[bowman] fundamental PROCESSES IN HISTORICAL SCIENCE 539 



that they are of marriageable age, the series of the first three probable 

 conclusions accounting for the difference in surnames will be, (1) 

 that the elder daughter acquired another name by marriage, (2) that 

 the younger daughter acquired another name by marriage, and (3) 

 that the mother was twice married and the daughters were by different 

 husbands. If, however, the ages of the two daughters were 30 and 

 20 years and this be placed in evidence, the series of the above three 

 conclusions will be, (1) that the elder daughter acquired another name 

 by marriage, (2) that the mother was twice married and the daughters 

 were by different husbands, and (3) that the younger daughter ac- 

 quired another name by marriage. In the first series the 1st con- 

 clusion will have an indefinite superiority of probability over the 

 2nd conclusion; and according to the tables quoted from Brockhaus 

 in this case, the favorable chances of the 2nd conclusion against the 

 3rd will be 60:9 or approximately 7:1. In the 2nd series the favor- 

 able chances of the three conclusions will be 63 • 59 : 9 : 1 • 34 respec- 

 tively, or approximately 6:1 (63-59 : 10-34) for the 1st conclusion 

 against the 2nd and 3rd, and approximately 7:1 (9:1-34) for the 2nd 

 against the 3rd. Thus evidence fundamentally the same and differ- 

 ing only in detail can give rise to different series of probable conclusions, 

 and each of the two conclusions (2nd and 3rd) whose order is reversed 

 in the 2nd series has in each series a substantial degree of proba- 

 bility. 



2. In Case 12 the same material features of evidence provide a 

 basis for two equally probable and yet contradictory conclusions. 

 These^ material features are, briefly, (1) The merchant's debt of 

 $35,000 to the bank in short term notes and the instructions of the 

 head office that this loan was not to be increased, (2) the merchant's 

 note of $2,500 to the banker's wife, which was endorsed by her and 

 then sold by the banker to Brown, and (3) the transfer of $700 of 

 oil stock from the banker to the merchant, and the merchant's pay- 

 ment of the $2,500 note when due. The merchant's explanation was 

 that the banker extorted the note from him simply for the depreciated 

 oil stock, by threats that he would influence his superiors not to renew 

 the short term notes and thus force the merchant into an assignment; 

 so long as he was under that pressure, he submitted to the injustice, 

 but on finding it impossible ultimately to avoid an assignment, he 

 then promptly sought redress. The banker's explanation, on the 

 contrary, was that he was anxious to help the hard-pressed merchant, 

 and for this purpose he raised $2,500 on his wife's credit, taking for a 

 commission only the difference between the face value and the actual 

 value of the oil stock, or $250; that he paid the merchant, when 

 alone, the remaining $1,800 in currency so as to keep all traces of the 



