Beginning with the older authority, there is an often quoted saying by Butler at the commencement of his Analogy, that ‘probability is the very guide of life’; a saying which seems frequently to be understood to signify that the rules or principles of Probability are thus all-prevalent when we are drawing conclusions in practical life. Judging by the drift of the context, indeed, this seems a fair interpretation of his meaning, in so far of course as there could be said to be any such thing as a science of Probability in those days. Prof.[ TN: space] Jevons, in his Principles of Science (p. 197), has expressed a somewhat similar view, of course in a way more consistent with the principles of modern science, physical and mathematical. He says, “I am convinced that it is impossible to expound the methods of induction in a sound manner, without resting them on the theory of Probability. Perfect knowledge alone can give certainty, and in nature perfect knowledge would be infinite knowledge, which is clearly beyond our capacities. We have, therefore, to content ourselves with partial knowledge,—knowledge mingled with ignorance, producing doubt.”[2]
§ 8. There are two senses in which this disposition to merge the two sciences into one may be understood. Using the word Probability in its vague popular signification, nothing more may be intended than to call attention to the fact, that in every case alike our conclusions are nothing more than ‘probable,’ that is, that they are not, and cannot be, absolutely certain. This must be fully admitted, for of course no one acquainted with the complexity of physical and other evidence would seriously maintain that absolute ideal certainty can be attained in any branch of applied logic. Hypothetical certainty, in abstract science, may be possible, but not absolute certainty in the domain of the concrete. This has been already noticed in a former chapter, where, however, it was pointed out that whatever justification may exist, on the subjective view of logic, for regarding this common prevalence of absence of certainty as warranting us in fusing the sciences into one, no such justification is admitted when we take the objective view.
§ 9. What may be meant, however, is that the grounds of this absence of certainty are always of the same general character. This argument, if admitted, would have real force, and must therefore be briefly noticed. We have seen abundantly that when we say of a conclusion within the strict province of Probability, that it is not certain, all that we mean is that in some proportion of cases only will such conclusion be right, in the other cases it will be wrong. Now when we say, in reference to any inductive conclusion, that we feel uncertain about its absolute cogency, are we conscious of the same interpretation? It seems to me that we are not. It is indeed quite possible that on ultimate analysis it might be proved that experience of failure in the past employment of our methods of investigation was the main cause of our present want of perfect confidence in
them. But this, as we have repeatedly insisted, does not belong to the province of logical, but to that of Psychological enquiry. It is surely not the case that we are, as a rule, consciously guided by such occasional or repeated instances of past failure. In so far as they are at all influential, they seem to do their work by infusing a vague want of confidence which cannot be referred to any statistical grounds for its justification, at least not in a quantitative way. Part of our want of confidence is derived sympathetically from those who have investigated the matter more nearly at first hand. Here again, analysis might detect that a given proportion of past failures lay at the root of the distrust, but it does not show at the surface. Moreover, one reason why we cannot feel perfectly certain about our inductions is, that the memory has to be appealed to for some of our data; and will any one assert that the only reason why we do not place absolute reliance on our memory of events long past is that we have been deceived in that way before?
In any other sense, therefore, than as a needful protest against attaching too great demonstrative force to the conclusions of Inductive Logic, it seems decidedly misleading to speak of its reasonings as resting upon