"4. Philology is a science, and its clearness and adaptability to what may be called laboratory work recommend it strongly to a place in the preparatory course."

Each of these propositions is a step in a deductive argument involving the syllogistic form of reasoning.

II. PROOF OF TRUTH BY DISPROOF OF ERROR.

The fact that a subject is susceptible of argument indicates that it has two sides, the true and the erroneous; and while generally by the direct establishment of the truth error falls of itself, there are cases where an indirect method has desirable advantages, where by attacking and destroying the error the truth is left free to assert itself.

This indirect means of establishing the truth presents itself under two main aspects.

I.

By reducing the Issue to an Alternative. Some questions are of such a nature as to possess only a certain limited number of aspects, of which only one can be true. If then these aspects can be so accurately determined as to show unquestionably for the only ones, the work of ascertaining which one is true can be done indirectly as well as directly. There are several forms of argument that depend for their validity on the principle of alternative.

Reductio ad Absurdum. — This argument, starting from a single alternative, that is, that one of two things and only one must be true, shows that the false side of the alternative, assumed true for argument's sake, leads to conclusions that are manifestly untenable.

As compared with the direct form of reasoning, the reductio ad absurdum is likely to be fully as strong, and sometimes stronger, because it shows not merely that a thing may be true but that it must be true. On the other hand, the direct argument is generally richer and more satisfying, because it exhibits the conclusion with all the premises and considerations that go to establish it.

EXAMPLES. The following example of reductio ad absurdum is taken from Hepburn's "Manual of Rhetoric":

...

"If the thesis is, Man is a free agent, then the antithesis is, Man is not a free agent. . . . The indirect proof would take some such form as this: Man is either free or he is not free. Let us assume that he is not free. If he is not free, he can not, in cases of conflicting motives, choose, but must blindly follow one of the impulses. But we know from consciousness that he can decide between conflicting motives; therefore it is false that he is not free. He must therefore be free."

The following argument, from Greenleaf, to prove that the testimony of the Evangelists is true, is really a statement of the absurdities that would follow if it were supposed false:

"It [namely the supposition of falsehood] would also have been irreconcilable with the fact that they were good men. But it is impossible to read their writings, and not feel that we are conversing with men eminently holy, and of tender consciences, with men acting under an abiding sense of the presence and omniscience of God, and of their accountability to him, living in his fear, and walking in his ways. Now, though, in a single instance, a good man may fall, when under strong temptations, yet he is not found persisting, for years, in deliberate falsehood, asserted with the most solemn appeals to God, without the slightest temptation or motive, and against all the opposing interests which reign in the human breast. If, on the contrary, they are supposed to have been bad men, it is incredible that such men should have chosen this form of imposture; enjoining, as it does, unfeigned repentance, the utter forsaking and abhorrence of all falsehood and of every other sin, the practice of daily self-denial, self-abasement and self-sacrifice, the crucifixion of the flesh with all its earthly appetites and desires, indifference to the honors, and hearty contempt of the vanities of the world; and inculcating perfect purity of heart and life, and intercourse of the soul with heaven. It is incredible, that bad men should invent falsehoods, to promote the religion of the God of truth. The supposition is suicidal. If they did believe in a future state of retribution, a heaven and a hell hereafter, they took the most certain course, if false witnesses, to secure the latter for their portion. And if, still being bad men, they did not believe in future punishment, how came they to invent falsehoods, the direct and certain tendency of which was to destroy all their prospects of worldly honor and happiness, and to ensure their misery in this life? From these absurdities there is no escape, but in the perfect conviction and admission that they were good men, testifying to that which they had carefully observed and considered, and well knew to be true."

Dilemma. When the issue is reduced to an alternative both sides of which are untenable, the argument is called a dilemma, and the two sides are called the horns of the dilemma. Of course a dilemma is wholly negative; it tears down, but does not build up. If its premises are admitted it is unanswerable; the only recourse, therefore, in the face of it, is either to abandon the position or to show that the alternative was not correctly taken.

EXAMPLES. - In his speech to the electors of Bristol, Burke attacks the custom of imprisonment for debt, and its only existing remedy or rather mitigation, Acts of Grace, by reducing both to dilemmas. The first shows the injustice of imprisoning a debtor at the will and instigation of his creditors:

:

"The next fault is, that the inflicting of that punishment is not on the opinion of an equal and public judge, but is referred t the arbitrary discretion of a private, nay, interested and irritated, individual. He who formally is, and substantially ought to be, the judge, is in reality no more than ministerial, a mere executive instrument of a private man, who is at once judge and party. Every idea of judicial order is subverted by this procedure. If the insolvency be no crime, why is it punished with arbitrary imprisonment? If it be a crime, why is it delivered into private hands to pardon without discretion, or to punish without mercy and without measure?"

