cognoscendi_) to logical consequence. But in the sense in which deductive analysis is opposed to deductive synthesis, analysis is deduction from real consequence as logical ground (_principiatum_ as _principium cognoscendi_) to real ground (_principium essendi_), e.g. from the consequential facts of planetary motion to their real ground, i.e. centripetal force to the sun. Hence Sigwart is undoubtedly right in distinguishing analysis from hypothetical deduction, for which he proposes the name "reduction." We have only further to add that many scientific discoveries about sound, heat, light, colour and so forth, which it is the fashion to represent as hypotheses to explain facts, are really analytical deductions from the facts to their real grounds in accordance with mechanical laws. Recent logic does scant justice to scientific analysis. 4. _Induction._--As induction is the process from particulars to universals, it might have been thought that it would always have been opposed to syllogism, in which one of the rules is against using particular premises to draw universal conclusions. Yet such is the passion for one type that from Aristotle's time till now constant attempts have been made to reduce induction to syllogism. Aristotle himself invented an inductive syllogism in which the major (P) is to be referred to the middle (M) by means of the minor (S), thus:-- A, B, C magnets (S) attract iron (P). A, B, C magnets (S) are all magnets whatever (M). :. All magnets whatever (M) attract iron (P). As the second premise is supposed to be convertible, he reduced the inductive to a deductive syllogism as follows:-- Every S is P. | Every S is P. Every S is M (convertibly). | Every M is S. :. Every M is P. | :. Every M is P.