(i)

LOGIC AND
PHILOSOPHY
(For Higher Secondary Second Year)

Assam Higher Secondary Education Council

 )ii(

LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY : A textbook on Logic and Philosophy, compiled and

prescribed by the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, for second year Higher
Secondary Course and published by Jyoti Prakashan, on behalf of Assam Higher
Secondary Education Council.

Publishers : ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

On behalf of Assam Higher Secondary
 No part of this publication may be
Education Council
reproduced, stored in a retrieval
Jyoti Prakashan,Panbazar, Guwahati system or transmitted, in any form
or by any means, electronic,
Edition : First Edition : March, 2011 mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise without the prior
Reprint : Second Edition : 2012
permission of the publisher.
Reprint : Fourth Edition : 2014
Reprint : Fifth Edition : 2015  This book is sold subject to the
condition that it shall not, by way of
Reprint : Sixth Edition : 2016
trade, be lent, re-sold, hired out or
Reprint : Seventh Edition : 2017 otherwise disposed of without the
Reprint : Eighteenth : 2018 publisher’s consent, in any form of
Reprint : Nineteenth : 2019 binding or cover other than that in
Reprint : Twentieth : 2022 which it is published.
Reprint : Twenty 1st : 2023  The correct price of this publication
is the price printed on this page. Any
Price : Rs. 85.00 revised price indicated by a rubber
stamp or by a sticker or by any other
means is incorrect and should be
© Assam Higher Secondary Education Council unacceptable.
Print Text : 70 GSM
Cover : 150 GSM

Published by Jyoti Prakashan on behalf of Assam Higher Secondary Education Council

Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-781021

Printers : Trinayan Graphic Offset, Bamunimaidam

Guwahati-781 021
 (iii)

Textbook Development Committee

Advisor cum Co-ordinator
 Dr. Saraju Das, Ex Principal-in-Charge, Handique Girls' College.

Members
 Dr. Pranita Devi, Bajali College.
 Dr. Nilima Goswami, Arya Vidyapeeth College.
 Dr. Gayatri Devi, Nowgong Girls' College.
 Basanti Medhi, Cotton College.
 Sagarika Goswami, Cotton College.
 Sevika Das, Narengi Anchalik College.
 Banajit Sarma, Bangaigaon College.
(iv)
 (v)

Foreword
In order to impart quality education to the students of Higher Secondary level
and also to cater its need of the hour Assam Higher Secondary Education
Council has been revising its curriculum and syllabi time to time. It has
introduced a revised curricula with effect from 2010-2011 which has its base
on NCF-2005. In the context of globalization of the economy, emergence of
Information Technologies and application of new technologies in production
processes, the National Council of Education Research and Training has
proposed a new National Curriculum Framework (NCF-2005) for grades I-XII.
This framework, which addresses the emerging development issues and other
social concerns, provides a basis for the state to design their curricula, syllabi,
teaching learning materials etc. In its endeavour to keep the uniformity with
the national level Assam Higher Secondary Education Council after due
deliberation decided to develop its curricula and syllabi on the basis of NCF-
2005. Accordingly textbooks have been prepared to materialize the objectives
of the curricula syllabi.
Writing this book was a collective effort of a group of people. Assam Higher
Secondary Education Council appreciates the hard work done by the textbook
development committee responsible for this book. AHSEC welcomes
comments and suggestions which will enable us to undertake further revision
and refinement. From teachers and students also we would appreciate feedback
about the book and its design.

Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-21 Secretary

Assam Higher Secondary Education Council
)iv(
 (vii)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Preamble
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having
solemnly resolved to constitute India into a
SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all
its citizen :
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith
and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and
to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the
individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this
twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do
HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO
OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
(viii)
 (ix)

CONTENTS

UNIT SUBJECTS PAGE NO

Unit-I  Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds
of Induction 1-24
Unit-II  Grounds Of Induction 25-33
 Law of Causation 34-47
 Observation and Experiment 48-59
Unit-III  Hypothesis 60-73
Unit-IV  Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 74-92
Unit-V  Realism : Naive and Scientific 93-98
Unit-VI  Idealism : Subjective & Objective 99-104
Unit-VII  Ethics and Purusarthas 105-117
Unit-VIII  Religion : Its meaning and nature, religion and morality 118-126
(x)
 NATURE OF INDUCTIVE ENQUIRY,
Unit-I
VARIOUS KINDS OF INDUCTION
After going through this unit you would be able to learn :
 The nature of reasoning or inference and its different kinds.
 The nature of induction and its various kinds.
 How to establish a universal real proposition.

Contents
 Relation between induction and deduction.
 Necessity of induction
 Problem of induction
 Different kinds of induction
 Scientific induction and and its characteristics
 Unscientific induction
 Relation between scientific and unscientific induction
 Value of unscientific induction
 Analogy
 Kinds of Analogy
 Analogy and scientific induction
 Analogy and unscientific induction

 Introduction : Deductive logic deals with deductive

Logic is a normative science of reasoning and Inductive Logic deals with
reasoning. The main subject matter of inductive reasoning. In Higher
Logic is reasoning. Reasoning is a process Secondary First Year Logic course, you
by which we pass from something known have learnt about deductive reasoning or
to something unknown. As a normative inference. In this chapter, inductive
science, the aim of Logic is to attain truth. reasoning or induction with its various
Truth is the ideal of Logic. Truth is of two kinds will be discussed.
types viz. formal truth and material truth.  Relation between Induction
Deductive Logic deals with formal truth. and Deduction :
It is not concerned with material truth. Reasoning in the main subject matter
Inductive logic deals with material truth. of logic. Reasoning or inference is a
2 Logic and Philosophy

mental process in which we pass from (ii) Some men are wise
one or more propositions to another .
. . Some wise beings are men.
which is justified by them. When a
 Inductive Inference :
reasoning is expressed in language, it is
called an argument. An argument Inductive inference in that inference
consists of two or more propositions. The in which the conclusion is more general
proposition or propositions which are than the premises. In other words, the
given are called the premise or premises conclusion of an inductive inference
and the proposition which is drawn from goes beyond the premises. In an
them is called the conclusion. Thus, an inductive inference the conclusion does
argument consists of two parts viz. not follow necessarily from the premises.
premise or premises and conclusion. In Inductive inference in mainly an
an argument, the conclusion is drawn inference from 'particular to general'.
from the premises as there is a relation Here a general conclusion is established
between them. on the basis of some observed facts.
In western logic, reasoning or For example :
inference is broadly divided into two Ram is mortal.
kinds viz. deductive inference and Hari is mortal.
inductive inference. Deductive inference Jadu is mortal.
is also called deduction and inductive Madhu is mortal.
.
inference is called induction. . . All men are mortal.
If we analyse the nature of deductive
 Deductive inference : and inductive inferences, we notice the
Deductive inference is that inference following points of difference between
in which the conclusion can not be more them.
general than the premises. In other 1. In deductive inference, the
words, the conclusion of a deductive conclusion can not be more general than
inference can not go beyond the the premises. That is, the conclusion can
premises. Moreover, in a deductive be as general or less general than the
inference the conclusion follows premises but it can not be more general
necessarily from the premises. For than the premises. But the conclusion of
example : an inductive inference is always more
(i) All men are mortal general than the premises.
Ram is a man 2. In deductive inference we pass
.
. . Ram is mortal. from the general to the particular or from
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 3

the more general to the less general So, the conclusion of an inductive
proposition but in an inductive inference inference is probable.
we pass from particular propositions to Although there are differences
a general proposition. between deductive inference and
3. In deductive inference, the inductive inference, yet the difference
premises are assumed to be true. We are between them is not fundamental.
not concerned with the material truth of Deduction and induction are
the premises. But in an inductive supplementary processes. They differ in
inference, the premises are true as a their starting points only but not in
matter of fact. As the premises are based principle. Deduction starts with a general
on observation of facts, so they are proposition and arrives at a particular or
materially true. less general proposition. On the other
4. Deductive inference aims only at hand, induction starts with particular
formal truth but inductive inference aims propositions and arrives at a general
at both formal and material truth. proposition. But both deduction and
5. In deductive inference, the induction are based on the same principle
conclusion follows necessarily from the of unification of the particular and the
premises. So, in a valid deductive general into a common system. The
inference if the premises are true, the general proposition which is assumed to
conclusion must be true. In other words, be true in deduction is established by
the conclusion can not be false if the
induction. Again, the general proposition
premises are true. Moreover, in a
which is established in induction is
deductive inference the premises provide
verified by applying to particular facts
conclusive evidence for the conclusion.
with the help of deduction. Hence,
So, the conclusion of a valid deductive
deduction and induction are
inference in certain.
interdependent.
On the other hand, in an inductive
inference the conclusion does not follow  Necessity of Induction :
necessarily from the premises. So, the Logic is generally defined to be the
premises of an inductive inference may science of reasoning. It is a normative
be true but the conclusion may be false. science as it deals with the ideal of truth.
Moreover, in an inductive inference the Logic sets before itself the ideal of truth
premises do not offer conclusive and seeks to know the conditions which
evidence for the truth of the conclusion. our reasoning must fulfil in order that the
4 Logic and Philosophy

ideal of truth may be attained. Truth is of is affirmed or denied of the whole

two types viz. formal truth and material subject. For example, 'All men are
truth. Deductive inference aims at formal mortal'. On the other hand, a particular
truth only. In a deductive inference, the proposition is one in which the predicate
premises are assumed to be true and our is affirmed or denied of a part of the
task is only to determine whether the subject. The truth of a particular
conclusion follows necessarily from the proposition can be easily determined by
premises. Here, we do not question the experience. For example, the material
material truth of the premises. In other truth of particular propositions 'Some men
words, we are not concerned whether the are honest', 'Some men are mortal' can be
premises are true as a matter of fact. But determined by observation. But how are
formal truth is only one aspect of truth we to establish the material truth of
and not the whole truth. An argument to universal propositions like 'All men are
be sound must not only be formally true mortal.' 'All crows are black'? Induction is
but also materially true. necessary to establish the material truth of
An argument is formally true if the such universal propositions.
conclusion follows necessarily from the According to import, a universal
premises according to the rules of that proposition may be of two kinds viz. (i)
particular form of argument. In other Analytic or Verbal and (ii) Real or
words, the formal truth of a deductive Synthetic. An analytic or a verbal
argument depends on the observence of proposition is one in which the predicate
the rules of that form of argument. On the merely states the connotation or a part of
other hand, the material truth of an the connotation of the subject. For
argument depends on the material truth example, "All men are rational'. In this
of its premises. proposition, the predicate 'rational' is a
Deductive inference aims only at part of the connotation of the subject
formal truth and not at material truth. But 'men'. To determine the truth of analytic
Logic as a whole aims both at formal proposition we do not have to depend
truth and material truth. Hence the upon experience. On the other hand, a
question arises how are we to establish real or synthetic proposition is one in
the material truth of premises? which the predicate asserts an additional
Every premise is a proposition. fact which an analysis of the connotation
According to quantity, propositions may of the subject does not reveal. For
be universal or particular. A universal example, 'All men are mortal.' In this
proposition is one in which the predicate proposition, the predicate does not state
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 5

the connotation of the subject but gives mortal'. But all universal real propositions
us some new information about the are not established by deduction.
subject. The truth of this proposition can Hence, the question arises : How are
not be determined by analysing the we to establish universal real
connotation of the subject. So, how are propositions which are neither axioms
we to establish the material truth of nor deductions? The answer is that such
universal real propositions? universal real propositions are
If universal real propositions are established by induction. It is induction
axioms, then they do not require any which establishes the vast majority of
proof. This is because they are self- general propositions. Deduction assumes
evident. These axioms are however very the material truth of its universal premise
few in number and the vast majority of but induction proves it. For example,
universal real propositions are not axioms. syllogism assumes the truth of its
Key Words universal premise. According to one of
the rules of syllogism, a syllogism must
Verbal or Analytic proposition,
have at least one universal premise
Real or Synthetic proposition
because from two particular premises no
Again, some universal real conclusion can be drawn. This universal
propositions may be deductions from premise is supplied by induction.
more general propositions. The truth of Syllogism depends upon induction for the
these universal propositions can be establishment of its universal premise.
determined from the truth of more Hence, it is said that induction supplies the
general propositions. For example, universal premises of deduction.
All animals are mortal. Induction is necessary for the
All men are animals establishment of material truth.
... All men are mortal. Deduction can only give us formal truth.
In the above argument, the conclusion But the aim of Logic is to attain both
'All men are mortal' which is a universal formal truth and material truth. Hence,
real proposition is a deduction from the induction is necessary for the
more general premise ' All animals are establishment of material truth.
ACTIVITY
1. Write a few examples of Verbal or Analytic propositions.
2. Write a few examples of Real or Synthetic propositions.
3. 'All men are laughing animals'– Is this proposition a Verbal or a Real proposition?
6 Logic and Philosophy

 Problem of Induction : general from the particular or the more

Induction seeks to establish the general from the less general is the
material truth of universal real problem of induction.
propositions. In induction we establish a The solution to this problem of
universal real proposition based on the induction lies in the fact that in passing
observation of particular instances. But from the particular to the general,
how are we justified in establishing a induction relies on two fundamental
universal real proposition from particular principles viz. the Law of the Uniformity
instances? of Nature and the Law of Causation. The
Experience provides us with Law of Causation states that every event
particular facts and not with universal has a cause. The Law of Uniformity of
propositions. For instance, experience Nature states that the same cause
informs us that Jadu is mortal, Hari is produces the same effect under similar
mortal, Tom is mortal etc., but not that all conditions. In other words, Nature behaves
men are mortal. It is not possible for us in the same way under similar
to observe all cases of death of all men circumstances. In the establishment of the
of past, present and future. But the universal real proposition 'All men are
general proposition when established mortal' we observe particular cases of death
covers observed as well as unobserved of persons and on discovering causal
cases. Thus, on the observation of connection between 'humanity' and
mortality of some men we conclude "All Key Words
men are mortal.' Again, observing some Law of Uniformity of Nature,
crows to be black we conclude "All Law of Causation
crows are black". In all these cases, the
number of instances that we have 'mortality', pass on to unobserved cases on
observed is infinitely small compared to the assumption that the same cause will
the number of unobserved instances. So, produce the same effect under similar
how we are justified in passing from the circumstances, in all places, and at all times.
observation of some cases to the Thus, the problem of Induction is solved
universal proposition. In other words, when it is based on the Law of causation
how we are justified in inferring the and the Law of Uniformity of Nature.
ACTIVITY
Observe some particular instances of the same kind and on its basis establish
a universal real proposition covering all instances, known and unknown.
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 7

 Different kinds of Induction: type of induction where there is no

Following Mill, we may broadly 'Inductive Leap.'
divide induction into two kinds viz. Induction proper, again is of there
(i) Induction proper kinds :
(ii) Induction improperly so-called (i) Scientific Induction,
(i) Induction proper : Induction (ii) Unscientific Induction or
proper is that type of induction where Induction per Simple Enumeration, and
there is 'Inductive leap' i.e. there is a (iii) Analogy.
leap or jump from the known to the Induction improperly so-called is also
unknown, observed to the unobserved, of three kinds :
particular to general i.e. 'some' to 'all'. (i) Perfect Induction,
Here, a general or universal proposition (ii) Induction by Parity of Reasoning,
is established on the basis of and
observation of particular facts. (iii) Colligation of facts.
(ii) Induction improperly so-called : The following table illustrates the
Induction improperly so-called is that classification of induction.
Induction

Induction Proper Induction improperly so-called

Scientific Unscientific Analogy

Induction Induction Perfect Induction by Colligation
Induction Parity of of Facts
Reasoning
Although induction is divided into particular instances, in reliance on the
induction proper and Induction principle of the Uniformity of Nature and
improperly so-called, in this chapter we the Law of Causation.
shall discuss only Induction proper. For example : All men are mortal.
 Induction Proper : An analysis of the above definition
1. Scientific Induction and its reveals the following characteristics of
characteristics scientific induction.
Scientific Induction is the 1. Scientific induction establishes a
establishment of a general real general real proposition.
proposition based on the observation of (a) Scientific induction establishes a
8 Logic and Philosophy

proposition. A proposition is a statement mortal'' is a real proposition because the

which expresses a relation between two predicate 'mortal' connotes an attribute
terms. For e.g., 'Man is mortal' is a which is not a part of the connotation of
proposition. It expresses a relation the term 'man'. Scientific induction is
between two terms 'man' and 'mortal'. concerned only with real propositions
Scientific induction establishes such a and not with verbal propositions.
proposition and not an idea or concept. (2) Scientific induction is based on
(b) The proposition established by observation of facts.
scientific induction is a general The general proposition established
proposition. According to quantity, by scientific induction is based on
proposition are divided into universal or observation of particular instances.
general and particular. A general Observation is of two kinds– simple
proposition is one in which the predicate observation and experiment. By means
is affirmed or denied of the whole subject. of simple observation and experiment
For example, "All men are mortal." A particular instances are collected. For
particular proposition is one in which the
example, the general proposition "All
predicate is affirmed or denied of a part of
men are mortal" is established on the
the subject. For example, "Some men are
basis of observation of particular
mortal." The aim of scientific induction is
instances of death of persons like Ram,
to establish a general proposition and not
Hari, Jadu, Madhu etc. Similarly, the
a particular one.
general proposition "All metals expand
(c)The general proposition which a
when heated'' is based on an examination
scientific induction establishes is a real
proposition and not a verbal one. of particular instances of metals like iron,
According to import, propositions are copper, silver etc. Induction aims at
divided into two kinds viz., verbal or material truth. The general porpositions
analytic and real or synthetic. A verbal established by induction must conform to
proposition is one in which the predicate the actual state of things. So, scientific
merely states the connotation or a part of induction depends upon observation of
the connotation of the subject. For facts to establish materially true general
example, "All men are rational'' – A real propositions. As observation and
proposition is one which gives us some experiment supply materials to induction
new information about the subject, not and guarantee the material truth of
contained in the connotation of the induction, so they are called the material
subject. For example, "All men are grounds of induction.
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 9

This characteristic distinguishes Causation and the principle of the

scientific induction from axioms on one Uniformity of Nature.
hand and deduction on the other. To remove the difficulty of 'Inductive
(3) In scientific induction, there is an hazard' which scientific induction faces
"Inductive leap or hazard.'' in establishing a general proposition from
Though scientific induction is based particular instances, it depends on two
on observation of facts, yet for the presuppositions, viz.,
establishment of a general proposition it (i) The Law of Causation, and
can not depend upon observation alone. (ii) The principle of the Uniformity of
It has to depend upon inference for the Nature.
scope of observation is limited. For
Key Words
instance, it is possible for us to observe
Scientific Induction, Observation,
some cases of man's death and not all
Experiment, Inductive Leap
cases of man's death. But the aim of
scientific induction is to establish a Both the Law of Causation and the
general real proposition. So, it has to principle of the Uniformity of Nature are
jump from the observed cases to the two fundamental principles. These two
unobserved cases, the known to the fundamental principles are called the
unknown, from particular to general. formal grounds of scientific induction
This jump from the known to the because scientific induction takes them for
unknown, particular to general or 'some' granted in order that a general proposition
to 'all' is called 'Inductive Leap'. This may be established on an observation of
leap is not an ordinary one. It is a leap particular instances. They are also called
in the dark. This passage from particular the postulates or assumptions of induction.
to general, the known to the unknown The Law of Causation, states that
invlolves some hazard or risk as we are
'Every event has a cause'. Scientific
going beyond the evidence. So, the
induction is based on the Law of
inductive leap is also known as 'inductive
Causation. It is based upon the discovery
hazard'. According to Mill and Bain, the
and proof of causal connection between
Inductive leap or hazard constitutes the
events. For example, a causal connection
very essence of induction. If this
is proved between 'humanity' and
characteristic in absent, then the process
'mortality' and on the strength of this
cannot be called induction at all.
(4) Scientific induction is based on causal connection the general proposition
two presuppositions, viz., the Law of 'All men are mortal' is established.
10 Logic and Philosophy

The principle of the Uniformity of man under similar circumstances.

Nature states that 'Under similar (5) The conclusion of scientific is
conditions, the same cause produces the regarded a certain as it is based on causal
same effect'. This means that Nature connection.
behaves in the same way under similar Thus, we find that scientific induction
circumstances. For example, when we is the establishment of a general real
find that there is a causal connection proposition based on the observation of
between 'humanity' and 'mortality', we particular instances, in reliance on the
further assume that this causal principle of the Uniformity of Nature and
connection will be true in all cases of the Law of Causation.
ACTIVITY
* Is induction concerned with formal truth only?
* What are the grounds of scientific induction?
* What kind of proposition does scientific induction establish?

 Unscientific Induction or 2. Unscientific induction is based on

Induction per Simple observation of particular facts of
Enumeration : experience.
Unscientific Induction or Induction Induction aims at material truth. In
per simple enumeration is the order to establish a materially true
establishment of a general real general proposition, unscientific
proposition on the basis of mere uniform induction depends on observation of
or uncontradicted experience without particular facts of experience.
any attempt at explaining a causal 3. In unscientific induction there is an
connection. 'Inductive Leap'.
An analysis of the definition reveals In unscientific induction there in an
the following characteristics of 'Inductive Leap' from 'some' to 'all', from
unscientific induction. particular to general, observed to
1. Unscientific induction establishes a unobserved cases. Unscientific induction
general real proposition. aims to establish a general real
Like scientific induction, unscientific proposition based on the observation of
induction establishes a proposition and particular instances. But by mere
that proposition is a general real observation alone a general proposition
porposition. can not be established. So, unscientific
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 11

induction has to depend on inference. It on the strength of causal connection, its

observes particular instances and on its conclusion is only probable and not
basis establishes a general real certain.
proposition by inference. Thus, in For example, "All crows are black."
unscientific induction there is an So far as our experience goes, we
'Inductive Leap' on jump from particular have seen only black crows. We have not
to general, which is the very essence of come across any crow which is not
induction. So, unscientific induction is black. On the basis this uniform or
regarded as a form of induction proper. uncontradicted experience we arrive at
(4) In unscientific induction, the the general proposition. 'All crows are
generalisation is made on the basis of black'. Here, we have not discovered or
mere uniform or uncontradicted proved any causal connection between
experience. 'crows' and 'blackness'. So, the
By observing a large number of conclusion is probable only and not
particular instances and finding not a certain.
single contrary instance, unscientific Unscientific induction is also called
induction establishes a general real Induction per simple enumeration
proposition. Thus, uncontradicted because it based on mere enumeration or
experience in the ground of unscientific counting of instances.
induction.  Relation between Scientific and
(5) Unscientific induction is not based Unscientific Induction :
on the Law of Causation. Scientific Induction is the
In unscientific induction, there is no establishment of a general real
attempt to establish a causal connection proposition based on the observation of
between events. The general real particular instances, in reliance on the
proposition is established without the principle of the Uniformity of Nature and
discovery of causal connection. As there the Law of Causation.
is no knowledge of causal connection, For example : 'All men are mortal.'
this kind of induction is called This general real proposition is
unscientific. established on the basis of observation of
(6)The conclusion of unscientific particular instances of man's death and is
induction is only probable. based on the causal connection between
As unscientific induction is based on 'man' and 'mortality' in reliance on the
mere uncontradicted experience and not principle of the Uniformity of Nautre.
12 Logic and Philosophy

Unscientific induction is the observation and experiment. But

establishment of a general real proposition unscientific induction is based on simple
on the basis of mere uniform or un- observation only and not on experiment.
contradicted experience without any 2. Scientific induction is grounded on
attempt at explaining a causal connection. the principle of the Uniformity of Nature
For example : 'All crows are black.' and the Law of Causation whereas
This general real proposition is unscientific induction is grounded on
established on the basis of mere uniform or mere uniform or uncontradicted
uncontradicted experience of large number experience.
of crows without any attempt at 3. The process of scientific induction
discovering a causal connection between is complex as it involves observation,
'crows' and 'blackness'. formation of hypothesis, generalisation,
If we analyse the above definitions of verification etc. But the process of
scientific induction and unscientific unscientific induction is simple.
induction, we find the following points 4. The conclusion of scientific
of similarities and dissimilarities between
induction is certain as it is based on the
them.
Law of Causation. But there is no
Points of similarity :
attempt to establish a causal connection
1. Both scientific induction and
in unscientific induction. So, its
unscientific induction establish general
conclusion is probable only.
real propositions.
2. Both scientific induction and Value of Unscientific Induction :
unscientific induction are based on Unscientific induction establishes a
observation of facts. In both we arrive at general real proposition on the basis of
general real propositions on the mere uniform or uncontradicted
observation of particular instances. experience. As there is no attempt at
3. In both the kinds of induction there explaining causal connection in
is 'Inductive Leap'– a passage from unscientific induction, its conclusion is
particular to general, from observed to probable only. Hence, the question arises
unobserved cases. So, both scientific and what is the value of unscientific
unscientific induction are two forms of induction?
induction proper. Regarding answer to this question,
Points of dissimilarity : there is difference of opinions among
1. Scientific induction is based on two logicians. According to Bacon,
kinds of observation viz., simple unscientific induction has no value at all.
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 13

He says, "Induction which proceeds by induction is not certain because a

merely citing instances, is res puerilis, a knowledge of causal connection is
childish affair, and being without any wanting. Although the conclusion of
principle of inference, it may be unscientific induciton is not certain, still
overthrown by any contradictory it can not be regarded as useless from the
instance.'' scientific point of view as it is the starting
Logicians, however, acknowledge point of scientific induction.
that in a large number of popular According to Grumley, the chief
generalisations, the condemnation of value of unscientific induction lies in its
Bacon is just. It is true that the hasty and power to suggest a causal connection.
perfunctory generalisations of the man in The condition that two phenomena are
the street are often worthless. But we also always or very frequently connected
cannot deny the uncontradicted suggests that they may be causally
experience of all known men, in all the connected. With this suggestion we start
known parts of the world, during all the our scientific investigation to find out
known periods of history. So, according whether there is really any causal
to some logicians unscientific induction connection or not. If a causal connection
has some value. is discovered and proved, Induction per
Fowler points out that the value of simple enumeration or unscientific
unscientific induction depends on two induction attains the certainty of
considerations. scientific induction and is elevated to
1. If the number of positive instances, the rank of scientific induction. Hence,
which have occured in our experience, it is a stepping stone to scientific
be large then the value of unscientific induction.
induction is comparatively high; while if Thus, we can conclude that
the number be small, its value is rather unscientific induction is not without any
low. value. It is a valuable aid to scientific
2. The absence of negative instances, induction. It paves the way for scientific
when experience is of wide range, shows induction. It is of great help in the
that unscientific induction possesses a preliminary stages of induction.
high degree of probability.
 Analogy :
But, however high the degree of
probability, unscientific induction can Analogy is a kind of induction in
never reach the certainty of scientific which on the basis of observation of
induction. The conclusion of unscientific resemblance in some particular
14 Logic and Philosophy

properties between two things, we infer Concrete example :

further resemblance in some other Mars resembles the Earth in certain
property between them. respects, viz., in being a planet,
Analogy is a kind of induction proper possessing similar atmosphere, land,
because in analogy there is inductive leap. seas, polar regions, temperature etc.
Analogy is defined in different ways The Earth possesses the further
by different logicians. property of being inhabited.
According to Mill, analogy may be ... Mars possesses the property of
stated in the following way : "Two things being inhabited.
resemble each other in one or more If we analyse the nature of analogy
respects; a certain proposition is true of we find the following characteristics.
the one, therefore it is true of the other." (i) Analogy is a kind of inference in
Welton defines analogy as ''an which we pass from particular to particular.
inference from partial identity of content This means that in analogy we pass
to further identity of content." from a particular proposition to another
Carveth Read defines analogy as "a particular proposition and not from
kind of probable proof based on particular to a general proposition.
imperfect similarity ...... between the data (ii) Analogy is based on resemblance of
of comparison and the subject of our certain properties between two things. This
inference.'' resemblance or similarity is imperfect.
In analogy, we first observe that two (iii) Analogy is not based on causal
different things resemble each other in connection. So, its conclusion is
some respects. Secondly, one of them probable and not certain.
possesses of further quality and so it is (iv) In analogy, there is 'Inductive
inferred, on the ground of previous Leap' as we pass from the known to the
resemblance, that the other thing also unknown. So, it is a kind of induction
possesses that same quality. proper.
Symbolic example : Thus, Analogy is a kind of inference
A resembles B in certain properties, from particular to particular based on
viz. x, y and z. imperfect similarity without any
B further possesses the property m. knowledge of a causal connection and is
... A possesses the property m, even only probable in character.
though no connection is known to exist  Value of Analogy :
between m and the common properties x, Analogy is based on imperfect
y and z.
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 15

similarity between two things and not merely upon the number of the points of
causal connection. So, the conclusion of resemblance, but also upon their
analogical argument is always probable. importance. Even if two things resemble
But probability is not a fixed quantity. It one another in many properties, the
is a matter of degree. An argument from analogical argument may have no value
analogy may have any degree of whatsoever, if the points of resemblance
probability from zero almost up to the are not of importance. So, Bosanquet
limit of certainty. Now let us determine the says, "We must weigh the points of
conditions on which the strength or value resemblance rather than count them."
of an analogical argument depends. Hence, in determining the value of an
According to Mill, the value of an analogical argument we must not only
analogical argument depends on the put emphasis on the number of the points
following conditions : resemblance but also their importance.
(i) The extent of known resemblance, The value or strength of an analogical
(ii) The extent of known difference, argument depends on the following
(iii) The extent of unexplored region rules :
of unknown properties. (i) The greater the number and the
Mill said that where the resemblance importance of the known points of
is very great, the ascertained difference resemblance, the greater the value of the
very small and our knowledge of the analogical argument. For example, the
subject matter fairly extensive, the points of resemblance between men and
analogical argument has a high lower animals are more in number and
probability. Mill's criteria laid emphasis more important than the points of
on the number of points of resemblance resemblance between men and plants.
and difference. Hence, the analogical argument, 'Lower
According to Bain, ''The probability animals feel pleasure and pain as men do'
is measured by comparing the number and is more probable than the argument
importance of the points of agreement 'Plants feel pleasure and pain as men do.'
with the number and importance of the (ii) The greater the number and the
points of difference; having respect also to importance of the known points of
the extent of unknown properties as difference, the less the value of the
compared with known.'' analogical argument.
According to Welton, Bosanquet, For example : the known points of
Sidgwick and others, the value of an difference between the Earth and the
analogical argument does not depend Moon are more in number and more
16 Logic and Philosophy

important than the points of difference However, we must not think that it is
between the Earth and Mars. The Moon possible to determine the value of any
has no atmosphere while air is an particular analogical argument in exact
indispensable condition of life on the mathematical ratio. The fraction given
Earth. The absence of air is an important above merely suggests in a general way
point of difference. Hence, the analogical that the number and importance of
argument 'The Moon is inhabited like the resemblances constitute a favourable
Earth' is less probable than the argument factor and the other two i.e. the points of
'Mars is inhabited like the Earth.' difference and unknown points constitute
(iii) The greater the number of an adverse factor in determining the value
of an analogical argument.
unknown points as compared with the
The determination of the value of an
number of known points, the less the
analogical argument is not an easy
value of the analogical argument.
process. There are two main difficulties
In other words, if the number of known
in this process.
points is small in comparision with the (i) Two different principles viz.,
unknown points, then the value of the number of points and their importance
analogical argument will be less. If the are involved here. In practice, it is often
number of unknown points is smaller than impossible to reconcile them. Moreover,
the number of known points, then the value the number of points of similarity is a
of the analogical argument will be more. matter of comparative indifference when
The value of an analogical argument their importance is small. Hence, it is
has been expressed by some logicians difficult to decide whether in a given
mathematically in the form of a fraction case, number or importance should be
thus : the guiding factor.
Resemblance (ii) It is futile to talk of the number of
Difference + Unknown Points unknown points. If they are unknown,
The significance of this mathematical how can we know how many they are?
expression is this. The numerator So, the unknown can not be used as a
consists of factors which make for standard of comparison.
strength, and the denominator consists of  Kinds of Analogy :
factors which weaken the force of the The ground of analogy in similarity or
argument, so that the fraction represents resemblance between two things. In
the value of a particular analogical analogy no casual connection is
argument. established and so its conclusion is
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 17

probable in character. The strength or which on the basis of observation of

value of analogy depends on the number resemblance in some particular
and the importance of the points of properties between two things, we infer
similarity, as contrasted with the number further resemblance in some other
and the importance of the points of property between them.
difference and the number of the Scientific induction, on the other
unknown points. hand, is the establishment of a general
On the basis of the importance of the real proposition based on the observation
points of similarity, analogy is divided of particular instances in reliance on the
into two kinds viz.–– principle of the Uniformity of Nature and
(i) Good Analogy, and the Laws of Causation.
(ii) Bad Analogy If we analyse these two definitions of
A good analogy is one in which a analogy and scientific induction, we find
conclusion in drawn from the presence of the following points of similarity and
essential resemblance between two dissimilarity between them.
things. For example, Mars resembles the Poins of similarity:
Earth in being planet, possessing similar
(1) Both analogy and scientific
atmosphere, land, seas temperature etc..
induction are forms of induction proper.
The Earth is inhabited. Therefore, Mars
In both, there is 'Inductive Leap' from the
is also inhabited.
known to the unknown.
A bad analogy is one in which the
(2) Both analogy and scientific
conclusion is drawn from superficial
induction are based on observation. In
points of resemblance between two
analogy, we first observe that one thing
things. It is also called False analogy.
resembles another in some properties. We
For example: Plants, like men, have
then infer further resemblance in some
birth, growth and decay and death. Men
other property between them. Scientific
possess intelligence, therefore plants also
possess intelligence. Here, there is no induction is also based on the observation
essential connection between the points of particular instances for the establishment
of resemblance and the inferred quality. of a general real proposition.
So, this is a false or bad analogy. Points of Dissimilarity :
(1) In analogy, we proceed of from the
Analogy and Scientific
particular to the particular while in
Induction :
scientific induction we proceed from the
Analogy is a kind of induction in particular to the general.
18 Logic and Philosophy

