Minto-Logic-ajk*$0#
1,183,183,mat,eng,20211109,20211232,4,William Minto: Logic, Inductive and Deductive 
ama,https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Inductive-Deductive-William-Minto-ebook/dp/B004TPD91E/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8
eng,https://www.amazon.com/review/R2TO7TPKR6236V/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv
William Minto, Late Professor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen 
1915 Logic, Inductive and Deductive 
Contents
1,2,PREFACE.
2,2,INTRODUCTION. 
2,2,I.—THE ORIGIN AND SCOPE OF LOGIC.
7,h,"Bring your thoughts into harmony with authority," was the demand of the Middle Ages. "Bring them into harmony with fact," was the requirement most keenly felt in more recent times. It is in response to this demand that what is commonly but not very happily known as Inductive Logic has been formulated.
8,h,In obedience to custom, I shall follow the now ordinary division of Logic into Deductive and Inductive.
8,d,Inductive Logic=, as we now understand it—the Logic of Observation and Explanation—was first formulated and articulated to a System of Logic by J. S. Mill.
8,d,All knowledge, broadly speaking, comes either from Authority, i.e., by argument from accepted premisses, or from Experience. If it comes from Authority it comes through the medium of words: if
8,h,There is thus no antagonism whatever between the two branches of Logic. They are directed to different ends. The one is supplementary to the other. The one cannot supersede the other.
9,w,Syllogism=
9,w,syllogism /ˈsiləˌjizəm/ I. noun 1. an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs). 2. deductive reasoning as distinct from induction • logic is rules or syllogism. II. derivatives 1. syllogistic /ˌsiləˈjistik / adjective 2. syllogistically /ˌsiləˈjistik(ə)lē / adverb – origin late Middle English: via Old French or Latin from Greek sullogismos, from sullogizesthai, from sun- ‘with’ + logizesthai ‘to reason’
10,b,20211109 =0+10 8% Minto-Logic 183
10,2,II.—LOGIC AS A PREVENTIVE OF ERROR OR FALLACY.—THE INNER SOPHIST.
11,h,Men generally deceive themselves before they deceive others.
12,3,The Bias of Impatient Impulse.
13,3,The Bias of Happy Exercise.
14,3,The Bias of the Feelings.
14,h,Men are inclined to ascribe this human weakness to women. Reasoning from feeling is said to be feminine logic. But it is a human weakness.
14,3,The Bias of Custom.
15,r,This book seems to be for me one of the "Water off a Goose’s Back"
16,2,III.—THE AXIOMS OF DIALECTIC AND OF SYLLOGISM.
20,b,20211111 =10+10 15% Minto-Logic 183
21,1,BOOK I. THE LOGIC OF CONSISTENCY. SYLLOGISM AND DEFINITION.
21,1,PART I. THE ELEMENTS OF PROPOSITIONS. 
21,2,Chapter I. GENERAL NAMES AND ALLIED DISTINCTIONS.
32,2,Chapter II. THE SYLLOGISTIC ANALYSIS OF PROPOSITIONS INTO TERMS. 
32,2,I.—The Bare Analytic Forms.
41,w,grub /ɡrəb/ I. noun 1. the larva of an insect, especially a beetle. 2. a maggot or small caterpillar. 3. ‹informal› food • a popular bar serving excellent grub. II. verb — [no obj.] 1. dig or poke superficially at the earth; dig shallowly in soil • the damage done to pastures by badgers grubbing for worms. 2. [with obj.] — remove (something) from the earth by digging it up • all the vines are grubbed up and the land left
41,i,"Y has not the faculty of flying".
42,2,PART II. DEFINITION. 
42,2,Chapter I. IMPERFECT UNDERSTANDING OF WORDS AND THE REMEDIES THEREFOR.—DIALECTIC.—DEFINITION.
45,r,Applications interesting
45,h,He holds decided opinions for or against this or the other abstraction, freedom, tyranny, revolution, reform, socialism,
The disadvantages of this kind of "abstract" thinking are obvious. The accumulated wisdom of mankind is stored in language. Until we have cleared our conceptions, and penetrated to the full meaning of words, that wisdom is a sealed book to us.
