NewThoughtLibrary.com / DivineLibrary.org

of experience, therefore, can lay no great stress on the syllogism. The only service it can assign it, is that of a convenient re-statement of conclusions already arrived at, and this, not in the exact line in which the first, the real argument lay. This was on the road upward to the principle, whereas the syllogism lies in the way downward to a specific example included under it. When inductive matter receives syllogistic statement, either the statement is defective, or the general principle is assumed, and then the case in hand is taken from it. The argument by which we mount to a general law, does not suffer a syllogism; the seeming argument by which we descend to a particular fact is but a restatement of previous knowledge, and yields a syllogism deductive in form. Of the defective, inductive syllogism, the following is an example; The metals A, B, C, represent (not are) all metals; A, B, C, expand under heat; therefore all metals expand under heat. This result is proximately not absolutely true. If the law had been established by sufficient observation, that all metals expand when heated, the following would be the deductive syllogistic statement of a single fact covered by it. All metals expand by heat: A is a metal; therefore A expands under heat. The confusion which has arisen in the various estimates of the value of the syllogism seems to find its sources in the language employed, in two restricted definitions, and, more than all, in failing to estimate the influence of different philosophical systems on the respective methods of logic.

The two forms of reasoning differ (1) in their data. Deduction starts either with intuitive data, or with statements of facts regarded as complete; induction rests upon facts and statements obviously partial. (2) The connections between the premises in the one form of reasoning involves axioms only; in the other it includes one or other of all the shades of resemblance contained between perfect identity