In analogy, we pass from one scientific induction. In the words of Mill,

particular to another particular which analogy is 'a guide-post pointing out the
resembles the former in certain respects. direction in which more rigorous
But in scientific induction, on an investigations should be prosecuted.'
observation of particular instances we Analogy is a source of hypothesis which
establish a general proposition. when proved, results in scientific
(2) In analogy there is no knowledge induction. Thus, analogy is a stepping-
of a causal connection but scientific stone to scientific induction.
induction is based on the knowledge of  Analogy and Unscientific
a causal connection. In scientific Induction :
induction, the causal connection is In analogy, on the basis of observation
established by the application of the of similarity in certain properties between
Experimental Methods, but in analogy, two things, it is inferred that those two
no such causal connection is established. things will resemble in some other
(3) The conclusion of analogy is property.
probable as it is not based on causal In unscientific induction, a general
connection. But the conclusion of real proposition is established on the
scientific induction is certain because it is basis of mere uniform or uncontradicted
based on causal connection. experience without any attempt at
Though there are differences between discovering a causal connection.
analogy and scientific induction yet both An analysis of the nature of analogy
are forms of induction proper. However, and unscientific induction reveals that
analogy is a weak form of inductive there are certain points of similarity and
argument because it is based on certain points of dissimilarity between
imperfect similarity. But we should not them.
think that analogical argument has no Points of Similarity :
value at all. In analogy, no causal (1) Both analogy and unscientific
connection is known to exist. But there induction are two forms of induction
is a vague belief that though no causal proper. There is 'Inductive Leap' in both
connection is at present known to exist, analogy and unscientific induction.
such a connection will at some future (2) Both analogy and unscientific
time be discovered and then the induction are based on observation. In
analogical argument will perfect itself analogy, we observe that one thing
into a scientific induction. So, analogy is resembles another in some properties and
regarded as a stage on the road to then infer further resemblance in some
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 19

other property between them. In similarity while the basis of unscientific

unscientific induction also, we observe induction is uncontradicted experience.
particular instances and on its basis (3) Although both the conclusions of
establish a general real proposition. analogy and unscientific induction are
(3) In both analogy and unscientific probable, yet the probability of analogical
induction there is no attempt to establish conclusion depends mainly on the number
a causal connection. and importance of the known points of
(4) The conclusions of both analogy resemblance. In unscientific induction, the
unscientific induction are probable as probability of the conclusion depends on
they are not based on causal connection. the number of particular instances which
(5) Both analogy and unscientific are collected by observation on the basis
induction are great sources of of uncontradicted experience. In
hypotheses. Both possess suggestive unscientific induction, we simply count
power and are valuable aids to scientific the instances but in analogy we weigh the
induction. points of resemblance.
Points of Dissimilarity : (4) Analogy deals with the
(1) In analogy we pass from one connotation of a term. It increases our
particular to another particular but in knowledge of the connotation of the term.
unscientific induction we pass from But unscientific induction deals with the
particular to general. denotation of a term. It increases our
(2) The basis of analogy is imperfect knowledge of the denotation of the term.

ACTIVITY
Is the conclusion of analogical argument probable?
Observe some points of similarity between two objects or instances
(suppose man and chimpanzee). On the basis of their similarity infer a
further quality, which is present in one of them to be also present in the
other and name this inference.

SUMMARY
Reasoning is the main subject matter of Logic. In western logic, reasoning
or inference is broadly divided into two kinds viz. deductive and inference.
In deductive inference, the conclusion can not be more general than the
premises.
20 Logic and Philosophy

In inductive inference the conclusion is more general than the premises.

Deductive inference aims only at formal truth.
Inductive inference aims at both formal and material truth.
According to Mill, induction is broadly divided into two kinds.
(i) Induction proper and (ii) Induction improperly so-called.
Inductive proper is that type of induction where there is 'Inductive Leap'
i.e. there is a leap or jump from the known to the unknown, observed to
the unobserved, particular to general i.e. 'some' to 'all'.
Induction improperly so-called is that type of induction where there is no
'Inductive Leap'.
Induction proper is of three kinds :
(i) Scientific Induction (ii) Unscientific Induction and (iii) Analogy
Induction improperly so-called is also of three kinds :
(i) Perfect Induction (ii) Induction by parity of Reasoning (3) Colligation of facts.
Scientific Induction is the establishment of a general real proposition based
on the observation of particular instances in reliance on the principle of the
Uniformity of Nature and the Law of Causation.
Characteristics of Scientific Induction :
Scientific Induction establishes a general real proposition.
Scientific Induction is based on observation of facts.
In scientific induction, there is an 'Inductive leap or hazard'.
Scientific induction is based on two presuppositions, viz., the Law of
Causation and the principle of the Uniformity of Nature.
Unscientific induction is the establishment of a general real proposition on
the basis of mere uniform or uncontradicted experience without any attempt
at explaninig a causal connection.
Characteristics of unscientific induction:
Unscientific induction establishes a general real proposition.
Unscientific induction is based on observation of particular facts of
experience.
In unscientific induction there is an 'Inductive Leap'.
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 21

In unscientific induction, the generalisation is made on the basis of mere

uniform or uncontradicted experience.
Unscientific induction is not based on the Law of Causation.
The conclusion of unscientific induction is probable.
Relation between scientific and unscientific induction :
Points of similarity :
Both scientific induction and unscientific induction establish general real
propositions.
Both scientific induction and unscientific induction are based on observation
of facts.
In both the kinds of induction there is 'Inductive Leap'.
Points of dissimilarity :
Scientific induction is based on two kinds of observation viz., simple
observation and experiment. But unscientific induction is based on simple
observation only.
Scientific induction is grounded on the principle of the Uniformity of Nature
and the Law of causation whereas unscientific induction is grounded on
mere uniform or uncontradicted experience.
The process of scientific induction is complex but the process of unscientific
induction is simple.
The conclusion of scientific induction is certain but the conclusion of
unscientific induction is probable.
Analogy is a kind of induction in which on the basis of observation of
resemblance in some particular properties between two things, we infer
further resemblance in some other property between them.
Characteristics :
1. Analogy is a kind of inference in which we pass from particular to
particular.
2. Analogy is based on resemblance of certain properties between two
things.
3. Analogy is not based on causal connection. So, its conclusion is
probable.
4. In analogy there is 'Inductive Leap'.
22 Logic and Philosophy

Analogy is of two kinds : (i) Good Analogy and (ii) Bad Analogy.
Analogy and scientific induction :
Points of similarity :
1. Both analogy and scientific induction are forms of induction proper. In
both there is 'Inductive Leap'.
2. Both analogy and scientific induction are based on observation.
Points of Dissimilarity :
1. In analogy, we proceed from the particular to the particular while in
scientific induction we proceed from particular to the general.
2. In analogy there is no knowledge of a causal connection but scientific
induction is based on the knowledge of a causal connection.
3. The conclusion of analogy is probable but the conclusion of scientific
induction is certain.
Analogy and unscientific induction :
Points of similarity :
1. Both analogy and unscientific induction are two forms of induction
proper. In both there is 'Inductive Leap'.
2. Both analogy and unscientific induction are based on observation.
3. In both analogy and unscientific induction, there is no attempt to
establish a causal connection.
4. The conclusions of both analogy and unscientific induction are probable.
5. Both analogy and unscientific induction are great sources of hypotheses
and are valuable aids to scientific induction.
Points of Dissimilarity :
1. In analogy, we pass from one particular to another particular but in
unscientific induction we pass from particular to general.
2. The basis of analogy is imperfect similarity while the basis of unscientific
induction is uncontradicted experience.
3. The probability of analogical conclusion depends mainly on the number
and importance of the known points of resemblance. In unscientific
induction, the probability of the conclusion depends on the number of
particular instances which are collected by observation on the basis of
uncontradicted experience.
 Nature of Inductive Enquiry, Various kinds of Induction 23

4. Analogy increases of our knowledge of the connotation of a term but

unscientific induction increases our knowledge of the denotation of a
term.

PROBABLE QUESTIONS
I. Define :
(a) Scientific induction (b) Unscientific induction(c) Analogy
(d) Inductive Leap (d) Induction proper (f) Real proposition
(g) Good Analogy (h) Bad Analogy
2. Illustrate :
(a) Scientific induction (b) Unscientific induction
(c) Verbal proposition (d) Good Analogy
3. Distinguish between :
(a) Deduction and Induction (b) Scientific and Unscientific Induction
(c) Analogy and Scientific Induction
(d) Analogy and Unscientific Induction
(e) Induction proper and Induction improperly so-called.
(f) Good Analogy and Bad Analogy.
4. Write short notes on :
(a) Induction proper (b) Inductive Leap
(c) Induction improperly so-called (d) Necessity of induction
5. Answer briefly :
(a) How many kinds of induction are there? What are they?
(b) What is the essence of induction?
(c) How can you determine the value of analogy?
(d) What kind of proposition does scientific induction establish?
(e) How many kinds of analogy are there? Name them.
(f) Is induction concerned only with formal truth?
(g) 'Induction supplies the universal premises of deduction'. Is it true?
(h) What is the passage from the known to unknown in induction called?
(i) Is the conclusion of analogical argument probable?
24 Logic and Philosophy

6. Answer the following :

(a) What is scientific induction?
(b) What are the characteristics of scientific induction?
(c) What is unscientific induction? What are the characteristics of
unscientific induction?
(d) Find out the points of similarity between scientific and unscientific
induction.
(e) Discuss the nature of analogy?
(f) What is analogy? What are the different kinds of analogy? Discuss.
(g) What are the grounds of scientific induction?
(h) What are the different kinds of induction improperly so-called?
(i) What is unscientific induction? In what sense unscientific induction
paves the way for scientific induction.
(j) Why is the conclusion of analogical argument probable?
 Unit-II
GROUNDS OF INDUCTION
Chapter-1
After reading this chapter you would be able to learn :
 Get an idea about the ground of Induction.
 Understand the formal and material grounds of Induction.
 Know about the role of uniformity of nature as a formal ground of Induction.

Contents
1. Introduction.
2. Ground of Induction.
3. Formal and material grounds of Induction.
4. The Law of Uniformity of Nature and the Law of Causation.
[Formal grounds of Induction]
5. The Law of the Uniformity of Nature.
6. Paradox of Induction.

1. Introduction : of some men if we establish "All men are

The aim of induction is to establish a kind" then it is not true.
general real proposition on the basis of Now, to solve this problem, induction
observation of some particular instances depends on two grounds i.e., some laws
of the same kind. Then, with the help of and processes. With the help of these
generalisation, induction establishes the laws and process, we can establish a
conclusion. But the problem arises when general real proposition correctly. These
all the conclusions that are established as two types of grounds are :
universal real propositions are not always (i) Formal ground and
true. Some of them are true and some of (ii) Material ground.
them are false, i.e., some conform to the The Law of Uniformity of Nature and
actual state of things while others not. the Law of Causation are two formal
For example, observing the mortality of grounds of induction. On the other hand,
some men in our experience, we establish observation in general is the material
the general real proposition 'All men are ground of induction. Both simple
mortal'. This proposition is always true. It observation and experiment are included
is accepted by all. But observing kindness in observation.
26 Logic and Philosophy

2. Ground of Induction : (i) The Law of Uniformity of Nature,

The laws and processes depending on and
which induction establishes a general (ii) The Law of Causation.
real proposition is known as the ground Also, we have two material grounds:
of induction. (i) Observation and
3. Formal and Material Grounds (ii)Experiment.
of Induction :  The laws which guarantee the formal
truth of induction are called formal
Already, we have known that, in
grounds of induction.
deduction we are not concerned with the
 The processes which guarantee the
question whether the argument is
material truth of induction are called
materially true or not. Deduction aims at
only formal truth. But in induction the material grounds of induction.
argument is concerned with both formal The Law of Uniformity of Nature
and material truth : i.e. must conform to and the Law of Causation :
the actual state of things. 4. Formal grounds of Induction :
Induction seeks to establish a general The Law of Uniformity of Nature and
real proposition. To establish general real the Law of Causation are known as the
proposition, firstly, induction observes formal grounds of induction. In
some particular instances of the same induction, we seek to establish a general
kind. Secondly, with the help of these real proposition, on the basis of some
particular instances and depending on particular facts of experience. For
some laws and processes, induction tries example, observing the mortality of some
to establish a general real proposition of men e.g. Ram, Hari, Jadu, Madhu,
the same kind. To be formally true, Karim, Joseph etc. we infer a general
induction establishes the conclusion proposition "All men are mortal". But a
relying on some formal laws and to be question arises, how can we establish a
materially true, the conclusion must general real proposition on the basis of
conform to the actual state of things. some particular facts of experience. To
So, induction depends on two types of establish "All men are mortal" a man can
grounds i.e. formal and material to get observe the mortality of some persons,
both formal truth and material truth of an not all. It is impossible for a man to
argument. observe all the mortalities of all human
In induction, we have two formal beings because it is beyond the range of
grounds– his experience. So, this problem can not
 Grounds Of Induction 27

be solved by observation. Only, the circumstances, water quenched our thirst

Uniformity of Nature and Law of in the past, under similar circumstances,
Causation can solve this problem. With water will quench our thirst in future
the help of these two laws; observing the also. If fire burnt us in the past under
mortalities of some men, we come to the certain circumstances, under similar
conclusion "All men are mortal". So, circumstances in future also, fire will
these two laws are called the formal burn us.
grounds of induction. In nature, there are parallel cases. We
observe, as winter comes, leaves of the
5. The Law of Uniformity of
trees dry up and fall down. Again, when
Nature
spring comes, new leaves appear on
Logicians have expressed the Law of
trees. From the above given statement we
Uniformity of Nature in various forms,
viz., 'Nature is uniform', 'The universe is see that both of them come from the same
under the laws', 'Nature repeats itself', source i.e., 'Nature'. Therefore, one is
'The present resembles the past and the related to the other and as soon as one
future will resemble the present', 'There changes the other also changes.
are parallel cases in Nature' and so on. Everything in the universe is uniform
These various expressions mean that in accordance to nature. Anything
''Under similar circumstances, Nature happened in the past and is happening at
behaves in the same way.'' Nature never present, have the chances of happening
violates her laws until any accidental the same in the future also. In the past,
condition appears. the Sun rose in the east, at present the
In our everyday life, we see many Sun rises in the east and therfore
events. We perceive some events which according to the law of uniformity of
repeat itself. For example, as the sun nature we can say that the Sun will rise
rises, the earth glows with the light of the in the east in future also. If water
sun and as the sun sets, the light quenched our thirst in the past, surely it
diminishes. We feel very hot in the will quench our thirst in the future also.
months of June, July and feel cold in the Nature is uniform with regard to the
months of December and January. So, essence of things. All the things of a class
nature is governed by laws. possess certain essential qualities and
In nature, if the circumstances are these essential qualities are present in all
repeated, the events must be repeated. If the things of a class. But the accidental
the same circumstances occur, the same or superficial qualities are not equally
event will follow. If under some present in all the things of a class. The
28 Logic and Philosophy

accidental qualities of man i.e., black- come, when Tsunami will destroy us. So,
white, tall-short, rich-poor may be in ordinary observation, it appears that
various. Inspite of these differences, only nature is not at all uniform. But after
for essential qualities, we can put them in thinking deeply it proves that any event
the same class i.e., Man. in the universe is not accidental. The
'Uniformity of co-existence' and accidental event also must have a cause.
'uniformity of succession' are the two So from ordinary point of view, any
forms of the Uniformity of Nature. In the event may be accidental but from natural
uniformity of co-existence we perceive point of view no event is accidental.
two events that occur co-existently. For Sometimes, it seems to rain when the sky
example, milk is white, water is liquid, is clear whereas, sometimes it doesnot
coal is black etc. Milk and whiteness, rain even if the sky is cloudy. But the
water and liquidness and coal and universe and its laws are the only cause
blackness co-exist everywhere and at all for the appearance of these types of
times. Again, in the uniformity of accidental circumstances.
succession, we perceive two events that The uniformity of nature does not
occur successively. For example, day mean that there is no variety in nature. As
follows night and night follows day. Day Mill says, the course of nature, in fact, is
follows night expresses uniformity of not only uniform. The universe is
succession. Day follows or succeeds infinitely various. There is not one
night regularly or uniformly. Likewise uniformity or law governing the whole
night also succeeds day regularly or Nature but that corresponding to the
uniformly. different uniformities or laws, in nature,
Though, nature has uniformity in all we find various departments and these
respects, yet sometimes it appears that departments are governed by their own
nature is not at all uniform. She is laws. Since the various departments are
whimsical rather than regular. She is under various laws, so, all these various
multiform rather than uniform. For departments cannot be maintained by
example, earthquake, eclipse, flood, only one law. For example: in the
storm, tides, tsunami etc., all are under department of physics, there is the law of
the nature. But sometimes it seems that gravitation, which holds good of all
regarding these events, Nature is not physical phenomena. In the department
uniform. These events are governed by of chemistry, by the law of Definite
no laws. Nobody is sure when proportions, elementary substances
earthquake will come, when flood will combine with one another in certain
 Grounds Of Induction 29

fixed proportion and so on. induction. We cannot prove the law of

Corresponding to different departments Uniformity of Nature but with the help
of nature like Botany, Zoology, of this law, we can prove all inductions.
Sociology, Astrology etc., there are The same idea is expressed by Mill,
different laws which carry on their when he says that the Uniformity of
investigation in their respective spheres. Nature is the guarantee, the ultimate
But, though there are various major premise of all induction. Thus, this
departments in nature and also principle is a postulate or formal ground
uniformities or laws governing these of induction.
different departments, yet, these different 6. Paradox of Induction
laws are part of one whole. The parts of Mill's contradictory statement
nature are organically related to the regarding the principle of the Uniformity
whole. It is not just disorganised jumble of Nature is known as the paradox of
of parts. All its different parts are parts of induction. It simply means that the
one system. Nature is a unity in variety. ground of induction is itself the result of
Nature is a cosmos, not a chaos. induction. Mills calls it a fundamental
The principle of the Uniformity of principle or general axiom of induction
Nature is a postulate or formal ground of and an assumption implied in every case
induction. The uniformity of nature of induction. It is the ground of all kinds
forms the very basis of all inductive of induction. For example, by observing
generalisations. According to Mill, this is the mortality of some men i.e., Ram,
an assumption in every case of Hari, Karim etc. and on the basis of these
induction– scientific and unscientific. If experiences a general real proposition
this law is not accepted as true we can 'All men are mortal' is inferred.
not pass from the known to the Though Mill regards the 'principle of
unknown, from the observed to the the Uniformity of Nature' as assumption,
unobserved, from the particular to the a postulate of induction yet, in another
general. On the ground of this law only occasion he says that the principle of
by observing 'mortality' of some men, we Uniformity of Nature is the result of
infer that "All men are mortal''. So the unscientific induction or induction per
principle of the Uniformity of Nature is simple enumeration. Uncontradicted
regarded as the ground of all induction. experience is the ground of unscientific
According to Mill, the principle of the induction. Without casual connection
Uniformity of Nature is a 'fundamental unscientific induction aims at
principle' or a general axiom of establishing the conclusion.
30 Logic and Philosophy

All the happenings in the world are Regarding the principle of Uniformity
depended on our experience. We can see of Nature; the two statements made by
in our experience that the sun rises in the Mill are contradictory to each other.
morning and sets in the evening. Water Once, he says that this law is the ground
quenches our thirst, fire burns etc. of induction. It can not be derived from
Depending on these types of experience, our experience. That means it is
we can establish the 'principle of postulate, axiom and pre-supposition. To
Uniformity of Nature". According to establish the conclusion of an induction,
we must accept this Law as a ground of
Mill also, this 'principle of Uniformity of
induction. On another occasion, he says
Nature' is the result of uncontradicted
that 'Law of Uniformity of Nature' is
experience and observing this type of
derived from experience.
uncontradicted experience we can say
Thus, paradox of induction means
that Nature is uniform in every respect. that the ground of induction is itself the
By observing a large number of result of induction.
particular instances and finding no
contrary instances, we establish a general Criticism :
proposition. We have seen a large number Mill's view about the 'principle of
of crows and found that all of them are Uniformity of Nature' is not acceptable.
black. We have not come across a single (1) According to Mill, the principle of
crow of any other colour except black. the Uniformity of Nature, is an
Our experience about the black crows assumption implied in every case of
induction. It is impossible to establish a
remains uncontradicted uptil now and on
general proposition without the help of
the basis of this uncontradicted experience
this law. So, we must accept this law.
we establish the general conclusion "All
From that point of view, this law is the
crows are black". So, experience gives us
ground of unscientific induction. Again,
instances of 'particular uniformities' and the 'principle of uniformity of Nature' is
from the particular uniformities we said to be the result of unscientific
establish general uniformity. Thus, the induction or induction per simple
Law of Uniformity of Nature is enumeration. But the same law can not be
established. When the general principle of the 'ground' and also a 'result' at the same
the Uniformity of Nature is established, it time. So, here Mill commits a simple
forms the foundation of all induction. So, logical fallacy which is known as the
the ground of induction is itself a result of fallacy of 'arguing in circle' or the fallacy
induction. of 'petitio principii.'
 Grounds Of Induction 31

(2) According to Mill, the law of experience. As Mill was an empiricist

uniformity is the ground of unscientific philosopher, he was unable to admit the
induction. But the conclusion of law of Uniformity of Nature as the
unscientific induction is always probable. ground of induction. So, he has accepted
If the conclusion is probable, the ground this law as the result of unscientific
is also probable. Again, according to Mill, induction.
the law of Uniformity of Nature is also the In conclusion, we can say that in
ground of scientific induction and the logic, the law of Uniformity of Nature is
conclusion of scientific induction is a pre-supposition. We must accept this
always certain. So, Mill is compelled to law. Otherwise, it will be impossible for
admit that we can get certainty out of Key Words
probability, but this is absurd. The Induction, formal ground, material
'principle of Uniformity of Nature' can not ground, uniformity, causation,
be the result of induction also. succession, co-existence, paradox,
(3)According to empiricism, we get assumption, postulate,
knowledge through experience. So, we generalisation.
can not accept anything as pre- us to generalise the induction. This law
supposition. The knowledge of the can never be the result of unscientific
Uniformity of Nature can not be induction. In fact, this law is the ground
exception. It must also be derived from of all induction.

SUMMARY
In inductive inference, a real general proposition is established through the
observation of particular instances. So, an inductive inference must satisfy – (i)
formal truth as well as, (ii) material truth. Formal truth is established depending
on the Law of Uniformity of Nature and the Law of Causation. So, these two
types of laws are the Formal grounds of induction. Again, material truth is
established by observation. Observation is based on these two types of
processes– observation and experiment. So, these two types of processes are
Material grounds of induction.
The law of Uniformity of Nature states that nature behaves uniformly under
similar circumstances. There is a unity among the diversities of nature. Among the
changeable relations between the different parts of the world-process, there is a
general character. The law of Uniformity of Nature expresses this general character.
32 Logic and Philosophy

According to Mill, the law of Uniformity of Nature is an assumption, a

postulate, an axiom of induction and it means that before we make use of
induction, we must take this principle to be granted. Again, Mill holds that the
principle of the uniformity of nature is the result of induction by simple
Enumeration, or in other words, it is based on uncontradicted experience. In
this way, the general principle of the Uniformity of Nature is established and
when established, it forms the foundation of all induction. We come thus to this
conclusion that "the ground of induction is itself an induction." This is known
as the "paradox of induction." The paradox points to the inconsistencies
involved in Mill's view that the ground of induction is itself a result of induction.

PROBABLE QUESTIONS

1. Fill in the blanks :

(a) There are ......... kinds of grounds of induction.
(b) The Law of Uniformity of Nature is a ............ ground of induction.
(c) Nature behaves similarly under ...... conditions.
(d) The name of the logical fallacy involved in the contradictory statement
made by Mill about the Law of uniformity of Nature is .....
(e) The meaning of the paradox of induction lies in the statement, 'The
ground of induction is the ...... of induction.
2. Give short answers:
(a) How many kinds of grounds of induction are there and what are these?
(b) Why is the Law of Uniformity of Nature called the formal ground of
induction?
(c) What do you understand by the paradox of induction?
3. Distinguish between :
(a) Formal ground and Material ground of induction.
(b) The Law of Uniformity of Nature and the Law of Causation.
 Grounds Of Induction 33

4. Write short notes on :

(a) The paradox of induction.
(b) Formal ground of induction.
(c) The Law of Uniformity of Nature.
5. What do you understand by the Law of Uniformity of Nature? Explain the
nature of the world process according to the Law of Uniformity of Nature.
6. Write what do you know about the paradox of induction. Is Mill's view
acceptable?
 Unit-II
LAW OF CAUSATION
Chapter-2
By studying this chapter you would be able to
 know the meaning of causation.
 have a general idea of cause.
 know the relation between cause and condition.
 get an idea of causation according to Aristotle.

Contents
1. Law of causation.
2. Definition and marks of cause.
3. Cause and condition.
4. Moving power and collocation.
5. Agent and patient.
6. Conjunction of causes and intermixture of effects.
7. Plurality of causes.
8. Plurality of causes and conjunction of causes.
9. Aristotle's view of causation.
10. Three different views of causation.
11. Relation between The Law of Uniformity of Nature and The Law of Causation.

