If we do not do this, it should be observed that we are detaching Probability altogether from the study of things external to us, and making it nothing else in effect than a portion of Psychology. If we refuse to be controlled by experience, but confine our attention to the laws according to which belief is naturally or instinctively compounded and distributed in our minds, we have no right then to appeal to experience afterwards even for illustrations, unless under the express understanding that we do not guarantee its accuracy. Our belief in some single events, for example, might be correct, and yet that in a compound of several (if derived merely from our instinctive laws of belief) very possibly might not be correct, but might lead us into practical mistakes if we determined to act upon it. Even if the two were in accordance, this accordance would have to be proved, which would lead us round, by what I cannot but think a circuitous process, to the point which has been already chosen for commencing with. 12. De Morgan seems to imply that the doctrine criticised above finds a justification from the analogy of Formal Logic. If the laws of necessary inference can be studied apart from all reference to external facts (except by way of illustration), why not those of probable inference? There does not, however, seem to be much force in any such analogy. Formal Logic, at any rate under its modern or Kantian mode of treatment, is based upon the assumption that there are laws of thought as distinguished from laws of things, and that these laws of thought can be ascertained and studied without taking into account their reference to any particular object. Now so long as we are confined to necessary or irreversible laws, as is of course the case in ordinary Formal Logic, this assumption leads to no special difficulties. We mean by this, that no conflict arises between these subjective and objective necessities. The two exist in perfect harmony side by side, the one being the accurate counterpart of the other. So precise is the correspondence between them, that few persons would notice, until study of metaphysics had called their attention to such points, that there were these two sides to the question. They would make their appeal to either with equal confidence, saying indifferently, 'the thing must be so,' or, 'we cannot conceive its being otherwise.' In fact it is only since the time of Kant that this mental analysis has been to any extent appreciated and accepted. And even now the dominant experience school of philosophy would not admit that there are here two really distinct sides to the phenomenon; they maintain either that the subjective necessity is nothing more than the consequence by inveterate association of the objective uniformity, or else that this so-called necessity (say in the Law of Contradiction) is after all merely verbal, merely a different way of saying the same thing over again in other words. Whatever