Brooks says regarding this principle: This proposition is

founded on our faith in the uniformity of nature; take away

this belief, and all reasoning by induction fails. The basis of
induction is thus often stated to be man s faith in the uniformity
of nature. Induction has been compared to a ladder upon which
we ascend from facts to laws. This ladder cannot stand unless it
has something to rest upon; and this something is our faith in
the constancy of nature s laws.
There are two general ways of obtaining our basis for the
process of Inductive Reasoning. One of these is called Perfect
Induction and the other Imperfect Induction. Perfect Induction
is possible only when we have had the opportunity of
examining every particular object or thing of which the general
idea is expressed. For instance, if we could examine every fish in
the universe we would have the basis of Perfect Induction for
asserting the general truth that all fishes are coldblooded. But
this is practically impossible in the great majority of cases, and
so we must fall back upon more or less Imperfect Induction. We
must assume the general law from the fact that it is seen to exist
in a very great number of particular cases; upon the principle
that What is true of the many is true of the whole. As Halleck
says regarding this: Whenever we make a statement such as,
All men are mortal, without having tested each individual case
or, in other words, without having seen every man die, we are
reasoning from imperfect induction. Every time a man buys
a piece of beef, a bushel of potatoes or a loaf of bread, he is
basing his action on inference from imperfect induction. He
believes that beef, potatoes and bread will prove nutritious
food, although he has not actually tested those special edibles
before purchasing them. They have hitherto been found to be
nutritious on trial and he argues that the same will prove true
of those special instances. Whenever a man takes stock in a new
national bank, a manufactory or a bridge, he is arguing from
past cases that this special investment will prove profitable. We
instinctively believe in the uniformity of nature; if we did not
Reasoning
99
we should not consult our almanacs. If sufficient heat will cause
phosphorus to burn to-day, we conclude that the same result
will follow tomorrow if the circumstances are the same.
But, it will be seen, much care must be exercised in making
observations, experiments and comparisons, and in making
generalizations. The following general principles will give the
views of the authorities regarding this:
Atwater gives the two general rules:
Rule of Agreement: If, whenever a given object or agency
is present, without counteracting forces, a given effect is
produced, there is a strong evidence that the object or agency
is the cause of the effect.
Rule of Disagreement: If when the supposed cause is present
the effect is present, and when the supposed cause is absent the
effect is wanting, there being in neither case any other agents
present to effect the result, we may reasonably infer that the
supposed cause is the real one~
Rule of Residue: When in any phenOmena we find a result
remaining after the effects of all known causes are estimated,
we l11ay attribute it to a residual agent not yet reckoned.
Rule of Concomitant Variations: When a variation in a given
antecedent is accompanied by a variation of a given consequent,
they are in some manner related as cause and effect.

Atwater says, of the above rules, that whenever either of

these criteria is found, free from conflicting evidence, and
especially when several of them concur, the evidence is clear
that the cases observed are fair representatives of the whole
class, and warrant a valid universal inductive conclusion.
We now come to what is known as Hypothesis or Theory,
which is an assumed general principle a conjecture or
supposition founded upon observed and tested facts. Some
authorities use the term theory in the sense of a verified
hypothesis, but the two terms are employed loosely and the
usage varies with different authorities. What is known as the
probability of a hypothesis is the proportion of the number
Thought Culture
100
of facts it will explain. The greater the number of facts it will
explain, the greater is its probability. A Hypothesis is said to
be verified when it will account for all the facts which are
properly to be referred to it. Some very critical authorities hold
that verification should also depend upon there being no other
possible hypotheses which will account for the facts, but this is
generally considered an extreme position.
A Hypothesis is the result of a peculiar mental process which
seems to act in the direction of making a sudden anticipatory
leap toward a theory, after the mind has heen saturated with
a great body of particular facts. Some have spoken of the
process as almost intuitive and, indeed, the testimony of many
discoverers of great natural laws would lead us to believe that
the Subconscious region of the mind most active in making
what La Place has called the great guess of discovery of
principle. As Brooks says: The forming of hypotheses requires
a suggestive mind, a lively fancy, a philosophic imagination,
that catches a glimpse of the idea through the form, or sees the
law standing behind the fact.
Thomson says: The system of anatomy which has
immortalized the name of Oken, is the consequence of a flash
of anticipation which glanced through his mind when he
picked up in a chance walk the skull of a deer, bleached and
disintegrated by the weather, and exclaimed, after a glance, It
is part of a vertebral column. When Newton saw the apple
fall, the anticipatory question flashed through his mind, Why
do not the heavenly bodies fall like this apple? In neither case
had accident any important share; Newton and Oken were
prepared by the deepest previous study to seize upon the
unimportant fact offered to them, and show how important
it might become; and if the apple and the deer-skull had been
wanting, some other falling body, or some other skull, would
have touched the string so ready to vibrate. But in each case
there was a great step of anticipation; Oken thought he saw the
type of the whole skeleton in a single vertebra, whilst Newton
Reasoning
101