 207-208. distinctly recognised by Sir 362 INDEX John Herschel, though the importance now attached to them is mainly due to Mr. Mill, 210. Inductive Methods, approxima- tions to, in the Novum Or- ganum, 210-214. defended against the attacks of Dr. Whewell, 214-218. imperfect applications of, 237- 240. fallacies common to the em- ployment of the various, 298-329. Intentional Species, 123. Intermixture of effects, 208-210. Invariable conjunction, 130,137- 138,145-147,163-164,170; cp. 48-49, 134. Inverse Deductive Method, 205, 252. Isolation of phenomena, im- portance of, 50-51. Jevons, Professor, referred to on the question whether induc- tion be from the particular to the general, or from par- ticulars to adjacent par- ticulars, 17. on rules for legitimate hy- potheses, 101. on the relation of Hypothesis to Induction, xvi-xix. - on the uncertainty attaching to inductive inference, ix-xx. on the nature of inductive in- ference, ix-xx, 1 1 7. Kant, his criticism of Hume's account of causation, 26-27. Law of uniformity of nature, 5- 9 30-38. of universal causation, 4-9, 30-38. Laws of Thought, xix-xx. Lewes, Mr., criticism of his statements on the belief in the law of universal causa- tion, 30-32. Locke, his account of the idea of power, 19-20. Maine de Biran, M., his view of the nature of our conception of cause, 27. Malebranche, his idea of causa- tion, 1 8. Mansel, Dr., his view of the na- ture of our conception of cause, 27-28. his view of the origin of our beliefs in the laws of uni- versal causation and the uniformity of nature, 36. Material and immaterial circum- stances, 48-49, 134-135. Medicine, distinction of exciting and predisposing causes in, 15-16. Method of Agreement, 130-148. of difference, 148-159. double, of agreement (or joint method of agreement and difference), 160-173. of residues, 173-182. INDEX 3 6 3 Method of concomitant varia- tions, 183-206. of concomitant variations, Mr. Bain quoted on its appli- cation in the case of Inter- mixture of Effects, 205-209. comparative, 206. historical, 204-207, 252. Method of Agreement distin- guished from Inductio per Enumerationem Simplicem, 222, 226. Methods, inductive or experi- mental, 124-218, 222-223. Mill, James, quoted on the origin of our belief in the law of universal causation, 34-35. Mill, J. S., referred to on the re- lation between the cause and the conditions of a pheno- menon, 14-15. question between him and Dr. \Vhewell, as to whether in- ductive inference be from the particular to the general, or from particulars to adja- cent particulars, 16-18. his definition of cause criti- cised, 24. his answer to Reid's objection to Hume's account of causa- tion, 24-25. his view of the origin of uni- j versal beliefs, 34-36. difference between him and Dr. \Vhewell as to the function of hypotheses, 115-121. importance now attached to the inductive methods main- ly due to his influence, 210. Mill, J. S., on the Law of Iden- tity, xx. Mineralogy, mainly a classifica- tory science, 55. Natural distinguished from arti- ficial classification, 55-57. classification, rules for the right conduct of, 74-80. groups, arrangement of, in a natural series, 77-80. groups, constant recognition of new, 82-84. Selection, its relation to doc- trine of Final Causes, 342- 343- Nature, substituted by Aristotle for God, 349-351. vague employment of the term, 354-356; cp. 342-343. Newton, his demonstration of a central force, 113-115. his employment of the ex- pression ' Vera Causa,' 121- 122. Nomenclature, 89-91. Non causa pro causa, 305. Observation, 39-51. distinguished from experiment, 39-4- general employment of, pre- ceded that of experiment, 40. alone open to us in the at- tempt to ascertain the cause of a given effect, 42-43. 