Produced by David Widger
A LOGIC OF FACTS:
or
Every-day Reasoning
By G. J. Holyoake
"Call him wise whose thoughts and words are a clear
because to a clear why."--Lavater.
[FOURTH THOUSAND.]
LONDON: F. FARRAH, 282, STRAND, W.C.
1866.
INTRODUCTION OF 1848.
The Logic of the Schools, however indispensable in its place, fails to
meet half the common want in daily life. The Logic of the Schools begins
with the _management_ of the premises of an argument; there is, however,
a more practical lesson to be learned in beginning with the _premises_
themselves. A thousand errors arise through the assumption of premises
for one arising in the misplacement of terms. The Logic of the Schools
is an elaborate attack upon the lesser evil.
Sir James Mackintosh has remarked that 'Popular reason can alone correct
popular sophistry'--and it is in vain that we expect amendment in the
reasoning of the multitude, unless we make reasoning intelligible to
the multitude. As to my object, could I, like Gridiron-Cobbett, adopt a
symbol of it, I would have engraved AEsop's 'Old Man and his Ass,' who,
in a vain attempt to please everybody, failed (like his disciples--for
even _he_ has disciples) to please anybody. The folly of that
superfluously philanthropic old gentleman should teach us _proportion_
of purpose. To be of real service; to _some_ is in the compass of
individual capacity, and consequently, the true way of serving, if not
of pleasing _all_. The republic of literature, like society, has its
aristocratic, its middle, and its lower classes. No one has combined, in
one performance, the refinement applauded in the universities, with the
practical purpose, popular among those who toil to live, and live to
toil. The populace are my choice--of them I am one, and, like a recent
premier, Earl Grey, am disposed 'to stand by my order.' I write for this
class both from affection and taste. If I can benefit any, I can them.
I know their difficulties, for I have encountered them--their wants, for
they have been mine. This will account for the liberties taken with the
subjects upon which I treat. There is more than one kind of hunger that
will break through barriers, and I have taken with an unlicensed hand,
wherever it was to be found, what I wanted for myself, and what I know
to be wanted by those who stand at the anvil and the loom, and who never
had the benefits of scholastic education, and who never will.
Many of the arts and sciences, which formerly resided exclusively in the
colleges, and ministered only to the sons of opulence and leisure,
have escaped from their retreat, and have become the hand-maids of the
populace. But as respects logic, there still remains between the learned
and the illiterate an impassable gulf. The uninformed look on the
recondite structure of logic, and they are repelled by the difficulty
of comprehending it, and wrap themselves up in absolute and obstinate
ignorance, which they believe to be their destiny. The populace, in our
manufactories, have to choose between subsistence and intelligence. For
study, after protracted toil, they have not the strength--and to abridge
their labour is to abridge their subsistence, and this they cannot
afford. But because they are precluded by the destiny of civilisation
from knowing much, they need not remain utterly unskilled in reasoning.
Their natural good sense may be systematized, their natural logic may be
reduced to some rule and order--though it may not be refined it may be
practical, it may give power, and develop capacity now dormant.
The hints, general rules, and elementary remarks dispersed throughout
this work, will probably be of service to the uninitiated, perhaps put
them on the road to higher acquirements, give them a confidence in their
own powers, perhaps inspire them with a love of these essential studies,
and impart a taste for the refinements which lie beyond. My hope is that
many will be induced to consult scholastic treatises, and acquire
that accurate knowledge which makes the society of educated people so
interesting. Impulse has been given to knowledge, and the populace have
begun to think, and both to speak and write their thinkings--and why
should they not be enabled to do it free from obvious mistakes, and with
a broad propriety commensurate with the native capacity they possess?
