Aristotle
inferred that not-animal always goes along with not-man. The fallacy
is solved when this is pointed out. The last inference is only valid
when the terms are inverted; if animal always goes along with man,
not-man will always go along with not-animal.[121]
[Footnote 121: Ibid. xxviii. p. 181, a. 22-30. [Greek: a)na/palin
ga\r ê( a)kolou/thêsis].]
If the sophistical refutation includes more premisses than are
indispensable to the conclusion, the respondent, after having
satisfied himself that this is the fact, will point out the
mal-procedure of the questioner, and will say that he conceded the
superfluous premiss, not because it was in itself probable but,
because it seemed relevant to the debate; while nevertheless the
questioner has made no real or legitimate application of it towards
that object.[122] This is the mode of solution applicable in the case
of the Fallacies coming under the head _Non Causa pro Causâ_.[123]
[Footnote 122: Soph. El. xxix. p. 181, a. 31-35.]
[Footnote 123: Schol. p. 318, a. 36, Br.]
Where the sophistical questioner tries to refute by the _Fallacia
Plurium Interrogationum_ (_i.e._, by putting two or more questions as
one), the respondent should forthwith divide the complex question
into its component simple questions, and make answer accordingly. He
must not give one answer, either affirmative or negative, to that
which is more than one question. Even if he does give one answer, he
may sometimes not involve himself in any contradiction; for it may
happen that the same predicate is truly affirmable, or truly
deniable, of two or more distinct and independent subjects. Often,
however, the contrary is the case: no one true answer, either
affirmative or negative, can be given to one of these complex
questions: the one answer given, whatever it be, must always be
partially false or inconsistent.[124] Suppose two subjects, A and B,
one good, the other bad: if the question be, Whether A and B are good
or bad, it will be equally true to say--Both are good, or, Both are
bad, or, Both are neither good nor bad. There may indeed be other
solutions for this fallacy: Both or All may signify two or more items
taken individually, or taken collectively; but the only sure
precaution is--one answer to one question.[125]
[Footnote 124: Soph. El. xxx. p. 181, a. 38: [Greek: ou)/te plei/ô
kath' e(no\s ou)/te e(\n kata\ pollô=n, a)ll' e(\n kath' e(no\s
phate/on ê)\ a)pophate/on.]]
[Footnote 125: Ibid. b. 6-25.]
Suppose that, instead of aiming at a seeming refutation, the Sophist
tries to convict the respondent of Tautology. The source of this
embarrassment is commonly the fact that a relative term is often used
and conveys clear meaning without its correlate, though the correlate
is always implied and understood. The respondent must avoid this trap
by refusing to grant that the relative has any meaning at all without
its correlate; and by requiring that the correlate shall be
distinctly enunciated along with it. He ought to treat the relative
without its correlate as merely a part of the whole significant
expression--as merely syncategorematic; just as ten is in the
phrase--ten minus one, or as the affirmative word is in a negative
proposition.[126] Thus he will not recognize double as significant by
itself without its correlate half, nor half without its correlate
double; although in common parlance such correlate is often
understood without being formally enunciated.
[Footnote 126: Soph. El. Xxxi. p. 181, b. 26: [Greek: ou) dote/on
tô=n pro/s ti legome/nôn sêmai/nein ti chôrizome/nas kath' au(ta\s
ta\s katêgori/as.]
Mr. Poste observes in his note:--"The sophistic locus of tautology
may be considered as a caricature of a dialectic locus. One fault
which dialectic criticism finds with a definition is the introduction
of superfluous words." He then cites Topic. VI. ii. (p. 141, a. 4,
seq.); but in this passage we find that the repetition of the same
word is declared not to be an argumentative impropriety, so that the
Sophist would gain nothing by driving his opponent into tautology.]
