28 THE SCIENCE OF LOGIC 



It is described by Aristotle in his Prior Analytics}* It is the 

 simple summing up of separate instances into an actual collec 

 tion. He speaks of it as in a certain sense the opposite of the 

 syllogism ; Kal rpoirov riva avri.Ki,rat r) eTraywyrj rat (rv\\o&amp;lt;yiarfi(a ) 

 inductio quodammodo opponitur syllogismo. The syllogism essen 

 tially implies a comparison of two extreme terms (S, P} with a 

 third middle term (M}. Enumerative induction has no middle 

 term different from the minor extreme? The middle term (M] in 

 the syllogism must be, at least once, strictly universal : the cor 

 responding term, which stands as minor extreme in enumerative 

 induction, is not a strict universal applicable equally to an in 

 definite number of realizations but an actually complete collec 

 tion, a collective, actual whole ; and the so-called minor extreme 

 (S), which stands as middle term in enumerative induction, is a 

 consecutive enumeration of the individual instances, equal in point 

 of actual extension to the middle term. An example or two will 

 make this clear : 

 S is P |l Saul, David, Solomon were men of remarkable 



achievements ; 

 S is M Saul, David, Solomon were all kings of the whole of 



Palestine ; 

 . : M is P I . . All the kings of the whole of Palestine were men of 



remarkable achievements. 



Or, again, to take Aristotle s own example : 3 



5 is P 

 S is M 

 . : M is P 



Man, horse, mule, etc., are long-lived. 

 Man, horse, mule, etc., are bile-less.* 

 .. All bile-less animals are long-lived. 



From these examples we can understand Aristotle s definition 

 of the &quot;inductive syllogism &quot; as &quot; proving the major term of the 

 middle by means of the minor,&quot; i.e. proving the universal, which 

 stands as major of the deductive reasoning, &quot; M is P&quot; proving 

 that P can be predicated of the whole collection (AT) by predicat 

 ing P of each member individually (5). The class or collection is 



1 Anal. Prior, ii., 23 (25). *ibid. 



3 Aristotle s &quot; individuals are not particular individual things, but species, which 

 he combines under a genus. . . . He regarded an exhaustive summation of the 

 species which compose a genus as quite feasible.&quot; WELTON, Logic, vol. ii., p. 33. 

 Cf. JOYCE, Logic, p. 228. 



4 By bile-less animals Aristotle meant all those species of quadrupeds that have 

 no excess of choleric humours a list which he considered it quite possible to com 

 plete. Cf. JOSEPH, Logic, p. 351 n. 