Why should they, like a certain learned politician on a public
occasion, propose, as a sentiment, 'The three R's, Reading, 'Riting, and
'Rithmetic?'* Why, in writing, should they not express themselves with
strong grammatical coherence, and a certain bold perspicuity, if not
able to reach refinement and elegance? Why, in pronunciation, should
they not speak with a certain manly openness of vowel sound and a
distinct articulation, if not with all elocutionary modulation? Why
should not their discourse be expressed in brief, clear sentences? If
their punctuation went no farther than placing capital letters at
the commencement of sentences and of proper names, and periods at
the conclusion of sentences, it would render their writings more
intelligible than are half the communications they now send to the
press. If they mastered only brevity and abrupt directness, and learned
to omit tedious prolixity, they would command a hearing in many cases
where now they are denied one. If in logic they made a shrewd mastery
of plain facts--being as sure as they could, when once set on surety,
eschewing conjecture and pernicious supposition--if they followed the
methods of nature and good sense, where the elaborate methods of art
are hidden from them, who will not admit that they would be more
intelligible than now, exercise a power they never yet possessed, and
extort the attention and esteem of the public where now they excite only
its pity, or contempt, or outrage what just taste it has? The people
would be enabled to do these things, but that so many who prepare
treatises for their guidance alarm them by the display of abstruse
dissertation above their powers, their means, their time, and their
wants. That a little learning is a dangerous thing is not a maxim
alone believed in by the race of country squires steeped in port and
prejudice, but by schoolmen who cannot bring themselves to give a little
proportion of sound knowledge, but must give all, the reconite as well.
The statesman decries the ignorance and want of wisdom displayed by
embryo politicians who will accept no instalment of liberty, but insist
on the concession of _all_ their claims--but the scholar does the same
thing when he will impart none but the completest information to the
people.
* This case is cited by S. G. Goodrich, the original Peter
Parley, in his preface to 'Fireside Education.' Sir William
Curtis, to whom, probably, Mr. Goodrich refers, gave also
'the three K's--King, Church, and Constitution.'
In quoting, I have been a borrower, but not a plagiarist. In no case am
I conscious of having taken from others without at the same time making
the fairest acknowledgment in my power.
If the references to the highest authorities are sometimes through
others, it is because the highest authorities have not always been
accessible. Those who have had ordinary experience estimate highly the
value of minute integrity in this respect. Fruitless hours are spent
in tracing false and careless references, and to one whose time is his
means, no little injury is done when it is thus wasted.
Unbounded gratitude is due to those authors, old and new, who, with
learning and grace, with care and patience, have put the world in
possession of thoughts which are real additions to its knowledge--and
corresponding should be the contempt of those whose high-sounding and
pretending books seduce readers to wade through them only to find in
them the millioneth echo of some commonplace idea.
The 'Spectator' was pleased to say that I wrote 'Practical Grammar' in
the spirit of an 'ultra-radical, setting the world to rights.' Yet I
have always declared, with Butler--
Reforming schemes are none of mine,
To mend the world's a vast design;
Like those who toil in little boat
To drag to them the ship afloat.
Utopianism is not my idiosyncracy. But I have confidence in endeavour.
Continuity of ameliorative effort is the sole enthusiasm that can serve
the cause of improvement. It is useful to do what seems to be useful,
whether little or much--a moderate rule, but one that will take those
who carry it out, a long way.
My illustrations, I need scarcely say, are neutral in politics and
theology. In the grammar of J. A. D. D'Orsey, published in 'Chambers'
Educational Course,' there are disputations, Biblicisms, and bits of
intense theology. Professor John Radford Young, in his treatise on
Algebra, has introduced a reply to Hume's controverted theory of
miracles--and Dr. Whately makes his 'Logic' an avowedly theological
auxiliary, showing that much passes for good taste in this country which
is only an irrelevant propitiation of powerful opinion. I have not,
however, been seduced by this species of example. There are distinct
provinces in intellect as well as in industry--and what political
economy justifies in one case, good sense dictates in the other. No man
has a right to intrude theology into every question, and agitate points
of faith when he pretends to instruct the understanding.