364 INDEX Observation, sciences wholly or mainly dependent on, at a great disadvantage, as com- pared with those in which we can largely employ ex- periment, 43-45. and experiment, rules for the right conduct of, 45-51. Observations, importance of taking an average of, 47-48. Ogle, Dr. William, his Intro- duction to the De Partibus Animalium referred to, 282. Physiology frequently employs the method of concomitant variations, 195-196. Plato, his employment of the argument from final causes, 345-349- Plurality of causes, 6, 23, 127 128, 131-134. fallacy arising from neglect- ing to take into account, 305. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, 305. Power, question whether the idea of is involved in our conception of cause, 1830. Prediction, value to be attached to, 117-121. Read, Mr. Carveth, his expres- sion ' Vicariousness of Causes,' 127. Reid, his criticism of Hume's ac- count of causation, 21-25. his view of the nature of our conception of cause, 27. Reid, his view of the origin of universal beliefs, 32-33. Social questions, the extreme dif- ficulty attendant on their in- vestigation, 289-291. Species, practice of naturalists in stopping at, open to ques- tion, 80-82. and varieties, constant recog- nition of new, 82-84. Spencer, Herbert, his view of the origin of universal beliefs, 36-37- referred to on the Theory of Final Causes, 342. Statistics, conclusions based on, are instances of the appli- cation of the method of concomitant variations, 204. Stewart, Dugald, his view of the nature of our conception of cause, 27. Subordination of characters, prin- ciple of, 74-75. Supreme Cause, the course of evolution an indication of His existence and attributes, 34 2 -343- Terminology, 92-97. Theory, two meanings of the word, 13. Thermotics, Science of, furnishes good examples of the Me- thod of Difference, 155. Type, persistency of, 83-84. INDEX 365 Type, are natural classes deter- mined by definition or, 85- 89. Ultimate laws of nature, 225. Uniformity of nature, law of, 5-9- converse does not hold true, 6. vaguer and more precise mean- ings of the expression, 9. universality of the belief in, 30-32 ; cp. xi-xvi. origin of the belief in, 7-9, 30-38. Universal beliefs, various theo- ries as to the origin of, 30- 38. Universal causation, law of, 4-9. universality of the belief in, 30-32 ; cp. xv-xvi. origin of the belief in, 30-38. Variation of circumstances, im- portance of, 49. Venn, Mr., referred to on a com- mon fallacy in the calcula- tion of probabilities, 286- 288. Vera causa, why the expression is not here employed, 121- 122. Verification, 249-253. Veritas temporis filia dicitur, non auctoritatis, origin of the apophthegm, 334-335. Whewell, Dr., question between him and Mr. Mill as to whe- ther inductive inference be from the particular to the general, or from particulars to adjacent particulars, 16- 18. his view of the origin of universal beliefs, 33. his position that natural classes are determined not by definition but by type, 85-89. his remarks on terminology, 92-96. difference between him and Mr. Mill as to the function of hypotheses, 115-121. his criticism on the inductive methods, 214-218. Zoology, reasons for the excel- lenceof its classifications^. OXFORD PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS BY HORACE HART, M.A. PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY BY THE SAME AUTHOR IN EXTRA FCAP. 8vo. THE ELEMENTS OF LOGIC, DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE. The two Parts in one Volume, 73. 