ng, unable to resolve a quibble propounded by Stilno)-not by hardening, but by enlightening them. Though we bring neither moo

individual fallacy, much must depend on natural and acquired acuteness: nor can any rules be given

rror lies principally in defective premises. Sophistry in science is referable to incomplete analysis of nature, of systems

lse. It is ever so with the vulgar. Some one case has come under their notice, and it is in vain that you appeal to a chain of facts. They know nothing of induction-they know one case to the contrary, and that is enough. This error is the source of vulgar prejudice. Once tea

Ti

toil with phi

nsense takes a

head convicti

e conclusions wi

ve proposed for use in the test of syllogism. Formerly, one syllogism was required to be defeated by another-we now at

like thee

why, I ca

now, and kno

like thee

easoner with an eternal why. A clear because to a clear

the church. (Cheers from the opposition benches.) The Brahmin and Mussulman give the same reason for theirs. A logician in facts would have said, I hold and support my reli

ollowing instance of a reg

ion of Providen

e dispensation

they are

entangled as to be intimately blended-that the falsehood is, in chemical phrase, held in solution: one drop of sound logic is that test which immediately disunites them, makes the foreign substance visible, and pr

ic, Anal. Out.,

, and laziness, accumulating filth, generate sickness and affliction. Are these the dispensations of Providence, or the dispensations of folly and crime? To ascribe them to Providence is virtually to allow ignorance and l

re the serv

e at thy

tempt a mur

hy chast'

in antagonism with Deity, and the recent appointment, by the Russell government, of a Sanatory Commission, was high blasphemy. It is the degradation of language to employ it to such a purpose, and logic needs revising to save us from publishing such puerility in the name o

n Athens, by F

here cited from Whately. It would be no difficult task to present other instances of the same species of polemical fallacy from Dr. Whately and other writers

shable classes of fallacy, which may to e

could not have performed his promise. This has been proved by Ferguson, who has demonstrated that if Archimedes could have moved with the swiftness of a cannon ball-480 miles every hour-it would have taken him just 44,963,540

n generat

ith cold)

with cold ge

on which the first proposition rests

re not above opinion, a Spartan replied, 'T

e division of their beds. William exclaims, 'You take more than your share of the bed, James.' James answers, 'I only take half

been beneficial.' Probably so-but not so beneficial as the truth would have been. Many persons have argued from such an instance, that error is useful. Dickens, in those incidental observations of striking good sense strewed up and down his writings, says, in th

iff moved to that extent and know one's self to be the cause? And

ything for you that you do want? Does he shed employment for you, instruction for you pocket money for