1. The Law of Causation event, which happening, it happens and

According to the Law of Causation, which failing, it fails.''
in nature, nothing happens accidently, According to Mill also, what happens
every event must have a cause. Nothing has a cause. What is produced must have
can be derived out of nothing. Whatever a definite cause.
happens has a cause. This is known as Though, at the first sight, the cause of
the ‘Law of Causation.’ an event is not revealed, yet, we must ac-
Without cause no event happens. cept that there is a definite cause of that
Nothing will come out of nothing. (Ex event. A definite cause can produce a defi-
Nihilo Nihil fit). Bain states it very nicely nite effect. Sometimes, it seems that not
when he says– ''Every event that happens only one cause but many causes acting
is definitely connected with some prior jointly produce an event. Thus, the cause
 Grounds
Law of Of
Causation
Induction 35

of an event may be one or more than one definition, 'cause is the sum total of the
but it must have cause. So, according to conditions, positive and negative together.'
'Law of Causation' what happens has a According to Hume, the empiricist
cause and the cause must be present regu- philosopher, cause is the invariable ante-
larly. If the cause it absent the event can- cedent of the effect.
not be produced. Bain defines cause as ‘the entire ag-
The Law of Causation is a formal gregate of conditions or circumstances
ground of induction. This law establishes requisite to the effect.’
the formal truth of generalisation in Analysing the above definitions,
induction. Carveth Read offers a new definition of
According to Bain, Mill and some cause which is scientifically acceptable.
other logicians by discovering and proving According to Carveth Read, the cause
a causal connection with all certainty, we of an event is qualitatively ‘the immedi-
can establish a general real proposition on ate, unconditional, invariable antecedent
the basis of observation of some particular of the effect, and quantitatively is 'equal
instances. To discover and prove a causal to the effect.’
connection, induction depends on certain So, according to this definition of
methods which are based on certain cause, we find two types of marks or char-
fundamental principles. acteristics.
These principles are known as ‘Can- (1) qualitative marks, and
ons of Elimination’. With the help of these
(2) quantitative marks.
methods, we can find out the cause of an
event. These canons of Elimination are Qualitative marks of causation :
deduced from the Law of Causation. This (1) The cause is relative to a given phe-
Law of Causation guarantees the formal nomenon called the effect. Cause and ef-
truth of inductive generalisation. This law fect are relative to each other. This may
is the ultimate ground of induction and mean two things– Firstly, without cause
therefore, the ‘Law of Causation’ is the effect is impossible and without effect
known as the formal ground of Induction. the cause is also impossible. Both of them
depend on each other. One derives its
2. Definition of cause meaning from the other. An effect has no
Regarding cause, different logicians meaning without a cause. A cause also
have put forward different definitions. has no meaning without the effect.
Mill offers two definitions of cause. Ac- Secondly, the same cause sometimes
cording to the first definiton, ‘a cause is may be a cause and sometimes as an effect.
an invariable, unconditional, antecedent of We should not suppose that the same
the effect’; and according to the second cause always be cause and the effect
36 Logic and Philosophy

always be an effect. The same 'consequent'. The cause is always ante-

phenomenon may be a cause in relation cedent and the effect is always conse-
to a succeeding thing and may be an effect quent. For example, due to drinking dirty
in relation to a preceding thing. For water, the boy suffers from Jaundice.
example– due to drinking cold water, a Here, 'drinking dirty water' is cause and
man suffers from cold fever. Here, ‘cold 'suffer from Jaundice' is effect.
water’ is cause and ‘fever’ is effect. Again, (4) Cause is invariable antecedent to
due to very hot weather the man drank the effect.
cold water. But here, ‘very hot weather’ Every effect has a cause. This cause
is cause and ‘cold water’ is effect. always precedes the effect means the
Therefore, it seems that the same cause cause is antecedent, but irregular
'cold water' is used as effect in another antecedent to the effect cannot be cause.
one. So, same cause may be both cause Only invariable antecedent is regarded as
and effect. Similarly, same effect may be the cause of an effect. Invariable
an effect and may be cause also. antecedent is that which is always
(2) The cause and effect are always followed by the effect. This is what is
events in time. called the uniformity of causation, that is,
An event in time means that there is a the same cause has same effect. According
change in the existing state of things. If to Hume, this invariable succession
there are changes in existing state of between antecedent and consequent
things, then the causational question will phenomena should be the mark of
come to our mind, why does a change causation.
happen? If there is not any change in the An event has both variable and
world, then no causational question will invariable antecedent. But only invariable
arise in our mind. So, after occurence of antecedent can be the cause of the effect.
earthquake, eclipse, cyclone, Tsunami etc. If we regard any antecedent of an effect
we are anxious to know the causes of as its cause, then we commit the fallacy
these events. Likewise, we also enquire of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
into the cause of flood, war, political revo- For example, a doctor enters in a room
lution and so on. and the patient dies. If the entrance of
(3) Cause is antecedent to the effect. doctor is regarded as the cause of the death
Cause is always antecedent to the ef- of the patient, then it would involve the
fect. Cause and effect are successively fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
related. When two events happen succes- A crow sat on a palm tree and imme-
sively, then the preceding one is called, diately thereafter, a fruit from the tree fell
‘antecendent’ and the following one as the down. So, sitting of the crow on the tree
 Grounds
Law of Of
Causation
Induction 37

is the cause of the fall of the fruit. In a So, relation between cause and effect is
special sense. this involves the 'fallacy of necessary.
post hoc ergo propter hoc’ because here (6) Cause is unconditional, invariable,
any antecedent event is regarded as cause immediate antecedent to the effect.
of the consequent event. The cause is an immediate antecedent
(5) Cause is unconditional, invariable to the effect, not remote from the effect.
antecedent to the effect. This immediacy follows from the
According to Hume, causation is principle that the cause must be
nothing more than invariably sequence unconditional antecedent. If the cause has
and therefore the cause is merely the to wait for another antecedent to produce
invariable antecedent and the effect is the effect, it will loose its unconditionality.
merely the invariable consequent. Thomas So, as soon as the cause appears, without
Reid criticised Hume's view regarding delay, the effect must follow. For example,
causation and said that if that were so, day six months ago. I ate sea fishes in Chennai.
would be the cause of night and night But now, I am suffering from disorder of
would be the cause of day, because if we bowel. The cause of my disorder of bowel
start from day, then without any changes, cannot be those sea fishes which I ate six
night follows day and day follows night. months ago. Because, within these six
That means, day is the cause of night and months, I had many other health problems.
night is the cause of day. But actually, day If these problems and those sea fishes are
cannot be the cause of night and night also the causes of my disease, then, it will be a
cannot be the cause of day. We cannot conditional one.
take any one of them as the cause of the Thus, qualitatively, the cause of any
other. It happens only for the rotation of event is the immediate, unconditional,
the earth on its own axis facing the sun. invariable antecedent.
So, both are co-effects produced by the Quantitative marks of a cause :
same cause. Quantitatively, the cause is equal to the
According to Mill also, the cause is not effect. It means that as regards quantity,
merely invariable antecedent. The the matter and the energy in the cause are
antecedent must be unconditional also. It equal to those in the effect. This mark or
means that a cause must be sufficient by characteristic of causation follows from
itself to produce the effect. The same the laws of conservation of matter and
conditions, sufficient by themselves, will energy.
be present, the same effect will necessarily According to this law, the total
follow. Mill said, the cause not only quantity of matter and energy of this world
precedes the effect but also produces it. is constant. It neither increases nor
38 Logic and Philosophy

decreases though it may change its form. Hence, it follows that the quantitative
For example, when a certain quantity of mark of the cause is its equality with the
oxygen is mixed with a certain quantity effect.
of hydrogen then we get a new form i.e., 3. Cause and Condition
water. Both the causes, ‘oxygen and Already, we have discussed about
hydrogen’ are the form of gas but the cause. Cause is an immediate, invariable,
effect ‘water’ is the form of liquid. Here unconditional antecedent to the effect.
the gases transform into the form of liquid. According to this definition, cause never
So, the form is certainly changed but the depends upon another condition
weight of water produced is exactly equal (external) to produce the effect. That, the
to the weight of the substances combined cause does not depend upon another
to produce it. Hence, so far as matter is condition, so, the important conditions
concerned, though the form is different but which are used to produce the effect must
be present in the cause. It seems that the
weight is same.
cause is not a particular one. Cause is the
Again, according to the ‘Law of
sum-total of conditions. So, condition is
Conservation of energy' also, the quantity an indispensable part of cause.
of energy in the effect is completely For example, suppose a labour falls
identical to that in the cause. Quantity of from the roof of a house and dies.
the energy in the world remains same. It Ordinarily 'falling from the roof' is the
is constant and can neither be increased cause of his death. But 'falling from the
nor decreased, though one form of energy roof' cannot be the only cause of his death
may be changed into another form. For because, after falling from the roof some
example, when a moving fan loses its men remain alive. So, some other
motion, it seems to appear that the energy conditions must be present which help to
is lost, but as a matter of fact, it is produce the effect. The other conditions
converted into another form of energy of the labour's death are such factors as
his falling from the roof, hardness of the
viz., ‘heat’. Here the energy of motion is
soil where he falls, hurt in his chest, not
turned to the energy of heat. Therefore,
physically strong and healthy, other
so far as energy is concerned, the quantity person’s help, proper treatment etc.
of energy in the effect is exactly equal to Thus, we find that, a cause is a group
that in the cause. Thus, it can be seen that, of conditions. It is not so simple as it
according to the law of conservation of looks.
energy, total amount of energy in the world According to Carveth Read, condition
remains constant. means any necessary factor of a cause.
 Grounds
Law of Of
Causation
Induction 39

Conditions are of two kinds– positive and conditions. Condition is not only a part
negative. If the effect is to be produced, but a necessary part of a cause. The
positive conditions must be present and relation between cause and condition is
negative conditions must be absent. On such that a cause which is a whole, can
the other hand, if negative conditions are not be formed without the totality of
present, the effect would be frustrated. conditions. Also, a condition can not be
According to Mill, cause and condition known as condition without its relation
are not same. Cause is the sum-total of with a cause.
positive and negative conditions. Generally, we call one of the conditions
Conditions are two types : as the cause, and the other mere
(1) Positive condition, conditions. The condition which comes
(2) Negative condition. last and upon which the effect immediately
Positive Condition : The condition follows is called the cause. A man gets
which helps to produce the effect is called drowned in the river and dies. Popularly,
positive condition. In presence of positive drowning in the river is the only cause of
condition, the event occurs.
death. But in fact, this cause is one
Negative condition : The condition
amongst the other conditions which
which tends to prevent the effect is called
helped the man to die. It is only a
negative condition. Negative condition
condition. If drowning in the river is the
must be absent in order that the effect may
only cause of death then all men drown
be produced.
in the river must die. But it seems that
Positive and Negative conditions both
taken together produce the effect. In the some of them remain alive. So, if we want
above example, highness of the roof, to be certain about the actual cause of
hardness of the soil, get hurt in his chest man's death, we must take into
are positive conditions. On the other hand, consideration such conditions also as
his physical strength, getting anybody's depth of the river, physical weakness of
help and proper treatment are the negative the man, proper treatment and so on. So,
conditions. these necessary conditions taken together
Relation between cause and constitute the cause of the man's death.
condition: Similarly, for fire, we regard a match stick
Cause is the sum-total of conditions. as the only cause. But in fact, a match stick
Conditions again are the parts of cause. can not be the only cause of fire because
So, cause and condition are related like a if the match stick is the only cause of fire,
whole and its parts. A whole consists of then a fire will occur wherever a match
parts. Similarly, a cause consists of stick is placed.
40 Logic and Philosophy

4. Moving Power and Collocation acted upon is said to be the Patient. Agents
The cause of event from the are those which acts and patients are those
conservation of energy stand point is which are acted upon. For example, if a
divided into two elements viz., (1) Moving glowing match stick is thrown to a heap
power, (2) Collocation. Moving power is of straw, there is fire. Here, the ‘glowing
the force which moves or incites to action match stick’ is Agent and the 'heap of
and Collocation means the arrangment of straw' is Patient. The difference between
circumstances which is needed in order Agent and Patient is similar to the
that the moving power can produce the difference between Moving power and
changes. For example, if a glowing match Collocation.
stick is thrown into a heap of straw, there But scientifically, this difference is not
is fire. Here, the ‘glowing match stick’ is satisfactory. Popularly, it seems to be true.
moving power and ‘heap of straw’ is This kind of difference appears to be
collocation. The effect ‘fire’ is produced based on the supposition that the Agent is
by the action of the moving power on the the real source of energy and the patient
collocation. is merely passive possessing no energy
Popularly speaking, sometimes we are whatever. According to the law of
apt to identify the cause the moving power Conservation of Energy, the passive
alone and sometimes with the collocation condition is the store house of potential
alone. From the scientific point of view, energy and for this potential energy of
such views are unsatisfactory. Just as the patient the effect is produced. If there
effect 'fire' would not have been produced, would not be any potential energy of
if the match stick had not been lighted. patient, then it would be impossible for
So, again, it would not have been Agent to produce the effect. Everything
produced, if there had not been straw. A that is acted upon reacts according to its
glowing match stick thrown into water own nature. So, patients are also not
would not produce fire, nor would a wet without any energy. Agent and patient are
heap of straw produce a fire. So, both of equally responsible to produce the effect.
them are the ingredients of the cause. So, So, according to Mill, the difference
scientifically cause is the sum-total of all between Agent and Patient is merely
conditions taken together including both verbal. Patients are always Agents.
the moving power and collocation. 6. Conjunction of Causes and
5. Agent and Patient Intermixture of Effects.
Again some logicians made distinction Every event has a definite cause.
between Agent and Patient. The thing Without cause, there can not be any event.
acting is said to be the Agent and the thing One cause can produce only one event.
 Grounds
Law of Of
Causation
Induction 41

But it often happens that several causes Kinds of Intermixture of Effects :

act together to produce an event. So, only Intermixutre of effects again has two
one cause can not produce such type of different forms viz., (1) Homogeneous
complex event. intermixture of effects, (2) Heterogeneous
When several causes acting together intermixture of effects.
produce a joint event, it is called The two or more same causes act
conjunction of causes. together produce the same kind of joint
On the other hand, combining together effect is called Homogeneous Intermixture
of separate effects by the joint operation of Effects. This form of Intermixture is
of mere separate causes is called called homogeneous as the causes and
intermixture of effects. For example, to their joint effect are same kind. For
win a football match, combined efforts of example, with the help of two 50 candle
several players (11 players) are needed. power electric lights, we get 100 candle
Only one player cannot win a football power electric light.
match. The two or more causes act together
Tea is prepared combining several produce a joint effect, is different in kind
ingredients i.e., milk, tea leaves, sugar, from its separate effects is called
water etc. Heterogeneous Intermixture of Effects.
In the first case, football match is won For example, if two gases, oxygen and
out of the combined efforts of certain hydrogen are mixed together in certain
players. Hence, the ‘combined efforts of proportions and electric current is passed,
certain players’ is conjunction of causes as a result we get water. When water is
and the act to win the match is called produced by such combination, no trace
intermixture of effects. of the separate properties of the two gases
In the second example, tea is prepared can be found in the effect. The properties
out of the combination of certain ingredi- are gases but the production is liquid. So,
ents. Here, the ‘combination of certain this is Heterogeneous Intermixture of
ingredients’ is conjunction of causes and effects.
the act to prepare tea is called intermix-
ture of effects. 7. Plurality of Causes
So, several causes acting together, pro- Plurality of causes is a false notion
duce a joint effect is called conjunction of about the causal relation. According to
causes. On the other hand, the blending plurality of causes, the same effect may
of their separate effects is called intermix- be produced by different causes in differ-
ture of effects. ent cases. The events of the universe are
42 Logic and Philosophy

very complex. So, the causes of the event Secondly, we give great importance on
are so related that it is very difficult to find the specialisation of causes not effects. In
out the actual cause of an event. the above example, death may due to
Scientifically, both cause and effect are different causes at different times, and they
complex one. Popularly, we do not justify are not same in character. Death caused
all the conditions as cause that are also by poisoning is different from death
related with effect. We give importance caused by old age. Death caused by
only to that cause which is immediate disease is different from death caused by
antecedent of the effect and consider that violence. So, there are many kinds of death
cause as the main cause of that effect. We only because there are many causes of
commit this error not only in the cause but death, though the effects produced
also in the effect. The equal importance is differently have only one thing in common
not given on the causes and the effects viz., death. But they differ in another
related to event. As a result, some respects. Each death have certain
misconceptions appear in our mind, and characters which are enitirely absent from
thus, plurality of causes originated. For death of others. If in every case, the
example, death may be caused by disease, characters of death are same, then it will
by violence, by poison, by old age and so be impossible to determine the cause of
on. Fainting may be due to loss of blood, death in post mortem examination. If we
fright, sudden shock, intense pain etc. specialise the effect, it cannot be said to
Criticism be due to different causes. Specialise the
Firstly, if we analyse the different effect is the proof of unsoundness of the
causes under the effect, we find that the doctrine of plurality of causes.
effects produced in different cases have Thirdly, from scientific point of view
only one thing in common. In the above also, plurality of causes is untenable. The
example, death may be caused by doctrine of plurality of causes is inconsistent
poisoning, by disease, by old age, by with the definition of cause as the invariable
violence etc. But the common factor of antecedent. According to this definition, the
one of the vital functions called 'heart same effect can be produced by same
failure' is the actual cause of death. The cause. But the effect 'death' is produced by
effect 'death' is thus found to be related to disease in one case and by suicide in
its one cause, viz., heart failure. another case. It means that death is
'Generalising the cause' is the common sometimes preceded by disease, sometimes
characteristic of different causes. So by by suicide, sometimes by old age etc.So,
generalising the cause it may be proved neither disease nor suicide can be said to
that there can be no plurality of causes. be the invariable antecedent.
 Grounds
Law of Of
Causation
Induction 43

From the above discussion, we come On the other hand, according to con-
to the conclusion that plurality of causes junction of causes, several causes acting
is unacceptable. It is only the misconcep- independently cannot produce the effect.
tion about cause-effect relation. They can produce the effect jointly.
8. Plurality of causes and conjunc- (2) Regarding causal relation, doctrine
of plurality of causes is a mis-conception.
tion of causes.
But the conjunction of causes is not a
The doctrine of plurality of causes is misconception. In fact, acting together
not identical with the doctrine of conjunc- several causes can produce an effect. So,
tion of causes. it is a correct conception.
According to plurality of causes, an
effect can be produced by different causes. 9. Aristotle's view of causation.
For example, light is produced by the sun, According to Aristotle, a western phi-
candle, lamp, electricity, torchlight etc. losopher, the cause is always a compound
Here if light is considered as 'effect' then containing four factors and each of these
sun, candle, lamp, electricity etc. are four factors is a cause. Without combin-
considered as causes. The same light is ing these four factors, the effect is impos-
produced by different sources of light. sible. These four factors are material
On the other hand, according to the cause, formal cause, efficient cause and
doctrine of conjunction of causes, several final cause.
causes acting jointly, produce a joint
The Material cause :
effect. It is not possible to produce the
joint effect by any one of them single The material or substance from which
acting. For example, to prepare tea, some a thing is made is called the material cause.
essential ingredients i.e. milk, sugar, tea Whenever an effect is produced, it is pro-
leaves, water, fire and kettle are very duced in some substance and the effect
important. Any one of them cannot prepare will always depend on the nature of the
tea alone. So, in conjuction of causes, all material or substance. For example,
the causes are equally important to threads are the material cause of cloth.
produce the effect. The formless clay from which the pot-
Though, plurality of causes and con- ter plans to make a pot is the material cause
junction of causes, both are related to of that pot.
causal connection, yet, they have some dis- The Formal cause :
similarities also. The new form or shape which is
(1) According to plurality of causes, imposed on the object produced is called
several causes acting independently pro- the formal cause. When an effect is
duce the same effect at different times. produced, not only is there some material
44 Logic and Philosophy

or substance but there is also some change argued that if he had not fallen from the
in the form of the object. For example, tree, death would not have happened.
the weaver takes a bundle of threads and However, some other necessary conditions
impress on it the form of a particular cloth. are also related to the effect, e.g., (a)
The potter takes some clay to produce highness of the tree, (b) hardness of the
a particular kind of pot. The form of par- soil where he fell, (c) Physical weakness
ticular pot is the formal cause of the pot. of the man, (d) anybody’s help, (e) proper
The Efficient cause : treatment and so on. For practical
The labour, skill or energy spent in purposes, we leave out all these conditions
making a thing is called the Efficient cause. and mention only ‘falling from the tree’
Efficient cause is the active agent in pro- as the only cause.
ducing the effect. For example, strength Similarly, success of a political move-
or skill which the weaver applies to the ment is popularly supposed to be due to
material in making cloth is the efficient the personality of a great leader.
cause of the effect. Sometimes, the agent We attribute the issue of a war to the
commander in chief and so on.
(weaver) is called the efficient cause.
But scientifically, this view of causa-
The Final cause : tion cannot be accepted. From scientific
The purpose for which the processes point of view, the cause is the totality of
are directed in making a thing is called conditions, positive and negative taken
the final cause. The final cause is origi- together and no condition, however
nally present in the form of an idea in the prominent can by itself be considered as
material cause. For example, the purpose the sole cause.
for which a cloth is made. (2) Scientific view of causation.
10. Cause viewed under three Scientifically, the cause is ‘‘the invariable,
different aspects. unconditional and immediate antecedent’’
Causation may be viewed under three or ''the sum total of conditions– positive
different aspects or standpoints. and negative taken together''. As Bain puts
it, ‘‘In scientific investigations, the cause
(1) Popular view of causation.
must be regarded as the entire aggregate
Popularly speaking, ‘‘the cause of an
of conditions or circumstances requisite
event is some one circumstance selected
to the effect.''
from the assemblage of conditions, as be-
In scientific point of view, to be sure
ing practically the turning point at the
about the cause of the death of the man
moment.’’ –Bain.
who falls from a tree and is killed, the
Suppose, a man falls from a tree and
scientist would enumerate such positive
dies. Popularly ‘falling from the tree’ is
conditions as, the height from which he
the cause of man’s death because, it is
fell, the weight of the man’s body,
 Grounds
Law of Of
Causation
Induction 45

physical weakness of the man etc. and circumstances, Nature behaves in the
also such negative conditions as the same way. According to the Law of
absences of support, the want of skill, Causation, every event must have a
proper treatment etc. definite cause. Regarding the relation
Conservation of energy view of between these two laws, different
causation : logicians have given different opinions.
According to the doctrine of According to Mill, Bain, Venn, the
Law of Causation is a special form of the
conservation of energy, an energy can be
law of Uniformity of Nature. The Law of
transferred to another energy. It means the Causation is not primary and also not an
transference of a definite amount of force independent law. According to them,
from the cause to the effect. The total causation is a special kind of uniformity.
quantity of energy in the world is constant; Bain recognises three kinds of
it can neither be increased nor decreased uniformities. viz.,
though they may change in another form (1) Uniformity of co-existence,
and in this process of change, work is (2) Uniformity of succession, and
done. So, the cause is the same thing as (3) Uniformity of equality and
the effect in another form. The law of inequality.
conservation of energy proves that According to Bain, the Law of
quantitatively, the cause and the effect are Causation, is a special kind of uniformity
equal to each other. Conservation means of succession. The Law of Causation not
that a definite amount of form of energy only implies that every event has a cause
is transferred from the cause to the effect. but also that same cause always produces
Effect is nothing but the cause the same effect. For example, spring
follows winter, night follows day etc. But
transformed. we can not regard that day is the cause of
Suppose, a body falling from a height night and winter is the cause of spring.
strikes the ground and is at a standstill. Thus, uniformity of succession is present
Here, the mechanical energy of the falling in the law of causation.
body disappears as such but it transformed According to Joseph, Mellone etc., the
into another form of energy viz., Heat. Law of Causation is not a special kind of
Though one form of energy is transferred the Law of Uniformity of Nature. The
to another form actually no energy is lost. Law of Uniformity of Nature is a special
kind of Law of Causation. According to
11. Relation between the Law of Uni-
these logicians, Law of Causation is fully
formity of Nature and the Law of an independent law of nature. The causal
causation. relation is a necessary relation. It is certain.
Both the Law of Uniformity of Nature Two events cannot be related with causal
and the Law of Causation are the formal relation until they have any necessary
grounds of induction. According to the connection. For example, milk produces
law of Uniformity of Nature, under similar curd. So, milk is the only cause of curd.
46 Logic and Philosophy

Between milk and curd, there is a know that though these two laws have a
necessary relation. Curd is produced from mutual relation yet, we cannot recognise
milk in every respect. A definite cause can one as the special form of other because
produce only a definite effect. So, the Law the Law of Uniformity of Nature is a
of Uniformity of Nature inheres in the Law formal ground of all induction i.e.,
of Causation . Thus, Law of Causation is scientific and unscientific. Here, we
a primary and also an independent law. generalise our inferences and
So the Law of Uniformity of Nature is a generalisation is not possible unless we
special kind of Law of Causation. believe nature is uniform. But Law of
Again, according to other logicians Causation is only the ground of scientific
e.g., Sigwart, Bosanquet, Welton, induction. Generalisation of scientific
however, the Law of Uniformity of Nature induction depends on the discovery and
and the Law of Causation are distinct proof of a causal connection. Scientific
principles, They criticised the above two induction depends upon Law of
opinions and regard that both the laws are Causation for which the conclusion of
independent of each other. One cannot be
scientific induction is always certain.
a special form of other. According to the
So, we conclude that the Law of
Law of Causation, every event has a cause
and according to the Law of Uniformity Uniformity of nature and the Law of
of Nature, under similar circumstances, Causation both are independent laws.
Nature behaves in the same way. It means Both taken together consititute the formal
that same cause produces the same effect. grounds of induction.
The Law of Causation simply states that Key Words
every event has a cause and in order that Causation, moving power, collocation,
we may go further and say that the same Agent, patient, conjunction oc causes,
cause always produces the same effect, intermixture of effects, Homogeneous,
we must take the help of the Law of Heterogeneous, plurality of causes,
Uniformity of Nature. material cause, formal cause, efficient
From above discussion, we come to cause, final cause.

SUMMARY
The Law of Causation is a formal ground of induction. The Law of Causation
states that every event has a cause and that the same cause always produces the same
effect. There is a relation between the cause and the effect. This relation is known as
the causal relation. It is invariable, uniform, inseparable and necessary. Mill, Bain,
Venn and some other logicians hold that the Law of Causation is a special form of
the Law of Uniformity of Nature.
According to some writers, e.g., Bosanquet, Welton, Sigwart, the Law of Causa-
tion is a distinct principle from the Law of Uniformity of Nature.
 Grounds
Law of Of
Causation
Induction 47

According to Mill, a cause is the sum-total of the conditions positive and negative
taken together. Some of the conditions are positive and some are negative. A factor,
which, by it presence, helps in the production of the effect is called a positive condition;
a factor which tends to prevent the effect and so must be absent in order that the
effect can be produced is called an negative condition. But a cause becomes completed
with the help of both positive and negative conditions.
The doctrine of plurality of causes means that an effect may be produced by
different causes at different times. According to this theory the relation between the
cause and the effect is a relation between different causes (many) and (one) effect.
The law of plurality of causes is based on the false notion about the cause. But the
doctrine of plurality of causes is not acceptable from the scientific point of view. A
man can die by falling from a tree, drowning in water or by eating poison or a road
accident etc. But all these types of aspects can not be the main cause. There must be
one cause behind that death. And that is the failure of heart functions. Others are
conditions but not main cause.

PROBABLE QUESTIONS
1. Fill in the blanks :
(a) The law of causation is the ––– ground of induction.
(b) The fallacy of –––– arises when each and every antecedent of an event is
regarded as the cause.
(c) The doctrine of plurality of causes is a –––– notion about causation.
(d) According to –––––, ‘‘cause is the sum-total of the conditions, positive and
negative taken together.
(e) The cause of the effect is an ––––– antecedent event.
2. Give short answers :
(a) How many types of causes are there and what are these according to aristotle?
(b) Name the logician associated with the statement ‘‘cause is the sum-total of the
conditions, positive and negative taken together.
3. Distinguish between :
(a) Cause and condition.
(b) The doctrine of plurality of causes and conjunction of causes.
4. Write short notes on :
(a) The doctrine of plurality of causes.
(b) Conjuncion of causes and intermixture of effects.
(c) Positive and Negative condition.
5. Define cause. Describe the qualitative and quantitative marks of cause.
6. State five qualitative marks of cause.
 Unit-II
OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT
Chapter-3
After reading this chapter you would be able to know
 about the material grounds of Induction i.e., observation and experiment.
 what are the conditions and the fallacies of observation.
 get an idea about the advantages of simple observation and experiment in
human life.
Contents
1. Material grounds of Induction.
2. Observation in general.
3. Observation with science and technology.
4. General conditions of observation.
5. Fallacies of observation.
6. Difference between Non-observation and Mal-observation.
7. Kinds of observation.
8. Relation between simple observation and experiment.
9. Advantages of simple observation over experiment.
10. Advantages of experiment over simple observation.

