ERROR AND FALLACIES 3*9 



is not quite the same as confounding a temporal sequence or co 

 existence of judgments in the mind with the logical consequence 

 of conclusion from premisses. But little ambiguity can arise 

 from giving the name of false cause to the inductive fallacy in 

 question. And this mistake of confounding mere sequence or 

 coexistence with causality or consequence is one of the many 

 modes of the fallacy of Illicit generalization which will be ex 

 amined presently. 



(B} Fallacies incident to induction or discovery : a 



(a) In induction we pass from observation of particular facts, 

 through analogy, and hypothesis, to the discovery and verification 

 of general laws. Here, then, the first possible source of error 

 will be IMPERFECT OBSERVATION, and the fallacy may be either 

 negative or positive in character. 



(i) NON-OBSERVATION is the fallacy of overlooking something 

 that ought to have been observed. The function of observation is 

 to select and isolate the facts from which we hope to bring to 

 light some causal law (238). Hence we may either fail to 

 notice instances pertinent to the kind of fact we are investigating, 

 or fail to notice influences that are really operative in the in 

 stances actually observed. 



Prejudice in favour of some preconceived theory is the most 

 potent cause of neglect to observe pertinent instances. The 

 process and product of our observation are profoundly influenced 

 by the unconscious interference and intermixture of our previous 

 knowledge and beliefs. &quot; The opponents of Copernicus argued 

 that the earth did not move, because if it did, a stone let fall 

 from the top of a high tower would not reach the ground at the 

 foot of the tower, but at a little distance, from it, in a contrary 

 direction to the earth s course ; in the same manner (they said) 

 as, if a ball is let fall from the mast-head when the ship is in full 

 sail, it does not fall exactly at the foot of the mast, but nearer 

 to the stern of the vessel. The Copernicans would have silenced 

 these objectors at once if they had tried dropping a ball from 

 the mast-head, since they would have found that it does fall 

 exactly at the foot, as the theory requires : but no ; they 

 admitted the spurious fact and struggled vainly to make out a 

 difference between the two cases &quot;. 2 The opponents of the new 



1 Cf. WELTON, op. cit., ii., pp. 261-77, whose treatment is here closely 

 followed. 



a MILL, Logic, V., iv. 3. 



