FALLACIES OF GENERALIZATION*. 373 



illud non continue, ut aeque inoontentse.&quot; The Stoic resumes : 

 &quot; Ut enim, inquit, gubernator aeque peccat, si palearum 

 navem evertit, et si auri ; item aeque peccat qui parentem, et 

 qui servum, injuria verberat ;&quot; assuming, that because the 

 magnitude of the interest at stake makes no difference in the 

 mere defect of skill, it can make none in the moral defect : a 

 false analogy. Again, &quot; Quis ignorat, si plures ex alto emer- 

 gere velint, propius fore eos quidem ad respirandum, qui ad 

 summam jam aquam appropinquant, sed nihilo magis respirare 

 posse, quam eos, qui sunt in profundo ? Nihil ergo adjuvat 

 procedere, et progredi in virtute, quominus miserrimus sit, 

 antequam ad earn pervenerit, quoniam in aqua nihil adjuvat: 

 et quoniam catuli, qui jam despecturi sunt, caaci seque, et ii qui 

 modo nati ; Platonem quoque necesse est, quoniam nondum 

 videbat sapientiam, seque caecum ammo, ac Phalarim fuisse.&quot; 

 Cicero, in his own person, combats these false analogies by 

 other analogies tending to an opposite conclusion. &quot; Ista 



similia non sunt, Cato Ilia sunt similia ; hebes acies 



est cuipiam oculorum: corpore alius languescit : hi curatione 

 adhibita levantur in dies : alter valet plus quotidie : alter 

 videt. Hi similes sunt omnibus, qui virtuti student ; levantur 

 vitiis, levantur erroribus.&quot; 



7. In these and all other arguments drawn from remote 

 analogies, and from metaphors, which are cases of analogy, it 

 is apparent (especially when we consider the extreme facility 

 of raising up contrary analogies and conflicting metaphors) 

 that so far from the metaphor or analogy proving anything, 

 the applicability of the metaphor is the very thing to be made 

 oui It has to be shown that in the two cases asserted to be 

 analogous, the same law is really operating ; that between the 

 known resemblance and the inferred one there is some con 

 nexion by means of causation. Cicero and Cato might have 

 bandied opposite analogies for ever ; it rested with each of 

 them to prove by just induction, or at least to render probable, 

 that the case resembled the one set of analogous cases and 

 not the other, in the circumstances on which the disputed 

 question really hinged. Metaphors, for the most part, there- 



