[bowman] fundamental PROCESSES IN HISTORICAL SCIENCE 535 



attached to each of the several or many reasons on either side is a 

 matter of individual opinion, and individual opinions will differ, or 

 the opinions of the same person at different times may differ. Thus 

 in the 1st conclusion of Case 12, if Jones was not able at any time to 

 accumulate $1,775 from the cash receipts at his store, A might think 

 at one time that the contemporary payment of that amount to the 

 former partner was quite a strong point against Jones' version of the 

 interview with Smith; but another thought might occur to A, or to 

 B, that if Jones had to make the payment and counted on getting the 

 $1,800 for the purpose from Smith but Smith disappointed him at the 

 interview, then Jones as a matter of course would make a great effort 

 to borrow it elsewhere and in this he might succeed. On this basis 

 the conclusion would lose much of its probability, regardless of cash 

 receipts in the store. Again in the 2nd conclusion of this case, A 

 might think the tampering with the date on the paper a bad sign; 

 but another thought might be that if Smith did actually commit such 

 a wrong against Jones, the merchant, being at a disadvantage, might 

 well feel justified in improving his slender chance of redress for so 

 great a wrong by such a slight deviation from rectitude. Such second 

 thoughts, whether they be better than the first or not, will be more apt 

 to appeal to A and alter his first opinion if they occur to himself than 

 if they are introduced to him by B, C, or D as an objection to his 

 view. Each of two countervailing reasons respectively may also 

 make a stronger appeal to men of different temperaments or of dif- 

 ferent positions in life. Thus a timorous mind will be more apt to 

 realize the probability that Jones would shrink from litigation in the 

 midst of financial difficulties unless spurred by a great injustice; 

 an adventurous spirit, on the contrary, might think it more likely 

 that Jones received the $1,800 at the interview, but resented the 

 unloading of the oil stock and he saw a chance, hazardous yet not 

 hopeless, of turning the tables on Smith by recovering $2,500 in court. 

 Such a triumph would secure for him the full amount of the oil stock 

 (thus wiping out the $250 "commission") plus a further $1,800 beyond 

 the original $1,800 received at the interview, or $4,300 in all. Or, 

 again, the average citizen might feel that the fact that the bank 

 sustained Smith after years of experience of his service was a recom- 

 mendation of his trustworthiness; but on the other hand bank officials 

 as a class and those who are responsible for the dignity of great in- 

 stitutions might feel that the bank, even though uncertain of Smith's 

 trustworthiness, would prefer on the whole to sustain him and thus 

 better his chances for a favorable verdict, rather than acknowledge 

 voluntarily that a man occupying for many years a high position in 

 its service was probably guilty of such a discreditable act. Thus, 



