Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow PREFACES - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume VII - A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive

Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume VII - A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive

Search this Title:

PREFACES - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume VII - A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive [1843]

Edition used:

The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume VII - A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (Books I-III), ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by R.F. McRae (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974).

Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


PREFACES

Preface

[To all editions]

this book makes no pretence of giving to the world a new theory of athea intellectual operations. Its claim to attention, if it possess any, is grounded on the fact that it is an attempt not to supersede, but to embody and systematize, the best ideas which have been either promulgated on its subject by speculative writers, or conformed to by accurate thinkers in their scientific inquiries.

To cement together the detached fragments of a subject, never yet treated as a whole; to harmonize the true portions of discordant theories, by supplying the links of thought necessary to connect them, and bbyb disentangling them from the errors with which they are always more or less interwoven; must necessarily require a considerable amount of original speculation. To other originality than this, the present work lays no claim. In the existing state of the cultivation of the sciences, there would be a very strong presumption against any one who should imagine cthat he hadc effected a revolution in the theory of the investigation of truth, or d added any fundamentally new eprocesse to the practice of it. The improvement which remains to be effected in fthef methods of philosophizing (and the g author believes that they have much need of improvement) can only consist in performing, more systematically and accurately, operations with which, at least in their elementary form, the human intellect in some one or other of its employments is already familiar.

In the portion of the work which treats of Ratiocination, the author has not deemed it necessary to enter into technical details which may be obtained in so perfect a shape from the existing treatises on what is termed the Logic of the Schools. In the contempt entertained by many modern philosophers for the syllogistic art, it will be seen that he by no means participates; though the scientific theory on which its defence is usually rested appears to him erroneous: and the view which he has suggested of the nature and functions of the Syllogism may, perhaps, afford the means of conciliating the principles of the art with as much as is well grounded in the doctrines and objections of its assailants.

The same abstinence from details could not be observed in the First Book, on Names and Propositions; because many useful principles and distinctions which were contained in the old Logic, have been gradually omitted from the writings of its later teachers; and it appeared desirable both to revive these, and to reform and rationalize the philosophical foundation on which they stood. The earlier chapters of this preliminary Book will consequently appear, to some readers, needlessly elementary and scholastic. But those who know in what darkness the nature of our knowledge, and of the hprocesses by which it is obtainedh , is often involved by a confused apprehension of the import of the different classes of Words and Assertions, will not regard these discussions as either frivolous, or irrelevant to the topics considered in the later Books.

On the subject of Induction, the itaski to be performed was that of generalizing the modes of investigating truth and estimating evidence, by which so many important and recondite laws of nature have, in the various sciences, been aggregated to the stock of human knowledge. That this jisj not a task free from difficulty may be presumed from the fact, that even at a very recent period, eminent writers (among whom it is sufficient to name Archbishop Whately, and the author of a celebrated article on Bacon in the Edinburgh Review)[*] have not scrupled to pronounce it impossible.* The author has endeavoured to combat their theory in the manner in which Diogenes confuted the sceptical reasonings against the possibility of motion; remembering that Diogenes’ argument would have been equally conclusive, though his individual perambulations might not have extended beyond the circuit of his own tub.

lWhatever may be the value of what the author hasl succeeded in effecting on this branch of his subject, it is a duty to acknowledge that for mmuch of itm he has been indebted to several important treatises, partly historical and partly philosophical, on the generalities and processes of physical science, which have been published within the last few years. To nthesen treatises, and to their authors, he has endeavoured to do o justice in the body of the work. But as with one of these writers, pDr.p Whewell, he has occasion frequently to express differences of opinion, it is more particularly incumbent on him in this place to declare, that without the aid derived from the facts and ideas contained in that gentleman’s History of the Inductive Sciences,[*] the corresponding portion of this work would probably qnotq have been written.

The concluding Book is an attempt to contribute towards the solution of a question, which the decay of old opinions, and the agitation rthatr disturbs European society to its inmost depths, render as important in the present day to the practical interests of human life, as it must at all times be to the completeness of our speculative knowledge: viz. Whether moral and social phenomena are really exceptions to the general certainty and uniformity of the course of nature; and how far the methods, by which so many of the laws of the physical world have been numbered among truths irrevocably acquired and universally assented to, can be made instrumental to the s formation of a similar body of received doctrine in moral and political science.

[Additional paragraph in MS, 1st (1843), and 2nd (1846) editions only]

While the views promulgated in these volumes still await the verdict of competent judges, it would have been useless to attempt to make the exposition of them so elementary, as to be suited to readers wholly unacquainted with the subject. It can scarcely be hoped that the Second Book will be throughout intelligible to any one who has not gone carefully through some one of the common treatises on Logic; t among which that of Archbishop Whately is, on every account, to be preferred. And the Third Book presupposes some degree of acquaintance with the most general truths of mathematics, as well as of the principal branches of physical science, and with the evidence on which those doctrines rest. Among books professedly treating of the mental phenomena, a previous familiarity with the earlier portion of Dr. Brown’s Lectures or with his treatise on Cause and Effect,[*] would, though not indispensable, be advantageous; that philosopher having, in the author’s judgment, taken a more correct view than any other English writer on the subject, of the ultimate intellectual laws of scientific inquiry; while his unusual powers of popularly stating and felicitously illustrating whatever he understood, u render his works the best preparation which can be suggested, for speculations similar to those contained in this Treatise.