The second dilemma shows that an Act of Grace, which is merely an arbitrary release of debtors from prison, principally, it would seem, because the prisons are overcrowded, is equally opposed to justice: –

"If the creditor had a right to those carcasses as a natural security for his property, I am sure we have no right to deprive him of that security. But if the few pounds of flesh were not necessary to his security, we had not a right to detain the unfortunate debtor, without any benefit at all to the person who confined him. Take it as you will, we commit injustice.”

-

The Method of Residues. - This name is given to that form of argument which, first enumerating all the possible aspects of the question, then proceeds to eliminate, one by one, until only the true aspect is left. There is a broadness and comprehensiveness in this method which make it often a very effective instrument of reasoning.

For the successful employment of this method the alternatives should be thoroughly classified and limited in number; to clear away too many false positions complicates the argument and gives

rise to a feeling of insecurity lest the true state of the case should, after all, have been overlooked.

EXAMPLE. A good example of this form of argument occurs in Burke's Speech on Conciliation with America. Having described the enthusiastic spirit of liberty that exists in the Colonies, he thus proposes the true method of dealing with it:

66

-

'Sir, if I were capable of engaging you to an equal attention, I would state, that, as far as I am capable of discerning, there are but three ways of proceeding relative to this stubborn Spirit, which prevails in your Colonies, and disturbs your Government. These are- To change that Spirit, as inconvenient, by removing the Causes. To prosecute it as criminal. Or, to comply with it as necessary. I would not be guilty of an imperfect enumeration; I can think of but these three. Another has indeed been started, that of giving up the Colonies; but it met so slight a reception, that I do not think myself obliged to dwell a great while upon it. It is nothing but a little sally of anger; like the frowardness of feverish children; who, when they cannot get all they would have, are resolved to take nothing."

The first two named of these are then examined in an argument of several pages and proved impracticable; whereupon he thus summarizes:

"If then the removal of the causes of this Spirit of American Liberty be, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable; if the ideas of Criminal Process be inapplicable, or if applicable, are in the highest degree inexpedient; what way yet remains? No way is open, but the third and last — to comply with the American Spirit as necessary; or, if you please, to submit to it as a necessary Evil."

The event was, as we know, that the British nation would not consent to the conciliation here advocated, and the fourth course mentioned, that of giving up the colonies, had to be submitted to.

II.

By Refutation. - Refutation is the opposite of confirmation. Its office is purely negative, being devoted to tearing down what is wrongly held or erroneously argued; and as such, it is merely preparatory, clearing the ground for a better establishment of the truth afterward. It does not prove truth therefore; though it serves the cause of truth by removing the obstacles that prevent a fair view of it.

A word may here be said regarding the spirit in which refuta

tion should be conducted. It is to be remembered that the writer is concerned ideally with the establishment of truth, not merely with the triumph of a cause. If argument in any form is used insincerely and for sophistry, it is perverted from its true use. Refutation, then, cannot always mean complete demolition of an opponent's position. Sometimes it can succeed only in transferring the preponderance of probability to the other side. It is more honest, and in the long run really stronger, if it recognizes whatever truth exists on both sides, and seeks not so much to be triumphant as to be fair.

The following are the main features of refutation to be noted in literary argumentation.

Analysis of the Opposed Position. This is of the first importance in refutation. The most prevalent reason why fallacies creep into arguments and mislead both reasoner and audience is that the underlying processes and principles of the thought are so overlaid with repetition, illustration, and digression, that its central movement cannot well be discerned; in the language of the proverb, "we cannot see the wood for trees." Countless are the ways in which the argument may thus fail of the exact and squarely encountered truth. It may, and often does, involve false premises. Or it may be lacking merely in the right emphasis and perspective,may put first what should be subordinate, or ignore something that is of determining significance for the result. In any case, the needed preliminary step is analysis: exact investigation, and if need be statement, of what the argument really is.1

The logical order in which such analysis of the opponent's position may be conducted in the following.

1. Examine the conclusion and tendency of the opponent's plea. Oftener than not when the principle that really underlies an erroneous position, or the tendency that is its natural outcome, is stripped of its obscuring verbiage and held up in its true light, no counter argument is needed; it refutes itself.

1 For general suggestions as to the conduct of such analysis, see Interpretation, in the chapter on Reproduction of the Thought of Others, pages 302–307.