FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   >>  
mith is a man, therefore Smith is mortal,' means that we know, before drawing our inference, that literally all men are mortal, we must already have discovered that Smith is mortal; if we did not know beforehand that Smith is mortal, we were not justified in stating that _all_ men are mortal. Nor is it an escape to interpret 'All men are mortal' to mean that immortals are excluded from 'man' by definition. For then the question is merely begged in the minor premiss. That 'Smith is a man' cannot be asserted without assuming that he is mortal. If, lastly, 'All men are mortal' be taken to state a law of nature conjoining inseparably mortality and humanity, the logician either already knows that Smith is rightly classed under the species 'man,' and so subject to its mortality, or else he _assumes_ this. But how does he know Smith is not like Elijah or Tithonus, a peculiar case, to which for some reason the law does not apply? Will he declare it to be 'intuitively certain' that whatever is called, or looks like, a case of a 'law' _ipso facto_ becomes one? The logician's analysis of reasoning, then, breaks down. In whichever way he interprets the Syllogism it is revealed as either a superfluity or a fallacy: it is never a 'formally valid inference' that can compel assent. But common sense is undismayed by the pragmatist's discovery that if the Syllogism is to have any sense its premisses _must_ be taken as disputable; for, unlike Formal Logic, it has perceived that men do not reason about what they think they know for certain, but about matters in dispute. 4. It is not necessary to dwell at length on the futility of the formal notion of Induction. Formal Induction presupposes that enough particular instances have been collected to establish a general rule; but in actual practice inductions always repose, not on indiscriminate observation, but on a _selection of relevant instances_, and never claim to be based upon an _exhaustive_ knowledge of particulars. Hence _in form_ the most satisfactory induction is always incomplete, and differs in no wise from a bad one. 'All bodies fall to the ground' is an induction which has worked. 'All swans are white' broke down when black swans were discovered in Australia. The validity of an induction, then, is not a question of form. The necessity for such selection no intellectualist theory of Induction has understood. All have aimed at exhaustiveness, and imagined that if it could be
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   >>  



Top keywords:

mortal

 
Induction
 

induction

 
inference
 

Formal

 

logician

 
mortality
 

selection

 

Syllogism

 

reason


discovered

 
question
 

instances

 

presupposes

 

dispute

 

perceived

 

disputable

 
unlike
 

matters

 

futility


formal

 

length

 

notion

 

exhaustive

 

worked

 
ground
 
bodies
 

Australia

 
validity
 

exhaustiveness


imagined
 

understood

 

theory

 

necessity

 
intellectualist
 

differs

 

inductions

 

repose

 
indiscriminate
 

observation


practice

 
actual
 

establish

 

general

 

relevant

 
satisfactory
 

incomplete

 
particulars
 

knowledge

 

premisses