344 INDUCTION. 



The statement, that the uniformity of the course of nature 

 is the ultimate major premise in all cases of induction, may be 

 thought to require some explanation. The immediate major 

 premise in every inductive argument, it certainly is not. Of 

 that, Archbishop Whately s must be held to be the correct 

 account. The induction, &quot;John, Peter, &c. are mortal, there 

 fore all mankind are mortal,&quot; may, as he justly says, be thrown 

 into a syllogism by prefixing as a major premise (what is 

 at any rate a necessary condition of the validity of the argu 

 ment) namely, that what is true of John, Peter, &c. is true of 

 all mankind. But how came we by this major premise ? It is 

 not self-evident ; nay, in all cases of unwarranted generaliza 

 tion, it is not true. How, then, is it arrived at ? Necessarily 

 either by induction or ratiocination ; and if by induction, the 

 process, like all other inductive arguments, may be thrown into 

 the form of a syllogism. This previous syllogism it is, there 

 fore, necessary to construct. There is, in the long run, only 

 one possible construction. The real proof that what is true of 

 John, Peter, &c. is true of all mankind, can only be, that 

 a different supposition would be inconsistent with the uni 

 formity which we know to exist in the course of nature. 



which might be regarded as personal criticism on the Archbishop. I had im 

 puted to him the having omitted to ask himself a particular question. I found 

 that he had asked himself the question, and could give it an answer consistent 

 with his own theory. I had also, within the compass of a parenthesis, hazarded 

 some remarks on certain general characteristics of Archbishop Whately as a 

 philosopher. These remarks, though their tone, I hope, was neither disrespect 

 ful nor arrogant, I felt, on reconsideration, that I was hardly entitled to make ; 

 least of al], when the instance which I had regarded as an illustration of them, 

 failed, as I now saw, to bear them out. The real matter at the bottom of the 

 whole dispute, the different view we take of the function of the major premise, 

 remains exactly where it was ; and so far was I from thinking that my opinion 

 had been &quot;fully answered&quot; and was &quot; untenable,&quot; that in the same edition in 

 which I cancelled the note, I not only enforced the opinion by further argu 

 ments, but answered (though without naming him) those of the Archbishop. 



For not having made this statement before, I do not think it needful to 

 apologize. It would be attaching very great importance to one s smallest say 

 ings, to think a formal retractation requisite every time that one commits an 

 error. Nor is Archbishop Whately s well-earned fame of so tender a quality as 

 to require, that in withdrawing a slight criticism on him I should have been 

 bound to offer a public amende for having made it. 