45,3,I.—Verification of the Meaning—Dialectic.
47,d,Buffon's saying, Le style c'est l'homme même
48,3,II.—Principles of Division or Classification and Definition.
48,h,II. In a perfect division, the subdivisions or species are mutually exclusive.
52,h,Bagehot maintained that the constitution of Great Britain was more Republican than that of the United States, but his meaning was not taken except by a few.
53-78,r,Complete abrakadabra, too conceptual without examples, some glimpses behind a fog-curtain, speedreading
53,b,20211112 =20+43 31% Minto-Logic 183
53,2,Chapter II. THE FIVE PREDICABLES.—VERBAL AND REAL PREDICATION.
53,w,predicable /ˈpredəkəb(ə)l/ I. adjective that may be predicated or affirmed. II. noun 1. a thing that is predicable. 2. (usu. predicables) — (in Aristotelian logic) each of the classes to which predicates belong, usually listed as: genus, species, difference, property, and accident. III. derivatives predicability /ˌpredikəˈbilədē / noun – origin mid 16th cent.: from medieval Latin praedicabilis ‘able to be affirmed,’ from Latin praedicare ‘declare’ (see
55,h,When a proposition predicates of a subject something contained in the full notion, concept, or definition of the subject term, it is called Verbal, Analytic, or Explicative: verbal, inasmuch as it merely explains the meaning of a name; explicative for the same reason; analytic, inasmuch as it unties the bundle of attributes held together in the concept and pays out one, or all one by one.
56,h,words category (κατηγορία) and predicament, its Latin translation, have passed into common speech.
56,2,Chapter III. ARISTOTLE'S CATEGORIES.
61,2,Chapter IV. THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT UNIVERSALS. —DIFFICULTIES
63,h,Aristotelian doctrine, Universalia in re, expresses a plain truth.
66,w,geometry, a chiliagon or 1000-gon is a polygon with 1,000 sides. Philosophers commonly refer to chiliagons to illustrate ideas about the nature and ..
66,h,We can understand what a chiliagon means, but we cannot form an image of it in our minds, except in a very confused and imperfect way; whereas we can form a distinct image of a triangle. Mr. Jevons would call the conception of the triangle Intuitive, of the chiliagon Symbolical.
66,2,PART III. THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSITIONS. —OPPOSITION AND IMMEDIATE INFERENCE. 66,2,Chapter I. THEORIES OF PREDICATION.—THEORIES OF JUDGMENT.
68,h,V. That the ultimate subject of every judgment is reality.
69,h,distinctions between Simple Sequence and Causal Sequence, and between Repeated and Occasional Coexistence, are all-important in the Logic of Investigation. But for syllogistic purposes the distinctions have no relevance.
69,2,Chapter II. THE "OPPOSITION" OF PROPOSITIONS.—THE INTERPRETATION OF "NO".
73,2,Chapter III. THE IMPLICATION OF PROPOSITIONS. —IMMEDIATE FORMAL INFERENCE.—EDUCATION.
76,3,Conversion.
77,3,Other Forms of Immediate Inference.
78,b,20211113 =53+25 44% Minto-Logic 183
78,2,Chapter IV. THE COUNTER-IMPLICATION
83,2,PART IV. THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF PROPOSITIONS.—MEDIATE INFERENCE.—SYLLOGISM. 
83,2,Chapter I. THE SYLLOGISM.
85,w,syllogism /ˈsiləˌjizəm/ I. noun 1. an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs).
86,2,Chapter II. FIGURES AND MOODS OF THE SYLLOGISM. 
86,3,I.—The First Figure.
93,2,Chapter III. THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE SYLLOGISTIC MOODS. —THE CANONS OF THE SYLLOGISM.
99,2,Chapter IV. THE ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS INTO SYLLOGISTIC FORMS.
99,h,"No war is long popular: for every war increases taxation; and the popularity of anything that touches the pocket is short-lived".