1. Material grounds of Induction observation. Observation may be both

(Simple observation and simple observation and experiment.
experiment) According to Carveth Read, simple
observation and experiment are the
In induction, we establish a general real
material grounds of induction. Induction
proposition. In deductive inference, we
aims at a materially true general
are concerned only with formal truth. But
proposition on the examination of
in induction, we are not only concerned
with formal truth but with material truth particular instances. These particular
also. The formal truth of inductive instances are supplied by our observation.
reasoning is guaranteed by the Law of For example, observing the mortality of
Uniformity of Nature and the Law of some persons we establish a general real
Causation. Now, the material truth of an proposition ‘‘All men are mortal’’. So,
inductive reasoning is guaranteed by observation supplies the data or premises
 Observation
Grounds Of
andInduction
Experiment 49

from which a materially true conclusion sound of thunder thus we perceive it and
is drawn. so on. In observation, our sense organs
Similarly, sometimes, experiment also come in contact with various things and
supplies the materials to establish a events and we get knowledge directly.
general real proposition. For example, the (b) Observation is regulated
chemist, mixes a certain quantity of perception with a definite purpose :
oxygen with certain quantity of hydrogen Though observation is perception, any
and by using electric current finds that kind of perception cannot be observation.
these two gases combined produce water. Every day, we perceive so many things
So, water is composed of hydrogen and and events. But all of them cannot be kept
oxygen. Here, we are to depend on the in our minds because without any
instances collected by experiment made preparation and interest, we only percieve
in chemistry laboratory. them. A casual or careless perception
Thus, the data or premises of inductive cannot be observation. Observation is a
generalisation are supplied by observation regulated perception. In the regulated
i.e., simple observation and experiment. perception, our mind is concentrated
Simple observation and experiment are the towards a definite object withdrawing it
two processes by which the materials of from other irrelevant objects. There must
inductive generalisation are collected. be a definite purpose behind our
So, the processes depending on which perception. So, the regulated perception
with a definite purpose is called
induction establishes a materially true gen-
observation.
eral proposition are called the material
grounds of induction. (c) Observation is always selective :
Although we perceive various things
2. Observation in general in our daily life, we do not pay attention
Observation is a careful, selective and to all of them. To be observation, there
regulated perception of facts and circum- must be a definite purpose in view and
stances with a certain purpose in view. If according to purpose, first of all, we select
we analyse this definition, we find some the object of perception. Observation is
common characteristics of observation in selective in the sense that the observer
general. pays attention to significant things and
(a) Observation is perception : aspects of things. For example, if we want
Observation involves perception. In to ascertain the cause of malarial fever, we
perception, we obtain knowledge through observe the circumstances which are
our different sense organs such as eye, ear, related with the malaria fever. We neglect
nose etc. When we see a tiger it means all other circumstances which have no
we perceive it. Similarly, we hear the connection with this disease.
50 Logic and Philosophy

So, it is said that observation is neces- distant objects of the universe. With the
sarily selective. It must not be random or help of microphone, we can hear the
haphazard. sound easily which cannot be heard
(d) Observation is well organised : through our ears. Thus, we have seen that
In observation, there must be a definite science and technology have extended
purpose in view and according to the our knowledge of observations. Besides
purpose we select the object of perception. these, it is proved that accurate knowledge
After selecting the object of perception, can be attained only through science and
we carefully and in organised manner technology.
concentrate our mind towards that selected So, for clear, real and complete knowl-
edge, we must depend upon science and
object. We withdraw our mind from other
its instruments.
unnecessary or irrelevant objects. Thus,
we systematically and methodically 4. General Conditions of
perceive the object and this perception is Observation :
known as observation. The aim of induction is to establish a
general real proposition. To establish a
3. Observation with Science and general real proposition induction
Technology : depends on observation of particular
Man is curious to know about instances. Thus, the role of observation,
unknown things. But it is not possible to in this regard is very important. If the
reach our goal only through our five instances of observation are not correct
sense-organs. The power of sense-organs then the conclusion drawn from the
is limited. Limited power can give limited instances will also not be correct. So, for
knowledge only. So, to acquire complete a correct observation, before going to
knowledge, besides sense organs, we observe, certain general rules or conditions
need to take the help of science and must be observed by the observer. Joyce
technology. Observation done by the mentions three kinds of conditions of
sense-organs have chances of making observation viz.
mistakes. But scientific observations do (1) Intellectual condition.
not have chances of making mistakes. (2) Physical condition.
Science and technology have been trying (3) Moral condition.
to establish the accuracy of our Intellectual condition :
observations. For example, microscope For correct observation, the observer
helps us to observe the micro-mini must be intellectually fit. It means the ob-
organism which cannot be perceived server must be attentive to know the rea-
through our naked eyes. Galileo Galilie son of event to have an explanation of
invented the telescope to observe the things which occur in experience. Hence,
 Observation
Grounds Of
andInduction
Experiment 51

a craving for knowledge is the essential It may happen due to either inattentiveness
condition of observation. or some other circumstances (prejudices,
Physical condition : pre-conception, partiality etc.) So, there
Our sense organs are very important are the possiblities of fallacies. These
physical conditions of observation. fallacies are of two types :
Generally, we observe with our sense (1) Fallacy of non-observation.
organs. These sense-organs depend upon (2) Fallacy of mal-observation.
the human body. So, if the body is not (1) Fallacy of non-observation :
sound, then the sense-organs have chances Non-observation is the fallacy of over-
of making mistakes. Thus, sense-organs looking something which ought to have
play a very important role for correct been observed. In non-observation, we
observation. If the body and senses are neglect something which should not be
sound, then only there will be correct neglected. All observations are selective
observation. Therefore, healthy organs are and in making selection, sometimes, we
the physical conditions for correct overlook either instances or essential cir-
observation. cumstances in those instances. So, the fal-
lacy of non-observation has two different
Moral condition :
forms. viz.,
Impartiality is regarded as the moral
(a) Fallacy of non-observation of in-
condition of observation. It is very difficult
stances.
to fulfil this condition because a man is
(b) Fallacy of non-observation of es-
not free from prejudices, pre-conception,
sential circumstances.
superstition etc. Though Jevons says that
Fallacy of non-observation of in-
it is not easy to find persons who can with
stances.
perfect fairness, register facts both for and
Fallacy of non-observation of instances
against the fact observed yet, the observer is a fallacy where we ignore instances
must keep himself away from all these which are relevant to our enquiry. When
partialities. As a result, there will be an our observation is influenced by our pre-
impartial observation. conceived opinions, then we commit this
5. Fallacies of observation : fallacy. It is a natural tendency to overlook
Already, we have found that for right instances which are not in favour of
observation we need three conditions viz., observer’s theory and pay attention only
intellectual, physical and moral to those instances which support the same.
conditions. If we follow these conditions, This fallacy may also occur from the
then there will be less chances of making circumstances that some of the instances
mistakes. But it is not possible to observe are more impressive than the others. We
the events or things rightly in every respect. give more attention to positive instances
52 Logic and Philosophy

which are more impressive than the According to the man, medicine is alone
negative instances. For example, a boy the cause of his recovery from jaundice.
finds that he could not succeed in the Here, the man ignores other important
examination because he ate egg just circumstances such as boiled diet, nursing,
before going to examination. Then the boy bed-rest and so on. Here, he commits the
concluded that ‘eating egg before fallacy of non-observation of essential
examination’ is the only cause of his circumstances.
failure in the examination. Here, negative Therefore, non-observation is a nega-
instances such as, the instances of those tive fallacy because in non-observation we
eating egg passed the examination and do not observe what is to be observed.
those without eating egg failed the (2) Fallacy of Mal-observation :
examination are totally overlooked. Many The observation in which by mistake
superstitions are due to this tendency to we perceive a thing not as it is but as it
overlook negative instances. Sneezing appears is called mal-observation. In mal-
before departure is cause of accident, observation, a thing is perceived as
future events are mirrored in dreams, if different from what it is. In mal
you hear dog whinning get ready to start observation, we commit this fallacy
mourning because some one close to you because sense-impression is wrongly
is going to die are the examples of the interpreted in perception. Every illusion
fallacy of non-observation of instances. is mal-observation. For example, in the
Fallacy of non-observation of dark we mistake a rope for a snake.
essential circumstances. : Fallacy of mal-observation is of two
Fallacy of non-observation of essential kinds viz.,
circumstances is a fallacy in which we (a) Individual fallacy of mal-
overlook essential circumstances in our observation.
inductive enquiry. It is needed to observe (b) Universal fallacy of mal-observa-
all the essential circumstances at the time tion.
of observation. But when all the essential Individual fallacy of mal-
circumstances are not given equal observation:
importance and recognise any one prior The mal-observation in which the
instance as the sole cause of event then it mistake is commited individually is called
commits the fallacy of non-observation of individual fallacy of mal-observation. On
essential circumstances. For example, a the other hand, the mal observation in
man suffers from jaundice. The physician which the mistake is commited universally
prescribes him some medicine. The man is called universal fallacy of mal-
takes the medicine and gets well. observation.
 Observation
Grounds Of
andInduction
Experiment 53

For example, in the dark mistaking of 7. Kinds of observation :

a rope for a snake; a man for a lamp post Simple observation and experiment are
etc. the examples of individual fallacy of the two kinds of observation. Depending
mal-observation. On the other hand, when on simple observation and experiment,
looking out of the window of a moving induction establishes a materially true
railway train, we sometimes imagine that general proposition. So, both of them are
the train is at rest, while the trees and the regarded as the material grounds of
hills at a distance are all running in the induction.
opposite direction is an example of
universal fallacy of mal- observation. Simple observation :
Simple observation is regulated percep-
6. Difference between non-observation tion of natural events under conditions pre-
and mal observation :
sented by nature.
Though both non-observation and
mal-observation are two kinds of the Characteristics of simple observation :
fallacies of observation, yet, they have (1) Simple observation is a perception
some differences. with a definite purpose in view. And for
(1) In non-observation we overlook this purpose, we select the object of
something which ought to have been ob- observation. After selecting the object, we
served. While in mal-observation by mis- try to regulate our mind towards that
take we perceive a thing not as it is but as object and fix it only to relevant
it appears. circumstances.
(2) In non-observation, the essential (2) Simple observation is a perception
instances and circumstances of an event of natural events. Since simple observation
are neglected by us. We totally neglect is a natural event under natural condition,
them and as a result we commit the error. we always have to depend on nature for
In non-observation, thing is overlooked observing the events. We watch events as
altogether. On the other hand, in mal- they occur in nature. We have to wait for
observation we have wrong interpretation
the events to happen and attend to them
of sense-perception. Nothing is neglected
as they directly present themselves to us.
by us. Only we see the thing wrongly.
(3) Simple observation is a perception
(3) Non-observation is a negative fal-
of events under natural conditions. Simple
lacy because in it we do not observe some-
thing. Whereas, mal-obervation is a posi- observation always depends on natural
tive fallacy because in it we observe a conditions. The conditions under which
thing wrongly. the events occur are presented by nature.
54 Logic and Philosophy

We are not able to control or change the therefore, we need not wait for things to
natural circumstances as the circumstances happen in the ordinary course of nature.
which precede, accompany or follow the (3) Experiment is a perception of
events in question depend on nature. To artificial events under artificial
find out the cause of earthquake, we have arrangement.
to wait for the occurence of earthquake In experiment, the artificial events are
and we cannot produce earthquake perceived in an artificial condition. In
according to our will. experiment we can change the conditions
(4) Natural events are out of the control according to our necessity because the
of the observer. Nature produces the conditions under which the events are
events of simple observation. So, the produced are pre-arranged by ourselves.
events are not under the control of the Without depending on nature, a chemist
observer. Neither the observer produces can produce water by mixing a certain
the event nor destroys it. Sometimes it quantity of hydrogen with a certain
happens that for a natural event, the quantity of oxygen using an electric
observer has to wait a long time under the current. Here, the chemist does not wait
for the combination to occur in the
mercy of the nature. Again it seems that,
ordinary course of nature but himself
all of a sudden, the event happens but at
produces it at will in his laboratory.
that time, the observer is not ready for
(4) Experimental events are always
observing the same.
under the control of investigator.
Experiment : In experiment, events are artificially
Experiment is the artificial reproduction reproduced by the investigator in a
of events, under artificial arrangement i.e. laboratory. The investigator can vary the
in laboratory. circumstances as he likes. Every
Characteristics of Experiment : experiment involves varying the
(1) Like simple observation, experiment circumstances. So, the subject matter and
is also a perception with a definite pur- circumstances completely depend on the
pose in view. And for this purpose, we investigator. It means it is completely under
select the object of experiment and regu- the control of investigator.
late our mind towards that object and fix 8. Relation between observation
it only to that object of experiment. and experiment :
(2) Experiment is a perception of arti- Simple observation and experiment are
ficial event. the two forms of observation in general.
In experiment, events are artificially So, in both cases, the general characters
reproduced by us. Since we ourselves of observation in general are present. Thus
produce the events in the laboratory, they are similar in some respects.
 Observation
Grounds Of
andInduction
Experiment 55

Similarity : not to wait for the events to happen in

(1) Both in simple observation and ordinary course of nature. Since the events
experiment, the perception is directed with and circumstances are reproduced by the
a definite purpose in view. In both cases, investigator, so he can watch them
we try to find out the real cause of the according to his will. He need not wait
phenomena under investigation. for things or events in ordinary course of
(2) Both simple observation and ex- nature. If needed he also can change both
periment are necessarily selective. In both the events and the circumstances of an
cases we select to perceive the relevant instance.
instances that will serve our purpose and Based on these differences between
reject unnecessary or irrelevant instances. simple observation and experiment. Bain
(3) Both simple observation and says– ‘‘Observation is finding a fact and
experiment are regulated perception. In experiment is making one.’’
both cases we regulate our scattered minds In distinguishing them from each
toward those objects of relevant instances other, it is necessary that we should guard
and perceive them attentively and ourselves against certain misconceptions.
carefully. According to some writers, simple
But in spite of these similarities, there observation is natural while experiment
are certain points of dissimilarities also is artificial. However, the remarks about
between these two forms of observation. simple observation and experiment
Dissimilarity : mislead us. In observation, we depend on
(1) Simple observation is regulated nature for the events. But only relying on
perception of natural events. On the other our natural powers alone, our problem
hand, experiment is regulated perception cannot be solved. To enlarge the scope of
of events artificially reproduced. our sense-organs we must take the help
(2) In simple observation, the natural of scientific instruments also. Thus simple
events are watched in ordinary course of observation is not wholly natural.
nature. We have to wait for the events and Likewise, experiment is not wholly
attend them as and when they directly artificial. In experiment we have to make
present themselves to us. use of our natural powers in observing the
So, the observer can observe the events event produced.
according to the Nature. He himself can Stock and some other logicians again
not change the events and circumstances remark, simple observation as passive
of an instance. On the other hand, in experience while experiment as active
experiment, the artificial events are experience. In observation, we are totally
produced by the investigator. So, we need dependent on nature. We watch events
56 Logic and Philosophy

and changes as they occur in the ordinary According to Jevons, the difference
course of nature, without interfering in the between simple observation and
activity of nature and without any attempt experiment is the difference of degree only.
to control them. But in experiment, the Simple observation is more natural than
investigator himself prepares the special experiment. Experiment is more artificial
circumstances where events and changes than simple observation. Since simple
observation is natural, in simple
occur. In experiment the investigator is
observation we are less active than in
active than in simple observation. It needs
experiment. In experiment we are more
considerable activity to prepare the special
active than in simple observation.
circumstances necessary for an
experiment. But it is not true to say that 9. Advantages of simple
even in simple observation, the observer observation over experiment :
is completely passive. Simple observation (1) The scope of simple observation is
wider than in experiment as it can be
is a regulated perception with a definite
applied universally. There are certain
purpose in view. Observation is selective
things and events with which we cannot
and for this the observer observes those make any experiment. For studying these
facts which are relevant to our enquiry and things and events, we must depend on
rejects the irrelevant and unnecessary observation only. For example, we cannot
facts. It is true that for this selection and artificially by experiment reproduce an
rejection, the observer requires mental earthquake. We cannot pull down a comet
activity. So even in observation, there is from the sky and bring it to the laboratory
an element of activity though in for experiment. Again, there are certain
experiment the degree of activity is greater. cases which cannot be experimented in
Therefore, from the above discussion, laboratory. We cannot create a famine to
we can say that there is no real opposition study its effect. In such cases, we have to
between simple observation and fall back on observation and wait until the
experiment. They are not different in kind. phenomenon occurs naturally. Again,
We cannot draw any sharp distinction when a boy attempts to commit suicide
by swallowing some poison, we may
between them. Because in both cases, we
undertake observation. Similarly, we may
collect materials and try to establish a
observe the effects of war when it actually
materially true general proposition. For
happens. Thus, the scope of observation
this in both cases we rely on our natural is considerably wider than experiment.
power of sense organs and study natural (2) In observation, we can proceed
phenomena. Physical and mental energy from a cause to the effect as well as from
are used in both the cases. an effect to its cause.
 Observation
Grounds Of
andInduction
Experiment 57

In observation we can proceed from a instances as we need. In experiment, the

cause to the effect, also from an effect to events are reproduced by the investigator.
its cause. But in experiment we can pro- So, all the events are under his control. If
ceed from a cause to the effect only, not the investigator fails in one experiment,
from the effect to its cause. Suppose, a he may try again and again and have as
man is found to be suffering from malarial many instances as he prefers. For
fever. By an observation of antecedent example, a student of chemistry can make
condition, asking him it is clear that he as many experiments as he likes to prove
has been bitten by anopheles mosquito. that water is composed of hydrogen and
So, bitten by anopheles mosquito is the oxygen. But an astronomer can observe
cause of the effect malarial fever. Again, a comet only when it appears in the sky.
a man is found to be bitten by anopheles
He cannot observe a comet according to
mosquito. We can direcly conclude that it
his will.
is because of this he has to suffer from
malarial fever by an examination of the (2) Experiment helps us to isolate the
consequent circumstances. particular thing.
But in experiment, we can only proceed Experiment is superior to observation
from cause to its effect. For example, if in some respects. For example, we have
heat is applied to a piece of iron and study to find out whether an animal can survive
the effect and can come to the conclusion without oxygen. In this case, observation
that heat expands body but not from the can do nothing. But with the help of ex-
effect to its cause. periment we can easily find out that with-
(3) Observation precedes experiment : out oxygen an animal cannot survive.
Experiments are possible only when (3) Experiment enables us to vary the
some knowledge has already been circumstances indefinitely.
acquired by simple observation. For a
successful application of experiment, by Key words
observation there must be a careful Observation, non-observation, mal-
preparation before hand. For experiment observation, individual mal-
of an event, the preliminary knowledge observation, universal mal-
about that event must be collected by observation, simple observation,
observation. Hence, we can say that experiment.
experiment depends on observation. In experiment we can vary the
circumstances because the circumstances
10. Advantages of experiment over
are under the investigator’s control. The
simple observation :
(1) Experiment can be repeated and for investigator thereby examines the different
this it enables us to multiply as many behaviour of the phenomenon under
58 Logic and Philosophy

different conditions but in simple experiment we are not in a hurry because

observation, this is not always possible. the phenomenon to be examined is
(4) Experiment enables us to examine completely within our control. But it is not
an event with coolness and quietness. possible in the case of observation because
In experiment an event can be the phenomena are not under observer’s
examined in a calm and quiet manner. In control.

SUMMARY
Both Observation and Experiment are the two material grounds of induction be-
cause, the material truth of an inductive reasoning is assured by observation and
experiment. So, these two processes are called the material grounds of induction.
Simple observation is a careful perception of things under natural circumstances.
On the other hand, experiment is a special way of observing various events by
artificially reproducing them under conditions pre-arranged and selected by ourselves
(investigators). In order to apply both Observation and Experiment successfully on
any event, the investigator must be healthy, sound and neutral physically, intellectually
and morally. Otherwise fallacies may sometimes occur if any one of these above
mentioned conditions of observation remain unfulfilled. Mill points out that the
fallacies of Observation are of two kinds, viz, Non-observation and Mal-observation.
Again the fallacy of non-observation has two different forms namely, non-observation
of instances and non-observation of essential circumstances. Again Mal-observation
may be of two types.
(a) Individual Mal-observation. (b) Universal Mal-observation.
Non-observation is the fallacy of overlooking something which ought to have
been observed. Non-observation is a negative fallacy. Here the observer ignores
something which should not be ignored. Again, Mal-observation arises when a thing
is perceived as different from what it is. In place of something, the observer perceives
something else. This fallacy arises due to the wrong interpretation of the sense-organs.
Though the scope of observation is much more wider than that of experiment, yet
the conclusion of observation is not certain like the experiment. The conclusion
established by experiment is certain than that of observation. Though the difference
between observation and experiment is that as Bain says : ‘‘Observation is finding a
fact and experiment is making one’’, yet, there is no such qualitative difference between
them. The difference is only in quantity.
It is thus clear that both observation and experiment have certain limitations. Within
these limits, they are valuable and useful in scientific investigations.
 Observation
Grounds Of
andInduction
Experiment 59

PROBABLE QUESTIONS
1. Fill in the blanks :
(a) The ––– truth of inductive inference depends on observation and experiment.
(b) Observation is finding a fact and experiment is –––.
(c) The difference between observation and experiment is ––––.
(d) Observation ––––– experiment.
(e) The scope of pure observation is ––––– than that of experiment.
2. Write short notes on :
(a) The condition of good observation.
(b) Fallacy of mal-observation.
(c) Fallacy of non-observation.
3. Define :
(a) Observation
(b) Experiment
(c) Fallacy of non-observation.
(d) Individual mal-observation.
4. Distinguish between :
(a) Simple observation and experiment.
(b) The fallacy of non-observation and the fallacy of mal-observation.
(c) Individual mal-observation and universal mal-observation.
5. Give short answers :
(a) How many material grounds of induction are there and what are these?
(b) Why are observation and experiment called the material grounds of induction?
(c) What are the fallacies of observation and what are these?
(d) Is simple observation completely passive experience?
6. What is observation? What are its advantages over experiment?
7. What is experiment? What are its advantages over observation?
8. ‘‘There is no qualitative difference, only a quantitative difference between observa-
tion and experiment’’ – Explain the statement.
9. What is observation? What conditions are to be followed before observation?
 Unit-III HYPOTHESIS
After going through this unit you would be able to learn :
 the nature and meaning of hypothesis  the various kinds of hypothesis
 the conditions of valid hypothesis

Contents
1. Introduction.
2. What is hypothesis? The general definition of hypothesis.
3. Stages of hypothesis :
Observation of facts.
Formation of hypothesis.
Deductive method. Verification.
4. Kinds of hypothesis.
(a) Hypothesis concerning Agent.
(b) Hypothesis concerning Law.
(c) Hypothesis concerning collocation.
5. Conditions of valid hypothesis.
(i) The hypothesis must be verifiable.
(ii) Testability
(iii) Compatibility with established facts.
(iv) Hypothesis must be definite, credible and consistent.
(v) Predictive power.
(vi) Hypothesis must be based on facts.
(vii) Hypothesis must be simple.
6. Summary.
Exercise.
Introduction : the materials of induction. These materials
Scientific Induction aims at establishing consist of particular facts of experience.
a general real proposition on the basis of Thus, Observation and Experiment
observation of particular instances, in guarantee the material truth of induction.
reliance on the principle of the Uniformity So, Obervation and Experiment are called
of Nature and the Law of Causation. the material grounds of induction.
Observation and Experiment furnish Scientific induction relies on two
 Hypothesis 61

fundamental principles, viz, the Law of forward a satisfactory definition of

Causation and the principle of the hypothesis as follows– ‘‘A hypothesis is
Uniformity of Nature in order to establish any supposition which we make (either
a general proposition on the basis of without actual evidence, or on evidence
observation of facts. The law of Causation avowedly insufficient) in order to
states that every event has a cause. The endeavour to deduce from it conclusions
law of the Uniformity of Nature states that in accordance with facts which are known
Nature is uniform in its behaviour; so the to be real; under the idea that if the
same cause produces the same effect under conclusions to which the hypothesis leads
similar circumstances. These two are known truths, the hypothesis itself
principles guarantee the formal truth of either must be or at least is likely to be
induction. Therefore, the law of causation true.’’
and the uniformity of Nature are called For example, a theft is committed in a
the formal grounds of induction. house. No one knows who has committed
Scientific induction can establish a the theft. After observing the relevant
general real proposition on the basis of circumstances, a supposition is made that
observation of particulars instances only the newly engaged servant in the house
by discovering and proving a causal has committed the theft. Investigation starts
connection among facts. But to discover and in course of investigation the stolen
and prove a causal connection is not an articles are found at his disposal. And the
provisional supposition is proved to be
easy task. Because Nature is so
true. To take an example of a scientific
complicated that it is very difficult to find
hypothesis. Newton saw an apple fall on
out the exact relation between cause and
the ground and supposed that it was due
effect. So before going to start a scientific
to the attraction of the earth. This
investigation, we are to frame a
supposition or hypothesis was
supposition or assumption that there is
subsequently proved to be true, and the
such a connection. And such supposition Law of Gravitation was established.
or assumption which forms the starting
point of an inductive investigation to Stages of Hypothesis :
discover and prove a causal connection If we analyse the definition of Mill, we
leads to the formation of Hypothesis. find that it involves the following four
stages :
What is Hypothesis? (1) Obervation of facts.
A Hypothesis is a provisional (2) Formation of hypothesis.
supposition which we make in order to (3) Application of the deductive
explain some fact or phenomenon that method and
needs an explanation. J.S. Mill puts (4) Verification.
62 Logic and Philosophy

Let us explain the stages of hypothesis conclusions are deduced. For example,
in detail– from the provisional hypothesis, Newton
deduced the conclusion that the earth
Stage-I : Observation of facts :
attracts all material bodies, or in other
Observation of facts is the first stage
of hypothesis. Observation presents words, all material bodies, are subject to
before us some facts to be explaind. the attraction of the earth. As for example,
Through observation we come in contact the sun, the moon and the earth have this
with the facts. And as a result of this gravitational pull.
contact, questions arise in our mind about Stage-IV : verification :
the event which call for explanation. At this stage, the conclusions deduced
For example, Newton observed an from the hypothesis are verified. Such
apple falling on the ground from a tree. verification is made under the idea that if
So, the question arose in his mind ‘‘why the conclusion which we deduce from that
does the apple fall on the ground?’’ hypothesis tallies with facts, the hypothesis
Stage-II : Formation of a hypothesis: is true or likely to be true. If not, the
The next stage is the formation of a hypothesis is discarded in favour of
hypothesis. Since we have to explain the another provisional supposition. For
cause behind a phenomenon and the real example, Newton’s Law of Gravitaion is
explanation is not known to us, we frame reached in this way.
a provisional hypothesis in order to explain  Hypothesis in everyday life :
the phenomenon. At this stage, the data at In our everyday life, we are constantly
our disposal are insufficient, yet we must making hypotheses to explain facts of our
proceed for explanation of fact with some experience e.g. on returning home in the
provisional supposition, otherwise the real evening, we find that the glass-pane of the
explanation will be difficult to make. window has been broken. We make a
For example, on the basis of observa- supposition that a stone or a cricket ball
tion of falling apple on the ground, New- or a similar object had been thrown against
ton framed the hypothesis that probably it from outside. In the stage of verification
the attraction of the centre of the earth may if we look for a stone or a cricket ball in
be the cause of falling of the apple. the room and trace it out, then the
Stage-III : Application of deductive supposition will be confirmed i.e. it is true
method: or is likely to be true. Otherwise, it will
The third stage is the deduction of the not be true and then we abandon the
consequences from such a probable supposition and frame another hypothesis.
supposition. In this stage, from the This is called a case of ‘‘Popular
tentative supposition, thus framed, certain Hypothesis’’.
 Hypothesis 63

Hypothesis in science : (1) Hypothesis concerning Agent :

In case of scientific investigation, Hypothesis concerning Agent is re-
hypotheses are framed in order to explain lated with the agent of the incident. Some-
facts legitimately and scientifically. times it is found that the law of operation
Usually, the hypotheses used in science is known, but the particular agent who is
are not directly verified. They need to operate according to the known law is
indirect proof. Once a hypothesis is proved unknown. In such a case, we frame a hy-
to be true, either directly or indirectly it is pothesis regarding an agent and such a
accepted as a real explanation. Otherwise,
hypothesis is called ‘‘Hypothesis concern-
it has to be rejected as worthless.
ing Agent.’’ To take an example from ev-
So we may say that hypothesis, both
eryday life. A burglary is committed in my
popular and scientific, agree with the fact
neighbour’s house. In order to know the
that it is a provisional supposition that is
thief, we may frame a hypothesis as to the
made in order to explain some fact. In
popular use, a hypothesis may not be le- agent in question. This is a kind of hy-
gitimate and scientific, but in scientific use, pothesis known as ‘hypothesis concern-
it must be legitimate and systematic. ing Agent.’
Hence, we conclude with the words To take an example from science.
of Coffey that ‘‘A hypothesis is an attempt Adams and Leverrier discovered the
at explanation; a provisional supposition planet Neptune with the help of this kind
made in order to explain scientifically of hypothesis. It was calculated by these
some fact or phenomenon.’’ two scientists that the planet Uranus
should move in a particular orbit due to
Kinds of Hypothesis :
the attractions of the then known planets.
A hypothesis is an attempt at explana-
tion of some fact. In order to explain a But it was observed that, in reality, the
fact, some questions naturally crop up in planet was deviating from the calculated
our mind. For example, who has done the path. Adams and Leverrier then made the
incident, how was it done and what nec- supposition that there was some un-
essary arrangement of circumstances was known agent influencing the planet Ura-
made for the purpose etc. Thus, there are nus to cause this deviation. A hypothesis
three kinds of hypothesis. These are– of this kind is called ‘‘Hypothesis con-
(1) Hypothesis concerning Agent. cerning Agent.’’ And the unknown agent
(2) Hypothesis concerning Law and was subsequently discovered to be the
(3) Hypothesis concerning Collocation. planet Neptune.
64 Logic and Philosophy