There is less occasion to speak of the utility of logic, than to show
it to be easy of acquisition. Mr. Stuart Mill, in confirmation of this
view, observes: We need not seek far for a solution of the question so
often agitated, respecting the utility of Logic. If a science of logic
exists, or is capable of existing, it must be useful. If there be rules
to which every mind conforms, in every instance in which it judges
rightly, there seems little necessity for discussing whether a person is
more likely to observe those rules when he knows the rules, than when he
is unacquainted with them.* Certainly people are not so much prejudiced
against logic on account of its supposed uselessness as on account of
its supposed difficulties. Deserved or not, logic has always had a good
reputation. Well or ill founded, the popular impression has uniformly
been in its favour. It has been valued like the diamond--but considered,
like that precious stone, of very uncertain access.
*'System of Logic,' p. 12. Second Edition.
The high popularity of common sense--'the exercise of the judgment
unaided by rule'--has been interpreted into a virtual rejection of logic
by the multitude. But it ought not to be overlooked, that the credit
in which mere common sense is held, is a matter of necessity as well as
choice. It being the best sense the untutored have, they wisely use it,
and no wonder that they are inclined to laud what they are constrained
to employ. Doubtless they always perceived that common sense would be
the better for being made orderly, as a spirited horse is the fitter for
use after being 'broken.' Logical sense, among the masses, is secretly
supposed to be disciplined sense, and to have all the advantage of the
trained soldier over the raw recruit.
It is quite true, as Abram Tucker puts it, that 'The science of abstruse
learning, when completely attained, is like Achilles' spear, that healed
the wounds it had made before; so this knowledge serves to repair the
damage itself had occasioned, it casts no additional light upon the
paths of life.' But few persons sensible of the value of exact knowledge
will complain of the _necessary_ elaboration to which it sometimes
leads. Nor will those who have felt the thrill of pleasure which
complete analysis imparts, regret the patience which put them in
possession of a secret of science, or made them master of a new field of
knowledge.
Common sense is the substratum of all logic. Common sense is the natural
sense of mankind. It is founded on common observation and experience. It
is modest and plain and unsophisticated. It sees with everybody's eyes
and hears with everybody's ears. It has no capricious distinctions, no
partialities, and no mysteries. It never equivocates and never trifles.
Its language is always the same, and is always intelligible. It is known
by its perspicuity of speech and singleness of purpose. The most prudent
of all the children of fact, it never forsakes nature or reason. Some
outline laws for its employment, if they can be indicated, must be
better than its popular aimless and desultory use.
PREFACE OF 1866.
One has no right to make a literary subject political--that is, to make
it partisan; but to give a political motive which concerns all equally,
for promoting a literary study, is allowable, and does not partake of
the nature of party politics. One may, like Cobbett, look on literature
with political eyes, without, like him, making it a vehicle of party
attacks.
In this country, where the political genius of the people lies in
self-government--where the public growth of the people and their
internal liberty depend upon their capacity to manage their own
affairs--the art of public speaking has political importance to every
aide in politics.
To be able to take a subject well in hand, like a stage-coach driver
does his horses--to hold the reins of your arguments firmly--to direct
and drive well home the burden of your meaning, is a power which every
man ought to study to attain, who rises to address a council, or stands
up on a platform to convince a meeting.
A LOGIC OF FACTS.
CHAPTER I. THE LOGIC OF THE SCHOOLS
It is a humiliating reflection that mankind never reasoned so ill as
when they most professed to cultivate the art of reasoning.--Life of
Galileo, p. 1. society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.
Common sense--the foundation of logic--first received (to a limited
extent) the regularity of an art and the certainty of a science, from
the master hand of Aristotle. Impartial scholars, familiar with his
writings on logic, allow them to have not only ingenuity but real merit;
and his admirers contend that he has been misunderstood by some and
abused by others. This is highly probable, as we are certain that when
his works were interpreted by the schools, and his logic proclaimed the
great text-book of knowledge and the only weapon of truth, 'men's minds,
instead of studying nature, were in an endless ferment about occult
qualities and imaginary essences; little was talked of but intention
and remission, proportion and degree, infinity, formality, quiddity and
individuality.'* Logic then was jargon, controversy chicane, and truth
a shuttlecock, with which the disputants respectively played, or the
object which they mutually disguised. Logic was a labyrinth in which the
subtlest lost their Way--a bourne from which the traveller after truth
seldom returned.