[Concluding paragraph in the 2nd edition (1846) only]

The present edition has been carefully revised, and all errors corrected which have been either discovered by the author himself, or pointed out by others. The only portions which have been materially changed are the chapter on the Calculation of Chances,[†] and the latter part of that on the Grounds of Disbelief;[‡] on both which topics the author has been indebted to Sir John Herschel, and to Mr. J. M. Macleod, for some important rectifications of his original conclusions.

[Additional Preface to the 3rd (1851) and subsequent editions[§] ]

Several criticisms, of a more or less controversial character, on this work, have appeared since the publication of the second edition; and Dr. Whewell has lately published a reply to those parts of it in which some of his opinions were controverted.*

I have carefully reconsidered all the points on which my conclusions have been assailed. But I have not to announce a change of opinion on any matter of importance. Such minor oversights as have been detected, either by myself or by my critics, I have, in general silently, corrected: but it is not to be inferred that I agree with the objections which have been made to a passage, in every instance in which I have altered or cancelled it. I have often done so, merely that it might not remain a stumbling-block, when the amount of discussion necessary to place the matter in its true light would have exceeded what was suitable to the occasion.

To several of the arguments which have been urged against me, I have thought it useful to reply with some degree of minuteness; not from any taste for controversy, but because the opportunity was favourable for placing my own conclusions, and the grounds of them, more clearly and completely before the reader. Truth on these subjects is militant, and can only establish itself by means of conflict. The most opposite opinions can make a plausible show of evidence while each has the statement of its own case; and it is only possible to ascertain which of them is in the right, after hearing and comparing what each can say against the other, and what the other can urge in its defence.

Even the criticisms from which I most dissent have been of great service to me, by showing in what places the exposition most needed to be improved, or the vargumentv strengthened. And I should have been well pleased if the book had undergone a much greater amount of attack; as in that case I should probably have been enabled to improve it still more than I believe I have now done.

[Concluding paragraph in the 4th edition (1856) only]

The wish expressed in the preceding paragraph has subsequently been fulfilled, and a considerable number of additions have consequently been made in the present fourth edition. The most important of these relate to the doctrine of Causation, and to the incessantly renewed attempt to make human conceptions, and supposed incapacities of conception, the test of objective truth. On the latter subject I have thought it useful to discuss, in some detail, the opinions promulgated by a writer, the great value of some of whose contributions to analytic psychology makes me sincerely regret that the only part of his speculations which falls within the scope of the present treatise, is a part which I am compelled to controvert.

[Concluding paragraph in the 5th edition (1862) only]

In the present fifth edition, many minor improvements have been made, and an entire chapter[*] has been added to the concluding Book, for the purpose of further clearing up the idea of the Science of History, and removing some of the misconceptions by which it is obscured.

[Concluding paragraphs in the 6th edition (1865) only]

In the present (sixth) edition a cause of complaint has been removed, which could hardly have arisen at a much earlier period. The main doctrines of this treatise are on the whole compatible with either of the conflicting theories respecting the ultimate structure of the human mind—the à priori or intuitional theory, and the experiential theory: though they may require from the former, or rather from certain forms of it, the sacrifice of some of its outworks. I had, therefore, as announced in the Introduction, abstained as much as possible from carrying the inquiry beyond the peculiar field of Logic, into the remoter metaphysical regions of thought, and have been content to express the doctrines and reasonings of Logic in terms which are the common property of both the contending schools of metaphysicians. This reserve was probably favourable, in the first instance, to the reception of the work; but a time came when some readers became impatient of it. Finding that the investigations continually stopped short because they could not have been carried further without entering on the higher metaphysics, some were disposed to conclude that the author had not himself ventured to pursue his speculations into that province, and that if he had done so he might probably have brought back from that region different conclusions from those arrived at in the work. The reader has now the means of satisfying himself whether this is the case or not. I have indeed maintained the same abstinence as in the former editions from the actual discussion of any but a few outlying questions of metaphysics, since no other plan seems to me appropriate to a treatise on Logic; but the place of such discussion has been supplied by references to a work recently published, An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy,[*] in which will be found the remainder of the investigations which have necessarily been cut short in these pages. In a few cases in which it appeared possible and appropriate, as in the concluding section of chap. iii of the Second Book, a place has been made for the substance of what has been set forth and explained with greater fulness in the separate work.

Of the numerous minor improvements in this edition, the only one which is worth special notice is the addition of some new and apt examples of inductive and deductive investigation, in the room of others which the progress of science has superseded, or failed to confirm.

[Concluding paragraph in the 7th edition (1868) only]

In the subsequent editions,[†] the attempt to improve the work by additions and corrections, suggested by criticism or by thought, has been continued. In the present (seventh) edition, a few further corrections have been made, but no material additions.

