________________
INFERENCE,
693
The following Text points out the defect in the third argument (put forward by Patrasuimin, in Text 1373, regarding the falling insect');
TEXT (1397).
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION PERCEIVED BETWEEN 'BEING BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FALLING INSECT' AND 'HAYING ITS APPEARANCE
FELT ON THE TOUCH OF THE FALLING INSECT :-(1397)
COMMENTARY.
"There is no distinction perceived',-between the Probans (Premiss) and the Proposition (Conclusion); that is, the Probans is a part of the Proposition itself. In the case in question, what is meant to be proved is the fact of the Pain being due to a particular insect, and the same fact is asserted, in different words, in the Probans (Premias). Hence there is no difference between the Premiss and the Conclusion.-(1397)
The following might be urged -" If the epithet falling is not introduced, And the Probans (Premiss) is stated in the general form because its appearance is felt', then the Premiss cannot be a part of the Conclusion." Answer:
TEXT (1398).
FALLING' MUST BE MADE A QUALIFICATION IN THE PROBANS; OTHERWISE 'INCONCLUSIVENESS (FALSITY) WOULD BE
INEVITABLE.-(1398)
COMMENTARY.
The qualification must be there; otherwise the Premiss would be falsified by reference to the Pain caused by other insects.--(1398)
TEXT (1399).
IF WHAT IS MEANT TO BE PROVED (ASSERTED IN THE CONCLUSION) IS THAT BETWEEN THE TWO (THE PAIN AND THE INSECT) THERE IS THE RELATION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT, WHICH HAS BEEN FORGOTTEN, -THEN THE PROBANS WOULD BE THREEFEATURED, AS THERE WOULD BE A CORROBORATIVE INSTANCE PROVIDED BY PREVIOUS
EXPERIENCE.-(1399)
COMMENTARY
It might be urged that "what is meant to be proved is the relation of Cause and Effect--for the benefit of one who has forgotten it.-ther, in