Lastly, another purpose which Aristotle ascribes to the Sophist, is
that of driving the respondent into a Solecism--into some grammatical
or syntactical impropriety, such as, using a noun in the wrong case
or gender, using a pronoun with a different gender or number from the
noun to which it belongs, &c. He points out that the solution of
these verbal puzzles must be different for each particular case; in
general, when thrown into a regular syllogistic form, even the
questioner himself will be found to speak bad Greek. The examples
given by Aristotle do not admit of being translated into a modern
language, so as to preserve the solecism that constitutes their
peculiarity.[127]
[Footnote 127: Soph. El. xxxii. p. 182, a. 7-b. 5.]
After having thus gone through the different artifices ascribed to
the Sophist, and the ways of solving or meeting them, Aristotle
remarks that there are material distinctions between the different
cases which fall under one and the same general head of Sophistical
Paralogism. Some cases there are in which both the fallacy itself,
and the particular point upon which it turns, are obvious and
discernible at first sight. In other cases, again, an ordinary person
does not perceive that there is any fallacy at all; or, if he does
perceive it, he often does not detect the seat of the fallacy, so
that one man will refer the case to one general head, and another, to
a different one.[128] Thus, for example, Fallacies of Equivocation
are perhaps the most frequent and numerous of all fallacies; some of
them are childish and jocular, not really imposing upon any one; but
there are others again in which the double meaning of a word is at
first unnoticed, and is disputed even when pointed out, so that it
can only be brought to light by the most careful and subtle analysis.
This happens especially with terms that are highly abstract and
general: which are treated by many, including even **philosophers
like Parmenides and Zeno, as if they were not equivocal at all, but
univocal.[129] Again, the _Fallaciæ Accidentis_, and the other
classes _Extra Dictionem_, are also often hard to detect. On the
whole, it is often hard to determine, not merely to which of the
classes any case of fallacy belongs, but even whether there is any
fallacy at all--whether the refutation is, or is not, a valid one.[130]
[Footnote 128: Ibid. xxxiii. p. 182, b. 6-12.]
[Footnote 129: Soph. El. xxxiii. p. 182, b. 13-25: [Greek: ô(/sper
ou)=n e)n toi=s para\ tê\n o(mônumi/an, o(/sper dokei= tro/pos
eu)êthe/statos ei)=nai tô=n paralogismô=n, ta\ me\n kai\ toi=s
tuchou=si/n e)sti dê=la--ta\ de\ kai\ tou\s e)mpeirota/tous
phai/netai lantha/nein; sêmei=on de\ tou/tôn o(/ti ma/chontai
polla/kis peri\ o)noma/tôn, oi(=on po/teron tau)to\ sêmai/nei kata\
pa/ntôn to\ o)\n kai\ to\ e(\n ê)\ e(/teron.]]
[Footnote 130: Ibid. b. 27: [Greek: o(moi/ôs de\ kai\ peri\ tou=
sumbebêko/tos kai\ peri\ tô=n a)/llôn e(/kaston, oi( me\n e)/sontai
r(a/|ous i)dei=n oi( de\ chalepô/teroi tô=n lo/gôn; kai\ labei=n e)/n
tini ge/nei, kai\ po/teron e)/legchos ê)\ ou)k e)/legchos, ou)
r(a/|dion o(moi/ôs peri\ pa/ntôn.]]
The pungent arguments in debate are those which bite most keenly, and
create the greatest amount of embarrassment and puzzle.[131] In
dialectical debate a puzzle arises, when the respondent finds that a
correct syllogism has been established against him, and when he does
not at once see which among its premisses he ought to controvert, in
order to overthrow the conclusion. In the eristic or sophistic debate
the puzzle of the respondent is, in what language to enunciate his
propositions so as to keep clear of the subtle objections which will
be brought against him by the questioner.[132] It is these pungent
arguments that most effectually stimulate the mind to investigation.
