which in its nature admits of determination, though we may practically find it difficult in any particular case to determine it. He considers, in fact, that Probability is a sort of sister science to Formal Logic,[1] speaking of it in the following words: “I cannot understand why the study of the effect, which partial belief of the premises produces with respect to the conclusion, should be separated from that of the consequences of supposing the former to be absolutely true.”[2] In other words, there is a science—Formal Logic—which investigates the rules according to which one proposition can be necessarily inferred from another; in close correspondence with this there is a science which investigates the rules according to which the amount of our belief of one proposition varies with the amount of our belief of other propositions with which it is connected.
The same view is also supported by another high authority, the late Prof.[ TN: space] Donkin, who says (*Phil.[ TN: space] Mag.[ TN: space] May, 1851), “It will, I suppose, be generally admitted, and has often been more or less explicitly stated, that the subject-matter of calculation in the mathematical theory of Probabilities is quantity of belief*.”
§ 5. Before proceeding to criticise this opinion, one remark may be made upon it which has been too frequently overlooked. It should be borne in mind that, even were this view of the subject not actually incorrect, it might be objected to as insufficient for the purpose of a definition, on the ground that variation of belief is not confined to Probability. It is a property with which that science is concerned, no doubt, but it is a property which meets us in other directions as
well. In every case in which we extend our inferences by Induction or Analogy, or depend upon the witness of others, or trust to our own memory of the past, or come to a conclusion through conflicting arguments, or even make a long and complicated deduction by mathematics or logic, we have a result of which we can scarcely feel as certain as of the premises from which it was obtained. In all these cases then we are conscious of varying quantities of belief, but are the laws according to which the belief is produced and varied the same? If they cannot be reduced to one harmonious scheme, if in fact they can at best be brought to nothing but a number of different schemes, each with its own body of laws and rules, then it is vain to endeavour to force them into one science.
This opinion is strengthened by observing that most of the writers who adopt the definition in question do practically dismiss from consideration most of the above-mentioned examples of diminution of belief, and confine their attention to classes of events which have the property discussed in Chap I., viz.[** TN: space] ‘ignorance of the few, knowledge of the many.’ It is quite true that considerable violence has to be done to some of these examples, by introducing exceedingly arbitrary suppositions into them, before they can be forced to assume a suitable form. But still there is little doubt that, if we carefully examine the language employed, we shall find that in almost every case assumptions are made which virtually imply that our knowledge of the individual is derived from propositions given in the typical form described in Chap I. This will be more fully proved when we come to consider some common misapplications of the science.
§ 6. Even then, if the above-mentioned view of the subject were correct, it would yet, I consider, be insufficient for the purpose of a definition; but it is at least very doubtful whether it is correct. Before we could properly assign to
the belief side of the question the prominence given to it by De Morgan and others, certainly before the science could be defined from that side, it would be necessary, it appears, to establish the two following positions, against both of which strong objections can be brought.