Chapter IV (3)

The Art of Judgment divided into Induction and the Syllogism. Induction developed in the Novum Organum. The Syllogism divided into Direct and Inverse Reduction. Inverse Reduction divided into the Doctrine of Analytics and Confutations. The division of the latter into Confutations of Sophisms, the Unmasking of Vulgarisms (Equivocal Terms), and the Destruction of Delusive Images or Idols. Delusive Appearances divided into Idola Tribûs, Idola Specûs, and Idola Fori. Appendix to the Art of Judgment. The Adapting the Demonstration to the Nature of the Subject

WE COME now to the art of judgment, which treats of the nature of proof or demonstration. This art, as it is commonly received, concludes either by induction or syllogism: for enthymemes and examples are only abridgments of these two. As to judgment by induction, we need not be large upon it, because what is sought we both find and judge of, by the same operation of the mind. Nor is the matter here transacted by a medium, but directly almost in the same manner as by the sense; for sense, in its primary objects, at once seizes the image of the object, and assents to the truth of it. It is otherwise in syllogism, whose proof is not direct, but mediate; and, therefore, the invention of the medium is one thing, and judgment, as to the consequence of an argument, another: for the mind first casts about, and afterward acquiesces. But for the corrupt form of induction, we entirely ignore it, and refer the genuine one to our method of interpreting nature. And thus much of judgment by induction.

The other by syllogism is worn by the file of many a subtile genius, and reduced to numerous fragments, as having a great sympathy with the human understanding; for the mind is wonderfully bent against fluctuating, and endeavors to find something fixed and unmovable, upon which, as a firm basis, to rest in its inquiries. And as Aristotle endeavors to prove that, in all motion of bodies, there is something still at rest, and elegantly explains the ancient fable of Atlas, sustaining the heavens on his shoulders, of the poles of the world, about which the revolutions are performed: so men have a strong desire to retain within themselves an atlas, or pole for their thoughts, in some measure to govern the fluctuations and revolutions of the understanding, as otherwise fearing their heaven should tumble. And hence it is, that they have been ever hasty in laying the principles of the sciences, about which all the variety of disputes might turn without danger of falling; not at all regarding, that whoever too hastily catches at certainties shall end in doubts, as he who seasonably withholds his judgment shall arrive at certainties.

It is therefore manifest that this art of judging by syllogism is nothing more than a reduction of propositions to their principles by middle terms. But principles are supposed to be received by consent, and exempt from question, while the invention of middle terms is freely permitted to the subtilty and investigation of the wit. This reduction is of two kinds, direct and inverse. It is direct when the proposition itself is reduced to the principle, and this is called ostensive proof: it is inverse when the contradictory of the proposition is reduced to the contradictory of the principle, which they call proof by absurdity: but the number or scale of the middle term is diminished, or increased, according to the remoteness of the proposition from the principle.

Upon this foundation we divide the art of judgment nearly, as usual, into analytics, and the doctrine of elenches, or confutations; the first whereof supplies direction, and the other caution: for analytics directs the true forms of the consequences of arguments, from which, if we vary, we make a wrong conclusion. And this itself contains a kind of elench, or confutation; for what is right shows not only itself, but also what is wrong. Yet it is safest to employ elenches as monitors, the easier to discover fallacies, which would otherwise insnare the judgment. We find no deficiency in analytics; for it is rather loaded with superfluities than deficient.

We divide the doctrine of confutations into three parts; viz., 1. The confutation of sophisms; 2. The confutation of interpretation; and 3. The confutation of images or idols. The doctrine of the confutation of sophisms is extremely useful: for although a gross kind of fallacy is not improperly compared, by Seneca, to the tricks of jugglers, where we know not by what means the things are performed, but are well assured they are not as they appear to be, yet the more subtile sophisms not only supply occasions of answer, but also in reality confound the judgment. This part concerning the confutation of sophisms is, in precept, excellently treated by Aristotle, but still better by Plato, in example; not only in the persons of the ancient sophists, Gorgias, Hippias, Protagoras, Euthydemus, etc., but even in the person of Socrates himself, who, always professing to affirm nothing, but to confute what was produced by others, has ingeniously expressed the several forms of objections, fallacies, and confutations. Therefore in this part we find no deficiency, but only observe by the way, that though we place the true and principal use of this doctrine in the confutation of sophisms, yet it is plain that its degenerate and corrupt use tends to the raising of cavils and contradictions, by means of those sophisms themselves; which kind of faculty is highly esteemed, and has no small uses, though it is a good distinction made between the orator and the sophist, that the former excels in swiftness, as the greyhound, the other in the turn, as the hare.

With regard to the confutations of interpretation, we must here repeat what was formerly said of the transcendental and adventitious conditions of beings, such as greater, less, whole, parts, motion, rest, etc. For the different way of considering these things, which is either physically or logically, must be remembered. The physical treatment of them we have allotted to primary philosophy, but their logical treatment is what we here call the confutation of interpretation. And this we take for a sound and excellent part of learning, as general and common notions, unless accurately and judiciously distinguished from their origin, are apt to mix themselves in all disputes, so as strangely to cloud and darken the light of the question, and frequently occasion the controversy to end in a quarrel about words: for equivocations and wrong acceptations of words, especially of this kind, are the sophisms of sophisms; wherefore it is better to treat of them separate than either to receive them into primary philosophy or metaphysics, or again, to make them a part of analytics, as Aristotle has confusedly done. We give this doctrine a name from its use, because its true use is indeed redargution and caution about the employing of words. So, likewise, that part concerning predicaments, if rightly treated, as to the cautions against confounding or transposing the terms of definitions and divisions, is of principal use, and belongs to the present article. And thus much for the confutation of interpretation.

