• The first cause of absurd conclusions I ascribe to the want of method; in that they begin not their ratiocination from definitions; that is, from settled significations of their words; as if they could cast account, without knowing the value of the numeral words “one,” “two,” and “three.” And whereas all bodies enter into account upon divers considerations, which I have mentioned in the precedent chapter; these considerations being diversely named, divers absurdities proceed from the confusion, and unfit connection of their names into assertions. And therefore,
• The second cause of absurd assertions, I ascribe to the giving of names of “bodies” to “accidents”; or of “accidents” to “bodies”; as they do that say, “faith is infused,” or “inspired”; when nothing can be “poured” or “breathed” into anything, but body; and that “extension” is “body”; that “phantasms” are “spirits,” etc.
• The third I ascribe to the giving of the names of the “accidents” of “bodies without us,” to the “accidents” of our “own bodies”; as they do that say, “the colour is in the body”; “the sound is in the air,” etc.