6d. Also sold separately THE ELEMENTS OF DEDUCTIVE LOGIC. Ninth Edition, 35. 6d. THE ELEMENTS OF INDUCTIVE LOGIC. Sixth Edition. 6s. LOCKE'S CONDUCT OF THE UNDERSTANDING Edited with Introduction and Notes. Third Edition. 2s. 6d. IN DEMY 8vo. BACON'S NOVUM ORGANUM. Edited with Introduction and Notes. Second Edition. 155. THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS. Introductory Chapters. (Jointly with the late J. M. WILSON, B.D.) 35. 6d. THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS. Part II (being the body of the Work). i os. 6d. OXFORD: CLARENDON PRESS. CLARENDON PRESS SCHOOL BOOKS (All books arc in extra foap Svo unless olhenvise described) ENGLISH School Dictionaries Concise Etymological Dictionary, by w. w. SKEAT. A new edition (1901), rewritten throughout and arranged alpha- betically. Crown 8vo, 676 pp. 5s. 6'd. Saturday Review:" Mr. Skeat's larger dictionary has estab- lished his title to the gratitude of all scholars ; and of his smaller dictionary we can only say that it is not less useful and valuable.' Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon, by H. SWEET. Small 4-to. 233 pp., printed in 3 columns. 8s. 6d. net. Jfotes and Queries: 'For the purpose of the student, no work so trustworthy, so convenient, and so valuable has seen the light.' Concise Dictionary of Middle English, from A.D. 11.50 to A. 11. 1380 ; intended to be used as a glossary to the Clarendon Press Specimens of English Literature, etc. ; by A. L. MAYHEW and W. AV. SKEAT. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Dr. Sweet's Grammars Xe\V English Grammar, logical and historical, in two parts, sold separately : Part I, Introduction, Phonology and Accidence, crown 8vo, second edition, 5-23 pp., 10s. (id. Part II, Syntax, crown 8vo, second edition, 14(3 pp., 3s. 6d. School World: 'As an English grammar the book is of high value ; as an historical study it is of the deepest interest, while its clearness and careful style make it as readable to the literary man as to the grammatical student.' Short Historical English Grammar. -21-2 pp., 4s. >d. Guardian: ' In the best sense of the word a scholarly book one that, we hope, will for a long time exercise its influence on the teaching of English.' Educational Times : ' Excellent in every way.' Primer of Historical English Grammar, including History of English, Phonology, Accidence, Composition, and Derivation, with Specimens of Old, Middle, and Modern English added. HO pp. ~2s. K IO,OOO CLARENDON PRESS SCHOOL BOOKS Dr. Sweet's Primers and Readers First Steps in Anglo-Saxon, containing 25 pages of grammar, 43 of text, and 40 of explanatory notes. 2s. 6d. Anglo-Saxon Primer. With grammar and glossary. Eighth edition. 126 pp. 2s. 6d. Anglo-Saxon Reader, in prose and verse. With grammar, metre, notes, and glossary. Seventh edition, revised and enlarged (1898). Crown 8vo, 414 pp. 9s. 6d. A Second Anglo-Saxon Reader, archaic and dialectal, 220 pp. 4s. 6d. Old English Reading Primers, being supplements to the Anglo-Saxon Readers. I: Selected Homilies of jElfric. Second edition. 2s. II : Extracts from Alfred's Orosius. Second edition. 2s, First Middle English Primer, with grammar and glossary. Second edition. 2s. 6d. Second Middle English Primer : extracts from Chaucer, with grammar and glossary. Second edition. 2s. (id. Primer Of Phonetics. Second edition (1903). 3s. fid. Educational Times : ' A concise, definite and practical primer, eminently the book for a beginner. 1 Primer Of Spoken English. Second ed. revised. 