A very common example of this is when a man's promises or statements are received with some suspicion, and he attempts to fortify them by asserting that he never told a falsehood or broke a promise in his life, or by solemn assurances that he would on no account violate his word. This, or something like this, is very common among men of doubtful veracity. The reasoning, however, when analyzed, is "begging the question." The very doubt is about the authority of his statements, and he offers you that very authority in proof of them.

II. When a principle is assumed without proof; when this is employed to prove something else; and this is again applied in some way in support of the first assumed principle. This is called reasoning in a circle; and the difficulty of detecting it is often in proportion to the extent of the circle, or the number of principles which are thus made to hang upon one another.

Such an argument as the following would be a fair example of this

sort.

1. The Bible must be true, because miracles were wrought in attestation of it.

2. The miracles must have been wrought, because twelve honest men agree in bearing testimony to them.

3. We know that twelve honest men did unite in this testimony, for the Bible says that they did.

Here the reader will perceive that we come round exactly to our first position. The first proposition is proved by the second, the second by the third, and the third rests on the truth of the Bible, which is the very point to be proved. The propositions thus depend upon one another, and are without any common foundation,

To make the reasoning sound, the last proposition must be established on independent evidence; which is the course always pursued by writers on the subject, the fact that twelve honest men did thus testify being established by peculiar evidence, entirely distinct from the mere assertion of the book itself.

III. A frequent source of fallacy is when a reasoner assumes a principle, and then launches out into various illustrations and analogies, which are artfully made to bear the appearance of proofs. The cautions to be kept in mind in such a case are, that the illustrations may be useful and the analogies may be of importance, provided the principle has been proved; but that if it has not been proved, the illustrations must go for nothing, and even analogies seldom

Example of it? Reasoning in a circle. Example of it? What necessary in order to correct this reasoning? Declaration instead of reasoning.

have any weight which can be considered as of the nature of evidence. Fallacies of this class are most apt to occur in the declamations of public speakers; and when they are set off with all the powers of eloquence, it is often difficult to detect them. The questions which the hearer should propose to himself in such cases are, Does this really contain any proof bearing upon the subject, or is it mere illustration and analogy, in itself proving nothing?— if so, has the reasoner previously established his principle; or has he assumed it, and trusted to these analogies as his proofs ?

IV. A fallacy somewhat analogous to the preceding consists in arguing for or against a doctrine on the ground of its supposed tendency, leaving out of view the primary question of its truth. Thus, a speculator in theology will contend in regard to a doctrine which he opposes, that it is derogatory to the character of the Deity; and, respecting another which he brings forward, that it represents the Deity in an aspect more accordant with the benignity of his character. The previous question in all such cases is, not what is most accordant with our notions respecting the Divine character, but what is truth.

V. When a principle which is true of one case, or one class of cases, is extended by analogy to others which differ in some important particulars. The caution to be observed here is, to inquire strictly whether the cases are analogous, or whether there exists any difference which makes the principle not applicable. We have formerly alluded to a remarkable example of this fallacy in notions relating to the properties of matter being applied to mind, without attention to the fact that the cases are so distinct as to have nothing in common. An example somewhat analogous is found in Mr. Hume's objection to miracles, that they are violations of the established order of nature. The cases, we have seen, are not analogous; for miracles do not refer to the common course of nature, but to the operation of an agency altogether new and peculiar. Arguments founded

Tests to be applied. Arguing from tendencies? False reasoning from analogy Examples? Mr. Hume's argument.

upon analogy, therefore, require to be used with the utmost caution, when they are employed directly for the discovery or the establishment of truth. But there is another purpose to which they may be applied with much greater freedom, namely, for repelling objections. Thus, if we find a person bringing objections against a particular doctrine, it is a sound and valid mode of reasoning to contend that he receives doctrines which rest upon the same kind of evidence ; or that similar objections might be urged with equal force against truths which it is impossible to call in question. It is in this manner that the argument from analogy is employed in the valuable work of bishop Butler. He does not derive from the analogy of nature any direct argument in support of natural or revealed religion; but shows that many of the objections which are urged against the truths of religion might be brought against circumstances in the economy and course of nature which are known and undoubted facts.