(2) Hypothesis concerning Law : arrangement of circumstances. In that case

Hypothesis concerning Law is related we frame a hypothesis regarding the
with the law of operation. Sometimes it collocation. Such hypothesis is called
may be that we know the agent, but the ‘‘Hypothesis concerning Collocation.’’
law according to which the agent has To take our previous example of theft.
acted is not known to us. In such cases The breaking of locker by the servant is
we frame a hypothesis concerning the law due to the circumstances that in that very
of operation or the way in which the agent day all the members of the family were
acts. This kind of hypothesis is called outside the house keeping the servant
‘‘Hypothesis concerning Law.’’ alone. So the absence of family members
To take an example from everyday life. is the circumstance for which the theft was
A burglary is committed in a house. We committed.
do very well know that the servant has sto- To take a scientific explanation. The
len away the money. But we do not know agents, such as the sun, the moon etc, were
how he managed to do it. So, we frame a known and their law of operation i.e. the
hypothesis that the servant committed the law of gravitation was also known. But
theft by opening the room and breaking the the collocation of these heavenly bodies
locker where the money was kept. was not known. So Ptolemy, an Egyptian
To take an example from science.
astronomer, formed the hypothesis that the
Newton knew the agents viz, the sun, the
earth was the centre of the universe and
moon, the earth and other planets. But the
all other planets revolved round the earth.
way in which all these agents acted upon
But this hypothesis was proved to be false
each other was not known. So, Newton
supposed that their motions might be due by Copernicus, a Polish astronomer. His
to their attracting one another in a particu- supposition was that the sun is the centre
lar way and on the basis of this supposi- of the solar system and all other planets
tion he finally discovered the law of op- revolve round the sun and owing to this
eration i.e. the Law of Gravitation. type of collocation only the order of the
solar system is maintained.
(3) Hypothesis concerning
And ultimately this hypothesis, framed
collocation:
‘Collocation’ means ‘‘arrangement of by Copernicus was proved to be true.
circumstances’’. For the occurrence of an We must remember that in every case
effect, the agent, law as well as collocation these three forms of hypothesis may not
are necessary. Sometimes we know the be formed separately. In a given case these
agent, what is the law of operation three may all be blended together. Accord-
according to which the agent acted, but ing to some logicians both the law and
we do not know anything about the the collocation taken together constitute
 Hypothesis 65

the cause. In this sense, hypothesis is only the interpolation of facts. These facts can
of one kind and this is hypothesis of cause. be observed by the observer under suitable
According to some logicians the agent conditions. The supposed facts are of the
and collocation taken together constitute same type as the facts that constitute the
the cause. So Welton, Coffey and others data of the problem. There is another kind
say that hypothesis is of two kinds– (i) of Explanatory hypothesis. Here the
Hypothesis of Cause and (ii) Hypothesis interpolated facts mean the elements which
of Law. can not be observed as relations between
But most of the logicians recognise all the occurences to be connected. Newton’s
three kinds of hypothesis viz (i) Hypoth- hypothesis relating to the gravitational
esis concerning agent. (ii) Hypothesis con- attraction is a hypothesis of this kind.
cerning law and (iii) Hypothesis concern- (ii) Descriptive hypothesis :
ing collocation, for detailed explanation This type of hypothesis is generally
of facts. framed to offer a description of a complex
 Classification of Hypothesis in event with a view to give an accurate
modern science : description which helps in the
Scientific investigation is inseparably investigation of the phenomenon under
related to hypothesis. Through the investigation. The main function of a
formation of hypothesis, modern science descriptive hypothesis is to symbolise the
successfully explains different laws and systematic relation among facts.
events. Thus, framing of a hypothesis A descriptive hypothesis is generally
plays a very important role in the area of framed to describe a geometrical represen-
scientific researches or investigations. tation of the movements of the heavenly
Considering all these purposes, L.S. bodies, e.g. Ptolemy’s Geo-centric hy-
Stebbing, a modern logician, distinguishes pothesis offered a geometrical represen-
three main kinds of hypothesis– tation of the heavenly bodies. It is a de-
(i) Explanatory hypothesis. scriptive hypothesis.
(ii) Descriptive hypothesis. Descriptive hypothesis is not an em-
(iii) Analogical hypothesis. pirical generalisation. It does not imply
any imaginary law of Nature subject to
(i) Explanatory hypothesis :
proof. They are the descriptions that serve
The simplest kind of hypothesis is the the function of models, which help the sci-
Explanatory hypothesis. This kind of entists to understand the mode of connec-
hypothesis is framed for explaining an tion between the facts. Of course, such
event. These hypotheses are intended to hypotheses are essentially provisional and
account for the occurrence of an event by temporary.
66 Logic and Philosophy

(3) Analogical hypothesis : According to Stebbing, a working

This kind of hypothesis is a hypothesis is a supposition, advanced solely
development of desciptive hypothesis. An for the purpose of conducting investigation.
Analogical hypothesis means a hypothesis For example, the hypothesis ‘‘Electricity
that what is true of one set of phenomena is a fluid’’ – is a working hypothesis.
may be true of another set as both the sets Scientists were not able to understand the
possess in common certain formal nature of electricity. Yet they framed the
properties. For example, Maxwell above mentioned hypothesis only to
established his famous Electro-magnetic conduct their investigations by comparing
theory on the basis of resemblance electricity to a fluid, though they were fully
between gravitaion and electrostatics. aware of the differences of electricity from
This kind of hypothesis is based on the the fluids.
‘structural identity’ between two sets of A working hypothesis is discarded
instances. By developing this analogical or when the nature of the phenomenon is
‘structural hypothesis’, Maxwell formulated understood better. Then we can have a
his electromagnetic theory of light. more reliable and acceptable hypothesis
which will replace the previous one.
Working hypothesis :
A working hypothesis is a provisional  Conditions of Valid Hypothesis or
supposition offered mainly for guiding Legitimate hypothesis :
investigation. Sometimes facts are so Hypothesis is a provisional supposition
unfamilar or complex that we can not made in order to explain scientifically
make any satisfactory supposition on the
some fact or phenomenon. It is through
basis of observation of data. Yet some
the formation of hypothesis that science
provisional supposition is required to carry
can explain different laws and events. But
out our investigation. In such cases, only
any and every supposition is not a
to start our work, we frame some
scientific hypothesis. There are certain
hypothesis, knowing fully that it is not at
rules or criteria for evaluating hypotheses.
all adequate to explain the fact under
The hypotheses which are in consonance
investigation. Such type of hypothesis is
with the rules or conditions, are considered
called working hypothesis.
to be suitable for explanation of events.
‘A working hypothesis, is defined as
Some of the important conditions of valid
‘‘a provisional supposition, which though
or legitimate hypothesis are mentioned as
known to be inadequate, is still accepted
as true, for the time being, because in the follows :
absence of a better hypothesis, it is useful (i) The hypothesis must be relevant:
as a guide to further enquiry.’’ Relevance is an important condition of
 Hypothesis 67

a legitimate hypothesis. If the hypothesis consequences deduced from it. There are
which is framed to explain an event be things which can not be perceived by the
not relevant then the event can not be senses such as atoms, ether etc. There are
deduced from the irrelevant hypothesis. also some events that can not be observed
For example, in order to explain the directly even by means of scientific
sudden outbreak of cholera in Assam, if instrument. An eminent scientist Lloyd
we suppose that the drought prevailing in Smith says that the modern physicists
China is the cause, then the hypothesis will have discussed those elements of
be irrelevant, and our hypothesis will be substances which can not be directly
invalid. Our hypothesis will be relevant verified. They discuss the radiation of light
only when the event to be explained can that can not be seen, energy that can not
be deduced from it or from certain laws be felt, the atoms which can not be
or conditions with it. So, relevance is a touched. Such things are to be verified
necessary condition for a legitimate indirectly. That means, the legitimate
hypothesis. hypotheses are to be expressed in such
statements from which conclusions can be
(ii) Testability or verifiability : deduced and these conclusions can be
A valid hypothesis must be capable of verified. The main point is that a valid
being tested or verified. This is the most hypothesis must have some relation to the
important condition of a legitimate observable facts.
hypothesis. Testability means that the (iii) Compatibility with previously
hypothesis must be such that it can be well-established hypotheses and com-
proved either to be true or to be false. The patibility also with itself :
hypothesis which can neither be proved A hypotheses must be compatible or
to be true nor false can not be accepted as consistent with previously well-
the real explanation of the event in established hypotheses, theories and laws.
question. Certain things have been established
Verification of a hypothesis may be rather definitely and our hypothesis should
done in two ways– (a) by direct not contradict such well-established facts.
observation or experiment and (b) Indirect For example, Leverrier’s hypothesis
verification. Direct verification consists in which states that there is another planet
direct observation or direct experiment of beyond the orbit of Uranus was consistent
fact. If the observation or experiment with the established astronomical theories
shows that the supposed cause exists, the and hence acceptable.
hypothesis is verified. Verification is It is to be noted that this condition is
indirect, when we can not directly observe not a necessary condition of a legitimate
the supposed cause, but only the hypothesis. Scientist very often reject or
68 Logic and Philosophy

modify the traditional views or prevailing plain a fact. For example, a boy is miss-
theories; new theories may be accepted ing from his home. Here we should not
as true and old theories may be rejected suppose that he was carried away by an-
as false. For example, the Ptolemic theory gels. Similarly, we should not suppose that
was rejected in due course and the the Earth is being supported on the crest
Copernican theory was accepted. With the of a serpent or that an eclipse of the sun
advancement of science and technology or the moon occurs, because, a malicious
many laws are modified and will be demon devours the sun or the moon at
modified in future also. But the important cestain intervals.
point is that in the absence of sufficient It is to be noted that this condition is
proof, it is not proper to reject the not of much value because many things
established theories and frame a new one. which appear absurd at one time, were
(iv) The hypothesis should not be subsequently found to be existing in fact.
indefinite, vague, absurd or self- For example, when Columbus framed the
contradictory, but should be definite, hypothesis that there was another conti-
credible and consistent. nent besides the known four planets, then
(a) An indefinite or vague hypothesis it was consided as absurd by the then wise
can not lead us to a definite channel of men, but ultimately that continent viz.
investigation. For example, if we suppose America was discovered. However, the
that an earthquake is due to some distur- point is that hypothesis must not be ab-
bances in the interior part of the earth, then surd, it must be concievable.
that supposition is nothing but a vague one (v) Predictive power :
and from this we can not start our investi- The predictive power of a hypothesis
gation to find out the real cause of earth- means the range of observable facts that
quake. can be deduced from it. It is the power
(b) A hypothesis should not be self con- that makes the prediction or to offer ex-
tradictory, but should be conceivable i.e. planation which proves the fertility or pro-
consistent with itself. For example, if we ductivity of a hypothesis. Of two hypoth-
suppose that careful study is the cause of eses if one has a greater number of ob-
one’s failure in the examination, then the servable facts deducible from it than the
hypothesis will be self-contradictory or other, then it is said to have a greater pre-
inconsistent. dictive power. For example, Newton’s hy-
(c) The hypothesis must not be absurd pothesis of gravitational attraction together
but must be credible or conceivable. All with his three laws of motion has greater
that is meant by this condition is that we predictive power than that of Kepler’s or
should not make any wild guess to ex- Galelio’s hypothesis; because Newton’s
 Hypothesis 69

hypothesis can explain many more facts a crucial instance, it decides conclusively
than Kepler’s and Galileo’s hypotheses. which of the rival hypotheses is proved.
This criterion is not the same as the According to Jevons ‘‘A crucial instance
testability of a hypothesis. The hypothesis not only confirms one hypothesis but
from which some consequences can be negatives the other.’’ Let us take an
deduced is called a ‘testable hypothesis’, example of crucial experiment
but the hypothesis from which we can (Experimentum crucis).
deduce the greatest number of observable Suppose, there is a glass jar containing
consequences is called a hypothesis some gas and we are to determine whether
having the greatest power of prediction. it is Hydrogen or Oxygen. The gas is
This criterion has a negative side which found to be colourless, tasteless and
is of great importance. Sometimes we find without any smell. As these are the
that two different hypotheses are both common properties of Hydrogen and
relevant, to explaining some set of facts, Oxygen, we are unable to identify them.
both are testable, and both are compatible So we may make an experiment. We
with the well-established theories. In trying introduce a glowing stick into the jar and
to choose which of them affords the real find that gas begins to burn. This shows
explanation, we take what Bacon calls a that the inflamability is a property of the
‘crucial instance’. gas in the jar. As this property is to be found
Crucial instance : ‘‘A crucial instance only in Hydrogen and not in Oxygen, so
(instantia crucis) is an instance which can the experiment decides conclusively that
only be explained by one of the the gas in the jar is Hydrogen and not
contending hypotheses, and not by the Oxygen. The inflamability is the crucial
other.’’ A crucial instance may be obtained instance which establishes the Hydrogen
by simple Observation or by Experiment. gas and rejects the Oxygen gas.
If it is obtained by Experiment, it is called As a crucial instance obtained by
an ‘‘Experimentum crucis’’ or ‘crucial simple observation we may take the
experiment’. The term ‘‘Crucial instance’ following example.
is, as Bacon says, ‘‘borrowed from the Suppose there is a theft in the house
crosses (or finger posts) which are put up and we are to decide whether the thief was
in crossways to point out the different in league with any member of the house
ways.’’ When we come to the crossing of or not. In the course of investigation, we
two roads and are unable to decide, which discover a plan of the building (showing
way we should go to reach our destination, the location of the room where valuables
the finger post indicates us the actual way were kept) lying on the floor by following
we should take. Similarly, when we obtain which the burglar can easily enter into the
70 Logic and Philosophy

room. This fact is a crucial instance – they are indirectly known through their
which conclusively proves that the perceptible effects. Hence ‘vera cause’
information contained in the plan, could should be understood to mean a cause
have been supplied only by an inmate and ‘‘which alone avoids contradiction in our
not by outsiders. thought, that is, which alone enables us
(vi) The hypothesis must be based on to think the phenomena as a part of
facts and must have for its object a real systematic reality’’ (Welton).
cause or vera cause. (vii) Lastly, the hypothesis must be
A hypothesis is framed is order to simple.
explain the fact that needs explanation. In A valid hypothesis must be simple. The
order to frame any hypothesis we are to term ‘simplicity’ has been used in logic in
observe the fact without any bias. Again, a special sense. In Logic a simple
when we proceed to test or verify the hypothesis is one which makes the
hypothesis, then also we must observe the minimum number of independent
fact with an impartial mind. Hence a assumptions. Sometimes it is found that
there are two or more rival hypotheses
hypothesis depends on facts at the starting
which appear to afford an explanation of
point and also at the end for its verification.
the facts under investigation. In such cases
Secondly, if we frame a hypothesis
the hypotheses which is more simpler than
regarding an agent or a cause, then that
the other, is generally accepted.
agent or cause should be a vera cause or a
For example, the most important
real cause. examples of a pair of hypotheses were
Vera cause : The term ‘vera cause’ those of Ptolemy and Copernicus. The
literally means a true cause. It should not, Ptolemic hypothesis is : the earth is the
however, be taken to mean merely a cause centre of the universe and round the earth
which is actually known to exist, or there is rotation of the sun and other
something which is directly perceptible by planets and stars. On the other hand, the
the senses. For example, a child, when Copernican hypothesis is– the sun is the
missing must not be supposed to have centre of the universe and round the sun
been carried away by an angel. Here the there is the rotation of the earth and other
angel is non existent, it is not a true cause. planets and stars. Both the hypotheses
But we should not use the term in this fulfill all the conditions of legitimate
restricted sense. There are some elements hypothesis. But Copernicus' hypothesis
like atoms, ether, electrical energy etc. fulfils one more condition which is
which though not perceptible, can be simplicity. Ptolemy had taken the help of
regarded as ‘vera cause’. Though these many ad hoc hypotheses like high and
elements can not be directly perceived, low tides, rotation of day and night,
 Hypothesis 71

changes of seasons etc which have no Thus, we can say that a hypothesis that
intimate relation with the main hypothesis. has more comprehensive information and
But Copernicus took the help of only one wider in scope can offer a reliable and
or two supplementary hypotheses to systematic explanation of facts and is re-
account for some observed positions of garded as simple. Of course, an accurate
heavenly bodies. So, comparatively definition of ‘simplicity’ is very difficult
Copernicus’ hypothesis is more simple to give. Yet simplicity is an important cri-
and acceptable. terion for a legitimate hypothesis.

SUMMARY
 The aim of induction is to establish a general real proposition by discovering and
proving a causal connection. But in order to establish a causal connection we
have to make a supposition and this supposition is called a hypothesis.
 A hypothesis is any supposition which we make is order to endeavour to deduce
from it conclusions in accordance with facts which are known to be real. If the
conclusions tally with facts, then the hypothesis is true or atleast likely to be true.
 Stages of hypothesis : There are four stages of hypothesis–
(i) Observation of facts.
(ii) Formation of hypothesis.
(iii) Application of Deductive method.
(iv) Verification.
 Kinds of hypothesis– There are three kinds of hypothesis–
(i) Hypothesis concerning Agent.
(ii) Hypothesis concerning Law.
(iii) Hypothesis concerning Collocation.
 According to some logicians, hypothesis is of one kind and this is hypothesis of
cause.
 According to Coffey and Welton, since Agent and collocation taken together con-
stitute the cause so there are only two kinds of hypothesis–
(i) Hypothesis of cause and.
(ii) Hypothesis concerning Law.
 Kinds of hypothesis in modern science.
72 Logic and Philosophy

Prof. L.S. Stebbing has mentioned three kinds of hypothesis on the basis of their
different purposes– (i) Explanatory hypothesis.
(ii) Descriptive
(iii) Analogical.
 Some other Logicians have admitted another form of hypothesis–
Working hypothesis.
 Conditions of legitimate hypothesis– Any and every hypothesis may not be valid.
A hypothesis in order to be legitimate must fullfill certain rules or conditions as
follows:
1. The hypothesis must be relevant.
2. Testability or verifiability.
3. Compatibility with previously established hypotheses and compatibility also
with itself.
4. The hypothesis should be definite, credible and consistent.
5. Predictive power.
6. The hypothesis must be based on facts and must have for its object a real cause
or vera cause.
7. The hypothesis must be simple.

PROBABLE QUESTIONS
1. What is a hypothesis? Explain the nature of hypothesis.
2. What are the various kinds of hypothesis? Explain.
3. What is hypothesis? What are the conditions of valid hypothesis?
4. Give example–
(i) Hypothesis concerning Agent.
(ii) Hypothesis concerning Collocation.
(iii) Hypothesis concerning Law.
4. Define :
(i) Hypothesis, (ii) Hypothesis concerning Agent, (iii) Hypothesis concerning
law, (iv) Hypothesis concerning collocation, (v) Explanatory hypothesis,
(vi) Descriptive hypothesis, (vii) Analogical hypothesis, (viii) Working
hypothesis, (ix) Vera cause.
 Hypothesis 73

5. Write short notes on–

(i) Hypothesis, (ii) Explanatory hypothesis, (iii) Descriptive hypothesis, (iv)
Working hypothesis, (v) Crucial instance, (vi) Vera cause, (vii) Hypothesis
concerning Agent, (viii) Hypothesis concerning Law, (ix) Hypothesis
concerning Collocation, (x) Experimentum crucis.
6. Answer briefly :
(i) What are the different forms of hypothesis?
(ii) What is crucial instance?
(iii) What are the stages of hypothesis?
(iv) State four conditions of a legitimate hypothesis?
(v) What do you mean by experimentum crucis?
(vi) What are the various kinds of hypothesis according to Stebbing.
7. Distinguish between :
(i) Hypothesis concerning Agent and Law.
(ii) Explanatory and Descriptive hypothesis.
8. Give answer :
(i) What is the first stage of hypothesis.
(ii) How many stages of hypothesis are there?
(iii) The power of prediction is a ––– of hypothesis.
(iv) How many types of verification are there in a hypothesis?
 MILL’S METHODS OF
Unit-IV
EXPERIMENTAL ENQUIRY
After reading this chapter you will be able to know :
the nature of experimental method.
canons of elimination in scientific enquiry.
Mill’s five experimental methods– their nature, advantages and disadvantages.

Contents In the process of enquiring truth,

 Inductive Method. Deductive method is the analytic method.
 Canons of Elimination. Inductive method is called the synthetic
 The Method of Agreement. method which is also known as the
 The Method of Difference. method of discovery. And finally
 The Joint Method of Agreement and knowledge reaches scientific form only by
Difference. the combination of inductive and
 The Method of Concomitant deductive methods. It is called complete
Variation. method that culminates in proper
 The Method of Residues. verification.
In this chapter, our discussion will be
Introduction : concentrated on the Inductive Methods only.
The ideal of logic is truth. To deter-
Inductive Method :
mine the truth we need some specialized
methods. Deductive logic is concerned Mill’s method of enquiry is included
with formal truth. While inductive logic in the inductive method. The ideal kind
is concerned with material truth for which of inductive inference is scientific induc-
it is to enquire into the complex structure tion. The aim of scientific induction is to
of the natural phenomena. establish a general real proposition. In or-
Logician Peter Ramus* was the first der to establish a general real proposition
to propose the addition of the doctrine of we need to apply some experimental
method in logic. We find three methods methods of enquiry.
applied in logic– Mill’s experimental methods of en-
(a) Deductive Method, quiry are called the Inductive Methods.
(d) Inductive Method, and Mill devised the inductive methods to
(c) Complete Method. solve the problem of determining the
*‘‘Peter Ramus, who was a victim of the massacre of St. Bartholomew was the first to propose the
addition of the doctrine of Method as a fourth part of logical science’’
 Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 75

causal connection. The law of causation different methods by other names like the
is a universal law. It is not an easy task to Table of Presence, the Table of Absence,
establish cause– effect relation as the natu- the Table of Degrees for Mill’s methods
ral phenomena are intermixed in a very of Agreement, Difference and
complex manner. So, in order to mitigate Concomitant Variation respectively. But
this problem, Mill formulated five experi- in Mill’s study we find an exclusive and
mental methods which are also known by elaborate account of the experimental
diverse names of Inductive Methods, methods.
‘‘Methods of Determining causal connec- Canons of Elimination :
tion’’, ‘‘Methods of Observation and Ex-
The aim of science is to discover and
periment’’, and above all the ‘‘Methods
find out a causal connection between two
of Elimination’’.
facts. Qualitatively, a cause is the
Mill’s experimental methods are also immediate, unconditional, invariable,
known as the Methods of Elimination. The antecedent of the effect and quantitatively
term ‘Elimination’ means ‘‘to eliminate’’ a cause is equal to the effect. The canons
or ‘‘to reject’’. Therefore, elimination im- of elimination are based on this
plies rejecting the accidental and irrelevent relationship between cause and effect.
circumstances which are found in natural The following canons of elimination
phenomena in determining cause– effect can be derived from the cause effect
relation. relation–
Therefore, we find two aspects of elimi- 1. ‘‘Whatever antecedent can be left
nation– the negative aspect and the posi- out, without prejudice to the effect, can
tive aspect. The negative aspect of elimi- be no part of the cause.’’
nation implies the rejection of the acciden- From the point of view of quality, as it
tal and irrelevent circumstances. The posi- is already mentioned, a cause is an invari-
tive aspect of elimination consists in the able, unconditional antecedent of the ef-
discovery and proof of causal connection fect. It necessarily indicates that if the
between facts. This positive aspect of cause is found to be absent then the effect
elimination is the main objective of Mill’s will also cease to exist. The presence of
method of enquiry. effect without the presence of cause is a
Long before Mill, in the sixteenth sheer impossibility. As such we can con-
century, the British logician Francis Bacon clude that whatever antecedent can be left
also mentioned about these methods. out without frustrating the effect can never
Bacon applied these methods as a process be the cause.
of discovering a causal connection in the The method of Agreement is
form of a table. Of course, he used the established on this canon of elimination.
76 Logic and Philosophy

2. ‘‘When an antecedent cannot be left ‘‘Nothing is the cause of a phenom-

out, without the consequent disappearing, enon which is known to be the cause of a
such antecedent must be the cause or a different phenomenon.’’
part of the cause.’’ This canon is based on the law of
This canon is also drawn from the causation. It shows that one cause cannot
qualitative aspect of the definition of the have many effects. The same cause
cause. From the point of view of quality, produces the same effect. For example, if
a cause is the invariable and unconditional we know that A is the cause of the event
antecedent of the effect. It implies that if B then A cannot be the cause of C or D or
the antecedent part is eliminated then the E etc.
consequent disappears, then there must be The method of Residues is based on
a causal relation between them. In other this principle.
words if the cause is absent, effect also Thus, according to Mill these canons
must remain absent. of elimination are used in the five inductive
The method of Difference is based on methods. The five methods of induction
this canon of elimination. are as follows :
3. ‘‘An antecedent and a consequent (a) The Method of Agreement
rising and falling together in numerical (b) The Method of Difference
concomitance are to be held as cause and (c) The Joint Method of Agreement and
effect.’’ Difference
This canon is deduced from the quan- (d) The method of Concomitant
titative aspect of cause. From the point of Variation
view of quantity, cause and effect are (e) The Method of Residues
equal. If two events are found to rise or I. The Method of Agreement
fall simultaneously or concomitantly then Mill states the Method of Agreement
we can draw the conclusion that the said as follows :
events are causally related. This means that ‘‘If two or more instances of the
if there is any quantitative variation in the phenomenon under investigation have
cause, there must be a variation in the ef- only one circumstance in common, the
fect also. circumstance in which alone all the
Mill’s method of concomitant variation instances agree is the cause (or effect) of
is based on this principle. the given phenomenon.’’
4. The above three canons, according If we analyse this method of Mill, we
to Bain, are the principal principles or the find that in order to apply the method of
main canons of elimination. Moreover, agreement.
Joseph has given another canon of (a) Firstly, we have to collect two or
elimination as given below: more instances of the phenomenon under
 Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 77

investigation. The number of instances in all other respects. Therefore, we can

should be more than one. This method conclude that ‘A’ is the cause of ‘a’.
cannot be applied to a single instance. The Concrete example :
instances are collected by means of ob- Suppose Malaria is the effect. We have
servation. to find out the cause of it. For this we have
(b) The collected instances are to be to collect some instances of Malaria pa-
analysed into different circumstances or tients and observe disverse aspects of their
factors by means of observation. living like drinking water, daily food habit,
(c) The circumstances which are not living place, physical exercise etc. On
present invariably are to be eliminated. It examination it is found that though they
implies that all the instances have only one
are having different life styles, yet in one
circumstance in common, while in other
respect everyone is having the common
respects they are different.
factor that they are bitten by anopheles
(d) Lastly, the circumstance which is
mosquito. Hence, we can conclude that
invariably present in all the instances must
the bite of anopheles mosquito is the cause
be the cause or the effect of the said phe-
of Malaria.
nomenon. It means, the common circum-
This is an example where we move
stance in which alone all the instances
from effect to find out its cause. In the
agree is the cause or the effect of the phe-
method of agreement we can move from
nomenon.
cause to effect also. Let us take an
For example : example :
Symbolic example : Suppose we want to find out the effect
No. of Antecedents Consequents of smoking. For this we are to take few
instances instances of some smokers. On
1st ABCD abcd examination, we find that though all the
2nd AMNO amno smokers have different health conditions,
3rd APQR apqr yet in one respect they are having the
common problem, that is the heart of
4th AXYZ axyz
everyone is very weak. As such, we can
∴ ‘A’ is the cause of ‘a’ conclude that smoking causes weak heart.
In this example, we have taken four In this example, we have proceeded
instances under investigation (i.e. two or from cause to its possible effect.
more than two). In all the four instances The method of Agreement is called by
there is only one common circumstance, its name because, according to Mill, this
that is, ‘A’ which is followed by ‘a’. The method proceeds by comparing different
antecedents and consequents are varying instances to ascertain the circumstance in
78 Logic and Philosophy

which they agree. Again the proof consists cannot be experimented under artificial
in the agreement in only one circumstance conditions for which observation is the
compared with difference in all the other only way to carry on investigation. To say
circumstances. Here the proof is that the Method of Agreement is pre-
constituted by the singleness of the eminently a method of observation means
agreement. Therefore, logicians like that this method is applied to those cases
Mellone, Coffey etc. call this method ‘‘the mainly where experiments are not
method of single Agreement.’’ possible. Moreover, this method does not
require instances of any special and
The canon of Elimination used in definite character, so observation can
the Method of Agreement : supply its instances. Therefore, the
The method of Agreement is based on Method of Agreement is called the method
the following canon of Elimination– of observation.
‘‘Whatever antecedent can be left out
Advantages of the Method of
without prejudice to the effect can be no Agreement :
part of the cause.’’ The Method of Agreement has the fol-
It implies that if some circumstance is lowing advantages–
left out and yet we find that the given (a) The Method of Agreement has a
phenomenon is present, then necessarily wider and extended scope of application.
the left out circumstance can be in no way It is a very easy and simple method. As
causally connected with it. Therefore, if a this method is pre-eminently a method of
particular circumstance is commonly observation, it has a wide range of appli-
present with the given phenomenon then cation than the methods of experiment.
we can say that they are causally Again, whatever can be experimented can
connected. also be observed. But whatever can be
The Method of Agreement is Called observed may not be experimented.
the Method of Observation : Therefore, the Method of Agreement has
a wider scope.
Observation is regulated perception of (b) This method enables us to proceed
natural events under natural from the cause to the effect and from the
circumstances. The Method of Agreement effect to the cause. This advantage of the
is pre-eminently a method of observation. Method of Agreement also follows from
Of course, the scope of the application of the fact that it is a method of observation.
experiment in certain cases cannot be By observation we can move from cause
denied. But all the natural events cannot to its effect and from effect to its cause
be brought under experimentation. For simultaneously. This means to find out the
example, earthquake, flood, drought etc causal connection we can investigate from
 Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 79

both directions, from the cause to the effect 1. Difficulty of collecting required
and from the effect to the cause as well. instances–
(c) In any scientific enquiry the method In the Method of Agreement two or
of Agreement helps to frame hypothesis more instances are to be collected by
relating to causal connection. Formation observation. But there are certain cases
of hypothesis occupies an important place where collection of instances is to depend
in any scientific enquiry. As the method on the mercy of nature as all natural
of Agreement is a method of observation, phenomena do not occur as certainly and
therefore certainty in causal connection frequently as the rising and setting of the
may not be proved by it. By observation, sun. For example, the instances of
instances are collected from nature and one earthquake, volcano eruption etc are some
is to form hypothesis regarding causal rare phenomena for which one is to wait
connection. In the later phases, the indefinite time during his life time.
hypothesis can be verified by applying the 2. Difficulty of correct analysis of the
Joint Method of Agreement and instances–
Difference.
As the Method of Agreement is a
Thus, this method helps in the
method of simple observation, therefore
discovery and proof of causal connection.
As such it has a great suggestive value. it suffers from the problem of correct
analysis of the collected instances. Simple
Disadvantages of the Method of observation can not ensure the correct and
Agreement :
sufficient analysis of the data. There is the
As the Method of Agreement is a
possibility of highlighting the insignificant
method of observation, it involves all the
factors by throwing aside the relevant fac-
disadvantages of the method of
tors of cause-effect relation in this method.
observation. Basically in the application
of this method the following Thus, we can see that the Method of
disadvantages are found– Agreement is vitiated by practical imper-
(a) Practical Imperfection. fection. But this problem can be removed
(b) Characteristic Imperfection. to certain extent by the multiplication of
(c) Problem in distinguishing causation instances. If the number of instances can
from co-effects and co-existence. be increased and a common antecedent
circumstance can be found out then the
(a) Practical Imperfection :
Practical Imperfection implies some probability of that common antecedent
practical difficulties involved in the being the cause becomes high. Of course,
application of the method in our life. The the problem of the collection of data which
practical problems involved in this method depends on the mercy of nature cannot
are: be removed. Moreover, even after the ap-
80 Logic and Philosophy

plication of certain remedies we can not That means the plurality of causes may
say that the method of Agreement can be spoil the method of Agreement.
totally free from practical imperfection. In order to overcome the problem
(b) Characteristic Imperfection : associated with it, we have the following
remedies–
The characteristic imperfection of the
1. The multiplication of instances.
Method of Agreement is the limitation of
2. The application of the Joint Method
the method rooted in the very character
of Agreement and Difference wherever it
or the nature of this method. This defect
is possible. In the Joint Method of
is inherent in this method.
Agreement and Difference we require one
The characteristic imperfection of the set of positive and one set of negative
Method of Agreement is all about the instances. If this method can be fruitfully
possibility of the plurality of the causes. used then the conclusion becomes highly
According to the doctrine of the plurality probable.
of the causes, the same effect can be (c) Problem in distinguishing
produced by different causes on different causation from co-effect and co-
occassions. But from the scientific point existence :
of view, the doctrine of the plurality of According to the Method of
the causes can not be accepted. The Agreement if two events are invariably
possibility of this doctrine frustrates the found to be present or they are invariably
Method of Agreement. succeeding one another then they are
For example, suppose a man is found causally connected. But from this we can
to have taken wine with water and he is not say that the invariable antecedent is
found in an intoxicated mood. the cause of the invariable consequent.
The second man has taken whisky with For example, ‘day’ is the invariable
water and he is also found in an intoxi- antecedent of ‘night’. But from this we
cated mood. can not say that ‘day’ is the cause of
The third man has taken brandy with ‘night’. In fact ‘day’ and ‘night’ are the
water and he is also found in an co-effects of the same cause i.e. the rota-
intoxicated mood. tion of the earth on its own axis.
By applying the Method of Agreement Thus, we can say that the Method of
we find that water is the cause of Agreement cannot precisely distinguish
intoxication. But we know it well that causation from co-effects and co-
water can not be the cause of some one’s existence.
intoxicated mood. Only the diverse things  The Method of Difference :
used with water like wine, whisky, brandy The Method of Difference is stated by
etc are the causes of the said occurence. Mill as follows :
 Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 81