The most pungent of all is, where the syllogistic premisses are
highly probable, yet where they nevertheless negative a conclusion
which is also highly probable. Here we have an equal antithesis as to
presumptive credibility, between the premisses taken together on one
side and the conclusion on the other.[133] We do not know whether it
is in the premisses only, or in the conclusion, that we are to look
for untruth: the conclusion, though improbable, may yet be true,
while we may find that the true conclusion has been obtained from
untrue premisses; or the conclusion may be both improbable and
untrue, in which case we must look for untruth in one of the
premisses also--either the major or the minor. This is the most
embarrassing position of all. Another, rather less embarrassing, is,
where our thesis will be confuted unless we can show the confuting
conclusion to be untrue, but where each of the premisses on which the
conclusion depends is equally probable, so that we do not at once see
in which of them the cause of its untruth is to be sought. These two
are the most pungent and perplexing argumentative conjunctures of
dialectical debate.
[Footnote 131: Ibid. 32: [Greek: e)/sti de\ drimu\s lo/gos o(/stis
a)porei=n poiei= ma/lista; da/knei ga\r ou(=tos ma/lista.]]
[Footnote 132: Soph. El. xxxiii. p. 182, b. 33: [Greek: a)pori/a d'
e)sti\ dittê/, ê( me\n e)n toi=s sullelogisme/nois, o(/ ti a)ne/lê|
tis tô=n e)rôtêma/tôn, ê( d' e)n toi=s e)ristikoi=s, pô=s ei)/pê| tis
to\ protathe/n.] The difficulty here pointed out, of finding language
not open to some logical objection by an acute Sophist, is
illustrated by what he himself states about the caution required for
guarding his definitions against attack; see De Interpret. vi. p. 17,
a. 34: [Greek: le/gô de\ a)ntikei=sthai tê\n tou= au)tou= kata\ tou=
au)tou=, mê\ o(mônu/môs de/, _kai\ o(/sa a)/lla prosdiorizo/metha
pro\s ta\s sophistika\s e)nochlê/seis_.] What is here meant by
[Greek: sophistikai\ e)nochlê/seis] is expressed elsewhere by [Greek:
pro\s ta\s logika\s duscherei/as]--Metaphys. [Greek: G]. iii. p.
1005, b. 21; N. i. p. 1087, b. 20. See the Scholia (pp. 112, 651,
Br.) of Ammonius and Alexander upon the above passages of De Interpr.
and Metaphys.]
[Footnote 133: Soph. El. xxxiii. p. 182, b. 37-p. 183, a. 4: [Greek:
e)/sti de\ sullogistiko\s me\n lo/gos drimu/tatos, a)\n e)x o(/ti
ma/lista dokou/ntôn o(/ti ma/lista e)/ndoxon a)nairê=|; ei(=s ga\r
ô)\n o( lo/gos, metatitheme/nês tê=s a)ntipha/seôs, a(/pantas
o(moi/ous e(/xei tou\s sullogismou/s; a)ei\ ga\r e)x e)ndo/xôn
o(moi/ôs e)/ndoxon a)nairê/sei [ê)\ kataskeua/sei]; dio/per a)porei=n
a)nagkai=on. ma/lista me\n ou)=n o( toiou=tos drimu/s, o( e)x i)/sou
to\ sumpe/rasma poiô=n toi=s e)rôtê/masi.] I transcribe this text as
it is given by Bekker, Waitz, Bussemaker, and Mr. Poste. The editions
anterior to Bekker had the additional words [Greek: ê)\
kataskeua/zê|] after [Greek: a)nairê=|] in the fourth line; and M.
Barthélemy St. Hilaire in his translation defends and retains them.
Bekker and the subsequent editors have omitted them, but have
retained the last words [Greek: ê)\ kataskeua/sei] in the seventh
line. To me this seems inconsistent: the words ought either to be
retained in both places or omitted in both. I think they ought to be
omitted in both. I have enclosed them in brackets in the fifth line.
This difficult passage (not well explained by Alexander, Schol. p.
320, b. 9) requires the explanations of Waitz and Mr. Poste. The note
of Mr. Poste is particularly instructive, because he expands in full
(p. 164) the three "similar syllogisms" to which Aristotle here
briefly alludes. The phrase [Greek: metatitheme/nês tê=s
a)ntipha/seôs] is determined by a passage in Analyt. Priora, II.
viii. p. 59, b. 1: it means "employment of the contradictory of the
conclusion, in combination with either one of the premisses, to upset