103,2,Chapter V. ENTHYMEMES.
103,w,enthymeme /ˈenTHəˌmēm/ I. noun [Logic] an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated. – origin mid 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek enthumēma, from enthumeisthai ‘consider,’ from en- ‘within’ + thumos ‘mind.’
105,2,Chapter VI. THE UTILITY OF THE SYLLOGISM.
106,h,Can a fallacy in argument be detected at once? Is common-sense sufficient? Common-sense would require some inspection. How would it proceed? Does common-sense inspect the argument in a lump or piecemeal?
108,2,Chapter VII. CONDITIONAL ARGUMENTS.—HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM, DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM, AND DILEMMA.
109,h,Antecedent does not involve the falsehood of the Consequent. "If the harbour is frozen, the ships cannot come in." If the harbour is not frozen, it does not follow that the ships can come in: they may be excluded by other causes. And so, though they cannot come in, it does not follow that the harbour is frozen.
110,i,rain has fallen, the streets are wet.
112,w,pernicious /pərˈniSHəs/ I. adjective having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way • the pernicious influences of the mass media. II. derivatives 1. perniciously /pərˈniSHəslē / adverb 2. perniciousness /pərˈniSHəsnəs / noun – origin late Middle English: from Latin perniciosus ‘destructive,’ from pernicies ‘ruin,’ based on nex, nec- ‘death.’
113,2,Chapter VIII. FALLACIES IN DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT.—PETITIO PRINCIPII AND IGNORATIO ELENCHI.
113,d,Aristotle divides Fallacies broadly into Verbal Fallacies (παρὰ τὴν λέξιν, in dictione), and Non-Verbal Fallacies ( ἔξω τῆς λέξεως), extra dictionem).
113,d,If a body moves, it must move either where it is or where it is not. But a body cannot move where it is: neither can it move where it is not. Conclusion, it cannot move at all, i.e., Motion is impossible.
116,h,The point that the Sophism undertakes to prove is that Achilles can never overtake a Tortoise once it has a certain start: what it really proves, and proves indisputably, is that he cannot overtake the Tortoise within a certain space or time.
Achilles passes it between the 111th and 112th yards.
117,2,Chapter IX. FORMAL OR ARISTOTELIAN
119,h,Inductive Syllogism. This, that and the other S is P, Major. This, that and the other S is all M, Minor. ... All M is P, Conclusion.
120,1,BOOK II. INDUCTIVE LOGIC, OR THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE. INTRODUCTION.
120,h,The mandate of the Mediæval Spirit was Bring your beliefs into harmony with dogma.
120,h,Theology, a new spirit was roused, the mandate of which was, Bring your beliefs into harmony with facts.
122,h,Experimental Science, the sole mistress of Speculative Science, has three great Prerogatives among other parts of Knowledge. First, she tests by experiment the noblest conclusions of all other sciences. Next, she discovers respecting the notions which other sciences deal with, magnificent truths to which these sciences can by no means attain. Her third dignity is that she by her own power and without respect to other sciences investigates the secret of Nature.
122,h,Francis Bacon, however, went beyond all his predecessors in furnishing an elaborate Method for the interpretation of Nature. his Inductive Method or Novum Organum. he is called the founder of Inductive Philosophy, and because this has created a misapprehension of the methods actually followed by men of science.
123,h,He starts from the principle that the ultimate object of all knowledge is use, practice (scimus ut operemur).
124,h,Bacon, in short, in the practice of induction did not advance an inch beyond Aristotle. Rather he retrograded, inasmuch as he failed to draw so clear a line between the respective spheres of Inductive collection of facts and Explanation.
125,h,Newtonian method, not the Baconian. Newton really stands to the Scientific Method of Explanation as Aristotle stands to the Method of Dialectic and Deduction.
125,h,It was, however, a century and a half later that an attempt was first made to incorporate scientific method with Logic under the name of Induction, and add it as a new wing to the old Aristotelian building. This was the work of John Stuart Mill, whose System of Logic, Deductive and Inductive, was first published in 1843.