* Account of Lord Bacon's Novum Organon Scientiarum, Lib. of
Useful Knowledge, p. 4.
A striking illustration of this has been furnished by a candid and
distinguished writer--Dr. Reid. 'Of the analytics and of the topics
of Aristotle, ingenuousness requires me to confess, that though I have
often purposed to read the whole with care, and to understand _what is
intelligible_, yet my courage and patience always failed me before I had
done. Why should I throw away so much time and painful attention upon
a thing of so little real use? If I had lived in those ages when the
knowledge of Aristotle's Organon entitled a man to the highest rank in
philosophy, ambition might have Induced me to employ upon it some years
of painful study; and, less, I conceive, would not be sufficient. Such
reflections as these always got the better of my resolution.'*
Dr. Whately, who has for many years occupied the throne of Logic and
whose work maybe taken, from its currency in our colleges and academies,
as the representative of the logic of the schools, seems to obviate all
objections to the abstruseness of this subject by a counter charge,
to the effect that logic is now underrated only because it has been
overrated. But it is not the complexity found in it, but the laudations
bestowed upon it which have brought it into neglect. Dr. Whately contends
that certain writers, 'by representing logic as furnishing the sole
instrument for the discovery of truth in all subjects, and as teaching
the use of the intellectual faculties in general, raised expectations
which could not be realised, and which naturally led to a reaction--to
logic being regarded as utterly futile and empty.'** Deeply deploring
this kind of injury, from which many important arts have suffered, I am
neither disposed to defend such a course, nor to imitate it. But I demur
to the truth of this representation with regard to logic. If logic be not
the 'sole instrument for the discovery of truth in all subjects,' it is
certainly the _principal_ one. Instead of charging scholastic logicians
with having unduly 'raised,' it would be nearer the truth, in my opinion,
to say that they have _confused_ 'expectations' by intricate machinery
and extreme elaborations.
* Lord Kamet's Sketches vol. 8, chap. S. Aristotle's
Logic.
** Dr. Whately: Elements of Logic, preface, p. vii. Second
edition.
Intricacy and minuteness of detail might be a trifling disqualification
did they lead to something immediately practical. But Dr. Whately
contends that logic, in the most extensive sense which the name can,
with propriety, be made to bear, is that of the science, and also the
art of reasonings 'Inasmuch as logic institutes an analysis of the
process of the mind in reasoning, it is strictly a _science_, while
considered in reference to the practical rules it furnishes it is an
_art_.'* He confines the province of logic, as an art, to 'employing
language properly for the purpose of reasoning,' and restricts the
logician to the use of the syllogism as the sole test of argument. Mr.
Augustus de Morgan thus exhibits the spirit of Whately's restriction:--
Logic has nothing to do with the truth of the facts, opinions, or
presumptions, from which an inference is derived; but simply takes care
that the inference shall certainly be true if the premises be true.'
It has been, and _is_ to be, objected, that logic, thus confined,
'leaves untouched the greatest difficulties, and those which are the
sources of the greatest errors in reasoning.' To this powerful objection
Dr. Whately thinks it sufficient to reply, that 'no art is to be
censured for not teaching more than falls within its province, and,
indeed, more than can be taught by any conceivable art. Such a system
of universal knowledge as should instruct us in the full meaning
or meanings of every term, and the truth or falsity, certainty or
uncertainty of every proposition, thus superseding all other studies, it
is most unphilosophical to expect, or even to imagine. And to find fault
with logic for not performing this, is as if one should object to optics
for not giving sight to the blind--or complain of a reading glass for
being of no service to a person who had never learnt to read.'***
This would be a most conclusive answer if confident assertion could be
accepted in lieu of proof. The objection still remains to be removed.