3s. fid. A Book for the Beginner in Anglo-Saxon. ByJ. EAHI.E. Fourth edition (1903). 2s. fid. A Primer of English Etymology. By w. w. SKEAT. Fourth and revised edition (190*4). Stiff covers, 120 pp. Is. fid. Notes and Queries: 'A. work which facilitates the much- needed study of our language, and in the absence of other costlier and less concise and lucid works is indispensable.' 2 ENGLISH Annotated Texts Old and Middle English Laurence Minot's Poems, edited by J. HALL. Second edition. 4s. (id. Gospel of St. Luke in Anglo-Saxon, edited by J. W. BRIGHT, 5s. Selections from Gower's Confessio Amantis, edited by G. C. MAC ALLAY (1903). 302 pp. 4s. 6d. Miracle Plays, Moralities and Interludes, being specimens of the pre-Elizabethan drama. Edited, with intro- duction, notes, and glossary, by A. W. POLLARD. Fourth edition (1903), with ten illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7s. (id. Specimens of Early English : with introductions, notes, and glossarial index. Part I: From Old .English Homilies to King Hum (A.I). 1150 to A. D. 1300) : by R. Mounts. Second edition. 572pp. 9s. Part II: From Rolertof Gloucester to Gower(A.i). 1298 to A.D. 1393): by R. MORRIS and W. W. SKEAT. 4th ed. revised. 530 pp. 7s. 6d. Part III: From the Ploughman's Crede to the Sheplieards Calendar (A.D. 1394 to A.D. 1579): by W. W. SKEAT. Sixth edition. 582 pp. 7s. 6d. Prof. Skeat's editions The Oxford ChaUCer, containing in one volume the com- plete text of Chaucer's works ; with introduction and glossarial index. Crown 8vo. 906 pp. 3s. 6d. On India paper, from 5s. The Minor Poems of Chaucer. With notes, etc. Crown 8vo. Second edition. 586 pp. 10s. 6d. The Hous of Fame. Crown svo. 136 pp. 2s. The Legend of Good Women. Crown svo. 286 PP . 6s. The Prologue, the Knightes Tale, the Nonne Prestes Tale, from the Canterbury Tales. R. MORRIS'S edition, re-edited. 324 pp. 2s. 6d. The Prologue. School edition. 96 pp. Is. 3 CLARENDON PRESS SCHOOL BOOKS The Prioresses Tale, Sir Thopas, the Monkes Tale, the Clerkes Tale, the Squieres Tale, etc. Seventh edition. 412 pp. 4s. 6d. The Tale of the Man of Lawe, the Pardoneres Tale, the Second Nonnes Tale, the Chanouns Yemannes Tale, from the Canterbury Tales. New edition revised (1904). 4s. 6d. Langland's Piers the Plowman. Sixth edition. 264 pp. 4s. 6d. The Tale of Gamelyn. Second edition. 104 pp. is. 6d. Wycliffe's Bible : Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. 3s. 6d. The New Testament. 6s. The Lay of Havelok the Dane, (1903). With two illustrations. 4s. 6d. The Dream of the Rood. An Old English poem attri- buted to Cynewulf. Edited by A. S. COOK. 3s. 6d. Elizabethan More's Utopia, edited, with introduction, notes, and full glossary (by Miss MURRAY), by J. CHURTON COLLINS (1904). Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. Elizabethan Critical Essays, selected and edited by GREGORY SMITH : with introduction on the value of Elizabethan criticism and notes. Crown 8vo, 2 vols. 12s. net. Specimens of the Elizabethan Drama. From Lyiy to Shirley, A.D. Io80 to A.D. 1642. Edited, with introductions and notes, by W. H. WILLIAMS. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. The Oxford Shakespeare, containing the complete text of Shakespeare's works, edited, with glossary, by W. J. CRAIG. 3s. 6d. 1264 pp. Crown 8vo. On India paper, from js. Select Plays of Shakespeare, stiff covers. Edited by W. G. CLARK and W. Ai.ms WRIGHT. Hamlet. 2s. Merchant of Venice. Is. Macbeth. Is. 6d. Richard the Second. Is. 6d. Edited by W. ALDIS WRIGHT. As You Like It. Is. 6d. King John. Is. 6d. Coriolanus. 