‘‘If an instance in which the phenom- ∴ ‘F’ is the cause of the ‘f’
enon under investigation occurs, and an In this example two instances are
instance in which it does not occur, have taken, where one is positive and the other
every circumstance in common save one, is negative instance. In these two in-
that one occuring only in the former; the stances, other than one circumstance i.e.
circumstance in which alone the two in- ‘F’ and ‘f’ in antecedent and consequent
stances differ is the effect, or the cause, or respectively, all the other circumstances
an indispensable part of the cause of the are same and identical. In the positive in-
phenomenon.’’ stance along with other circumstances ‘F’
The analysis of the Method of and ‘f’ are present. In the negative instance
Difference reveals the following points– other than ‘F’ and ‘f’ all the other circum-
(a) In this method two instances are stances are present. Therefore, we can
collected. Of these two instances one is conclude that ‘F’ is the cause of ‘f’.
positive instance, while the other instance Concrete example :
is negative. Here, we find that in the posi- Suppose a bell is rung in a jar filled
tive instance the phenomenon under in- with air. Then the sound of the bell will
vestigation is present and in the negative be heard. On the otherhand, if the bell is
instance the phenomenon under investi- rung in a vacuum no sound will be heard.
gation is absent. This means, the presence of air is the cause
(b) The two instances have their own of hearing sound.
definite nature. These instances differ in
respect of the presence of a circumstance Forms of Method of Difference :
in the positive instance and absence of the The method of Difference is found in
circumstance in the negative instance. In two forms. According to the first form of
all other respects, these two instances are it, the positive instance is stated first and
same. the negative instance is stated next. In such
(c) The differing circusmstance is the case, in the negative instance an anteced-
cause or effect or the indispensable part ent circumstance which is present in the
of the cause of the phenomenon under in- positive instance is eliminated. As such, a
vestigation. circumstance is seen to be absent in the
consequent.
For example :
Symbolic example : For example:
Instances Antecedents Consequents
No. of Antecedents Consequents
instances Positive ABC abc
1st Positive ABCEF abcef Negative BC bc
2nd Negative ABCE abce ∴ ‘A’ is the cause of ‘a’
82 Logic and Philosophy

According to the second form, the left out antecedent cannot be the cause or
negative instance is stated first and the the part of the cause. And if with the
positive instance is stated next. In such elimination of the antecedent, the
case, in the positive instance a circum- consequent is also eliminated then that part
stance is added to the antecedents and must be the cause or the part of the cause.
necessarily a circumstance has also been The Method of Difference is the
added to the consequent. Method of Experiment :
For example : The Method of Difference essentially
Instances Antecedents Consequents depends on experiment. Therefore, Mill
Negative BC bc called this method as the method of
Experiment. In the Method of Difference
Positive ABC abc we need two instances. Of these two
∴ ‘A’ and ‘a’ are causally connected. instances, one is positive instance while
the other is negative instance. This means
The Method of Difference is called by that in the positive instance, the
this name because in this method two in- phenomenon under investigation is found
stances are compared and we find that to be present and in the negative instance
they differ only in one respect. It is to be the phenomenon under investigation is
noted that there should be difference only found to be asbent.
in one circumstance between the two in- The two instances should be same in
stances. Therefore, logicians like Mellone, all circumstances excluding one
Coffey etc called this method as the circumstance. Simple observation can not
‘‘Method of Single Difference’’. furnish the instances of this special kind.
Canon of Elimination used in this It is possible only by means of experiment.
method : Because, in experiment one can precisely
The canon of Elimination which is used and correctly analyse the data of positive
in the Method of Difference is– and negative instances in an artificial
‘‘When an antecedent can not be left condition. Therefore, the Method of
out without the consequent disappearing, Difference is called the Method of
such antecedent must be the cause or a Experiment.
part of the cause.’’ Again though this method is pre-
We know that cause is antecedent and eminently a method of experiment, there
effect is consequent. Cause is invariably is scope of applying observation in this
present as antecedent to the effect. If an method. But a careless application of
antecedent is eliminated and observation in the Method of Difference
simultaneously the consequent does not may lead to the fallacy of ‘post hoc ergo
disappear then we are to conclude that the propter hoc’.
 Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 83

Advantages of the Method of the Method of Difference. The following

Difference : are some of the disadvantages of the
According to Mill, the Method of Method of Difference–
Difference is the best method of all the 1. The application of the Method of
methods of experimental enquiry. As it is Difference is very troublesome. In this
a method of experiment, therefore all the method two instances are required, where
advantages of the method of experiment one is positive and other is negative. In
these two instances other than one circum-
are present in this method. Besides, the
stance, in all other circumstances there
other advantages of the Method of
should be agreement. It is considerably a
Difference are as follows–
difficult task to collect such instances
1. The application of the Method of which are regulated by experiment.
Difference is very simple. It is because in 2. As it is primarily a method of ex-
order to find the cause effect relation, only periment, therefore we can pass from
two instances are required. These two in- cause to effect but can not pass from ef-
stances are sufficient for determining the fect to cause in this method.
cause effect relation. 3. The Method of Difference is not to-
2. The Method of Difference can lead tally free from the difficulties arising out
to certain conclusion because it is pre- of the plurality of causes. Here we can
eminently a method of experiment. In this prove that a particular event is the cause
method we can prove causal cannection. of a particular effect. But from it we can
Therefore, it is considered as the best not prove that the said cause is the only
method of experimental enquiry. cause of the effect. In other cases, some
3. In the other methods of experimen- other event may be proved as the cause.
tal enquiry also if experiment can be ap- Therefore, we can say that the Method of
plied then the Method of Difference can Difference can prove a cause but not the
function effectively. For example, the only cause.
Method of Agreement that yeilds us the 4. The Method of Difference can not
idea of cause effect relation can also be distinguish between the cause and a
condition. In the application of the Method
verified and proved by the Method of
of Difference it is seen that a particular
Difference.
element takes a leading role in functioning
Disadvantages of the Method of Dif- the effect. But that particular element can
ference : not be considered as the whole cause of
The Method of Difference is basically the effect. For example, a dish can not be
a method of experiment. Therefore, all the tasty without the adequate quantity of salt.
limitations of experiment are involved in But the adequate quantity of salt is just
84 Logic and Philosophy

one of the conditions of a tasty dish. Other 2. Secondly, of these two sets of
conditions like requisite quantity of spices, instances, one set consists of positive
cooking in required heat, the appetite of instances while the other consists of
the eater etc. are also indispensable negative instances. Only one circumstance
components of the cause. is common in the set of positive instances
5. A careless application of the Method in which the phenomenon under
of Difference may lead to the fallacy of investigation is present. Again, in the set
post hoc ergo propter hoc or the fallacy of negative instances in which the
of taking any immediate antecedent to be phenomenon under investigation is absent,
the cause. that common circumstance is absent.
6. As the Method of Difference is pri- 3. Finally, the two sets of instances are
marily a method of Experiment, therefore compared and analysed. On the basis of
the scope of the application of this method agreement in respect of presence and in
is very limited. respect of absence, we can conclude that
 The Joint Method of Agreement two things are causally connected.
and Difference: For example :
Mill states the Joint Method of Agree- Symbolic example :
ment and Difference as follows– No. of Set of positive Set of negative
‘‘If two or more instances in which the instances instances instances
phenomenon occurs have only one cir-
1st ABC – abc BCD – bcd
cumstance in common, while two or more
instances in which it does not occur have 2nd ADE – ade DEF – def
nothing in common save the absence of 3rd AFG – afg FGH – fgh
the circumstance, the circumstance in
∴ ‘A’ is the cause of ‘a’
which alone the two sets of instances dif-
In this example, two sets of instances
fer is the effect or the cause or an indis-
are taken. One set is positive while the
pensable part of the cause, of the phenom-
enon’’. other set of instances is negative. In each
If this definition of Joint Method of set three instances are taken. In all the three
Agreement and Difference is analysed, instances of the positive set where the cir-
then we find the following points– cumstance ‘A’ is present in the anteced-
1. Firstly, two sets of instances are col- ent, circumstance ‘a’ is also present in the
lected by observation. There should be consequent. In all the three instances of
two or more than two instances in each the negative set, along with the absence
set. Though this method is basically a of the circumstance ‘A’ in the antecedent,
method of observation there is the scope circumstance ‘a’ is also absent in the con-
of application of experiment. sequent. Therefore, we can conclude that
 Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 85

‘A’ and ‘a’ are causally connected or one the negative instances. By this double
is the indispensable part of the other. method of agreement of absence and
Concrete example : presence, cause-effect relation is
Malaria is present in the places where established. Therefore, it is called ‘‘The
there are anopheles mosquitoes. Again, in Double Method of Agreement’’. Mill
the places where there are no anopheles himself is of the view that this method is
mosquitoes, Malaria is absent. Therefore, not an independent and distinct method
on the basis of this observation we can of proof. This method, according to Mill,
conclude that anopheles mosquito is the is the extension and improvement of the
cause of Malaria. Method of Agreement.
In this example, the presence of Sometimes this method is also called
Malaria along with the presence of ‘‘The Indirect Method of Difference’’,
anopheles mosquito is the positive because the negative instances are
instance. And the absence of Malaria obtained not by experiment, but indirectly
along with the absence of anopheles by showing what would be the result if
mosquito is the negative instance. experiment could be made.
So, on the basis of the agreement of The canons of Elimination used in
the circumstance in the positive instances this method :
and the agreement in absence of the cir- The Joint Method of Agreement and
cumstance in the negative instances, Difference is established on two canons
anopheles mosquito is considered as the of Elimination–
cause of Malaria. Therefore, it is an ex- Firstly : ‘‘Whatever antecedent can be
ample of the Joint Method of Agreement left out without prejudice to
and Difference. the effect, can be no part of
This method is called the Joint Method the cause.’’
of Agreement and Difference because Secondly: ‘‘When an antecedent can not
two sets of instances are taken. Here, one be left out without the
positive set of instances is taken where consequent disappearing,
there is the agreement of one circumstance such antecedent must be the
in all the instances. In the negative set of cause or a part of the cause.’’
instances there is agreement in absence of In the Joint method of Agreement and
that circumstance i.e. in both the anteced- Difference two sets of instances are
ent and consequent the same circumstance collected. Therefore, for the two sets of
is found to be absent. instances two canons of elimination are
In other words, in this method we find used.
‘‘agreement of presence’’ of the positive In this method, for the positive and
instances and ‘‘agreement of absence’’ of negative instances the first and second
86 Logic and Philosophy

canons of elimination are applied 1. The Joint Method of Agreement and

respectively. To sum up these two canons, Difference is primarily a method of ob-
it can be said that, if the cause is present, servation. Therefore, all the demerits of
the effect will also be present and if the observation are found in this method. For
cause is absent the effect will also remain
example, the actual cause may be hidden
absent.
and there is the possibility of taking any
Advantages of the Joint Method of condition as the whole cause of the ef-
Agreement and Difference :
fect. As such in this method there is the
The Joint Method of Agreement and
Difference has the following advantages– possibility of the fallacy of Non-observa-
1. First, as this method is primarily a tion.
method of observation, therefore we can 2. This method is not totally free from
pass from cause to effect and from effect the difficulties arising from insufficient
to cause. Moreover, the cases in which analysis and plurality of causes.
experiment is not possible, there is the 3. The Joint Method of Agreement and
scope for the application of the Joint Difference cannot properly distinguish
Method of Agreement and Difference for causation from co-existence.
determining the causal connection. 4. The application of the Joint Method
2. The Method of Agreement merely
of Agreement and Difference requires
suggests but cannot prove the cause-effect
much labour and time. Though the posi-
relation. The Joint Method of Agreement
and Difference can confirm the cause- tive set of instances can be easily collected,
effect relation very effectively because the it is very tough job to collect the negative
negative set of instances plays a vital role instances.
in it. In the conclusion it can be said that the
3. As there are two sets of instances in possibility of the causal connection be-
this method, it is more or less free from tween two events which is detected by the
the difficulty arising out of the possibility Method of Agreement is confirmed by the
of the plurality of causes. Joint Method of Agreement and Differ-
4. The scope of application of this ence. Yet the conclusion found in this
method is very wide, as it is a method of
method always remain uncertain because
observation.
it is basically a method of observation. But
Disadvantages of the Joint Method
we can say that it is a more reliable method
of Agreement and Difference :
than the Method of Agreement and cer-
The Joint Method of Agreement and
Difference has the following tainly an improvement upon the Method
disadvantages : of Agreement.
 Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 87

 The Method of Concomitant ∴ ‘A’ is the cause of ‘a’

Variation : Concrete example :
Mill states the Method of Concomitant The increase of heat is followed by the
Variation as follows : rise of mercury in the thermometer. Again
‘‘Whatever phenomenon varies in any the decrease of heat is followed by the fall
manner whenever another phenomenon of mercury in the thermometer. Therefore,
varies in some particular manner, is either we can conclude that the increase or de-
a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, crease of heat is the cause of the rise or
or is connected with it through some fact fall of mercury in the thermometer.
of causation’’. (b) Inverse Variation :
If we interprete this definition of Mill, In a variation, if the antecedent
then we find the following points of the increases, the consequent decreases and
Method of Concomitant Variation–– if the antecedent decreases, the
1. Firstly, two phenomena are to be ob- consequent increases, then it is called
served. Inverse Variation.
2. Secondly, we have to analyse the
two phenomena. On analysis, if it is found For example :
that the phenomena vary together, then Symbolic example :
from the experience of their co-variation No. of Antecedent Consequent
it can be concluded that the phenomena instances
are causally connected. 1st A+BC a – bc
Variation may be of two types : 2nd A ++DC a – – dc
(a) Direct Variation 3rd A+++FG a –– – fg
(b) Inverse Variation
∴ ‘A’ is the cause of ‘a’
(a) Direct Variation :
In a variation if the antecedent in- Concrete example :
creases, then the consequent also increases The more is the supply of a commod-
and if the antecedent decreases, the con- ity, the less is the price of that commodity.
sequent also decreases then it is called Similarly the less is the supply of a com-
Direct Variation. modity, the more is the price of that com-
For example : modity. Therefore, the increase or de-
Symbolic example : crease of supply is the cause of rise or fall
No. of Antecedent Consequent in the price of the commodity.
instances These two types of variation show that
1st A 1 BC a 1 bc the Method of Concomitant Variation is
not a new method. It is a modified form
2nd A 2 BC a 2 bc
of the Method of Agreement or the
3rd A 3 BC a 3 bc Method of Difference.
88 Logic and Philosophy

When the accompanying circum- phenomenon goes through periodic

stances are different, then this method is a changes, i.e. alternately increases or
modified form of the Method of Agree- decreases of which tides are the most
ment because the agreeing circumstance obvious example’’.
is found through observation only. When Advantages of the Method of Con-
the accompanying circumstances are the comitant Variation :
same then this method is the modified The advantages of the Method of
form of the Method of Difference. Here Concomitant Variation are as follows :
the circumstance that differs can be found 1. In order to find the causal connection
only through experiment. related to permanent causes like pressure,
Therefore, the Method of Concomitant heat, gravitional force etc., only the
Variation is said to be a modified version Method of Concomitant Variation can
of the Method of Agreement or the effectively be applied.
Method of Difference. 2. While the other methods of
Special Feature of the Method of experimental enquiry are qualitative, the
Method of Concomitant Variation is the
Concomitant variation :
only quantitative method. So, in order to
This method is applicable to those cases
find out the quantitative relation of cause
where complete elimination is not
and effect this method is of great use.
possible. There are certain causes which
3. This method can be used as
cannot be wholly eliminated. These causes
supplementary to other methods.
are called by Mill permanent causes. For
example, heat, gravitation, pressure of Disadvantages of the Method of
Concomitant Variation :
atmosphere etc. are some permanent
The disadvantages and limitations of
causes which can not be totally eliminated
the Method of Concomitant Variation are
but can only be quantitatively measured.
as follows :
In these cases only the Method of
1. This method can not be applied out
Concomitant Variation can be effectively
side the range of our observation. Noticing
employed to find the causal connection the variation of two phenomena is matter
among the natural phenomena. of our observation. But when a variation
Again, in order to determine the causal takes place beyond the range of our
connection by quantitative variation, only observation, then this method cannot be
this method is of great use. Other methods applied. Therefore, it has a limited scope
of experimental enquiry can not function of application.
effectively in such cases. Therefore, 2. The Method of Concomitant
Mellone is of the view that ‘‘A special Variation is applicable to quantitative
case for its application is when the aspect only and not in anyway to
 Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 89

qualitative aspect of any variation. But in that the residue of the complex effect is
certain cases we find that the qualitative the effect of the remaining antecedent.
variation determines the cause-effect For example :
relation. In such cases this method is of Symbolic example :
no use.
Antecedent Consequent
3. This method is a modified form of
the Method of Agreement or the Method ABC abc
of Difference. If it is a modification of the BC bc
Method of Agreement then it is vitiated
∴ ‘A’ is the cause of ‘a’
by the defect of this method for which it
In this example, it is known from
remains probable only. Again, if it is a
modified form of the Method of previous induction that ‘B’ is the cause of
Difference, then it is vitiated by the defect ‘b’ or ‘C’ is the cause of ‘c’. Therefore,
of this method by confining its limit of the remainder ‘A’ will be considered as
application. the cause of ‘a’.
In the conclusion it can be said that Concrete example :
inspite of the above defects the Method A tin containing petrol weighs 30
of Concomitant Variation plays a kilograms. From our previous knowledge
significant role in scientific investigation. it is known that the tin contains 25
 The Method of Residues : kilograms of petrol. By applying the
The Method of Residues is stated by Method of Residues we can conclude that
Mill as follows : the tin weighs 5 kilograms.
‘‘Subduct from any given phenomenon The canon of Elimination used in
such part as is known by previous induc- the Method of Residues :
tion to be the effect of certain antecedents In order to apply the Method of Resi-
and the residue of the phenomenon is the dues the following canon of elimination
effect of the remaining antecedents.’’ is used–
The analysis of this method reveals the ‘‘Nothing is the cause of a phenom-
following points : enon which is known to be the cause of a
1. A complex event or effect is caused different phenomenon’’.
by a group of antecedents. According to the Law of Causation,
2. From previous induction, we know one cause cannot have many effects. One
that certain parts of the complex event are cause can produce one effect only. There-
caused by certain antecedents. fore if something is known as the cause
3. The known parts of the complex of an effect or some part of the event, then
event are to be subtracted from the whole the said cause cannot be the cause of any
complex event and then we can conclude other event.
90 Logic and Philosophy

The Method of Residues is based on 2. The instances of the Method of Resi-

this canon of elimination. dues are collected both by observation and
Advantages of the Method of experiment. It the instances are collected
Residues : by observation then it becomes probable
The advantages of the Method of Resi- only. Again, if the instances are collected
dues are as follows : by experiment then there is the possibility
1. The Method of Residues helps ex- of mistaking a condition for the whole
tensively in any discovery. Specifically in cause.
astronomy and chemical sciences, this 3. The application of this method is
method helps widely to discover many very limited. This method is applicable
new things. only to the homogeneous intermixture of
2. This is the only method for deter- effects. In case of the heterogeneous in-
mining the causal relation between a com- termixture of effects this method cannot
plex cause and a complex effect. It is sig- be applied.
nificant because if we have the knowledge Assessment of Mill's Methods of
of some part of a complex phenomena, Experimental Enquiry
then to find out the knowledge of the re- Mill’s methods of Experimental
maining part this method can function ef- Enquiry occupy a very significant place
fectively. in any research work or in scientific
3. By the Method of Residues we can enquiry. It has great contemporary
pass from cause to the effect and from the relevance for the research of many
effect to the cause. unexplored phenomena.
4. All inductive methods are in one or But Mill’s methods of Experimental
other way, dependent on the Method of Enquiry have certain limitations. Very
Residues. specifically the critics are of the view that,
Disadvantages of the Method of if these methods had been developed
Residues : before the dawn of modern science, say
Inspite of some advantages of the before the publication of Newton’s
Method of Residues, it has certain limita- ‘‘Principia’’ (1687), Mill’s Inductive
tions also– methods would have carried a great
1. The method of Residues cannot ini- significance. But Mill’s work is dated mid
tiate any scientific enquiry, because this 19th century, when scientific development
method requires previous knowledge of reached a far developed stage than that of
the cause or effect for its application. It Mill’s writings.
cannot function as the first step of scien- Mill’s methods are meant for finding
tific enquiry. out the causal connection among the
 Mill’s Methods of Experimental Enquiry 91

natural phenomena. Mill claimed that of these methods, to a large extent,

these methods are capable of determining depends on the efficiency of the person
the cause-effect relation. Long before Mill, who applies them. These methods
themselves are not sufficient. Had they
Key words been sufficient in themselves many
Experimental Method. unexplicated mysteries would have been
Elimination, Phenomenon explored. For example, till date the exact
Circumstance, Causal relation cause of why cancer is caused, could not
be discovered.
Bacon was also of the similar view that
Yet Mill’s Inductive methods have great
these methods can function effectively to suggestive value, for these methods are
find out the cause-effect relation. But a involved with the material truth which is
careful analysis shows that, the success the key of any inductive enquiry.

SUMMARY
The aim of scientific induction is to establish a general real proposition. According
to Mill, there are five methods, which are known as ‘‘Inductive Methods’’ or the
‘‘Methods of Experimental Enquiry’’, which are devised to establish a causal
connection among facts. These five methods are :
(a) The Method of Agreement
(b) The Method of Difference
(c) The Joint method of Agreement and Difference
(d) The Method of Concomitant Variation.
(e) The method of Residues
But it is not an easy task to determine the causal connection among the natural
phenomena. For this, there are four canons of elimination which are positively used
to concentrate on the relevant things and negatively used to eliminate the irrelevant
things involved in the causal connection.
These methods are applied by following diverse norms and as such, they have
different application procedures, different advantages and disadvantages etc. Though
these methods help in many scientific research and general investigation to fulfil in
meeting its end, yet these methods themselves are not sufficient. The skillfulness,
efficiency of the user of these methods, are also of a great concern for the success of
these methods.
92 Logic and Philosophy

PROBABLE QUESTIONS
1. Give brief answer of the following :
(a) How many Experimental methods are recognised by Mill? What are they?
(b) What, according to Mill, are the two principal Experimental Methods?
(c) What is the goal of Mill’s Inductive Methods?
(d) What is meant by the Canon of Elimination?
(e) Is the Method of Residues deductive?
(f) How many instances are required for the method of Difference?
(g) What is ‘‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
(h) Is the conclusion of the Method of Agreement certain?
(i) On which Canon of Elimination is the method of Difference established?
(j) What do you mean by Direct Variation?
2. Give examples :
(a) Inverse variation. (b) Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
(c) The method of Difference. (d) The method of Residues.
(e) Characteristic Imperfection.
3. Write short notes :
(a) The method of Concomitant Variation.
(b) Direct Variation. (c) Canons of elimination.
(d) Practical Imperfection. (e) Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
4. Answer the following–
(a) How many canons of Elimination are there and what are they?
(b) Explain the Method of Agreement with example.
(c) Write three disadvantages of the Method of Agreement by mentioning their
remedies.
(d) What do you mean by the Method of Difference? Why is it called the ‘‘method
of Discovery’’?
(e) Explain the Method of Concomitant Variation with example.
(f) What do you mean by the Method of Residues? Is it a special form of the
Method of Difference.
(g) Explain with suitable example the Joint method of Agreement and
Difference.
(h) Write two advantages and disadvantages of the method of Concomitant
Variation.
(i) ‘‘The method of Difference is basically a method of experiment’ – elaborate.
(j) Is the Method of Residues deductive? Discuss.
 REALISM :
Unit-V
NAIVE AND SCIENTIFIC
After going through this unit you would be able to learn:
 Realism and its kinds.
Contents Philosophy’’, which was published in
Naive Realism 1933. The main theme of Naive Realism
Scientific Realism is that the object of knowledge, along with
its qualities like colour, taste, smell,
In the first year course we studied the extension, length etc. has its existence
nature and the characteristics of Realism. independent of knowing mind. It is called
We did also mention that realism is of four Naive Realism because it is the common
kinds. In this chapter, we will discuss on sense view about the external world in the
Naive or Popular Realism and Scientific most unphilosophical manner.
Realism of John Locke. Naive Realism, is therefore, all about
Naive or Popular Realism : the idea of the external object which an
Naive or Popular Realism is the ordinary man possesses. Therefore R.W.
simplest form of Realism. As one of the Sellers (1912–89) has regarded Naive
Realism as Popular Realism and Natural
types of Realism, the central theme of it is
Realism as well. He says that we obtain
that the object of knowledge is
knowledge as a result of the direct con-
independent of the knower’s mind. The
tact between the object and senses. The
knower of the objects, knows something
nature of the external object is exactly the
directly with all its qualities. The nature
same, the way in which our sense organs
of the known object is exactly similar to
give information about them. Therefore,
the way the knower knows it. There is
sometimes, this form of realism is also
nothing to intervene that functions as the called as Direct Realism.
mediator between the knower and the Naive Realism believes in an external
known object. The object of knowledge world constituted by matter. Any
is exactly reflected before us as like as proposition related to this material world
something is seen in front of a mirror. brings forth the sense experiences of the
Durant Drake (1878–1933), is said to particulars. It is not that these particulars
have used the term Naive Realism for the exist only because we experience them.
first time in his book ''Invitation to They will not cease to exist irrespective
94 Logic and Philosophy

of our perception of them. Therefore, the The significance of Naive realism lies
existence of the external world is in the fact that it tries to give a philosophi-
independent of the knower’s mind. cal basis of the common sense view re-
Following are some of the characteris- garding the nature of the external world.
tics of naive or popular realism : But this form of realism is criticised on a
(i) The object of knowledge is number of grounds :
independent of the knower’s mind. The (i) Naive Realism gives over emphasis
existence of an external object does not on perception. The over emphasis on
depend on the knowledge of it by any perception is the repetition of the mistake
knower. An object will continue to exist commited by the Greek Sophist. All the
with all its qualities with or without any limitations of the perceptual knowledge
interference on it by the knower. occur in this form of realism.
(ii) There is an external world outside (ii) Naive realism cannot explain error.
our mind. illusions. hallucinations etc. For example,
(iii) We obtain knowledge of the ex- to see a snake in a rope, refraction etc.
ternal world by perception. The nature of cannot be explained by naive realism
the external world is exactly same as the (iii) As it depends on perceptual
way a perceptor perceives it. That means knowledge, the universalizability of
an object is that what it appears to be. knowledge is robbed by naive realism.
(iv) The knowledge of the external Individual experiences of qualities are
world is possible because of the qualities relative. Naive realism commits a serious
of the particular objects. The qualities of mistake by giving the individual
the objects are the inherent properties of knowledge a universal status.
them. The diverse qualities of an object (iv) Naive realism refuses to accept the
like colour, taste, smell, extension, length subjective aspect of knowledge. But in the
etc. all are independent of the knower’s knowing process both subjective and
mind. objective aspects have their own role.
(v) The relation between the knower (v) According to Naive Realism, the
and the known is a direct relation. There knowledge of the external world is wholly
is nothing that intervenes our knowing of independent of the knower’s mind. But it
any object. is not correct. The knowledge of the
(vi) The object of our knowledge pro- external world produces idea or concept
duces sensation in us. The sensation of in our mind. Similary, we obtain
an object is similar to everyone. knowledge from the ideas or the concepts.
(vii) Naive realism supports the corre- Thus we can see that naive realism,
spondence theory of truth. though it claims to be the common sense
 Realism : Naive and Scientific 95