VI. A fallacy the reverse of the former is used by sophistical writers; namely, when two cases are strictly analogous they endeavor to prove that they are not so by pointing out trivial differences not calculated in any degree to weaken the force of the analogy.

VII. When a true general principle is made to apply exclusively to one fact, or one class of facts, while it is equally true of various others. This is called, in logical language, the non-distribution of the middle term. In an example given by logical writers, one is supposed to maintain that corn is necessary for life, because food is necessary for life, and corn is food. It is true that food is necessary for life, but this does not apply to any one particular kind of food; it means only, that food of some kind or other is so. When simply stated, the fallacy of such a position is at once obvious, but it may be introduced into an argument in such a manner as not to be so immediately detected.

VIII. When an acknowledged proposition is inverted,

Proper use of analogy 7 Butler's use of it? The reverse of the former? Non-distri bution of the middle term? Example.

and the converse assumed to be equally true. We may say, for example, that a badly governed country must be distressed; but we are not entitled to assume that every distressed country is badly governed; for there may bet many other sources of national distress. I may say, "all wise men live temperately," but it does not follow that every man who lives temperately is a wise man. This fallacy was formerly referred to under the syllogism. It is, at the same time, to be kept in mind that some propositions do admit of being inverted, and still remain equally true. This holds most remarkably of propositions which are universally negative, as in an example given by writers on logic. "No ruminating animal is a beast of prey." It follows, as equally true, that no beast of prey ruminates. But if I were to vary the proposition by saying, “all animals which do not ruminate are beasts of prey," this would be obviously false; for it does not arise out of the former

statement.

IX. A frequent source of fallacy among sophistical writers consists in boldly applying a character to a class of facts, in regard to which it carries a general aspect of truth, without attention to important distinctions by which the statement requires to be modified. Thus, it has been objected to our belief in the miracles of the sacred writings, that they rest upon the evidence of testimony, and that testimony is fallacious. Now, when we speak of testimony in general, we may say with an appearance of truth that it is fallacious; but, in point of fact, testimony is to be referred to various species; and, though a large proportion of these may be fallacious, there is a species of testimony on which we rely with absolute confidence ;—that is, we feel it to be as improbable that this kind of testimony should deceive us, as that we should be disappointed in our expectation of the uniformity of nature. The kind of sophism now referred to seems to correspond with that which logical writers have named the fallacy of division. It consists in applying to facts in their separate state what only belongs

Inversion of a proposition? Examples? Can any propositions be inverted safely? Inattention to important distinctions? Example. Reply to this? Fallacies of division and composition?

to them collectively. The converse of it is the fallacy of composition. It consists in applying to the facts collectively what belongs only to them, or to some of them, in their separate state;-as if one were to show that a certain kind of testimony is absolutely to be relied on, and thence were to contend that testimony in general is worthy of absolute confidence.

X. A frequent fallacy consists in first overturning an unsound argument, and thence reasoning against the doctrine which this argument was meant to support. This is the part of a mere casuist, not of a sincere inquirer after truth; for it by no means follows that a doctrine is false because unsound arguments have been adduced in support of it. We have formerly alluded to some remarkable examples of this fallacy, especially in regard to those important principles commonly called first truths; which, we have seen, admit of no processes of reasoning, and consequently are in no degree affected by arguments exposing the fallacy of such processes. We learn from this, on the other hand, the importance of avoiding all weak and inconclusive arguments, or doubtful statements; for, independently of the opening which they give for sophistical objections, it is obvious that on other grounds the reasoning is only encumbered by them. It is the part of the casuist to rest the weight of his objections on such weak points, leaving out of view those which he cannot contend with. It may even happen that a conclusion is true, though the whole reasoning may have been weak, unsound, and irrelevant. The casuist, of course, in such a case attacks the reasoning, and not the conclusion. On the other hand, there may be much in an argument which is true, or which may be conceded; while the most important part of it is untrue, and the conclusion false. An inexperienced reasoner, in such a case, thinks it necessary to combat every point, and thus exposes himself to sound replies from his adversary on subjects which are of no importance. A skilful reasoner concedes or passes over all such positions, and rests his attack on those in which

Confounding an argument with the doctrine it was intended to support. Practical direction arising from this? Course to be taken in regard to weak points. Skilful reasoning.