conceived at once that the whole universe was full of bodies

tending to fall.
Passing from the consideration of Inductive Reasoning to
that of Deductive Reasoning we find ourselves confronted
with an entirely opposite condition. As Brooks says: The
two methods of reasoning are the reverse of each other. One
goes from particulars to generals; the other from generals to
particulars. One is a process of analysis; the other is a process of
synthesis. One rises from facts to laws; the other descends from
law s to facts. Each is independent of the other; and each is a
valid and essential method of inference.
Deductive Reasoning is, as we have seen, dependent upon
the process of deriving a particular truth from a general law,
principle or truth, upon the fundamental axiom that: What is
true of the whole is true of its parts. It is an analytical process,
just as Inductive Reasoning is synthetical. It is a descending
process, just as Inductive Reasoning is ascending.
Halleck says of Deductive Reasoning: After induction has
classified certain phenomena and thus given us a major premise,
we proceed deductively to apply the inference to any new
specimen that can be shown to belong to that class. Induction
hands over to deduction a ready-made major premise, e. g. All
scorpions are dangerous. Deduction takes this as a fact, making
no inquiry about its truth. When a new object is presented,
say a possible scorpion, the only troublesome step is to decide
whether the object is really a scorpion. This may be a severe
task on judgment. The average inhabitant of the temperate
zone would probably not care to risk a hundred dollars on
his ability to distinguish a scorpion from a centipede, or from
twenty or thirty other creatures bearing some resemblance to a
scorpion. Here there must be accurately formed concepts and
sound judgment must be used in comparing them. As soon
as we decide that the object is really a scorpion, we complete
the deduction in this way: All scorpions are dangerous; this
creature is a scorpion; this creature is dangerous. The reasoning
Thought Culture
102
of early life must be necessarily inductive. The mind is then
forming general conclusions from the examination of individual
phenomena. Only after general laws have been laid down, after
objects have been classified, after major premises have been
formed, can deduction be employed.
What is called Reasoning by Analogy is really but a higher
degree of Generalization. It is based upon the idea that if two
or more things resemble each other in many particulars, they
are apt to resemble each other in other particulars. Some have
expressed the principle as follows: Things that have some
things in common have other things in common. Or as Jevons
states it: The rule for reasoning by analogy is that if two or
more things resemble each other in many points, they will
probably resemble each other also in more points.
This form of reasoning, while quite common and quite
convenient, is also very dangerous. It affords many opportunities
for making false inferences. As Jevons says: In many cases
Reasoning by Analogy is found to be a very uncertain guide.
In some cases unfortunate mistakes are committed. Children
are sometimes killed by gathering and eating poisonous berries,
wrongly inferring that they can be eaten, because other berries,
of a somewhat similar appearance, have been found agreeable
and harmless. Poisonous toadstools are occasionally mistaken

for mushrooms, especially by people not accustomed to gather

them . There is no way in which we can really assure ourselves
that we are arguing safely by analogy. The only rule that can be
given is this, that the more things resemble each other, the more
likely is it that they are the same in other respects, especially in
points closely connected with those observed.
Halleck says: In argument or reasoning we are much aided
by the habit of searching for hidden resemblances. We may here
use the term analogy in the narrower sense as a resemblance of
ratios. There is analogical relation between autumnal frosts and
vegetation on the one hand, and death and human life on the
other. Frosts stand in the same relation to vegetation that death
Reasoning
103
does to life. The detection of such a relation cultivates thought.
If we are to succeed in argument, wwe must develop what some
call a sixth sense for the detection of such relations . Many
false analogies are manufactured and it is excellent thought
training to expose them. The majority of people think so little
that they swallow false analogies just as newly-fledged robins
swallow small stones dropped into their open mouths . The
study of poetry may be made very serviceable in detecting
analogies and cultivating the reasoning powers. When the poet
brings clearly to mind the change due to death, using as an
illustration the caterpillar body transformed into the butterfly
spirit, moving with winged ease over flowing meadows, he is
cultivating our apprehension of relations, none the less valuable
because they are beautiful.
There are certain studies which tend to develop the power
or faculty of Inductive Reasoning. Any study which leads the
mind to consider classification and general principles, laws or
truth, will tend to develop the faculty of deduction. Physics,
Chemistry, Astronomy, Biology and Natural History are
particularly adapted to develop the mind in this particular
direction. Moreover, the mind should be directed to an inquiry
into the causes of things. Facts and phenomena should be
observed and an attempt should be made not only to classify
them, but also to discover general principles moving them.
Tentative or provisional hypotheses should be erected and then
the facts re-examined in order to see whether they support the
hypotheses or theory. Study of the processes whereby the great
scientific theories were erected, and the proofs then adduced
in support of them, will give the mind the habit of thinking
along the lines of logical induction. The question ever in the
mind in Inductive Reasoning is Why? The dominant idea in
Inductive Reasoning is the Search for Causes.
In regard to the pitfalls of Inductive Reasoning the
fallacies, so-called, Hyslop says: It is not easy to indicate the
Thought Culture