view of the external world, is not a good dependent on the mind or the conscious-
philosophical theory. From the point of ness of the knower. As Locke’s theory is
view of philosophical knowledge it is a based on an analysis of the qualities of
very weak theory. the external objects, therefore, sometimes
it is also known as critical realism.
 Scientific Realism :
It is already mentioned that, we can
Scientific realism is a form of realism
know an object only by its qualities.
established by British philosopher John
According to Locke qualities are of two
Locke. The origin of scientific realism has
types :
come with a negative approach by
(a) Primary qualities.
criticising the limitations of naive realism.
(b) Secondary qualities.
As a kind of realism, scientific realism be-
The qualities which are independent of
lieves in the existence of an external world
the knowing mind or the qualities which
independent of the knowing mind. Locke
in his analysis, tries to give a scientific are objective properties of an object are
account of the experience of the external called the primary qualities. For example
world. extension, weight, divisibility, motion etc.
Locke is an empiricist philosopher. On the other hand, the qualities which
Locke in his book ‘‘An Essay Concerning are not independent of the knowing mind
Human Understanding’’, gives a detailed or the qualities which are the subjective
analysis of the nature of knowledge. In properties of an object are called the
this context, Locke analyses the nature of secondary qualities. For example, taste,
the external object and its relation to the colour, smell etc. of an object.
knower. Locke tries to explain the Thus it can be seen that primary
relationship between the knower and the qualities and the secondary qualities are
known object scientifically. That is why not same. Some of the basic distinctions
Locke's version of realism is known as between these two are :
scientific realism. (i) Primary qualities are the inherent
According to this theory of Locke, we properties of an object. They are the
can not know an object directly. We can fundamental qualities of an object in the
have knowledge of an object only by the sense that they are the objective qualities
copy or image or representation of the and the necessary properties of an object.
object. We can know an object by the On the other hand, secondary qualities are
qualities it possesses. But all the qualities not fundamental to an object since they
of an object are not independent of the depend on the knower’s mind.
mind. Some qualities are the inherent (ii) Primary qualities remain
properties of an object, whereas, some are unchanged through all the changes of time
96 Logic and Philosophy

and place. For example, the shape, Some of the main characteristics of
extension etc. of an object remain scientific realism of Locke are :
unchanged in all occassions. But (i) Like the other forms of realism, sci-
secondary qualities may be changed from entific realism also asserts that the object
person to person, from place to place. For of knowledge is independent of the
example, the taste or smell of an object knower’s mind.
may vary from person to person. (ii) We can not know an object directly.
(iii) According to Locke, the external We can know it by its qualities. Primary
objects are the main shelter or the abode qualities are independent of the knower’s
of the primary qualities. On the other hand, mind. On the contrary, secondary quali-
both the external object and the knower’s ties are mind dependent.
mind are the shelter or the abode of the (iii) We can not see an object. We can
secondary qualities. see only the copies or images of the
(iv) Primary qualities reflect the idea objects.
of the mind directly because they are the (iv) The process of knowledge is to-
unchanging properties of something. But tally an independent process. The nature
secondary qualities may appear differently of an object is not affected by this pro-
to different individuals. Locke is of the cess. Only copies or images are affected
view that secondary qualities are some of by this process.
the sensations generated by the primary (v) According to scientific realism
qualities. knowledge is an indirect process. It is in-
(v) Since the primary qualities are direct in the sense that the object of knowl-
objective, therefore they can only edge can not be comprehended by the
determine the original nature of an object. knower. Only the copy or image of an
But secondary qualities are mind object is known by the knower.
dependent. Therefore, they can not (vi) The original nature of an object
determine the exact nature of an object. can be manifested by the primary quali-
Thus Locke, by distinguishing ties only, because they are the unchang-
between primary qualities and secondary ing and objective properties of an object.
qualities, gives a scientific interpretation Thus in the scientific realism of Locke
of the nature of the external objects. He we see that an object remains unknown
does also opine that we can know an and unknowable. Our mind or
object only by the representation or copy consciousness functions like a screen. The
of the object. Therefore Locke’s scientific subject matter of our knowledge is
realism is also regarded as mirrored on this screen and reflected in
Representationalism. the form of ideas. Therefore, knowledge
 Realism : Naive and Scientific 97

can be obtained by the representations of satisfactory. As George Berkeley has

the external objects. Thus the possibility remarked, like the secondary qualities, the
of direct knowledge is ruled out by Locke. primary qualities are also mind dependent.
Therefore, knowledge is an indirect For example, the weight of an object varies
process. from individual to individual.
(iv) Locke’s scientific realism divides the
 Criticism :
world into two parts– objective world and
(i) According to Locke, the knowledge the subjective world. But he fails to engulf
of the external object is unknown and a bridge between these two worlds by his
unknowable. Thus, we can see that Locke vain attempt by the images of the objects.
restricts the limit of knowledge and closes (v) One can experience the downfall
the door of certainty of knowledge of realism in Locke’s philosophy for his
permanently. inclination to idealism in the form of mind
(ii) According to Locke, the dependent secondary qualities.
correspondence of an object to its ideas, Though Locke’s scientific realism has
gives knowledge. If there is no come in for severe criticism, yet in the
correspondence of the object to its ideas epistemological solution of philosophical
then knowledge is proved to be false. But problem it occupies an important place.
Locke is of the view that we can not Very specifically, it succeded in
percieve a thing directly. If it is the case overcoming the mistakes committed by the
then how can we verify whether there is naive realists. Though it is criticised as a
any correspondence between the object blending of realism-idealism, yet indirectly
of knowledge and its ideas? As such this Locke’s inclination to idealism helps to
theory can not distinguish between truth solve many epistemological problems. As
and falsity of knowledge. Kant has rightly said that in the knowledge
(iii) Locke’s distinction between process neither realism nor idealism by
primary and secondary quality is not itself is sufficient

SUMMARY
The central theme of realism is that the object of knowledge is independent of the
knowing mind. But on the basis of the whole or the partial independence of the
object on the knower's mind, realism is divided into four types. Naive or popular
realism is the simplest form of realism. It is also known as natural realism and
commonsense view of the external world. Naive realism says that the nature of an
object is as like as we percieve it. Though it is one of the popular theories among
ordinary man, from the point of view of philosophy it is a very weak theory.
98 Logic and Philosophy

John Locke is the founder of scientific realism. According to Locke, we can not
know an object, but its copies or images. A thing is known by its qualities. Qualities
are of two types– Primary quality and Secondary quality. Primary qualities are the
fundamental qualities as they are unchanging and the objective properties of some-
thing. Secondary qualities are changing mind dependent and subjective.
According to Locke, external objects are unknown and unknowable. His realism
is known by various names such as scientific realism, representationalism etc. We
can see Locke’s inclination to idealism when he says that secondary qualities are
mind dependent. Though Locke could reform the mistakes of the naive realists, yet
his scientific realism is also vehemently criticised. Yet it bears a lot of significance in
the history of epistemology.

PROBABLE QUESTIONS
1. What is naive realism? Write the characteristics of naive realism.
2. What is scientific realism? What are the characteristics of it?
3. Distinguish between primary qualities and secondary qualities.
4. Is Locke’s scientific realism a satisfactory theory? Give reasons.
5. Write short notes :
(a) Naive or Popular Realism
(b) Primary quality
(c) Secondary quality
(d) Representationalism of John Locke
6. Distinguish between naive and scientific realism.
 IDEALISM :
Unit-VI SUBJECTIVE & OBJECTIVE

By studying this unit you will be able to know Idealisim and its kinds.

Contents Already we come to know that

 Subjective Idealisim. knowledge is the relation between the
 Objective Idealism. knower and the known. According to the
Idealists, the object which is independent
Introduction : of the knowing mind can never be known.
Knowledge is the apprehension of the Because the object which is not related to
relation between the knower and the the mind, is impossible to be known. Like
object of knowledge. The knower is the can know like. Hence anything non-
subject of knowledge and the object of mental can not be known. All objects of
knowledge is called as known. The knowledge, therefore, are dependent on
relation which is created between the the knowing mind. This means that there
knower and the known is knowledge. This is nothing independent of the mind and
relation is internal and not external. its ideas. Mind or the self is the ultimate
Regarding this relation between the reality, all objects are mental. Rene
knower and the known a question is Descartes, who is regarded as the father
naturally raised in philopophy- whether of Modern Philosophy, says that things
the object of knowledge is dependent on can be doubted; but the mind or the self
the knowing mind, or it is independent of can not be doubted. Because it is self
which doubts other. His famous saying is
the knowing mind? In this context we find
‘‘Cogito ergo sum’’, I think, therefore I
two theories. Some philosophers hold that
exit; Thus according to the Idealists, mind
the object of knowledge is independent
or self is the Ultimate Reality and objects
of the knowing mind. This view is called
of knowledge depend on mind.
Realism. On the other hand, some Plato, the apostle of great Socrates, is
philosophers hold that the object of generally regarded as the founder of
knowledge is dependent on the knowing Idealism in Western Philosophy.
mind. According to them, objects can not According to him this world and its
exist independently of the knowing mind. objects are contingent. Physical objects
This view is called Idealism and the are regarded by Plato as particulars.
supporters of this view are called Idealists. Particulars are always destructible. Behind
100 Logic and Philosophy

these particulars there are universals or among all monads. He pre-established

concepts. These universals are eternal and harmony among monads in the outset of
not changeable. Universals are spiritual or creation of this universe. Thus, Leibniz
ideal. Plato says that this is the real world, introduced the ‘‘Theory of Pre-established
eternal and permanent. It is beyond of Harmony’’.
change. According to him the sensible Idealism is divided into two types :
world is like a shadow of the spiritual (1) Subjective Idealism,
world. (2) Objective Idealism.
Leibniz also contributes to the Subjective Idealism :
development of idealism. He says that According to Subjective Idealism, only
Reality is eternal, existent and indivisible. ideas can be known or have any reality.
He takes help of Greek Atomic theory to Nature has no objective existence
explain what is indivisible reality. independent of the mind that perceives it.
According to the atomists, if we divide a George Berkeley (who was born in 1685
material object into various parts; at last in Ireland) is known as the first clear cut
we find some particulars which are Subjective idealist in modern period in the
indivisible. These indivisible physical West. He developed the empiricism of
elements are called atoms. But atoms are Locke to its logical consequence in
material, extensive and indivisible Subjective Idealism. According to Locke,
there are two types of qualities of object–
according to the Greek Atomists.
(a) Primary and (b) Secondary. Primary
Therefore, Leibniz says that material atoms
qualities exist in things, independent of
can not be ultimate Reality. He enquires
knowing minds and are not changeable.
into such atoms which are existent like
On the other hand, secondary qualities are
material atoms even then indivisible and dependent on the knowing mind, they do
spiritual. Finally, he finds out that not exist in things and also vary from
conscious as well as ideal atoms are person to person. Berkeley holds that this
Ultimate Realities. These are named as distinction of qualities which is made by
‘‘Monads’’ by Leibniz. These are dynamic Locke is unpsychological. Berkeley
and innumerable. Therefore the theory of propounded his doctrine in his three
Leibniz is known as ‘Pluralistic Idealism.’ books– (1) Essay towards a new theory
According to Leibniz monads are in- of vision (1709), (2) The Principles of
dependent of one another. Then question human knowledge (1710), and (3) Three
arises– how the monads exist in harmony Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous
and order. Leibniz replies this question in (1713). Berkeley’s Subjective Idealism
this way that God is the Highest Monad may be stated thus. Matter is nothing but
 Idealism : Subjective & Objective 101

a cluster of qualities. All qualities, both ideas, there are two characteristics of our
primary and secondary are nothing but sense experience-1) Its necessity and 2)
subjective states or ideas of our mind. orderly coherence. Berkeley illustrates this
Hence, Berkeley argues that the existence point with an example that when in broad
of a thing consists in its being perceived. day light, we open our eyes, it is not in
This is characterised by Berkeley’s our power to choose whether we shall see
slogan: ‘‘Esse est percipii’’ or ‘‘To be is or not, what objects we shall see or not.
to be perceived or to perceive’’. It means Sensations are not determined by my will.
that something only exists when it is being But ideas are the effects of human will. It
perceived (seen, felt etc.) by an observing means that our ideas require some cause
subject. beyond our unthinking matter. Berkeley
If all knowledge comes from maintains that it is active substance or
experience, as Locke holds, we know spirit. In this phase Berkeley’s idealism is
nothing except our ideas. Then the subjective through and through. It may be
concept of extramental matter is dogmatic equated with solipsism. Solipsism is the
doctrine which holds that one’ self alone
and superfluous.
exists.
Formulated in these terms Berkeley’s
But such a view creates difficulties in
Idealism may be regarded as subjective
many ways. Firstly when an individual
and psychological. Because the external
does not perceive an object, will it cease
world is appropriated by individual con-
to exist? Secondly it is impossible for any
sciousness. person to perceive all things at a time.
In this position the material world will To solve these problems Berkeley
lose its existence and unity when it is shifted his ground of idealism from the
unperceived by other minds. It is the finite mind to the Infinite Mind. In order
individual subject alone that will determine to maintain continuity and unity of
the external world outside us is neither hot existence of things, Berkeley introduces
nor cold, neither bright nor dark, neither God as the immediate cause of all of our
sweet nor sour, neither fragrant nor foul perceptions, all as permanent ideas in God’s
smelling, neither mobile nor immobile. mind. Now this second phase of idealism
Similarly Locke’s assumption of the reality of Berkeley may be said to be a revival of
of matter as an unknown and Platonic Idealism. In this phase an idea is
unknownable substratum of primary not a phenomenon of a finite mind, but a
qualities is dogmatic and arbitrary real constituent of Divine Mind.
according to Berkeley. There is no Criticism : Realists of the present day
objective existence of bodies outside the have severely criticized Berkeley’s
mind. In addition to the mere existence of subjective idealism–
102 Logic and Philosophy

(1) Moore, a modern realist, points out realism (the view that material objects
that for a sound theory of knowledge exist) but rejects naturalism (according to
distinction must be accepted between which the mind and spiritual values have
object and sensation. emerged from material things). Objective
(2) An object first exists, then it is idealism is better known as absolute
known or perceived. idealism. It is associated with the
(3) For Berkeley, sensible object is philosophy of Hegel.
identical with sensation. But it is not so.
 Objective idealism of Hegel :
Inseparability between sensation and
The objective idealism of Hegel is the
object of sensation, does not prove identity.
culmination of idealism in European
(4) Solipsism is the logical outcome of
philosophy. According to Hegel, the
Berkeley’s doctrine of ‘esse- est percipii.’
ultimate idea is the Ultimate Reality. All
The concept of God as the Infinite
our finite ideas are included at last in the
Perceiver of objects saves Berkeley from
Absolute. The Absolute manifests its
lapsing into solipsism. But rather it proves
consciousness through finite ideas. This
the weakness of his theory. Pure
is the inherent Supreme Reality of this
Subjective Idealism is not acceptable.
world.
Critics of Berkeley have raised the
Objective idealism, as Hegel
question whether Berkeley is to be
formulates it, consists in postulating the
regarded as a Subjective or an Objective
ultimate reality as Absolute Idea or
Idealist. The later phase of Berkeley’s
Thought or Mind. The Absolute Idea is
Idealism seems to have objective
the alpha and omega of all that is and is
character. But most critics hold that
known. The relation between the
Berkeley’s idealism cannot be regarded as
Absolute Idea and the world of things and
Objective Idealism.
minds is that the one cannot be without
 Objective Idealism : the other, just as neither of the organs and
According to objective idealism, all the organism can be without the other.
objects are identical with some idea and Hegel’s Absolute Reality is living as
the ideal knowledge is itself the system of well as dynamic. It manifests its own
ideas. Unlike the other forms of idealism, being in and through the diversity of this
this is monistic– there is only mind in world. The Absolute is incomplete
which reality is created. Objective idealism without this world. It is inevitable for the
supposes the world to consist of Absolute for the realization of self
exemplifications of universals which have consciousness. Inner conflicts of thoughts
their being independent of the mind. are there. But these are the mysteries of
Objective idealism accepts common sense the Absolute. Conflicts are synthesized and
 Idealism : Subjective & Objective 103

harmonized in the bosom of the Absolute. audience rather than academia. Soren
‘Thought and Reality are at bottom Kierkegaard argued against the famous
identical’ according to Hegel. This is dictum of Hegel, that‘What is rational is
Hegel’s famous contention in his thought. actual, and what is actual is rational,’ that
Thus the manifestation of the Absolute it can not be so for any individual,
through the finite is revealed as more because both reality and humans are
luminous and more beautiful. Hegel’s incomplete. Neitzsche is the first to mount
idealism admits the reality of the world. It a logically serious criticism of idealism
tries to reconcile idealism and realism in his book ‘‘Beyond Good and Evil’’.
recognising the due status of the world. It Despite various criticisms from many
is real manifestation of the Absolute. In other fronts, Idealism retains its strong
Hegel’s view neither the world loses its fascination for many. British philosopher
value nor the Absolute becomes limited. Bradley was a notable follower of
Thus, we find that Idealism is best Hegel’s philosophy of objective idealism.
expressed in Hegel’s objective Idealism. American philosopher Josiah Royce
However, Hegel’s objective idealism described himself as an objective idealist.
also faces criticisms of modern realists. Hegel’s philosophy most closely
G.E. Moore, offers his criticism from the resembles that of Plato and Plotinus.
analytic philosophical framework. None of these three thinkers associates
Bertrand Russell’s The Problems of their idealism with the epistemological
Philosophy, is another critic of this kind thesis that what we know are ‘ideas’ in
although it is mainly written for a general our minds.

SUMMARY
Idealism is a term originating in the concept of ideas in the mind. In philosophy
the term refers to account for all objects in nature and experience as representations
of the mind. Idealism broadly is of two types–
1. Subjective, and
2. Objective.
Subjective idealism holds that only ideas can be known or have any reality. Ber-
keley may be said to be the founder of subjective idealism in the modern period.
Objective idealism holds that all objects are identical with some idea and the ideal
knowledge is itself the system of ideas. It also known as absolute idealism. Its main
advocate is Hegel.
104 Logic and Philosophy

PROBABLE QUESTIONS

1. Define Idealism.
2. Who is the founder of Idealism in western philosophy?
3. Who is the propounder of ‘‘Esse-est-percipii’’?
4. The theory of ‘‘pre-established harmony’’ was propounded by whom?
5. What is subjective Idealism?
6. Write note on Hegel’s objective Idealism.
 Unit-VII ETHICS AND PURUSARTHAS

After reading this chapter you will be able to:

understand what is meant by the terms ‘Ethics’, ‘Ethos’, ‘Moral’, ‘Mores’.
Motive, Intention...realize that Ethics prepares the way for virtuous lives by
enabling men to know and to do what is right... understand the actual meaning of
Purusartha– Dharma, Artha, Ka ma and Moks. a and its importance in human life.

Contents 7.2. The Definition of Ethics :

7.1. Introduction The word ‘Ethics’ is derived from the
Greek word ‘Ethica’. ‘Ethica is also de-
7.2. Definition of Ethics
rived from the word ‘Ethos’. ‘Ethos’ means
7.3. Nature of Ethics.
character, customs, usages or habits.
7.4. Scope of Ethics Ethics is also called Moral philosophy.
7.5. Moral and Non-Moral action. The word ‘Moral’ comes from the Latin
7.6. Analysis of Voluntary Action. word ‘Mores’ which means customs or
7.7. Object of Moral Judgement habits.
7.8. Purusartha– Dharma, Artha, Ethics may be briefly defined as the 'sci-
Ka ma, Moks. a. ence of morality' or as ''the study of right
conduct - or duty.'' It is the science which
7.1. Introduction :
explains the facts of moral life and also in-
Men are rational social beings and so, dicates the course in which human activi-
live with moral values. We have faith in ties are to be directed. It is essentially an
morality and believe in right and wrong, investigation into the notions of good and
good and evil, virtue and vice etc. We get bad, right and wrong and the connected
these ideas from our social environment. notion of duty as applied to conduct.
But normally we do not indulge in rational Ethics is the science of rightness and
reflection on the nature of right and wrongness of conduct. But conduct is the
wrong. But Ethics is the science of exponent of character. The character of a
reflective morality. It converts our moral person finds its expression in and through
his conduct. Character is the inner
faith into a rational insight. It investigates
counterpart of conduct. Hence, Ethics
the nature and validity of rightness and may also be defined as the science of
wrongness of human conduct with character as expressing itself in right or
reference to the ideal of the Highest Good. wrong conduct or action.
106 Logic and Philosophy

The notions of right and wrong, good Normative sciences seek to determine
and bad are meaningless without any ref- Norms, Ideals, Standards. There are three
erence to the idea of Ultimate end or High- Ideals of human life viz., Truth, Beauty
est Good. Thus, ethics is sometimes de- and Good. These are the supreme values
fined as the ‘science of the Highest Good’. in human experience. Truth is the ideal
Mackenzie defines Ethics as ‘the study of of knowledge. Good is the ideal of will.
what is right or good in human conduct’ Beauty is the ideal of feeling. Ethics is
or ‘the science of the ideal involved in the science of Good.
human life.’ The ideal involved in human
life includes ‘Truth’, ‘Good’, and Ethics in not a practical science
‘Beauty’. Ethics is the Science of Moral A science teaches us to know, and
Good of man. an art to do. But a practical science
teaches us to know how to do. It lies
7.3. The Nature of Ethics midway between science and art. A
Ethics is a Normative Science. Ethics practical science is concerned with
is a science which is systematic knowl- means for the realization of a definite
edge. It is a science because it depends upon end. For example, medical science is a
observation, classification and explanation practical science, because it does not seek
of human conduct with reference to an to determine the ideal of health but
ideal. It deals with human conduct together
points to the means by which one may
with the inner volitions and their motives
be healthy. In this sense, Ethics cannot
systematically.
be regarded as a practical science. Eth-
But Ethics is not a positive science. It
ics merely tries to ascertain the moral
is not concerned with the nature, origin
and growth of human conduct. It does not ideal, but does not lay down rules or
explain human actions by means of certain means for the attainment of it. It does
laws. It is not concerned with conduct as not teach us how to live a moral life.
a fact. It is concerned with judgement upon The term ‘practical’ as applied to Eth-
conduct, its rightness or wrongness. Ethics ics, has been criticised by Mackenzie.
is not concerned with human conduct as He says that Ethics, though a normative
it is but as it ought to be. It is not concerned science, is not to be regarded as a prac-
with judgement of fact, but with tical science. It gives us a knowledge of
judgement of value. Judgements of facts the guiding principles of life, but does
are judgements of what is. Judgements of not tell us how to apply them. It is not
value are judgements of what ought to be. concerned with the means to the end or
Thus, Ethics in not a positive science, but goal. It tells us what the virtue is, but it
a normative science. cannot make us a saint.
 Ethics and Purusarthas 107

Thus Ethics, though a normative realization. So, ascertainment of moral

science, is not a practical science. But the ideal or ultimate end is the subject matter
study of Ethics has a bearing on our moral of Ethics.
life. Its study definitely affects our 3. The consciousness of right and
behaviour, acts and character, but we wrong is accompanied by the
cannot thereby call it practical science. consciousness of 'oughtness', 'duty' or
Ethics is a theory of morality and theory moral-obligation. When we perceive
is bound to act on practice. It influences something to be right, we feel under moral
our practice. But this does not make Ethics obligation to do it. When we perceive
a practical science. something to be wrong, we feel under
moral obligation not to do it. Ethics,
7.4. Scope of Ethics :
therefore, has to account for this sense of
The scope of Ethics is the range of its duty or moral obligation.
subject matter. We may point out here the 4. Our right actions have merit and our
more important problems with which Eth- wrong actions have demerit. Ethics en-
ics deals. quires into the criterion of merit and de-
1. Ethics is primarily concerned with merit. It tries to find out what makes an
the moral attributes of rightness and action meritorious. Merit and demerit are
wrongness of human actions. Here called deserts. They are investigated by
actions mean voluntary actions and Ethics.
habitual actions. Ethics, therefore, 5. Ethics deals with moral judgement
discusses the nature of voluntary actions, which leads to the questions as to which
the distinction between voluntary and non- is the real subject of moral judgement. It
voluntary actions and other related topics has to enquire what should be the object
like desire, motive, intention etc. of moral judgement and what is the na-
2. The most important question with ture of the moral judgement.
regard to moral judgement is that of the 6. Every science has certain
moral standard by which we judge fundamental postulates. Personality,
actions. The question of moral standard Reason, Freedom of will are the postulates
is intimately related to the question of the of Ethics. Ethics, therefore, concerns itself
ultimate end or the highest good. Different with the discussion of these postulates.
thinkers have laid down different moral 7. Ethics discusses the nature of hu-
ideals. According to some it is a Law. To man freedom. We are responsible for our
some others it is pleasure or happiness; to own actions. Ethics, therefore, enquires
some it is duty for duty’s sake. According into the nature of responsibility. Criminals
to some others again it is perfection or self- are responsible for their crimes. So they
108 Logic and Philosophy

ought to be punished. Ethics gives the meta-ethics was introduced in Ethics by

moral justification for punishment. the logical positivists. According to them
8. Ethics determines the nature and it is a section of ethics which elaborated
kinds of rights, duties and virtues deter- the problems of the epistemological and
mined by the ultimate moral standard. Vir- logical nature of ethics in terms of
tue and vice come within its scope. language. Meta-ethics does not propound
9. Besides, Ethics deals with moral any moral principles. It consists entirely of
sentiment. Moral sentiment means the
philosophical analysis. Thus, the revival of
feelings arising in the mind in connection
philosophical interest in the working of
with moral ideals and judgements. The
language has brought about a profound
questions like nature and origin of moral
sentiment and its relation to moral change in the field of meta-ethics.
judgement are discussed in Ethics. Though Ethics has a province of its
10. The main moral words we use in own, yet it is not entirely divorced from
Ethics are good, bad, right, wrong etc. The all other departments of study. It has indi-
field of enquiry that considers the meaning rectly to treat of several problems which
and inter-relations of meaning of ethical are psychological, philosophical, socio-
words is called meta-ethics. The term logical and political in nature.

Psychological Philosophical

Problem Problem
Ethics
indirectly
related to
Sociological Political
Problem Problem
The psychological problems are The political problem is that of the re-
those of the nature of voluntary actions, lation of the individual to the state, the ethi-
springs of actions, relation between de- cal basis and moral functions of the state.
sire and pleasure.
The philosophical problems are those
7.5. Moral and Non-Moral Actions:
of the nature of human personality, free- Moral actions are those actions in
dom of the will, immortality of the soul, which moral quality i.e., rightness or
God, man's place in the universe. wrongness is present. Non-moral actions
The sociological problem is that of the are those actions that are devoid of moral
relation of the individual to the society. quality.
 Ethics and Purusarthas 109

All actions are not objects of moral 3. Reflex action – i.e., automatic response
judgement. Only voluntary and habitual to sensory stimulation from without.
actions are objects of moral judgement. 4. Instinctive actions : Instinctive ten-
By a voluntary action we mean an action dencies are found most explicitly in lower
that is performed by a rational agent with animals – in seeking food, in self-defence,
desire, pre-vision and choice of ends and attack of enemies etc.
means. Therefore, they are objects of 5. Imitative actions– Imitative move-
moral judgement. Habits are the results of ments seen in children and many animals.
repeated voluntary actions. They are also Moreover Ideo-motor actions, acciden-
objects of moral judgement. tal actions, actions of children and insane
Non-voluntary actions are non-moral. persons, actions of idiots and actions un-
Following classes of actions which are der hypnotic suggestion are devoid of
non-voluntary are non-moral. These ac- moral quality. They, therefore, are not
tions are outside the moral sphere and are objects of moral judgement. They cannot
not objects of moral judgement. be characterised as right or wrong.
1. Actions of inanimate things. For We come, then to a conclusion that vol-
example, hurricanes, floods etc. untary actions and habitual actions are
2. Spontaneous or random actions – i.e., moral actions. The following table shows

 
  
actions that are the results of spontaneous the 
different classes of Moral and Non-
outflow of energy from never centres. moral actions.

Table- 1
Voluntary Action  Habitual Action
 
Moral Action 
Table- 2
Spontaneous Reflex Instinctive Imitative
Acts Acts Acts 
Acts
 
 
 

 
 
 
Acts of Acts under
   
inanimate Non-moral Action 
hypnotic



things  suggestion


Ideo-motor Accidental Acts of Acts of
Acts Acts children insane person
110 Logic and Philosophy

7.6. Analysis of Voluntary Action : the mind a competition, rivalry or conflict

A Voluntary action has three stages, between the different motives and desires.
viz., 1. The mental stage, 2. Bodily stage, (e) Deliberation : When there is a
3. External stage of consequences. conflict of motives, the self arrests action
1. Mental Stage: (a) The spring of and deliberates upon the merits and
action: Every voluntary action springs out demerits of the different courses of action
of some want or need. This feeling of suggested by different motives. The self
want may be actual or ideal. The feeling weighs them in the balance and considers
of want is always painful. But it is usu- the pros and cons. This is called
ally mingled with pleasure which arises deliberation.
(f) Decision or choice : After
from the anticipation of satisfaction of the
deliberation, the self chooses a particular
want in future.
motive and identifies itself with it. It chooses
(b) End or Motive: The feeling of want
a particular course of action and rejects the
leads the rational agent to think out some
rest. This act of selection of one motive to
appropriate object which is necessary to
the exclusion of others is called choice or
relieve the want. The object itself to re-
decision.
move the want, is said to be the end of the
2. Organic or Bodily Stage : Next the
action. The idea or thought of the object action passes into the stage of organic
which excites the state of desire for its at- work and muscular movements necessary
tainment is called the motive. for realising the end.
(c) Desire : The spring of action or the 3. Final Stage of Completion or
feeling of want is converted into a desire. External stage of consequences : The
Desire is a craving to satisfy a feeling of bodily action produces changes in the
want by attaining its proper object. In de- external world. These changes are called
sire there is the idea of the object or end consequences. They include the
or motive which will satisfy the feeling of following :
want. There is also the idea of the means 1. Realisation of the chosen end or
for realising the end. motive,
(d) Conflict of Desires: In a complex 2. Realisation of the chosen means,
action many wants demand satisfaction. 3. Certain foreseen consequences, and
If one is satisfied, the other has to be 4. Certain unforeseen, accidental con-
rejected altogether. Thus, there arises in sequences.
ACTIVITY
1. How far do our habitual actions come under the scope of moral judgement?
2. What is meant by conflict of desires? Can such a conflict be transcended?
 Ethics and Purusarthas 111

Voluntary Action
3 stages of voluntary Actoin
  

 
 
Mental Bodily External












Spring of End or Desire Conflict Deliberation Decision

action motive of desires

7.7. Object of Moral Judgement : judgement? Which of them determines its

We have seen before that voluntary moral quality? When there is a harmony
actions and habitual actions are objects of between the inner motive and the outer
moral judgement. We also know that ev- consequence, both are objects of moral
ery complete voluntary action involves in- judgement. Motive and consequence are
ternal and external factors. It consists of not really opposed to each other. The con-
three main stages – sequence is the outer manifestation of the
(1) The mental stage of spring of ac- inner motive.
tion, motive, intention, desire, deliberation, But sometimes it is found that the mo-
choice and resolution. tive is good, but the consequence turns
(2) Bodily stage. out to be bad. For example, a skillful sur-
(3) The external stage of conse- geon performs an operation most carefully
quences. in order to cure a patient, but the patient
Now, the question arises– on which of dies. The consequence here is bad, but the
the factors of an action does the moral motive is good.
quality depend? Again sometimes the motive is bad, but
(i) Do we judge an Act by its motives the consequence turns out to be good. Thus,
or its consequences? when there is a conflict between the inner
There is a hot controversy between motive and the outer consequence, the moral
quality of an action is determined by the
Hedonists and Intuitionists. The Hedonists
inner motive and not by the consequence.
maintain that the rightness or wrongness
(ii) Is Motive or Intention the object of
of an action depends upon the conse-
Moral Judgement?
quences, while the Intuitionists maintain
We should not judge an action by
that it depends upon the motive.
motive alone. Sometimes the motive is
Is, then, the motive or the consequence
good, but the means employed for the
of a voluntary action the object of moral
attainment of the end are bad. For
112 Logic and Philosophy

example, a merchant adopts unfair means Thus we come to the conclusion that
to gain wealth. His motive is gain which ‘intention’ is the object of moral judge-
is not wrong. But he adopts wrong means. ment. It includes the ‘motive’ or the idea
This makes his action wrong. If an act is of the ‘end’ as well as the idea of the
judged by motive alone, we will thereby
‘means’. An action is good if its intention
assume the dangerous principle that “the
is good. Intention = motive + means +
end justifies the means.” which means that
a good end justifies wicked means. foreseen consequences. In other words,
Therefore, motive alone is not the object an action is right if both the end or motive
of moral judgement. The end never and the means are good; an action is wrong
justifies the means. if either of them is bad.

