PART XII. • S C E 9 T I C I S M.

1
I
‘ rated fafFers romething,that which is not,fiifFers * not ; Jgain^ Snow is water congeardjbut water ‘ is black, therefore Snow is black. A nd a great many Inch fooleries gathering together, he knits his Brows, and produceth his Dialed ick^avA with a great deal of gravity, endeavours to fiiews us by Syllogiftick DemonRrations, that fomething is generated, and that fomething is moved, and thk Snow is white, and Chat we have not Horns • when perhaps, if he did only oppofe the evidence j of the contrary to them, it would fufficc to over- j throw their Jhefei by the teftimony of their ; Contraries, whicli are manifeft. Whence a Phi- loropher,to'whom the Argument again 0: Motion j v/as objefted,faid nothing, but walked. And Men, in the ordinary courfe of L.ife, travel by Sea ahd , Land, build Ships and Houfes, and beget Chil- ; dren, never minding the Arguments againfl Mo- i tion and Generation. There is alfo a facete A- 1 pothegm of Eropbilus the Phyfician, ( contem¬ porary with Diodorus^ who introduc’d into his * foolifh Logick many fophiftical Arguments, as | about other things, fo particularly concerning j JVIotion, ) Diodorus having put his Shoulder out ' of joynt, Erophilus coming to fet it, derided him, faying, ‘ Either the Bone dipt out of the place in ‘ which it was,or out of that in which it was not ^ ‘ but neither out of that in which it was, nor out
* of that in which it was not, therefore it is not
* dipt. So as the Sophijl was fain to intreat him to let his Arguments alone, and to betake him- felf to the Cure. For it is fufficient (I conceive) to live experimentally, and inopiniatively, ac¬ cording to common obfervations and adiimpti- onSjfufpending our adent in all dogmaticalSuper- iluities, and efpecially thofe, which are befides the ufe of life. If therefore Dialedick cannot folve thofe Sophifms^ whofe Solution is ufeful ; and of thofe which fome think it doth folve, the Solution is unufeful, Dialedick is of no benefit in folving Sophifms.
Moreover, even from what the Diale&kh themfelves fay, it may be proved, that their Art concerning Sophifms is fupeTfiuous ^ they fay. That they applied themfelves to Dialedick^ not only to learn what may be gathered from it, but propofing to themfelves chiefiy, to know how to judge true and falfe by derrionflrative Reafons. Whence they affirm Dialedick to be the Science, of True, and Falfe,and Neuters. When therefore they affert that to be a true Reafon,which by true Sumptions collefts a true Conclufion, as foon as any Reafon, which hath a falfe Conclufion, is brought againfl us, we fiiall know it is falfe, and therefore will not adent to it •, for of neceffity, the Reafon mud: either be not conctiifive, or not have true Sumption, which is manifeft from hence. The falfe Conclufion which is in the Rea¬ fon, is either confequent to the Connexion made by its Sumption, or not Cenfequent ^ if not Con¬ fequent, the Reafon is not Conclufive •, for they fay, a Conclufive Reafon is that which followcth the Connexion made by its Sumptions if Con¬ fequent, the Connexion which is made by its Sumptions mud: necedarily be falfe, by their own Rules i for they fay, Falfe is confequent to Falfe, but not True. Now that a Reafon which is nei¬ ther conclufive nor true, is, according to them, not demond;rable,is manifeft from what was for¬ merly faid. If therefore a Reafon being pro¬
pounded, in which there is a falleConc]nfion,w'e know even by itlclf, that it is neither True nor Conclufive, forafmuch as it hath a falfe Conclufi- on, wc will not adent to it, though w^e do not know where the Fallacy lies. For, as we believe not the Tricks of Juglcrs to be true, but .know that they deceive' though we know not which way they do it ; fo neither do we credit falfe Reafons, wiiich feem true, tliough wc know not which way they are fallacious. .
Or becaufe Sophifms lead us not only to one Falfity, but to many Abfurditics befides, we may argue more generally thus ; ThcReafon pvopofed either leadeth us to fonietHing unexpedfed, or to fomething that we muft have expected , if to the later, we fhall not do abfurdly in allentiug to it 5 if to fomething beyond our expeftation, we ought not to affent to an Abfurdity radily, upon a Pro¬ bability ^ but they rather ought to withdraw their Reafon, which compelleth ^flen^ to an abfurdity, if they intend not totridechildiflily,but to make a ferious enquiry into the Truth, as they profefs.' For if there be a way leads to fomc Prccipice,wc will not run upon the Precipice, becaufe there is i a way that leads to it, but rather go out of the way, becaufe of the Precipice ; In like manner,if there be a Reafon which bringeth us to fome¬ thing, acknowledged to be abfurd, we rauft not affent to the Abfiirdity, becaufe of the Reafon, but rejecl the Reafon becaufe of the Abfurdity. When therefore a Reafon is objeded to us, we will fufpend to every Propofition ; and then, when the whole Reafon is laid down, we will bring in that which appeareth to us. Fgr.jf ^he Fnllowers of Chry/ippus, being i)ogmattfts^ upon a Sorites propofed, fay, They muft put a ftop to the Progrefs of the Reafon, and fufpend their Aflent,left they fall into an Abfurdity ^ certainly we, who are Scepticks^ and jealous of Abfurdities, ought much more to take heed, left we be be¬ tray’d by Sumptions, and therefore fufpend upon every one,until we hear the whole Argument, Be¬ fides, we,without Opinion, being only informed by the common oblervations of Life, thus avoid fallacious Reafons : But the Dogmatijls cannot difeern a Sophifm from a true Reafon, feeing they are conftrained to judge dogmatically, whether the form of the Reafon be conclufive, and whe¬ ther the Sumptions be true or not ^ but we have formerly fhewn, that they cannot comprehend what Reafons are Conclufive, nor judge Truth in any thing, as having neither a Criterie nor De- monftration, which we proved from their owii words. Hence it appears, that the artificial forms of Sophifms^ fo much cry’d up by the Dia>i ledicks^ arc fuperfluous.
CHAP. XXIII.
Of Amphibolies,
WE fay the fame concerning diftinftion of Amphibolies. For, if Amphiboly be a word which fignifies two or more things, and words fignifie by fmpofition, it is fit they be di- ftinguilhed by Thofe, who are of the fcveral Arts to which they belong, they having had experi¬ ence of the politive ufe of the words, which they applied to the things that they fignified ; but a
509
510
SCEPTICISM.