|
|
Front Page Titles (by Subject) CHAP. XXIII.: On Induction - Posterior Analytics
CHAP. XXIII.: On Induction - Aristotle, Posterior Analytics [1901]Edition used:Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, trans. E.S. Bouchier, B.A. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1901).
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. Copyright information:The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
- 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. XXIII.
On Induction
Induction is one of the two roads to certainty. It infers the major of the middle by means of the minor term, which last must include all the individual instances of the quality denoted by the major. Induction is clearer for us, though syllogism is naturally prior and more knowable.
. . . . . . We believe in a thing as a result either of syllogism or of induction. Now induction and the inductive syllogism consist in inferring one term of the middle by means of the other (minor) term. E.g. Suppose B to be the middle term between A and C, induction proves by means of C that A is B, for that is the way we express induction. Thus let A represent ‘long-lived,’ B ‘not having gall,’ C ‘individual instances of longevity, such as Man, Horse, Mule.’ Now all B is A, for every creature without gall is long-lived; also B, not having gall, belongs to every C. If then C be convertible with B, and not more comprehensive than the middle term, A must be B. For we have shewn before that if any two qualities are predicable of the same term, and if the major term be convertible with one of them, then one of the qualities predicated will be true of the convertible term. One ought to look at C as a combination of the whole number of particular instances, for induction is based on completeness. Now inductive syllogism requires a primary and ultimate premise, for when a middle term exists, the syllogism makes use of that, when it does not, it proceeds by induction. Induction is in a manner opposed to syllogism, as the latter proves the major term of the minor by means of the middle, the former proves the major of the middle by means of the minor. Hence the syllogism which makes the middle term the instrument of proof is naturally prior and more knowable, but for us that which uses induction is clearer.
|