129,h,As regards the relation between Deduction and Induction, Mill's chief proposition was the brilliant paradox that all inference is at bottom Inductive, that Deduction is only a partial and accidental stage in a process the whole of which may be called Induction.
132,h,Mill's Inductive Logic as a system of scientific method was a great achievement in organisation, a veritable Novum Organum of knowledge.
133,i,without being a whit the wiser unless
134,h,Leonardo da Vinci, "Theory is the general, Experiments are the soldiers".
134,b,20211114 =78+56 74% Minto-Logic 183
134,2,Chapter I. THE DATA OF EXPERIENCE AS GROUNDS OF INFERENCE OR RATIONAL BELIEF.
140,2,Chapter II. ASCERTAINMENT OF SIMPLE FACTS IN THEIR ORDER.—PERSONAL OBSERVATION.—HEARSAY
140,h,1. Liability to have the attention fastened on special incidents, and so diverted from other parts of the occurrence. 2. Liability to confuse and transpose the sequence of events. 3. Liability to substitute inference for fact.
144,2,Chapter III. ASCERTAINMENT OF FACTS OF CAUSATION.
147,h,causal relations or conditions of which they are the proof are not phenomena, in the meaning of being manifest to the senses, but rather noumena, inasmuch as they are reached by reasoning from what is manifest.
147,w,noumenon /ˈno͞oməˌnän/ I. noun (in Kantian philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes. II. derivatives noumenal /-nəl / adjective – origin late 18th cent.: via German from Greek, literally ‘(something) conceived,’ from noien ‘conceive, apprehend.’
147,r,Deliberate use of causal relationships in personal and political situations, trying to influence. Not treated in this book?
148,h,What we call a cause is not merely antecedent or prior in time to what we call its effect: it is so related to the effect that if it or an equivalent event had not happened the effect would not have happened.
150,2,Chapter IV. METHODS OF OBSERVATION.—SINGLE DIFFERENCE. 
150,2,I.—The Principle of Single Difference.— Mill's "Canon".
155,2,Chapter V. METHODS OF OBSERVATION.—ELIMINATION.—SINGLE AGREEMENT. 
155,2,I.—The Principle of Elimination.
156,w,endemic goitre=Endemic goiter is a type of goitre that is associated with dietary iodine deficiency. Contents. 1 Cause; 2 Prevention; 3 Treatment; 4 References ..
162,h,planet Neptune was discovered. This was in September, 1846: before its actual discovery, Sir John Herschel exulted in the prospect of it in language that strikingly expresses the power of the method. "We see it," he said, "as Columbus saw America from the shores of Spain. Its movements have been felt, trembling along the far-reaching line of our analysis, with a certainty hardly inferior to that of ocular demonstration." 3
166,2,Chapter VI. METHODS OF OBSERVATION.—MINOR METHODS. 
166,2,I.—Concomitant Variations.
167,w,Ripple marks=Ancient wave ripple marks in sandstone
In geology, ripple marks are sedimentary structures (i.e., bedforms of the lower flow regime) and indicate agitation by water (current or waves) or wind.
163,2,Chapter VII. THE METHOD OF EXPLANATION.
171,2,Chapter VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY METHODS OF INVESTIGATION. 
171,2,I.—The Maintenance of Averages.—Supplement to the Method of Difference.
176,2,Chapter IX. PROBABLE INFERENCE TO PARTICULARS—THE MEASUREMENT OF PROBABILITY.
179,2,Chapter X. INFERENCE FROM ANALOGY.
180,END
### 202111151256 4*
#eng I almost dropped this excellent book
Not because of some weaknesses of the book, but because it seemed to operate beyond my capabilities. Soon after the Introduction, I have put in my notes: This book seems to be for me one of the "Water off a Goose’s Back". Luckily I did not drop the book but continued to the bitter end. As a matter of fact, the end was not bitter at all. My perseverance was richly remunerated when the author turned on the inductive part of the work after the endless deductive splitting of the subject matter. 
