Infra,chap. xxi. For the purpose of varying the circumstances, we may have recourse (according to a distinction commonly made) either to observation or to experiment;we may either find an instance in nature suited to our purposes, or, by an artificial arrangement of circumstances, make one. The value of the instance depends on what it is in itself, not on the mode in which it is obtained: its employment for the purposes of induction depends on the same principles in the one case and in the other; as the uses of money are the same whether it is inherited or acquired. There is, in short, no difference in kind, no real logical distinction, between the two processes of investigation. There are, however, practical distinctions to which it is of considerable importance to advert. Trenton, enraged, deliberately folded the letter, put it back in his pocket, doubled his right hand into a fist, picked out a place on Ostranders jaw, and stepped forward. Staunton Irvine said belligerently,How do you know this is the same weapon that you saw? When she was eleven years old. You didnt by any chance hear anyone describe the symptoms of her illness, did you? And he accused Miss Carroll of having been guilty of smuggling? When we got to the hospital and while Annie was being wheeled into the emergency room, Maggie asked me,Did you ever meet this Sally Jean? Hows Kirby? A hypothetical proposition is not, like the pretended complex propositions which we previously considered, a mere aggregation of simple propositions. The simple propositions which form part of the words in which it is couched, form no part of the assertion which it conveys. When we say, If the Koran comes from God, Mohammed is the prophet of God, we do not intend to affirm either that the Koran does come from God, or that Mohammed is really his prophet. Neither of these simple propositions may be true, and yet the truth of the hypothetical proposition may be indisputable. What is asserted is not the truth of either of the propositions, but the inferribility of the one from the other. What, then, is the subject, and what the predicate of the hypothetical proposition?The Koran is not the subject of it, nor is “Mohammed: for nothing is affirmed or denied either of the Koran or of Mohammed. The real subject of the predication is the entire proposition, “Mohammed is the prophet of God; and the affirmation is, that this is a legitimate inference from the proposition, “The Koran comes from God. The subject and predicate, therefore, of a hypothetical proposition are names of propositions. The subject is some one proposition. The predicate is a general relative name applicable to propositions; of this form—“an inference from so and so. A fresh instance is here afforded of the remark, that particles are abbreviations; since “If A is B, C is D, is found to be an abbreviation of the following: “The proposition C is D, is a legitimate inference from the proposition A is B. What do you suppose shes angry about? Ibid., pp. 61, 62. Although, however, Predication does not presuppose Classification, and though the theory of Names and of Propositions is not cleared up, but only encumbered, by intruding the idea of classification into it, there is nevertheless a close connection between Classification and the employment of General Names. By every general name which we introduce, we create a class, if there be any things, real or imaginary, to compose it; that is, any Things corresponding to the signification of the name. Classes, therefore, mostly owe their existence to general language. But general language, also, though that is not the most common case, sometimes owes its existence to classes. A general, which is as much as to say a significant, name, is indeed mostly introduced because we have a signification to express by it; because we need a word by means of which to predicate the attributes which it connotes. But it is also true that a name is sometimes introduced because we have found it convenient to create a class; because we have thought it useful for the regulation of our mental operations, that a certain group of objects should be thought of together. A naturalist, for purposes connected with his particular science, sees reason to distribute the animal or vegetable creation into certain groups rather than into any others, and he requires a name to bind, as it were, each of his groups together. It must not, however, be supposed that such names, when introduced, differ in any respect, as to their mode of signification, from other connotative names. The classes which they denote are, as much as any other classes, constituted by certain common attributes, and their names are significant of those attributes, and of nothing else. The names of Cuviers classes andorders, Plantigrades, Digitigrades, etc., are as much the expression of attributes as if those names had preceded, instead of grown out of, his classification of animals. The only peculiarity of the case is, that the convenience of classification was here the primary motive for introducing the names; while in other cases the name is introduced as a means of predication, and the formation of a class denoted by it is only an indirect consequence. Kaitlynn had picked at the fruit but eaten little. She sat at the table with her phone, dialling and redialling, shaking her head each time.I asked Madame if I could use her landline, but she said — I think — a lightning storm knocked their phone and internet out. Can you believe it, no Wi-Fi or mobile signal? That the free-will metaphysicians, being mostly of the school which rejectsHumes and Brown’s analysis of Cause and Effect, should miss their way for want of the light which that analysis affords, can not surprise us. The wonder is, that the necessitarians, who usually admit that philosophical theory, should in practice equally lose sight of it. The very same misconception of the doctrine called Philosophical Necessity, which prevents the opposite party from recognizing its truth, I believe to exist more or less obscurely in the minds of most necessitarians, however they may in words disavow it. I am much mistaken if they habitually feel that the necessity which they recognize in actions is but uniformity of order, and capability of being predicted. They have a feeling as if there were at bottom a stronger tie between the volitions and their causes; as if, when they asserted that the will is governed by the balance of motives, they meant something more cogent than if they had only said, that whoever knew the motives, and our habitual susceptibilities to them, could predict how we should will to act. They commit, in opposition to their own scientific system, the very same mistake which their adversaries commit in obedience to theirs; and in consequence do really in some instances suffer those depressing consequences which their opponents erroneously impute to the doctrine itself. She went off that bed like a wildcat and she kept yowling like one. I said to the dope:Come on! Quick! § 1. The analysis of the Syllogism has been so accurately and fully performed in the common manuals of Logic, that in the present work, which is not designed as a manual, it is sufficient to recapitulate,memoriæ causâ, the leading results of that analysis, as a foundation for the remarks to be afterward made on the functions of the Syllogism, and the place which it holds in science. Should I come along? After all, Im Tod’s friend..