We may still demand, does it not fall within the legitimate province of
logic to provide means of encountering the 'greatest difficulties' with
which it is confessed logic is beset? True, there is no art can teach
everything, but is that a reason why logic should teach nothing, or next
to nothing, compared with what seems essentially necessary?
* Intro., p. 1.
** Klein. of Logic, Synthetical Compendium, chap. 2, part
1, sec. 9.
*** Elem. of Logic, Intro., pp. 12, 13.
Dr. Whately contends that the 'difficulties' and 'errors' in the
objection adduced, are in the _subject matter_ about which logic is
employed, and _not_ in the process of reasoning--which alone is the
appropriate province of logic. But it seems to me that Dr. Whately has
found it impossible to keep within the bounds of the restriction he thus
endeavours to establish.
In treating upon 'apprehension,' he introduces, as indeed he was obliged
to do, from the department of metaphysics, several speculations on
'generalisation' and 'abstractions,' and from ontology (the science
which explains the most general conceptions respecting the phenomena of
nature) he borrows the leading principles of definition. Because he thus
goes so far, it is not to be contended that _therefore_ he should have
gone further; but when he found he must depart from his rule and borrow
from other branches of knowledge (no matter for what end), why did he
not depart from it to some purpose, and borrow from natural philosophy
such rules as would have guarded the logician from the 'chief errors'
into which he may fall?
Dr. Whately informs us, indeed, that logic furnishes certain syllogistic
forms to which all sound arguments may be reduced, and thus establishes
universal tests for the detection of fallacy--but it is to be observed
that it is only _such_ fallacy as may creep in _between_ the premises
and the conclusion of an argument. It is to this narrow and Aristotelian
object that logic is restricted. 'The process of reasoning itself is
alone the appropriate province of logic. This process will have been
correctly conducted if it have conformed to the logical rules, which
preclude the possibility of any error creeping in _between_ the
principles from which we are arguing, and the conclusions we deduce from
them.'* We learn from our authority, that as arithmetic does not profess
to introduce any notice of the _things_, whether coins, persons, or
dimensions, respecting which calculations are made; neither does logic
undertake 'the ascertainment of facts, or the degree of evidence of
doubtful propositions.' And just as an arithmetical result will be
useless if the data of the calculation be incorrect, so a logical
conclusion is liable to be false if the premises are so. Neither does
the logic, now under consideration, concern itself with the 'discovery
of truth,' excepting so far as that may be said to be implied by the
detection of error in a false inference.** Logic thus, confined to the
actual process of reasoning, however important its functions there,
evidently leaves us in the dark as to the value of what we reason about.
For the information thus missing, this logic refers us to knowledge
in general--to grammar and composition for the art of expressing, with
correctness and perspicuity, the terms of propositions--to natural,
moral, political, or other philosophy, for the facts which alone can
establish the truth of the premises reasoned from.
* Intro., p. 13.
** For the grounds of these representations, see
Dissertation on the Province of Reasoning, chap. 2, sec. 4
Dr. Whately's Logic.
The exclusion from logic of all consideration of the facts on which
propositions are founded, is thus endeavoured to be justified by the
Archbishop of Dublin:--'No arithmetical skill will secure a correct
result, unless the data are correct from which we calculate: nor does
any one on that account undervalue arithmetic; and yet the objection
against logic rests on no better foundation.' This is true, but is
it true that arithmetic is on _this account_ to be imitated? If the
arithmetician must take his data for granted, it is what the searcher
after truth must never do--_he_ must use his eyes and examine for
himself, in all cases, as far as possible, unless he intends to be
deceived. And for want of such precaution as this, the arithmetician is
at sea the moment he steps out of the narrow path of mechanical routine.
Who is not aware of the failures of calculation when applied to the
general business of life--to statistics, moral and political? Every
day, facts have to be called in to correct the egregious blunders of
figures.* The calculations are conducted in most approved form, but are
of no use. Does not this demonstrate that when arithmetic, like logic,
is applied to the business of life, general rules for securing the
accuracy of data would be of essential service? Supposing, however, that
arithmetic could do very well without them, does it follow that logic
should, when it would be safer and more efficient with them?