There is a delicious collection of examples from everyday life to illustrate various aspects of the use of logical thinking and behavior. As well as absence of the same. Of course, the famous example of the running competition of Achilles and the tortoise is treated. Not left unsolved, as usual, but with the solution by mentioning the distance at which Achilles surpasses his rival - between the 111th and 112th yards. This is how the author puts it:
"To prove this is an ignoratio elenchi; what the Sophist undertakes to prove is that Achilles will never overtake it, and he really proves that Achilles passes it between the 111th and 112th yards."
The book starts with the three ancient giants of thinking, Socrates, Platon, and Aristoteles, Aristoteles being presented as the Founding Father of the discipline of logic. Then at two-thirds of the text Francis Bacon is presented as only 2000 years later taking the first step beyond Aristoteles in his famous publication of the Novum Organum (1620): "Francis Bacon, however, went beyond all his predecessors in furnishing an elaborate Method for the interpretation of Nature. his Inductive Method or Novum Organum. He is called the founder of Inductive Philosophy." The next and final big leap was taken by John Stuart Mill, whose 'System of Logic, Deductive and Inductive', was first published in 1843. Thus was completed the foundation of the basic present scientific method of the inductive and deductive research approach. Until that "The mandate of the Mediæval Spirit was Bring your beliefs into harmony with dogma. After that "a new spirit was roused, the mandate of which was, Bring your beliefs into harmony with facts." In my economics lectures in the 1970s, there is an 'Ajksiom' saying something like: economic research is like cutting firewood by continuous sawing to and fro, induction-deduction, induction-deduction... 
The last part of the book is a versatile collection of examples of various applications of this method. In the end, I felt proud to be able of making this remark: 'Deliberate use of causal relationships in personal and political situations, trying to influence. Not treated in this book? Would be a worthy topic for a monograph for this author.' The practical suggestion coming too late considering (and me forgetting) that this excellent book was first published in 1915, thus the author logically having deceased ages ago.
Anyhow, this book well deserves four stars, if not all five instead of my originally aimed one.
#fin Melkein keskeytin tämän erinomaisen kirjan lukemisen
Ei kirjan joidenkin heikkouksien takia, vaan koska se näytti toimivan yli kykyjeni. Pian esittelyn jälkeen olen lisännyt muistiinpanoihini: Tämä kirja näyttää olevan yksi "Vesi hanhen selästä". Onneksi en poistanut kirjaa, vaan jatkoin katkeraan loppuun asti. Itse asiassa loppu ei ollut ollenkaan katkera. Sinnikkyys palkittiin runsain mitoin, kun tekijä siirtyi teoksen induktiiviseen osaan aiheen loputtoman deduktiivisen jakamisen jälkeen.
Siellä on herkullinen kokoelma arjen esimerkkejä havainnollistamaan loogisen ajattelun ja käytöksen eri puolia. Sekä saman puuttumisesta. Tietenkin käsitellään kuuluisaa esimerkkiä Akhilleuksen ja kilpikonnan juoksukilpailusta. Ei jätetty ratkaisematta, kuten tavallista, vaan ratkaisu mainitsee etäisyyden, jolla Akhilleus ohittaa kilpailijansa - 111. ja 112. jaardien välillä. Näin kirjoittaja asian ilmaisee:
"Tämän todistaminen on ignoratio elenchi; Sofisti sitoutuu todistamaan, että Akhilleus ei koskaan ohita sitä, ja hän todella todistaa, että Akhilleus ohittaa sen 111. ja 112. jaardin välillä."
