A COMPARISON OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND ACHIEVEMENT OF ARISTOTLE AND BACON.
I.
IN opposition to the realism of Plato, Aristotle did not regard universals as transcendent of the world of sense, but as immanent in numerically distinct sense-particulars. Knowledge of universals is obtained by νοῦς and arises out of the preliminary observation of sense-particulars. For example, knowledge of the universal or type, 'man,' is obtained by νοῦς and arises out of the preliminary observation of individual men. Again, apprehension by νοῦς of the axioms (universals) of astronomy follows perception of astronomical phenomena. To such intellectual process, distinctly termed induction (ἐπαγωγὴ), and involving an advance from some particulars to a universal, Aristotle ascribes certainty. Νοῦς is the guarantee of truth.[1]
There is a different treatment of induction in An. Prior., II, 23, viz., the Inductive Syllogism. This induction also is termed ἐπαγωγὴ. It is known that:
Man, horse, mule are long-lived.
Man, horse, mule are bileless animals.
Assuming that man, horse, mule exhaust the class of bileless animals, we can formulate this syllogism:
Man, horse, mule are long-lived.
All bileless animals are man, horse, mule.
All bileless animals are long-lived.
With reference to this, Aristotle's own example of the Inductive Syllogism, we assume that, to convert the original minor premise to "All bileless animals are man, horse, mule," Aristotle did not consider it necessary to examine every individual man in the species man, every individual horse in the species horse, etc. Such an exhaustion of instances is impossible, for at any one time they must, in regard to actual observation, be considered to be infinite. Obviously impossible, also, is the observation now of
- ↑ See An. Post. I, 1-3, 18, 31; II, 19.
471