2s. 6d. King Lear. Is. 6d. Henry the Eighth. 2s. Midsummer Night's Dream. Is. 6d. Henry the Fifth. 2s. Much Ado about Nothing. Is. 6d. Henry the Fourth, Parti. 2s. Richard the Third. 2s. 6d. Julius Caesar. 2s. Tempest. Is. 6d. Twelfth Night. Is. 6d. 4 ENGLISH Marlowe's Edward 1 1, edited, with introduction and notes, by O. W. TAXCOCK. Third edition. 2s. and 3s. Marlowe's Dr. Faustus and Greene's Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, edited by A. W. WAHU. Fourth edition (1901). Crown 8vo. 418 pp. (is. (id. Spenser's Faery Queene, Books I and n, with intro- duction and notes by G. W. KITCIIIN, and glossary by A. L. MAYHEW. 2s. (id. each. Hakluyt's Principal Navigations : being narratives of the Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to America. Selection edited by E. J. PAYNE, containing the voyages of Gilbert, Hawkins, Drake, Frobisher, Raleigh and others. Crown 8vo, with portraits. First and second series. Second edition. 321 and 350 pp. 5s. each. Specimens from 1391 to 15T9 : see p. 3. Bacon's Advancement of Learning, edited by W. Aujis WRIGHT. Crown 8vo, with woodcuts. 424pp. 3s. (id. Bacon's Essays, by S. H. REYNOLDS. Hvo. 12s. (id. Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist. By u. G. MOULTON. Third edition, enlarged. Crown Hvo. 7s. (id. Seventeenth Century The Oxford Milton, edited by H. C. BEECHING. Demy 8vo, with facsimiles, 7s. 6d. ; crown 8vo, 3s. (id. ; or, India paper, from 5s. ; miniature edition, on India paper, 3s. (id. Milton's PoeniS, edited by R. C. BUOWNE. 422 and 344 pp. Two volumes, 6s. (id. ; or separately, vol. I, 4s., vol. II, 3s. Paradise Lost I Book I, edited by H. C. BELXHIM.. Is. 6d. Book II, edited by E. K. CHAMBERS. Is. (id. Together, 2s. (id. SamSOn AgOnisteS, edited by J. CHURTOX COLLINS. Stiff covers. Is. In paper covers Lycidas, 3d. ; Comus, 6d. : edited Lycidas, (id. ; L' Allegro, Id. ; II by R. C. BROWNE. Penseroso, Id. ; Comus, Is. edited by O. ELTON. a, edited by J. W. HALES. 3s. CLARENDON PRESS SCHOOL BOOKS s Pilgrim's Progress, and Grace Abounding, edited, with biographical introduction and notes, by E.VENAHLES. Second edit., revised by M. PEACOCK. Cr. 8vo with portrait. 3s. 6d. Holy War and the Heavenly Footman, byM. PEACOCK. 3s. 6d. Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, Book vi, edited by T. ARNOLD. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 5s. Selections from Dryden, including Astraea Redux, Annus Mirabilis, Absalom and Achitophel, Religio Laici, and The Hind and the Panther : edited by W. D. CHRISTIE. Fifth edition, revised by C. H. FIHTH. 372 pp. 3s. 6d. Diydeil's Essays, selected and edited by W. P. KER (1900). Two volumes crown 8vo. 404 and 324 pp. 10s. 6d. Dramatic Poesy, edited by T. ARNOLD. Third edition (1904) revised by W. T. ARNOLD. 3s. (id. Manchester Guardian :' In its new form this book ought long to hold its place as the standard separate edition of one of the two or three finest achievements of English criticism/ Milton's PrOSOdy, by R. BRIDGES. Crown 8vo. 5s. net. Eighteenth Century Locke's Conduct of the Understanding, edited by T. FOWLER. Third edition. 2s. 6d. Selections from Addison's papers in the Spec- tator. By T. ARNOLD. MO pp. 4s. 6d. Selections from Steele, being papers from the Tatler, Spectator, and Guardian, edited, with introduction, by AVSTIN DOBSON. Second ed. Cr. 8vo, with portrait. 