| | |
| Paragraph 1 |
The preceding arguments constitute our defence of the
superiority of
commensurately universal to particular demonstration. |
| Paragraph 2 |
(1) We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the
demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses - in
short from fewer premisses; |
| Paragraph 3 |
Hence demonstration by fewer premisses is ceteris paribus
superior. |
| Paragraph 4 |
(2) It has been proved that no conclusion follows if both
premisses are negative, but that one must be negative, the other
affirmative. |
| Paragraph 5 |
(3) The basic truth of demonstrative syllogism is the universal
immediate premiss, and the universal premiss asserts in affirmative
demonstration and in negative denies: |
| Paragraph 6 |
(4) Affirmative demonstration is more of the nature of a basic
form of proof, because it is a sine qua non of negative
demonstration. |
HTML by 
created 1996/11/25 modified 2009/04/26