Referring to the observed phenomenon of the outward movement of the stars about Vega, the astronomer might advance as an hypothesis the fact of the solar system’s movement toward Vega. Having done this he could then experiment with a view of verifying this hypothesis. In this experiment he would attempt to introduce the same cause surrounded by similar circumstances, and then watch for the same effect. To make it concrete: suppose the astronomer paints the side of a barn dark blue and bedecks this with stars of white. Then taking a position as far removed from the blue surface as his eyesight will permit, he runs toward the barn watching the apparent movement of the artificial stars. A similar experiment could be performed by substituting for the _starred_ barn, the stumps on a side hill. In both experiments he assumes that like conditions will be followed by constant results. That is, in these particular cases, advancing toward a group of objects is always followed by an apparent separation of said objects. This law of uniformity of nature not only underlies inductive thinking but it really conditions all thinking. It implies that the universe is a rational system functioning in a uniform manner. Moreover, it suggests that the interpretations of the mind are likewise uniform and whenever the mind proves a fact to be a universal truth, this truth will _always_ remain a truth unless the conditions change. In fact were it not for the uniformity of nature, all activity whatsoever would be rendered nugatory. Because of this law we have a right to assume that grinding a knife under right conditions will always tend to sharpen it; that surrounding a live seed with a proper environment will result in growth; that water at the same altitude will boil at a constant temperature, etc., etc. The student will discern the close connection between these two laws and the laws of thought. There is really no distinctive mark between the law of causation and the law of sufficient reason, while “uniformity of nature” includes identity as one of its distinctive features. The laws differ, however, in their application, “causation” and “uniformity of nature” conditioning inductive thinking, while the others are concerned with deductive thinking. Because “uniformity of nature” expresses facts of experience, it is regarded as an _empirical_ law, as contrasted with the law of causation, which is supposed to be based upon an innate mental conception or is an _a priori_ law. =9. INDUCTIVE ASSUMPTION JUSTIFIED.=