The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Introductory Note.
• Book I.
• Chap. I.: Whether a Demonstrative Science Exists
• Chap. II.: What Knowing Is, What Demonstration Is, and of What It Consists
• Chap. III.: A Refutation of the Error Into Which Some Have Fallen Concerning Science and Demonstration
• Chap. IV.: The Meaning of ‘distributive,’ ‘essential,’ ‘universal’
• Chap. V.: From What Causes Mistakes Arise With Regard to the Discovery of the Universal. How They May Be Avoided
• Chap. VI.: Demonstration Is Founded On Necessary and Essential Principles
• Chap. VII.: The Premises and the Conclusion of a Demonstration Must Belong to the Same Genus
• Chap. VIII.: Demonstration Is Concerned Only With What Is Eternal
• Chap. IX.: Demonstration Is Founded Not On General, But On Special and Indemonstrable Principles; Nor Is It Easy to Know Whether One Really Possesses Knowledge Drawn From These Principles
• Chap. X.: The Definition and Division of Principles
• Chap. XI.: On Certain Principles Which Are Common to All Sciences
• Chap. XII.: On Questions, And, In Passing, On the Way In Which Sciences Are Extended
• Chap. XIII.: The Difference Between the Demonstration and Science of a Thing’s Nature and Those of Its Cause
• Chap. XIV.: The Figure Proper to Demonstrate Syllogism
• Chap. XV.: On Immediate Negative Propositions
• Chap. XVI.: On Ignorance Resulting From a Defective Arrangement of Terms In Mediate Propositions
• Chap. XVII.: On Ignorance Resulting From a Defective Arrangement of Terms In Immediate Propositions
• Chap. XVIII.: On Ignorance As Resulting From Defective Sense Perception
• Chap. XIX.: Whether the Principles of Demonstration Are Finite Or Infinite
• Chap. XX.: Middle Terms Are Not Infinite
• Chap. XXI.: In Negations Some Final and Ultimate Point Is Reached Where the Series Must Cease
• Chap. XXII.: In Affirmations Some Final and Ultimate Point Is Reached Where the Series Must Cease
• Chap. XXIII.: Certain Corollaries
• Chap. XXIV.: Whether Universal Or Particular Demonstration Is Superior
• Chap. XXV.: That Affirmative Is Superior to Negative Demonstration
• Chap. XXVI.: Direct Demonstration Is Superior to Reduction Per Impossible
• Chap. XXVII.: What Science Is More Certain and Prior, and What Less Certain and Inferior
• Chap. XXVIII.: What Constitutes One Or Many Sciences
• Chap. XXIX.: Concerning Many Demonstrations of the Same Thing
• Chap. XXX.: On Fortuitous Occurrences
• Chap. XXXI.: Sense Perception Cannot Give Demonstrative Science
• Chap. XXXII.: On the Difference of Principles Corresponding to the Difference of Syllogisms
• Chap. XXXIII.: The Distinction Between Science and Opinion
• Chap. XXXIV.: On Sagacity
• Book II.
• Chap. I.: On the Number and Arrangements of Questions
• Chap. II.: Every Question Is Concerned With the Discovery of a Middle Term
• Chap. III.: The Distinction Between Definition and Demonstration
• Chap. IV.: The Essence of a Thing Cannot Be Attained By Syllogism
• Chap. V.: Knowledge of the Essence Cannot Be Attained By Division
• Chap. VI.: The Essence Cannot Be Proved By the Definition of the Thing Itself Or By That of Its Opposite
• Chap. VII.: Whether the Essence Can In Any Way Be Proved
• Chap. VIII.: How the Essence Can Be Proved
• Chap. IX.: What Essences Can and What Cannot Be Proved
• Chap. X.: The Nature and Forms of Definition
• Chap. XI.: The Kinds of Causes Used In Demonstration
• Chap. XII.: On the Causes of Events Which Exist, Are In Process, Have Happened, Or Will Happen
• Chap. XIII.: On the Search For a Definition
• Chap. XIV.: On the Discovery of Questions For Demonstration
• Chap. XV.: How Far the Same Middle Term Is Employed For Demonstrating Different Questions
• Chap. XVI.: On Inferring the Cause From the Effect
• Chap. XVII.: Whether There Can Be Several Causes of the Same Thing
• Chap. XVIII.: Which Is the Prior Cause, That Which Is Nearer the Particular, Or the More Universal?
• Chap. XIX.: On the Attainment of Primary Principles
• Appendix. Prior Analytics. Book II.
• Chap. XXIII.: On Induction
• XXIV.: On Example

CHAP. XXVI.

Direct Demonstration is superior to Reduction per impossible

Since the affirmative argument is superior to the negative it is clearly superior to the reduction to the impossible. The difference between them should be noticed. Thus, let no B be A, and all B be C. It follows necessarily that no C can be A. When terms are thus placed the negative demonstration shewing that C is not A is direct. The reduction to the impossible on the other hand proceeds as follows. If one have to prove that B is not A one must assume that it is A, and also that C is B; whence it follows that C is A. This is already known and acknowledged to be impossible. Hence the conclusion follows that B cannot be A. If then C be acknowledged to be A, B cannot be A.

The terms then are arranged in a similar way in both methods, but a difference arises according to which of the two negative premises is the better known, whether that shewing that B is not A, or that C is not A. When the conclusion that C is not A is better known we have a demonstration by reduction to the impossible, when the other negative proposition in the syllogism itself (B is not A) is better known, the demonstration is direct. Now the proposition B is A is naturally prior to the proposition C is A, for that from which the conclusion is drawn is prior to the conclusion itself. But the proposition C is not A is the conclusion, the proposition B is not A is a premise from which the conclusion is drawn; and the refutation of any statement does not consist merely in the conclusion but in the premises from which it is drawn. Now that from which a conclusion is drawn is a syllogism so constituted that one premise bears to the other the relation of whole to part or part to whole. The premises CA and BA, however, have not this relation to one another. If then the demonstration from prior and better known premises be superior, and if further both methods of demonstration rest on the assumption that something does not exist, if thirdly one of these methods be derived from a more, another from a less primary source, then negative demonstration is, from this fact alone, superior to reduction to the impossible. Hence, if affirmative be superior to negative demonstration, it is plainly superior to reduction to the impossible.