* 'In Art, in Practice, innumerable critics will demonstrate
that most things are impossible. It was proved by fluxionary
calculus, that steam-ships could never get across from the
farthest point of Ireland to the nearest of Newfoundland;
impelling force, resisting force, maximum here, minimum
there; by law of Nature, and geometric demonstration--what
could be done? The Great Western could weigh anchor from
Bristol Port; that could be done. The Great Western,
bounding safe through the gullets of the Hudson, threw her
cable out on the capstan of New York, and left our still
moist paper-demonstration to dry itself at leisure.'--
Thomas Carlyle, Chartism, pp. 96-7.
Since our author's canons are held absolute in the schools, it may be
useful to consider this last cited argument in another light. A stronger
objection may be urged, one which particularly addresses itself to those
who mistake mere pertinence for general relevance, and suppose that a
single analogy decides a case.
His Grace reasons, that, because arithmetic does not concern itself
about its data, logic should follow the same example. But why overlooks
he pure mathematics--a much higher science than arithmetic? Surely
geometry, which through all time has been the model of the sciences, was
better worthy than arithmetic to be the model of logic! Was it classical
in the principal of St. Alban's College to abandon Euclid and cleave
unto Cocker or Walkingame?
Arithmetic is mechanical--geometry is reasoning; surely it was more
befitting to compare reason with reason, when endeavouring to discover
the true way of perfecting reason. Geometry is, of all sciences, reputed
the most conclusive in its arguments--and we know it is distinguished
above all sciences for carefulness in its data. It begins with axioms,
the most indubitable of all data, and its subsequent conclusions
are founded only on established facts--and to be sure that they are
established facts, the geometer, before he employs them, establishes
them himself. If an analogy is to decide the province of logic, here is
an analogy whose pretensions over those of arithmetic are eminent.
So conclusive did Dr. Whately deem the argument just examined, that he
many times, in various forms, reproduced it. One of the last instances
is under the head of 'Fallacies.' 'It has been made a subject of bitter
complaint against logic, that it presupposes the most difficult point to
be already accomplished; viz., the sense of the terms to be ascertained.
A similar objection might be urged against every other art in existence
e.g., against agriculture, that all the precepts for the cultivation of
land presuppose the possession of a farm.'*
* Logic, chap. 3. Fallacies, sec. 2.
Already has been pointed out what may reasonably induce a suspicion
of the soundness of these analogies; viz., that their author found
it necessary to disregard them and introduce, from other branches of
knowledge, certain disquisitions on the 'sense of terms.' With regard to
this particular instance, it may be observed, that though treatises
on agriculture do presuppose the possession of a farm, they do not
presuppose the knowledge requisite for cultivating it, but inform
_fully_ of soil, and seed, and crops. So logic may be allowed to
presuppose the existence of the universe, whence truth is drawn, or the
existence of language, 'whereby it is expressed; but it is surely not
to _pre-suppose_ the knowledge of facts and terms, the great instruments
for the cultivation of truth. Agricultural treatises hardly warrant this
inference. There are the representations that induced the confession
that 'Logic is not so much an instrument of acquirement as of defence.
It is a good armour to buckle on when compelled to battle for our
heritage, but a poor implement for its cultivation.'*
All _practical_ arts include a knowledge of materials as well as
implements. Platers, ignorant of the nature of metals, cabinetmakers,
of the different species of wood, make but sorry artizans; and in like
manner, reasoners, unacquainted, at least in a general way, with the
accuracy of what is reasoned about, make but sorry logicians.**
It will readily be expected that in the modern progress of knowledge,
the Aristotelian province of logic would be enlarged. The far-seeing
intellect of Lord Verulam heralded the innovation--'Our glorious Bacon
led philosophy forth from the jargon of schools and the fopperies
of sects. He made her to be--the handmaid of nature, friendly to her
creatures, and faithful to her laws.'***
* W. J. Fox, Mon. Rep., p. 45: 1835.