556 pp. 7s. O'd. Selections from Swift, edited, with biographical intro- duction and notes, by Sir HENRY CRAIK, containing the greater part of Tale of a Tub,' Gulliver's Travels, Battle of the Books, etc. Two volumes crown 8vo, 484 and 488 pp. 7s. 6d. each. Selections from Pope, with introductions and notes by MARK PATTISON. (1) Essay on Man, sixth edition, Is. 6d. (2) Satires and Epistles, fourth edition, 2s. 6 ENGLISH Parnell's Hermit. Paper covers. 2d. Thomson's Seasons and the Castle of Indolence, edited by J. LOGIK ROBERTSON. Extra fcap. 8vo. is. fid. Also Castle of Indolence separately. Is. (id. Selections from Gray, edited by EDMUND GOSSE. 3s. With additional notes for schools by F. WATSON. Is. 6d. Gray's Elegy and Ode on Eton College. 2d. Selections from Goldsmith, edited, with introduction and notes, by AUSTIN DOBSON. 3s. fid. Goldsmith's Traveller, edited by G. BIRKBECK HIM.. Stiff covers. Is. The Deserted Village, Paper covers. -3d. .TohnSOll's RaSSClaS, edited, with introduction and notes, by G. BIRKBECK HIM.. Cloth flush 2s. ; also is. fid. Rasselas, and Lives of Dry den and Pope, edited by A. MII.XES. 4s. fid. Lives separately. 2s. fid. Life Of Milton, edited byC. H. FIRTH. Cloth 2s. fid. : stiff covers Is. fid. Vanity of Human Wishes, ed. by E.J.PAYNE, id. Selections from Cowpei', edited, with a life, introduction, and notes, by H. T. GRIFFITH. 3U and 332 pp. Vol. I : Didactic Poems of 178-2, with some minor pieces 1779- 1783. 3s. Vol. II : The Task, with Tirocinium and some minor poems 1784-1799. Third edition. 3s. Selections from Burke, edited by E. j. PA WE. I : Thoughts on the Present Discontents : the two Speeches on America. Second edition, is. fid. II: Reflections on the French Revolution. Second edition, ,5s. Ill : Letters on the proposed Regicide peace. Second ed. 3s. Selections from Burns, edited, with introduction, notes, and glossary, by J. LOGIE ROBERTSON. Crown 8vo. 3s. fid. 7 CLARENDON PRESS SCHOOL BOOKS Nineteenth Century Byron's Childe Harold, edited by H. F. TOZER. Third edition. 3s. 6d. Keats' Odes, edited by A. C. DOWNER. With four illustra- tions. 3s. 6d. net. Hyperion, Book I, with notes by W. T. ARNOLD. Paper covers. 4d. Scott's Lady of the Lake, edited by W. MINTO. 3s. 6d. Lay of the Last Minstrel, by the same editor. Second edition. Is. 6d. Separately, introduction and Canto I. 6d. Lord Of the Isles, edited by T. BAYNE. 2s. and 2s. Gd. by the same editor. 3s. 6d. edited by C. E. THEODOSIUS. Crown 8vo. 2s. Talisman, edited by H. B. GEORGE. Crown 8vo. 2s. Shelley's Adonais, edited by W. M. ROSSETTI and A. O. PRICKARD. Second edition (1904). Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. Campbell's Gertrude of Wyoming, edited by H. M. FIT/GIBBON. Second edition. Is. Wordsworth's White Doe of Rylstone, &c., edited by WILIJAM KNIGHT. 2s. 6d. The Oxford Book of English Verse A.D. 1250-1900. Chosen and edited by A. T. QUILI.ER-COCCH. 1096 pp. In two editions. Crown 8vo, gilt top. 7s. 6d. (fourth impression). Fcap 8vo on Oxford India paper, cloth extra, gilt top. 10s. (id. (fifth impression). Also in leather bindings. Typical Selections from the best English writers with intro- ductory notices. Second edition. 3s. 6d. each. Vol. I : Latimer to Berkeley. Vol. II : Pope to Macaulay. The Treasury of Sacred Song. By F. T. PAI.GRAVK. 4s. Gd. On India paper, 7s. Gd. PoeniS Of English Country Life, selected and edited by H. B. GEORGE and W. H. HADOW. Crown 8vo. 2s. The Complete Poetical Works of Shelley, including materials never before printed in any edition of the Poems. Edited, with Textual Notes and Bibliographical List of Editions, by THOMAS HTTCHIXSON. 8vo, with portrait of Shelley and two other collotype illustrations. 7s. Gd. net. 8 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A 001 399914 9