The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile.

About this Item

Title
The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile.
Author
Blundeville, Thomas, fl. 1561.
Publication
London :: Printed by William Stansby, and are to be sold by Matthew Lownes,
1617.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Logic -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A16218.0001.001
Cite this Item
"The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A16218.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 15, 2024.

Pages

Page 195

Yet I pray you to giue examples of the foure chiefe points before mentioned.

Of the first, let this bee your example: foure is double to two, but not to three: Ergo, foure is double and not double; this is not to one selfe thing. Of the second thus: This peece of timber is double in length to that peece, but it is not dou∣ble to the same in breadth: Ergo, it is to one selfe thing, both double, and not double to one selfe thing, but not in one selfe respect. Of the third thus: This Prince ruleth mightily, but not mercifully: Ergo, he ruleth, and not ruleth; this is not in like manner. Of the fourth thus: I saw Iohn yesterday, but not this day: Ergo, I saw him, and saw him not; this is not in one selfe time. And all these foure wayes in mine opinion are comprehended in the second point; which is when any thing is spoken not absolutely, but in diuers respects: wherefore, it differeth not much from the Fallax of speech respectiue before declared, sauing that this Fallax is more generall, and com∣prehendeth more kindes of Fallaxes then that doth.

Petition of the Principle is, when the Antecedent doth not* 1.1 proue the consequent, which chanceth most commonly three manner of wayes: that is, eyther when the proofe is as little knowne, as the thing that is to be proued. Secondly, when the proofe is lesse knowne then the thing to be proued. Thirdly, when the proofe, and the thing to be proued, doe not differ, but is all one speech, signifying one selfe thing, called of the Greekes Tautologia.

Notes

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.