** The reader will find that logician is need in the sense
of skilfulness in eliciting and exhibiting reality. By that
which I call logical is meant that which is truthful. I
presume that is the sense to which this high word should be
confined. It is the lax application of this term to mere
dexterity in evading the truth according to rule, that has
so increased the unsatisfactory race of professed sceptics.
--See Scepticism, chap. XII.
*** Langhornea' Preface to the Lives of Plutarch.
The general object of Lord Bacon's philosophy, writes Bruce, an
Edinburgh professor of logic of the last century, is to connect the
reasoning powers of man with experiments for the improvement of natural
knowledge.
To create a just taste for philosophical investigation, required--
1. A display of the true, that they may be distinguished from the false
subjects of inquiry.
2. Scientific rules to direct the discovery of the laws of nature.
But to 'display the true,' is to display the _facts_ on which the truth
rests. The 'discovery of the laws of nature' implies _observation_ of
the operations of nature. The philosophy of Bacon, says Macaulay, began
in observation and ended in arts.
It is most obvious, as the reader will gather from what has been
advanced, that for guarding, to the greatest possible extent, against
error in conclusions, it is necessary to take into consideration the
character of the data from which we reason--and to do this, we must draw
from the general sources of knowledge to which the Logic of the Schools
refers us. If we happen not to possess an accurate acquaintance with
these branches, we must draw upon the best notions we have of them, or
apply such natural sagacity as we happen to possess. But whether the
information we happen to possess be complete or partial, it is not well
that we are left to apply it at random, without any definite mode of
procedure; and if logic refuses to assist us, and gives only a vague
reference elsewhere, we must endeavour to assist ourselves. The datum
of all arguments is a proposition, an assertion, or denial; and to
ascertain its truth (upon which the value of the whole reasoning
depends) we have to do with the facts upon which it rests, and the terms
in which it is expressed. For it may be here observed, that the truth
or falsity of every proposition depends upon facts. To ascertain the
general accuracy of facts, we have to appeal to received standards of
certainty; and to fix the meaning of terms, we have recourse to a plain
principle of definition. In the task of recognising truth, so necessary
in examining the premises of an argument, one is wonderfully assisted
by being familiarised with the sources of truth, and the mode of its
discovery. In these operations the tutored and untutored may alike be
assisted by simple general rules. If these rules prove not infallible in
every case, they will prove successful in the majority of cases.
Since general rules are the only, rules that the vast field of facts
admits of, they are not to be rejected on light grounds. They enable
us to set forth intelligibly the reasons of our own conviction, and to
detect and expose the fundamental fallacies of apparent arguments. Since
they direct us where the Logic of the Schools leaves us without a guide,
their value is apparent.
The logical management of the syllogism involves much abstruseness
respecting 'genus' and 'species,' the 'quantity' and 'quality' of
'propositions', 'contraries,' 'sub-contraries,' 'contradictions,'
and 'subalterns.' Stepping by 'illative conversion,' 'six rules to be
observed with respect to categorical syllogism' next demand attention,
followed hard by eleven moods which can be used in a legitimate
syllogism, Viz.---- A, A, A, A, A, I, A., E, E, A, E, O, A, I, I, A, O,
O, E, A, E, E, A, O, E, I, O, I, A, I, O, A, O.' In the middle of
this abstract train march the 'undistributed middle' and the 'illicit
process,' attended by four figures represented by the following
mnemonic lines, which must be carefully committed to memory:'--
Fig. 1. bArbArA, cElArEnt, dArII, fErIOque prioris.
Fig. 2. cEsArE, dAmEstrEs, fEstInO, bArOkO,* secundae.
Fig. 3. tertia, dArAptI, dIsAmIs, dAtIsI, fElAptOn, bOkArdO,** fErlsO,
habet; quarta insuper addit.
Fig. 4. brAmAntIp, cAmEnEs, dImArIs, fEsApo, frEsIsOn.