[Concluding paragraphs in the 8th edition (1872) only]

In the subsequent editions,[*] the attempt to improve the work by additions and corrections, suggested by criticism or by thought, has been continued. The additions and corrections in the present (eighth) edition, which are not very considerable, are chiefly such as have been suggested by Professor Bain’s Logic,[†] a book of great merit and value. Mr. Bain’s view of the science is essentially the same with that taken in the present treatise, the differences of opinion being few and unimportant compared with the agreements; and he has not only enriched the exposition by many applications and illustrative details, but has appended to it a minute and very valuable discussion of the logical principles specially applicable to each of the sciences; a task for which the encyclopedical character of his knowledge peculiarly qualified him. I have in several instances made use of his exposition to improve my own, by adopting, and occasionally by controverting, matter contained in his treatise.

The longest of the additions belongs to the chapter on Causation, and is a discussion of the question, how far, if at all, the ordinary mode of stating the law of Cause and Effect requires modification to adapt it to the new doctrine of the Conservation of Force: a point still more fully and elaborately treated in Mr. Bain’s work.[‡]

A SYSTEM OF LOGIC RATIOCINATIVE AND INDUCTIVE

[a-a]MS, 43, 46 our

[b-b]+43, 46, 51, 56, 62, 65, 68, 72

[c-c]MS himself to have

[d]MS to have

[e-e]MS processes

[f-f]+46, 51, 56, 62, 65, 68, 72

[g]MS present

[h-h]MS modes of arriving at it

[i-i]MS business

[j-j]MS was

[[*] ]See Thomas Babington Macaulay, “Lord Bacon,” Edinburgh Review, LXV (July, 1837), pp. 87ff.

[* ][51] In the later editions of Archbishop Whately’s Logick, he states his meaning to be, not that “rules” for the ascertainment of truths by inductive investigation cannot be laid down, or that they may not be “of eminent service,” but that they “must always be comparatively vague and general, and incapable of being built up into a regular demonstrative theory like that of the Syllogism.” (Bk. IV, Chap. iv, § 3. [9th ed. London: Parker, 1848, p. 268.]) And he observes, that to devise a system for this purpose, capable of being “brought into a scientific form,” would be an achievement which “he must be more sanguine than scientific who expects.” (Bk. IV, Chap. ii, § 4. [p. 256.]) To effect this, however, being the express object of the portion of the present work which treats of Induction, the words in the text are no overstatement of the difference of opinion between Archbishop Whately and me on the subjectk .

[l-l]MS However little the author may have

[m-m]MS a great portion even of that little

[n-n]MS those [printer’s error?]

[o]MS, 43, 46 full

[p-p]MS, 43, 46 Mr. [this change, which was made throughout the work in 51, is not henceforth recorded]

[[*] ]3 vols. London: Parker, 1837.

[q-q]MS never

[r-r]MS which

[s]MS, 43, 46 gradual

[t]MS &

[[*] ]Thomas Brown. Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind. 4 vols. Edinburgh: Tait, 1820; and Inquiry into the Relation of Cause and Effect. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Constable, 1818.

[u]MS, 43 powers which it would be in vain for the present writer to attempt to rival,

[[†] ]Bk. III, Chap. xviii.

[[‡] ]Bk. III, Chap. xxv.

[[§] ]Headed in the 8th edition: “Preface to the Third and Fourth Editions.” This heading was added in the 3rd edition (1851), expanded by the alteration of “Third Edition” to “Third and Fourth Editions” in the 5th edition (1862), and subsequently retained.

[* ][65] [Of Induction: with especial reference to Mr. J. Stuart Mill’s System of Logic. London: Parker, 1849.] Now forming a chapter in his volume on The Philosophy of Discovery [London: Parker, 1860, Chap. xxii, pp. 238-91].

[v-v]51 arguments

[[*] ]Bk. VI, Chap. xi.

[[*] ]London: Longmans, 1865.

[[†] ]I.e., subsequent to the 4th ed.; this paragraph appeared in the 7th ed. at the end of the “Preface to the Third and Fourth Editions.”

[[*] ]I.e., again subsequent to the 4th ed.; these paragraphs appeared in the 8th ed. at the end of the “Preface to the Third and Fourth Editions.”

[[†] ]Alexander Bain. Logic. 2 Parts. London: Longmans, 1870.

[[‡] ]Ibid., Part II, pp. 20ff.

[* ][51] In the later editions of Archbishop Whately’s Logick, he states his meaning to be, not that “rules” for the ascertainment of truths by inductive investigation cannot be laid down, or that they may not be “of eminent service,” but that they “must always be comparatively vague and general, and incapable of being built up into a regular demonstrative theory like that of the Syllogism.” (Bk. IV, Chap. iv, § 3. [9th ed. London: Parker, 1848, p. 268.]) And he observes, that to devise a system for this purpose, capable of being “brought into a scientific form,” would be an achievement which “he must be more sanguine than scientific who expects.” (Bk. IV, Chap. ii, § 4. [p. 256.]) To effect this, however, being the express object of the portion of the present work which treats of Induction, the words in the text are no overstatement of the difference of opinion between Archbishop Whately and me on the subjectk .