ACTIVITY
Do you agree with the view that end justifies the means?

SUMMARY
Ethics is the study which deals with human conduct in so far as this conduct may
be considered right or wrong. It is also called Moral philosophy. Morality is the
attempt to discover the nature of the good life and then to live it.
Ethics may be briefly defined as the science of morality or as the right conduct or
duty.
Ethics is a normative science. It is not a positive science. Ethics is not concerned
with human conduct as it is, but as it ought to be.
Ethics is not a practical science. A practical science is concerned with the means
for the realisation of a definite end. But the study of Ethics has a bearing on our
moral life.
The province or scope of Ethics – is the range of its subject matter. Ethics as the
science of morality studies the contents or elements of moral consciousness, viz, (1)
the ideas of rightness and wrongness, (2) of moral obligation and responsibility, (3)
moral standard by which we judge action, (4) of merit and demerit, (5) object of
moral judgement, (6) postulates of morality, (7) of virtue and vice, (8) moral senti-
ments, (9) concept of meta-ethics.
Moral actions are those actions in which moral quality i.e., rightness or wrong-
ness is present. Non-moral actions are devoid of moral quality.
All actions are not objects of moral judgement. Only voluntary and habitual actions
are the objects of moral judgement.
 Ethics and Purusarthas 113

Non-voluntary actions are non moral and are not-objects of moral judgement.
A voluntary action has three stages– mental, bodily and external Mental stage–
spring of action, motive, desire, conflict of desires, deliberation, decision or choice.
Bodily stage – When choice or resolution has been made, it is converted into
bodily action.
External stage – The bodily action produces changes in the external word.
Voluntary actions and habitual actions are the objects of moral judgement.
The moral quality of a voluntary action depends not upon the actual external
consequences or results, but upon the intention. Because it includes the motive or the
idea of the end as well as the idea of the means. Thus, it is intention including motive
that determines the moral quality of an action.

PROBABLE QUESTIONS
1. Answer the following:
(a) What is Ethics?
(b) What is Voluntary Action?
(c) What is habitual Action?
(d) Why is Ethics called a Normative Science?
(e) What are three stages of Voluntary Action?
2. Distinguish between:
(a) Positive Science and Normative Science.
(b) Moral and Non-Moral action.
(c) Motive and Intention.
3. Define:
(a) Ethics (b) Positive Science
(c) Practical Science (d) Normative Science
(e) Moral Science
4. Write short notes on:
(a) Normative Science.
(b) Scope of Ethics.
(c) Conflict of desires.
(d) Mental stage of Voluntary Action.
(e) Non-moral Action.
114 Logic and Philosophy

5. Define Ethics and indicate its scope.

6. Can Ethics be called a practical science?
7. Explain the nature of Ethics.
8. Distinguish between Positive Science and Normative Science.
9. Why is Ethics called a Normative Science?
10. Explain the difference between Moral and Non-moral Action.
11. What is Voluntary Action? Describe the successive stages of Voluntary Action.
12. What is object of moral judgement? Give a reasoned answer.
13. Do you agree with the view that "end justifies the means"?

7.8. Purusarthas– Dharma, Artha, organisation. In our system everything is

-
Kama, Moks.a. done in the name of dharma. The society
Introduction : The Hindu social does not tolerate anything which is based
organisation is regulated by certain spiri- on a-dharma.
tual principles. According to Hindu phi- Dharma is the code of right action.
losophy, the ultimate aim of human life is Dharma implies the laws or principles on
to attain Moks.a. But it is only possible which society is based. Once this righteous
when there is proper management of ac- conduct is developed, one can try to se-
tivities and conduct. cure the objects of one’s desire. Money
Hence on the one side, we find and satisfaction of desire, therefore, will
Ashrama system and on the other side the not mislead a person.
Varna system. Both the systems function “Dharma, according to the
as an institution which enables individual Mahabharata, is created for the well-be-
to attain purusarthas. ing of all creation. All that is free from
The idea of purusarthas is the fundamen- doing harm to any created being is cer-
tal value system of Indian ethics. Accord- tainly dharma...” Thus dharma protects all.
ing to it, the aim of every person in the It is capable of preserving the universe.
world is to attain the four purusarthas – (i) Thus, in principle, the social implication
-
Dharma, (ii) Artha, (iii) Kama, (iv) Moks.a. of dharma is to regulate human behaviour
Dharma : towards the path of righteousness.
Dharma occupies a very important In other words, Dharma does not mean
place and position in Hindu social a creed or religion. It denotes a mode of
 Ethics and Purusarthas 115

life or a code of conduct. It regulates the unrighteous manner. The Hindu thinkers
work and conduct of a man as a member give more stress on means rather than on
of society. The aim of Dharma is to bring ends. If the means for earning wealth are
the gradual development of a man and to good the ends will be justified. Such a
enable him to reach the goal of human wealth will give prosperity both to the
existence. individual as well as to the society.
Artha (wealth) : Ka–ma :
The next purusartha after Dharma is The third Purusartha is Ka ma. Ka ma
Artha. It has been given an important place has been literally defined as desire. Desire
in Indian culture. Kautilya* has defined is the motivating power of all activities.
Artha in his Arthashastra** as, 'The Among the several aspects of the human
livelihood of human beings is the Artha'. mind, the desire aspect is, according to the
Artha refers to wealth and power. Man Hindu thinkers, significant. The nature of
is unable to conduct his life without the man is largely the nature of his desires.
material means of living, because material Ka ma is the cause of mutual attraction
aspect is as important as any other aspect among different living beings. It is the
of life. Man is not only spirit, he is body basis of creation. It is essential for increase
too. Our body demands certain things. To of race. But it has been insisted by the
satisfy the demands of the body we need Hindu thinkers that Ka ma must be based
bread, clothes, house, items of luxuries at on Dharma. No enjoyment should be
times. We should try to earn money so that aimed at which is anti-social. They
we may satisfy these demands. But the however, make it clear that the urge for
satisfaction of our desires and earning of Ka ma becomes a curse when it does not
wealth must be obtained on the basis of take into consideration the proper time and
our righteous conduct. One must not try place. When time and place is not taken
to fulfil one's wants and desires in an into consideration it can result in evil

* Kautilya or Chanakya (350-283 B. C.) was an adviser to the 1st Mauryan emperor Chandragupta
(340–293 B. C). He has been considered as the pioneer of the field of economics and political
science. Kautilya was the scholar at Takshashila (ancient Indian University) and later the Prime
Minister of Maurya.
** Arthashastra was composed and written by Kautilya. Arthashastra is so comprehensive that
it has left no aspect of social life untouched. In fact, it is an ancient Indian treatise on statecraft
economic policy and military strategy.
116 Logic and Philosophy

consequence and defame. Therefore, it is existence of the self in its natural condition
important in the regulation of social life. as liberation. It consists in absolute
Moks. a : cessation of pain.
.
The whole Hindu social system and The Mimamsa philosophy also
organisation aims at Moksa. It is the desire considers complete destruction of merit
and will of every Hindu that he or she and demerit and absolute extinction of pain
should attain Moks.a, i.e., salvation, when as liberation. The Sankhya considers
the soul rises above all activities of worldly absolute negation of "threefold
sufferings"* as release.According to
life. It then rests in eternal peace and does
Advaita philosophy of Sankara, Moksa . is
not suffer the tortures of life and death.
the realisation of the absolute identity or
This is considered to be the supreme and
oneness of the self with the Highest
ultimate end of human life. It is pure bliss.
Reality, Brahman. Moksa . is liberation of
It is the unity of the Atman with Brahman.
the self from avidya (ignorance).
It is the absolute aim. It is the highest value
The different systems of Indian
of human life. philosophy lay down the means to the
Dharma, Artha, Kama - are the attainment of liberation. The path of
instruments which enable man to attain this knowledge or J~ na namarga, path of Karma
supreme end. The Hindu thinkers, a
or Karmamarga, path of devotion or
therefore, insist on cultivation of these four Bhaktimarga are some of them.
ends of life. This will enable an individual Thus, the philosophical bases of the
to understand the proper significance of Hindu social organization are material as
every value. well as spiritual. Of the four Purusarthas
Thus individual life should begin from almost all have a social basis. K ma is a
righteous conduct and should end in lib- natural tendency in every person. Wealth is
eration. the means of fulfilment of K a ma and other
According to most of the schools of needs and the life system of society. Dharma
Indian philosophy, the success of human implies the laws or principles on which
life lies in the attainment of Moks.a. The society is based. Besides trivargas (K a ma,
ultimate end of Buddha's philosophy is Artha, and Dharma), Moksa . is also
'Nirvana'. Extinction of suffering is called important in human life. In this way, it is
Nirvana. It is a state of perfect peace. The clear that with regard to the aim of life, Indian
-
Nyaya and the Vaisesika look upon the ethics emphasizes an integral approach.
*Three kinds of suffering are– (i) adhyatmika, (2) adhibhautika and (3) adhidaivika. The suffering
due to bodily disorders and mental agitation are of the first kind; those caused by men, beasts, birds,
reptiles are of second kind; and those caused by super-natural agencies, planets, ghosts, demons etc.
are of the third kind .
 Ethics and Purusarthas 117

SUMMARY
 – According to Hindu Dharmashastras the purusarthas are four in number,
– Dharma, Artha, K a ma and Moks.a.
 – Dharma is the code of right action.
 – The term Artha refers to worldly prosperity such as wealth and power.
 – The concept of K a ma refers to enjoyment and the satisfaction of senses.
– Moksa. (liberation) is a state when soul attains purity, and all the miseries,
pains and discomforts of life are destroyed forever. It is the state when our soul
experiences an eternal joy and bliss.
Thus, Indian thinkers have insisted upon a harmony between Dharma, Artha,
K a ma and Moksa.
.

PROBABLE QUESTIONS

1. Answer the following :

(a) What is meant by Purusartha?
(b) What are the four Purusarthas of life?
(c) Explain the meaning of K a ma.
(d) Explain the meaning of Artha.
2. What is Moksa. or Liberation? How do the different systems of Indian
Philosophy conceive its nature?
3. Explain the concept of Dharma.
4. What is the social significance of the concept of Purusartha? Give a reasoned
answer.
 RELIGION : ITS MEANING AND
Unit-VIII
NATURE, RELIGION AND MORALITY
After reading this chapter you will know :
 What is religion?  What is morality?  The relation between religion
and morality.
Contents integrates or harmonises the personality
1. Meaning of religion. of an individual. In religion, the whole of
2. Nature of religion. human being's personality is involved. The
3. Religion and morality. Indian term for the word ‘religion’ is
‘dharma’. ‘Dharma’ is derived from the
Introduction : Sanskrit root ‘dhri’ which means ‘to
Religion is one of the most important sustain’. So, ‘Dharma is that which
aspects of human life. From primitive sustains life. It is the principle which
time onwards, religion has played a sustains human society.
significant role in society. In every age Religion is one of the most important
man has entertained religious beliefs and aspects of human life. In some form or
practices. So, it has been said that man is other it exists it every society whether
inherently religious. Religion is basically primitive or modern. Although it is diffi-
man’s belief in a supernatural power or cult to define religion as it is ever grow-
God on whom human beings depend for ing and dynamic, yet its essential traits
their well-being. In this chapter, we shall may be indicated as follows.
explain the meaning and nature of religion (1) The motives and the driving forces
and its relation to mortality. in religion are the basic human wants and
1. Meaning of Religion : desires– survival, growth, well being, self-
The word ‘Religion’ is derived from realization.
the Latin word ‘religare’ which means (2) Religion involves belief in a su-
bond. Etymologically, religion means a preme power or powers on whom human
bond which unites the human life as well beings depend for their well-being.
as the social life. It is a principle of (3) Religion involves rituals which are
unification and harmonisation. This believed to be ways of winning the favour
unification may be understood in two of God or gods.
senses. In one sense, religion unifies (4) Like all major human activities,
individuals together. In other sense, it religion assumes a social institutional form.
 Religion : Its meaning and nature, religion and morality 119

ACTIVITY :
 The word religion is derived from which word?
 What is the meaning of the word ‘religare’?
 From which Sanskrit root, the word ‘dharma’ is derived?

2. The Nature of Religion : Religion also has an individual and a

The nature of religion may be social aspect. In its individual aspect,
approached in two ways. Firstly we may religion is more or less a matter of
ask : What religion is in itself and secondly individual experience and conviction of
we may explain its inner nature by personal realisation, personal salvation. By
defining its relation to other forms of the social aspect of religion we mean a
behaviour or activities. spirit a devotion to the ideal of social unity
Religion is generally defined as and to all that is essential for its promotion
consisting in a belief in an everliving God and maintenance.
as the Creator, Sustainer and Moral Religion is undeniably a feature of our
Governor of the world together with the personality which is constituted by the
feelings of awe, reverence, trust and love three elements of thinking, feeling and
and the voluntary acts of devotion, willing. But when we consider some of
dedication and worship. Thus, religion the prevalent definitions of religion, we
touches the whole man, the total find that they restrict religion to one or
individuality with all the aspects of life. other of these elements. A critical estimate
All the three elements of human life viz., of these definitions may help us in under-
thinking, feeling and willing are involved standing the nature of religion.
in religion in a characteristic way. Some definitions make religion a
Religion implies man’s belief in God matter of the intellect. For example, Hegel
or gods and his attempts to commune with defined religion as ‘‘the knowledge
Him. Religion has two aspects viz. internal possessed by the finite mind of its nature
and external. The internal aspect refers to as absolute mind.’’ Looking at the matter
the intellectual and emotional elements from the divine side, religion is ‘‘The
present in consciouness i.e., ideas, Divine Spirit’s knowledge of itself through
thoughts and feelings concerning man’s the mediation of the finite spirit.’’ Thus,
relation to God. The external aspect refers for Hegel religion is a form of knowledge,
to the practical activities i.e., rites, the knowledge of the Absolute Idea
ceremonies through which the religious involving the ultimate unity of the finite
feeling is expressed. and the infinite.
120 Logic and Philosophy

It is evident that Hegel’s definition of temporal, a sense of dependence on the

religion is too much intellectual. He puts whole.’’
emphasis on the logical character of the Schliermacher saved religion from
absolute in complete disregard of its barren intellectualism and mere moralism.
conative and volitional aspect. In religion The essence of religion consists in its
we not only have knowledge of God but mystic inwardness as immediate
also try to enter into moral and spiritual awareness of God. But it may be pointed
relationship with certain superhuman out that the element of feeling in religion
power or Reality whom we believe to be cannot be mere feeling. It must have some
the master of our destiny. Religion devoid ideal content and religious feeling cannot
of feeling or devotion or worship and be separated from the idea as to make the
religious practices is nothing more than a former essential and the latter non
barren abstraction. essential.
Besides Hegel, others have also made Mc Taggart defines religon as ‘‘an
religion to consist essentially of belief. For emotion resting on a conviction of har-
example, E.B. Tylor in his minimum mony between ourselves and the universe
definition of religion describes it as ‘‘the at large’’. This definition defines religion
belief in spiritual beings’’. This definition mainly in terms of emotion neglecting the
is not satisfactory as it does not clearly say element of action.
anything about the nature of spiritual Religion has also been defined in terms
beings. Max Muller’s definition of religion of moral will, identifying religion with
as ‘‘the perception or apprehension of the moral consciouness. For example, Kant
Infinite’ is vague. Herbert Spencer defines defined religion as the ‘‘recognition of all
religion as ‘‘A hypothesis supposed to our duties as divine commandments.
render the universe comprehensible’’. According to Mathew Arnold ‘‘Religion
This definition emphasises the intellectual is morality touched with emotion.’’
aspect of religion which is by no means Although religion and morality are closely
the only element of religious conciousness. connected experiences yet they are not to
Others again define religion in terms be indentified. In Kant’s definition of
of feeling or emotion. According to religion there is no room left for the mystic
Schliermacher ‘‘the essence of religion experience of fellowship with God,
consists in feeling i.e. feeling disconnected prayer, reverence and worship which are
from thought on the one hand and moral- characteristics of religious experience.
ity or action on the other. Religion is a Frazer defined religion as ‘‘propitiation or
warm, intimate, immediate awareness of conciliation of powers superior to man
the infinite in the finite, the Eternal in the which are believed to direct and control
 Religion : Its meaning and nature, religion and morality 121

the course of nature and of human life’’. to the active and purposive character of
His definition also emphasises the element religious experience. He identifies
of volition and action in religion. religious consciousness too exclusively
According to Martineau, ‘‘Religion is with feeling and too little with conation.
the belief in an everliving God, that is, in He says, ‘‘Religous experience is
a Divine Mind and Will ruling the universe essentially religious feeling, the feeling
and holding moral relations with which is determined by faith in the
mankind.’’ The defect of this definition is conservation of value.’’ But the fact is that
that it is only applicable to advanced religion is not a mere passive faith in the
religions. conservation of values that already exists.
Attempts have also been made in It is also an experimental search for new
modern times to define religion in terms values. Moreover, Hoffding’s definition
of value. Hoffding defines religion as ignores the intimate and personal relation
‘‘faith in the conservation of values’’. In to a supreme being called God regarded
its inner most essence, religion is not as the source and ground of all values.
concerned with the comprehension but
According to Flint, ‘‘Religion is man’s
with the valuation of existence.
belief in a being or beings mightier than
Hoffding has no doubt pointed out the
himself and inaccessible to his senses but
most important element in religion. Man’s
not indifferent to his sentiments and
religious consciousness certainly implies
actions, with the feelings and practices
a faith in the highest value of life, faith in
which flow from such a belief.’’ This
a good and sympathetic universe which
will somehow back him up in his endea- definition seems to be more or less
vour to realise and conserve his values. satisfactory as it includes all the three
Man realises that his own powers are not elements of religion.
sufficient for realising and conserving The most satisfactory view of the
human good. So, he needs help from nature of Religion :
someone who is more than human power The above discussion makes it clear
if his highest values are to be conserved that neither feeling nor activity nor the
and sustained. This religious faith reaches intellect alone constitutes the true essence
out to an omnipotent, ommniscient power of religion. Against the partial truths of all
working for righteousness. Man believes the above mentioned definitions regarding
that there is ultimate harmony between the nature of religion we should bear in
human values and the nature of reality. mind that religion does not occupy a part
But Hoffding's axiom of the of man’s nature but is a reaction of his
conservation of values fails to do justice whole being to a Supreme Being. Religion
122 Logic and Philosophy

involves a subject, an object and a relation individual, ultimately culminating in

of the subject to the object. On the devotional love of the divine Reality for
subjective side, it includes man’s psychical its own sake. Religious experience is more
functions viz., feeling, will and thought. than a subjective state of consciouness. It
On the objective side, it has reference to a points to a suprasensible world wherein
trans-subjective divine Reality. It further values coincide with Reality. Religion is
involves a living relation of the subject to not a mere belief in a supra-sensible
that trans-subjective objective Reality in Reality as the source of all values. It is
worship, fellowship and service. Such a also the emotional reaction to that ultimate
relation is controlled by a purpose viz., Reality which involves the adjustment of
the conservation and enhancement of one’s whole life so as to bring it into unity
human values both social and the and harmony with such Reality.

ACTIVITY
 Name some major religions of the world.
 Who has defined religion in terms of values?

3. Religion and Morality : The term ‘Morality’ literally means the

Morality is the side of life which is science of customs or habits of men. It is
regarded as nearest to religion. Morality the science of the highest good. Morality
and religion are usually recognised not also means the rules of behaviour which
only among the most influential forces of are admitted at large in a community.
social control but also the most effective Historically, religion and morality have
guides of human behaviour. Both morality been like siamese twins. At the primitive
and religion formulate rules of conduct age, morality and religion were not clearly
within a particular framework of society distinguished and what there was of each
for the highest personal and social good. seems almost identical with the other. In
By religion we generally mean man’s
the ordinary life of an individual morality
belief in a supreme power or God and his
and religion are intimately connected with
attempts to commune with Him. Religion
involves thinking, feeling and willing Dr. each other. But though morality and reli-
Flint has defined religion as ‘‘man’s be- gion generally go together, yet they are
lief in a being or beings mightier than him- not identical.
self and inaccessible to his senses, but not Regarding the relation between
indifferent to his sentiments and actions, religion and morality there is a
with the feelings and practices which flow controversy whether religion precedes
from such belief.’’ morality or morality precedes religion. In
 Religion : Its meaning and nature, religion and morality 123

this connection there are three main views morality is the source of religion. Kant
which are as follows. believes that happiness invariably
I. Religion is the source of morality: accompanies virtue. The complete good
According to Descartes, Locke and is in harmony with happiness. We have a
Paley, it is religion that make morality. conviction that virtue will ultimately lead
God creates morality by his will. What is to happiness and vice to pain. But our
commanded by Him is right and what is experience shows that good people suffer
forbidden by Him is wrong. Acts are right while bad people enjoy themselves. But
or wrong simply because they are com- if the ethical order is to be true, this must
manded or forbidden by Him. Thus, mo- not be so. Thus, Kant holds that there must
rality arises out of religion. be some personal and moral power
But this view may be objected on the behind the world that will ultimately
following grounds. combine virtue with happiness and vice
(i) It deprives God of moral character. with pain. This moral power is God.
It supposes that moral distinctions are Hence, according to Kant, morality is the
dependent on His arbitrary will and are basis of religion.
therefore reversible by Him. But the truth Martineau also holds that morality
is that God is the perfect being and leads to religion. Our conscience or moral
righteousness is an element of His nature. faculty gives us an intuition of right and
What is right or good is in harmony with wrong and of the obligatoriness of right
His nature and what is wrong or bad is conduct. It is obligatory upon us to do what
repugnant to Him. He cannot turn the is right. Obligation means obligation to
right into wrong and the wrong into right some higher authority. I am not the source
for He cannot act against his moral nature. of this moral obligation. If I were so, I
Thus, moral distinctions do not depend could annul my sense of obligation at my
upon his arbitrary will, but upon his moral pleasure. The society or state also cannot
nature. be the source of my moral obligation
(2) Men obey the moral law simply because it can not take cognizance of all
because God is almighty and He will re- my actions, motives and intentions. So,
ward or punish them according as they God who is omniscient and omnipresent
obey or disobey these laws. But acts done must be the ultimate source of moral
out of fear of punishment or in the hope authority to whom obligation is ultimatly
of reward can never have moral merit. due and to whom we are responsible for
II. Morality is the source of religion : our actions. Hence, Martineau holds that
According to Kant and Martineau, moral obligation and responsibility
religion is not the source of morality but necessarily lead to the idea of God.
124 Logic and Philosophy

Further, our conscience or moral gious man should be a morally good man.
faculty provides us with an ideal of perfect If morality appears to be a part of religion,
moral excellence. This ideal of excellence religion in turn is judged by an ethical test.
is realised in God. Thus, according to Thus religion and morality are closely
Martineau, morality gives rise to the belief connected and interdependent. There are
in God as the source of moral authority certain points of similarity between reli-
and as ideally perfect being. gion and morality which are as follows.
III. Religion and morality are Points of similarity :
independent : Belief in God and immortality of the
According to this view, religion and soul are common to religion and morality.
morality are independent of each other. Existence of God and immortality of the
Niether religion rises out of morality nor soul are the fundamental articles of faith
morality rises out of religion. But each in religion. Similarly, immortality of the
springs from a distinct source in the hu- soul and the existence of God are
man mind. Religion arises out of a ‘feel- fundamental postulates of morality. The
ing of dependence’ on power or powers moral ideal is eternally realized in God
higher than man for self-preservation and who is an embodiment of moral perfection.
well being. Morality again, arises from the Again, moral life demands that the soul
idea and aspiration toward perfection of does not perish along with the body.
self. Morality thus springs up in the hu- Points of Dissimilarity :
man mind at a higher stage of its develop- However, closely religion and moral-
ment. Though religion and morality arise ity are connected there are following
independently of each other, yet it is found points of difference between them.
that intellectual and moral developments 1. Religion has its centre in God while
lead to a final synthesis between the two. morality has its centre in man.
The true view seems to be that neither 2. It is conceivable that there may be a
religion precedes morality nor morality purely humanistic morality which con-
precedes religion but both are inter-depen- tains no reference to the supernatural but
dent. Both religion and morality influence religion would lose its essential nature if
each other. Religion reacts upon morality all reference to the supernatural is excluded
and inspires and elevates it. Morality again from it.
reacts on religion and refines and purifies 3. Religion is wider in scope than mo-
it. In normal experience, religion and rality. Morality deals with goodness only
morality interfuse and interpentrate each but religion is more comprehensive as it
other. Moral values are likewise religious includes other values i.e. the Beautiful, the
values. It is rightly believed that the reli- True as well as the Good.
 Religion : Its meaning and nature, religion and morality 125

4. Morality implies progress towards a phase of the spiritual life which points
the Infinite while religion implies progress beyond itself. It raises problems which can
within the Infinite. find their solutions only in religion. Hence,
5. Religion is more characteristically religion is necessary to morality. Similarly,
an emotional experience than morality. morality is neccessary to religion. Moral-
This is the difference that was expressed ity refines and purifies religion. The great
by Mathew Arnold’s definition of religion prophets of all religions have emphasised
as ‘Morality touched by emotion.’ on the ethical qualities of righteousness
6. Morality depends entirely in the and love as attributes of God and of the
conciousness of freedom whereas religion truly religious life.
moves in the opposite sphere of necessity. Thus, we can conclude that religion and
Inspite of these distinctions between morality are closely connected. Religion
religion and morality, we must not ignore without morality is blind superstition and
their deeper unity. They are stages of the morality without religion is incomplete.
developing spiritual life of man who Morality culminates in religion and religion
moves upward to his divine goal. We can finds its expression in morality. Religion
regard morality and religion as respec- and morality are partners in the spiritual
tively a lower and a higher level of hu- enterprise of life. Both religion and moral-
man experience, the lower leading to the ity are indispensable for a complete and
higher. Morality is not self-sufficient; it is integral development of the individual.

ACTIVITY
 What are the three elements involved in religion?
 Who said ''Moral obligation and responsibility lead to the idea of God''?

SUMMARY
 The word ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin word ‘religare’
 ‘Religare’ means bond or to bind.
 The word ‘Dharma’ is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘dhri’ which means to
sustain. ‘Dharma’ is that which sustains life.
 Religion is generally defined as consisting in a belief in an everliving God as the
Creator, Sustainer and Moral Governor of the world together with the feelings
of awe, reverence, trust and love and the voluntary acts of devotion, dedication
and worship.
126 Logic and Philosophy

 There are four main traits or characteristics of religion.

 Different thinkers have given different definitions of religion. Of these, Flint’s
definition is noteworthy. According to him, ''Religion is man’s belief in a being
or beings mightier than himself and inaccessible to his senses but not indifferent
to his sentiments and actions, with the feelings and practices which flow from
such a belief.’’
 There are three main views regarding the relation of religion to morality, whether
religion precedes morality or morality precedes religion.
 According to Descartes, Locke and Paley religion is the source of morality.
 According to Kant and Martineau, morality is the source of religion.
 According to the third view, religion and morality are independent. Neither re-
ligion rises out of morality nor morality rises out of religion.

PROBABLE QUESTIONS

I. Answer briefly :
1. The word religion is derived from which word?
2. What is the meaning of the word ‘religare’?
3. From which Sanskrit root the word ‘Dharma’ is derived?
4. What is religion?
5. What are the three elements involved in religion?
II. Answer the following :
1. What are the characteristics of religion?
2. State Kant’s definition of religion? What are its defects?
3. Write Hegel’s definition of religion what is the basis of his definition?
4. Mention some points of similarity between religion and morality.
5. Mention some points of difference between religion and morality.
6. ‘Religion is the source of morality’. – Discuss.
7. ‘Morality is the source of religion’ – Discuss.
8. Discuss the view that religion and morality are independent.
9. Explain the inter-dependence of religion and morality.