A motley group, too numerous to be particularised, bring up the complex
rear of 'Modals,' 'Hypotheticals,' 'Conditionals,' and 'Disjunctives.'
This is certainly not the portal through which the populace can at
present pass to logic, even if such logic helped them to all truth, and
saved them from all fallacy.
But this species of logic is not without interest. Symbolic letters and
mnemonic lines are not without attractions to those who understand
them. There is poetry in an algebraic sign, when it is the emblem of a
difficulty solved, and a wonderful result simply arrived at. To try the
whole power of words, and discover every form of language in which a
legitimate deduction can be expressed, is no ignoble task. It is a high
discipline, but it belongs rather to the age of leisure than this of
'copperasfames, cotton-fuz, gin-riot, wrath, and toil'--to the luxuries
rather than the utilities of learning.
There is the inefficiency of the syllogism, and also the vitiation
produced by its employment.
1. It corrupts the taste for philosophical invention by placing
philosophy in abstractions, and withdrawing it from the observation of
nature.
2. It creates a reliance on principles, which originate in the
_hypotheses_ of philosophers, not in the laws of nature.
3. It makes truth the result of the forms of argument, not of scientific
evidence.***
* Or, Fakoro, as indeed all the particulars in this place
recited.
** Or, Dokamo. but a brief summary of the subjects
comprised in his logic in reference to the syllogism.
***Bruce. These references to Fakoro and Dokamo are Whately's.
Lord Kames cites from the father of logic the following syllogism, which
will bear repetition as an extraordinary instance of that assumption for
which the Logic of the Schools provides no remedy:--
Heavy bodies naturally tend to the centre of the universe.
We know, by experience, that heavy bodies tend to the centre of the earth.
Therefore the centre of the earth is the centre of the universe.
But by what experience did Aristotle discover the centre of the
universe, so as to become aware that heavy bodies _naturally_ tend
there? On what facts rest the measurement of the radii from our earth to
the boundless circumference of space? How did he ascertain the limits of
that which has no limits? Yet, strange to say, the Logic of the Schools
prides itself in leaving us where the Stagyrite left us.
'When mankind began to reason on the phenomena of nature, they were
solicitous to _abstract_, and they formed general propositions from a
_limited_ observation. Though these propositions were assumed, they were
admitted as true. They were not examined _by appeals to nature_, but by
comparison with other propositions.'*
In this syllogism from Aristotle, there is the usual compliance with
accredited rules, and the same defiance of common sense. Such examples
are deemed perfect reasoning and legitimate argument; but is it not a
mockery to encourage the belief that we can have reason and argument,
without the truth? Only this shallow consolation remains to us. If the
logician of the schoole does not enlighten the understanding, he is at
least reputed not to offend the taste, and he wins the equivocal praise
of Butler:--
'He'll run in debt by disputation,
And pay with ratiocination;
All this by syllogism, true
In mood and figure, he will do.'
Syllogisms are to truth what rhyme is to poetry. 'It is a well known
fact that verse, faultless in form, may be utterly destitute of poetic
fire or feeling.'**
* Bruce.
** A. J. D. D'Orsey, Eng. Gram., part 2, article Prosody.
According to the Logic of the Schools, 'the question respecting the
validity of an argument is not whether the conclusion be _true_, but
whether it _follows_ from the premises adduced.' It was the bitter
experience of Bordon of the delusiveness of such partial logic that
induced him to exclaim, '_one_ fact is worth fifty _arguments_.'
With such authorities, 'a valid argument is that which it so stated that
its conclusiveness is evident from the mere _form_ of the expression.'
But since it is admitted that if the data reasoned upon be incorrect,
no logical skill can secure a correct result; it is evident that however
_faultless the form_, the inquirer after truth is in no way nearer his
object, unless he be instructed how to lay a foundation of _faultless
facts_. He then, who is in love with truth rather than logomachy, will
admit, in spite of the most ingenious analogies, that there is some room
for a logic of facts, as well as a logic of words.