Kirja alkaa kolmella muinaisella ajattelun jättiläisellä, Sokrateella, Platonilla ja Aristoteleksella, ja Aristoteles esitetään logiikan tieteenalan perustaja-isänä. Sitten vasta kahdessa kolmasosassa tekstistä Francis Bacon esitetään vain 2000 vuotta myöhemmin ottavan ensimmäisen askeleen Aristoteleksen jälkeen kuuluisassa Novum Organum -julkaisussaan (1620): "Francis Bacon, however, went beyond all his predecessors in furnishing an elaborate Method for the interpretation of Nature. his Inductive Method or Novum Organum. He is called the founder of Inductive Philosophy." Seuraavan ja viimeisen suuren harppauksen otti John Stuart Mill, jonka 'System of Logic, Deductive and Inductive' julkaistiin ensimmäisen kerran vuonna 1843. Näin saatiin päätökseen nykyisen induktiivisen ja deduktiivisen tutkimuksen tieteellisen perusmenetelmän perusta. Siihen asti "Keskiaikaisen hengen mandaatti oli: Tuo uskomuksesi sopusointuun dogmien kanssa. Sen jälkeen "herätettiin uusi henki, jonka tehtävänä oli: Tuo uskomuksesi sopusointuun tosiasioiden kanssa." Taloustieteen luennoissani 1970-luvulla on "Ajksiooma", sanonta jotakuinkin: taloustutkimus on kuin polttopuun leikkaamista jatkuvalla sahauksella edestakaisin, induktio-deduktio, induktio-deduktio...
Kirjan viimeinen osa on monipuolinen kokoelma esimerkkejä tämän menetelmän erilaisista sovelluksista. Lopulta tunsin ylpeyttä saadessani esittää tämän huomautuksen: "Syy-suhteiden tahallinen käyttö henkilökohtaisissa ja poliittisissa tilanteissa, vaikuttamisen yrittäminen. Ei käsitelty tässä kirjassa? Olisi monografian arvoinen aihe tälle kirjailijalle. Käytännön ehdotus tulee liian myöhään ottaen huomioon (ja minä unohtaen), että tämä erinomainen kirja julkaistiin ensimmäisen kerran vuonna 1915, joten kirjailija on loogisesti kuollut aikoja sitten.
Joka tapauksessa tämä kirja ansaitsee hyvin neljä tähteä, ellei kaikki viisi alunperin aikomani yhden sijaan.
#rus Я чуть не уронил эту прекрасную книгу
Не из-за каких-то слабых мест в книге, а потому, что мне казалось, что она выходит за рамки моих возможностей. Вскоре после вступления я сделал свои записи: эта книга кажется мне одной из «Воды со спины гуся». К счастью, я не уронил книгу, но продолжал до самого горкого конца. На самом деле конец был совсем не горьким. Моя настойчивость была щедро вознаграждена, когда автор включил индуктивную часть работы после бесконечного дедуктивного разбиения предмета.
Существует восхитительная коллекция примеров из повседневной жизни, иллюстрирующих различные аспекты использования логического мышления и поведения. Как и отсутствие такового. Конечно, рассматривается известный пример соревнований по бегу Ахилла и черепахи. Не остался нерешенным, как обычно, но с решением проблемы с указанием расстояния, на котором Ахиллес превосходит своего соперника - между 111-м и 112-м ярдами. Вот как выразился автор:
«Доказывать это - ignoratio elenchi; что софист пытается доказать, так это то, что Ахиллес никогда не догонит его, и он действительно доказывает, что Ахиллес проходит его между 111-м и 112-м ярдами».
Книга начинается с трех древних гигантов мышления: Сократа, Платона и Аристотеля, причем Аристотель представлен как отец-основатель дисциплины логики. Затем, в двух третях текста, Фрэнсис Бэкон представлен как только 2000 лет спустя сделавший первый шаг за пределы Аристотеля в своей знаменитой публикации Novum Organum (1620): «Однако Фрэнсис Бэкон превзошел всех своих предшественников в создании тщательно продуманной книги. Метод интерпретации Природы. Его Индуктивный Метод или Novum Organum. Его называют основателем Индуктивной Философии». Следующий и последний большой скачок был сделан Джоном Стюартом Миллем, чья «Система логики, дедукции и индукции» была впервые опубликована в 1843 году. Таким образом было завершено создание основного современного научного метода индуктивного и дедуктивного исследовательского подхода. До этого «Мандат Средневекового Духа заключался в том, чтобы привести ваши убеждения в соответствие с догмами. После этого« пробудился новый дух, задача которого заключалась в том, чтобы привести ваши убеждения в соответствие с фактами». В моих лекциях по экономике в 1970-х гг. есть «Айксиом», говорящий что-то вроде: экономические исследования подобны рубке дров путем непрерывной распиловки туда-сюда, индукция-вычитание, индукция-вычет ...
