[Footnote 59: Sir W. Hamilton (Lectures on Logic, vol. i. p. 319) says justly, that Aristotle has been very brief and unexplicit in his treatment of Induction. Yet the objections that Hamilton makes to Aristotle are very different from those which I should make. In the learned and valuable Appendix to his Lectures (vol. iv. pp. 358-369), he collects various interesting criticisms of logicians respecting Induction as handled by Aristotle. Ramus (in his Scholæ Dialecticæ, VIII. xi.) says very truly:--"Quid vero sit Inductio, perobscure ab Aristotele declaratur; nec ab interpretibus intelligitur, quo modo _syllogismus_ per medium concludat majus extremum de minore; _inductio_, majus de medio per minus." The Inductive Syllogism, as constructed by Aristotle, requires a reciprocating minor premiss. It may, indeed, be cited (as I have already remarked) in support of Hamilton's favourite precept of quantifying the predicate. The predicate of this minor must be assumed as _quantified in thought_, the subject being taken as co-extensive therewith. Therefore Hamilton's demand that it shall be _quantified in speech_ has really in this case that foundation which he erroneously claims for it in all cases. He complains that Lambert and some other logicians dispense with the necessity of quantifying the predicate of the minor by making it disjunctive; and adds the remarkable statement that "the recent German logicians, Herbart, Twesten, Drobisch, &c., following Lambert, make the Inductive Syllogism a byeword" (p. 366). I agree with them in thinking the attempted transformation of Induction into Syllogism very unfortunate, though my reasons are probably not the same as theirs. Trendelenburg agrees with those who said that Aristotle's doctrine about the Inductive Syllogism required that the minor should be disjunctively enunciated (Logische Untersuchungen, xiv. p. 175, xvi. pp. 262, 263; also Erläuterungen zu den Elementen der Aristotelischen Logik, ss. 34-36, p. 71). Ueberweg takes a similar view (System der **Logik, sect. 128, p. 367, 3rd ed.). If the Inductive Inference is to be twisted into Syllogism, it seems more naturally to fall into an _hypothetical_ syllogism, _e. g._:-- If this, that, and the other magnet attract iron, all magnets attract iron; But this, that, and the other magnet do attract iron: _Ergo_, &c.]