LOGIC: A REJOINDER TO MISS STEBBING 19 



prepared for her objection, as may be judged from the following 

 quotation from p. 135 of my New Logic : " Nothing is easier than 

 to fake a syllogism that purports to show the process of an 

 argument. We have only to garble the premiss so as to bring 

 it into ' logical form,' then to pretend that the argument is an 

 enthymeme, and to invent a premiss to suit the purpose, and 

 we have the argument expressed in a syllogism." It would be 

 unkind to complete the quotation, and out of deference to Miss 

 Stebbing's sex I interrupt it at this point. 

 My first specimen argument was : 



If The bed contains nothing but geraniums and violas, 

 then It contains no asters. 



Miss Stebbing converts this into a syllogism by garb — 

 I mean by altering my premiss into : 



All the flowers in the bed are geraniums and violas. 



Now far be it from me to doubt Miss Stebbing's word, but 

 here she has taken upon herself the responsibility of making 

 a categorical assertion, and I am not bound to accept such an 

 assertion without proof. The burden of proof lies upon her. 

 She says all the flowers in the bed are geraniums and violas. I 

 regret the necessity of making the demand, and I make it with 

 every possible courtesy, but really I must demand proof of this 

 assertion. Is she sure of her facts? Is it her own observation, 

 or did she obtain her information from some one else ? If she 

 examined the bed herself, what proof have I that her sight is 

 sufficiently good, her knowledge of horticulture sufficiently 

 extensive, her care sufficiently sedulous, to satisfy me that she 

 has not overlooked a small aster concealed beneath the rank 

 growth of geraniums and violas ? If she gained her information 

 from some one else, I shall need to know these particulars with 

 respect to her informant, and more, I must be satisfied of his 

 bona fides and truthfulness. I do not want to hurt Miss 

 Stebbing's feelings, and I trust that she will not feel aggrieved at 

 my questions, but I am obliged to put them, for they go to the 

 very root of the matter. One of the main purposes of my New 

 Logic is to drive into the heads of logicians the profound and 

 radical difference between the argumentum ex postulate and the 

 argumentum in materia. They belong to different realms of 

 logic, and the mode of argument applicable to the one is totally 