Последняя часть книги представляет собой разносторонний сборник примеров различных применений этого метода. В конце концов, я почувствовал гордость за то, что смог сделать следующее замечание: «Умышленное использование причинно-следственных связей в личных и политических ситуациях с целью оказания влияния. Не рассматриваются в этой книге? Это была бы достойная тема для монографии этого автора ». Практическое предложение пришло слишком поздно, учитывая (и я забывая), что эта замечательная книга была впервые опубликована в 1915 году, следовательно, автор, по логике вещей, умер много лет назад.
Как бы то ни было, эта книга заслуживает четырех звезд, если не всех пяти вместо одной, на которую я изначально нацелился.
#swe Jag tappade nästan denna utmärkta bok
Inte på grund av några svagheter i boken, utan för att den verkade fungera bortom min förmåga. Strax efter introduktionen har jag skrivit in mina anteckningar: Den här boken verkar för mig vara en av "Vattnet från en gåsrygg". Som tur var släppte jag inte boken utan fortsatte till det bittra slutet. Faktum är att slutet inte alls var bittert. Min uthållighet fick en rik belöning när författaren slog på den induktiva delen av verket efter den oändliga deduktiva splittringen av ämnet.
Det finns en läcker samling exempel från vardagen för att illustrera olika aspekter av användningen av logiskt tänkande och beteende. Samt frånvaro av detsamma. Naturligtvis behandlas det berömda exemplet på Akilles och sköldpaddans löptävling. Inte lämnat olöst, som vanligt, utan med lösningen genom att nämna det avstånd på vilket Achilles överträffar sin rival - mellan 111:e och 112:e yards. Så här uttrycker författaren det:
"Att bevisa detta är en ignoratio elenchi; vad sofisten åtar sig att bevisa är att Akilles aldrig kommer att gå om den, och han bevisar verkligen att Akilles passerar den mellan 111:e och 112:e yards."
Boken börjar med att de tre forntida tänkandets jättar, Sokrates, Platon och Aristoteles, Aristoteles presenteras som grundaren av disciplinen logik. Sedan presenteras Francis Bacon vid två tredjedelar av texten som bara 2000 år senare tog det första steget bortom Aristoteles i sin berömda publikation av Novum Organum (1620): "Francis Bacon gick dock längre än alla sina föregångare i att tillhandahålla en utarbetad Metod för tolkning av naturen. hans induktiva metod eller Novum Organum. Han kallas grundaren av induktiv philosophy." Nästa och sista stora steg togs av John Stuart Mill, vars 'System of Logic, Deductive and Inductive' publicerades första gången 1843. Därmed fullbordades grunden för den grundläggande nuvarande vetenskapliga metoden för den induktiva och deduktiva forskningsmetoden. Fram till det "Medeltida Andes mandat var Bring your beliefs into harmonie with dogma. Efter det "väcktes en ny ande, vars mandat var, Bring your beliefs into harmonie with facts." I mina ekonomiföreläsningar på 1970-talet, det finns ett "Ajksiom" som säger något i stil med: ekonomisk forskning är som att kapa ved genom kontinuerlig sågning fram och tillbaka, induktion-deduktion, induktion-deduktion...
Den sista delen av boken är en mångsidig samling exempel på olika tillämpningar av denna metod. Till slut kände jag mig stolt över att kunna göra denna kommentar: 'Medveten användning av orsakssamband i personliga och politiska situationer, i försök att påverka. Inte behandlad i den här boken? Skulle vara ett värdigt ämne för en monografi för denna författare.' Det praktiska förslaget kommer för sent med tanke på (som jag glömmer) att denna utmärkta bok publicerades första gången 1915, varför författaren logiskt nog har avlidit för evigheter sedan.
