all the possible consequences that would follow from its
union with known conceptions. This is in keeping with
the inducto-deductive method of Mill and the modern
logicians.

Aristotle ( 384-322 B.C.). -- Aristotle's name is especially,
and it may be said almost exclusively, associated with
deductive logic and syllogistic reasoning. Although he did
not develop fully the inductive logic, he nevertheless did
not ignore it, in some of its essential features at least. He
acknowledged the necessity of investigating the starting-
point of deduction, namely, the ultimate grounds of proof,
and of the principles of explanation. This process he called
dialectic. It is a double process that proceeds from the
particulars given in perception, and from the ideas current
in customary opinion, to discover the general, and then
from the general to deduce the particular, which is thereby
verified in the process. The former procedure is the reverse
of the deductive, and is epagogic or inductive. Induction,
according to him, is a syllogism in which the inference that
the major belongs to the middle, is mediated through the
minor directly; and not indirectly through the middle.
Thus, to use Aristotle's illustration, the investigation of the
connection between the absence of gall in animals and lon-
gevity in a number of instances, as in man, horse, mule, etc.,
may disclose their coexistence.1 They are then united
directly without mediation of a middle term. If we had
given the universal proposition to start with, Whatever
animal has no gall is long-lived, and the minor premise that
man, horse, mule, etc., are animals having no gall, then the
conclusion would follow, therefore they are long-lived. This
is the deductive syllogism. The inductive method, on the
other hand, starts from particular observation that the horse
which has no gall is long-lived, so also the mule, so also
man, etc.; therefore, without any middle term, a coexistence
is taken as equivalent to a causal relation between these

-386-