As to the confutation of images, or idols, we observe that idols are the deepest fallacies of the human mind; for they do not deceive in particulars, as the rest, by clouding and insnaring the judgment; but from a corrupt predisposition, or bad complexion of the mind, which distorts and infects all the anticipations of the understanding. For the mind, darkened by its covering the body, is far from being a flat, equal, and clear mirror that receives and reflects the rays without mixture, but rather a magical glass, full of superstitions and apparitions. Idols are imposed upon the understanding, either, 1, by the general nature of mankind; 2, the nature of each particular man; or 3, by words, or commucative nature. The first kind we call idols of the tribe; the second kind, idols of the den; and the third kind, idols of the market. There is also a fourth kind, which we call idols of the theatre, being superinduced by false theories, or philosophies, and the perverted laws of demonstration. This last kind we are not at present concerned with, as it may be rejected and laid aside; but the others seize the mind strongly, and cannot be totally eradicated. Therefore no art of analytics can be expected here, but the doctrine of the confutation of idols is the primary doctrine of idols. Nor indeed can the doctrine of idols be reduced to an art, but can only be employed by means of a certain contemplative prudence to prevent them.

For the idols of the tribe, it is observable, that the nature of the understanding is more affected with affirmatives and actives than with negatives and privatives, though in justness it should be equally affected with them both; but if things fall out right, or keep their course, the mind receives a stronger impression of this than of a much greater number of failures, or contrary events, which is the root of all superstition and credulity. Hence Diagoras, being shown in Neptune’s temple many votive pictures of such as had escaped shipwreck, and thereupon asked by his guide, if he did not acknowledge the divine power? answered wisely, “But first show me where those are painted that were shipwrecked, after having thus paid their vows.” And the case is the same, in the similar superstitions of astrological predictions, dreams, omens, etc. Again, the mind, being of itself an equal and uniform substance, presupposes a greater unanimity and uniformity in the nature of things than there really is, as may be observed in astronomical mathematicians, who, rejecting spiral lines, assert that the heavenly bodies move in perfect circles; whence our thoughts are continually drawing parallels, and supposing relations in many things that are truly different and singular. Hence the chemists have fantastically imagined their four principles corresponding to the heavens, air, earth, and water; dreaming that the series of existences formed a kind of square battalion, and that each element contained species of beings corresponding to each other, and possessing, as it were, parallel properties. And again, men make themselves, as it were, the mirror and rule of nature. It is incredible what a number of idols have been introduced into philosophy by the reduction of natural operations to a correspondence with human actions; that is, by imagining nature acts as man does, which is not much better than the heresy of the anthropomorphites, that sprung up in the cells and solitude of ignorant monks; or the opinion of Epicurus, who attributed a human figure to the gods. Velleius the Epicurean need not, therefore, have asked why God should have adorned the heavens with stars and lights, as master of the works? For if the grand architect had acted a human part, he would have ranged the stars into some beautiful and elegant order, as we see in the vaulted roofs of palaces; whereas we scarce find among such an infinite multitude of stars any figure either square, triangular, or rectilinear; so great a difference is there between the spirit of man, and the spirit of the universe.

The idols of the den have their origin from the peculiar nature, both of mind and body, in each person; as also from education, custom, and the accidents of particular persons. It is a beautiful emblem, that of Plato’s den; for, to drop the exquisite subtilty of the parable, if any one should be educated from his infancy in a dark cave till he were of full age, and should then of a sudden be brought into broad daylight, and behold this apparatus of the heavens and of things, no doubt but many strange and absurd fancies would arise in his mind; and though men live indeed in the view of the heavens, yet our minds are confined in the caverns of our bodies; whence of necessity we receive infinite images of errors and falsehoods, if the mind does but seldom, and only for a short continuance, leave its den, and not constantly dwell in the contemplation of nature, as it were, in the open daylight. And with this emblem of Plato’s den agrees the saying of Heraclitus; viz., that men seek the sciences in their own narrow worlds, and not in the wide one.

But the idols of the market give the greatest disturbance, and from a tacit agreement among mankind, with regard to the imposition of words and names, insinuate themselves into the understanding: for words are generally given according to vulgar conception, and divide things by such differences as the common people are capable of: but when a more acute understanding, or a more careful observation, would distinguish things better, words murmur against it. The remedy of this lies in definitions; but these themselves are in many respects irremediable, as consisting of words: for words generate words, however men may imagine they have a command over words, and can easily say they will speak with the vulgar, and think with the wise. Terms of art also, which prevail only among the skilful, may seem to remedy the mischief, and definitions premised to arts in the prudent mathematical manner, to correct the wrong acceptation of words; yet all this is insufficient to prevent the seducing incantation of names in numerous respects, their doing violence to the understanding, and recoiling upon it, from whence they proceeded. This evil, therefore, requires a new and a deeper remedy; but these things we touch lightly at present, in the meantime noting this doctrine of grand confutations, or the doctrine of the native and adventitious idols of the mind, for deficient.

There is also wanting a considerable appendix to the art of judgment. Aristotle indeed marks out the thing, but has nowhere delivered the manner of effecting it. The design is to show what demonstrations should be applied to what subjects, so that this doctrine should contain the judging of judgments. For Aristotle well observes, that we should not require demonstrations from orators, nor persuasion from mathematicians; so that if we err in the kind of proof, judgment itself cannot be perfect. And as there are four kinds of demonstration, viz., 1, by immediate consent and common notions; 2, by induction; 3, by syllogism; and 4, by congruity, which Aristotle justly calls demonstration in circle, each of these demonstrations has its peculiar subjects, and parts of the sciences, wherein they are of force, and others again from which they are excluded; for insisting upon too strict proofs in some cases, and still more the facility and remissness in resting upon slight proofs in others, is what has greatly prejudiced and obstructed the sciences. And so much for the art of judgment.