Hur som helst, den här boken förtjänar väl fyra stjärnor, om inte alla fem istället för min ursprungligen siktade ena.
@@@
160,r,or did the author somewhere delimit out this kind of treatment and I just did not notice it. Anyway, deliberate use of cause and effect logic in influencig people's behavior would be a worthy topic for anoher monograph for this author.
***
CONTENTS. 
INTRODUCTION. I. PAGE The Origin and Scope of Logic, 1
II. Logic as a Preventive of Error or Fallacy—The Inner Sophist, 17 
III. The Axioms of Dialectic and of Syllogism, 29 
BOOK I. THE LOGIC OF CONSISTENCY—SYLLOGISM AND DEFINITION. 
PART I. THE ELEMENTS OF PROPOSITIONS. 
Chapter I. General Names and Allied Distinctions, 43 
Chapter II. The Syllogistic Analysis of Proposition, into Terms.
(1) The Bare Analytic Forms.
(2) The Practice of Syllogistic Analysis.
(3) Some Technical Difficulties, 62 
PART II. DEFINITION. 
Chapter I. (1) Imperfect Understanding of Words.
(2) Verification of the Meaning—Dialectic.
(3) Fixation of the Meaning—Division or Classification, Definition, Naming, 82 
Chapter II. The Five Predicables—Verbal and Real Predication, 105 
Chapter III. Aristotle's Categories, 112 
Chapter IV. The Controversy about Universals—Difficulties concerning the
Relation of General Names to Thought and to Reality,
PART III. THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
Chapter I. Theories of Predication—Theories of Judgment, 131 
Chapter II. The "Opposition" of Propositions—The Interpretation of "No," 139 
Chapter III. The Implication of Propositions—Immediate Formal Inference—Eduction, 146
Chapter IV. The Counter-Implication of Propositions, 156 
PART IV. THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF PROPOSITIONS. 
Chapter I. The Syllogism, 167 
Chapter II. The Figures and Moods of the Syllogism.
(1) The First Figure.
(2) The Minor Figures and their Reduction to the First.
(3) Sorites, 173
Chapter III. The Demonstration of the Syllogistic Moods—The Canons of the Syllogism, 185 Chapter IV. The Analysis of Arguments into Syllogistic Forms, 196 Chapter V. Enthymemes, 205 Chapter VI. The Utility of the Syllogism, 209
Chapter VII. Conditional Arguments—Hypothetical Syllogism, Disjunctive Syllogism and Dilemma, 215 
Chapter VIII. Fallacies in Deductive Argument—Petitio Principii and Ignoratio Elenchi, 226 Chapter IX. Formal or Aristotelian Induction—Inductive Argument—The Inductive Syllogism, 235
BOOK II. INDUCTIVE LOGIC, OR THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE. Introduction, 243 
Chapter I. The Data of Experience as Grounds of Inference or Rational Belief, 273 
Chapter II. Ascertainment of Simple Facts in their Order—Personal Observation—
Hearsay Evidence—Method of Testing Traditional Evidence, 285
Chapter III. Ascertainment of Facts of Causation.
(1) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. 
(2) Meaning of Cause—Methods of Observation—Mill's Experimental Methods, 295 
Chapter IV. Method of Observation—Single Difference.
(1) The Principle of Single Difference.
(2) Application of the Principle, 308
Chapter V. Methods of Observation—Elimination—Single Agreement.
(1) The Principle of Elimination.
(2) The Principle of Single Agreement.
(3) Mill's "Joint Method of Agreement and Difference," 318 
Chapter VI. Methods of Observation—Minor Methods.
(1) Concomitant Variations.
(2) Single Residue, 329
Chapter VII. The Method of Explanation.
(1) The Four Stages of Orderly Procedure.
(2) Obstacles to Explanation—Plurality of Causes and Intermixture of Effects.
(3) The Proof of a Hypothesis, 334 
Chapter VIII. Supplementary Methods of Investigation.
(1) The Maintenance of Averages—Supplement to the Method of Difference.
(2) The Presumption from Extra-Casual Coincidence,