eous prey because I have bowed him to the earth till he cannot rise? For more than two hundred years heretics were burned, and not by mobs, not by lynch law, but by the decrees of councils, at the instigation of theologians, and with the sanction of the laws and religions of nations; and was this a reason for keeping up the fires, that they had burned two hundred years? In the eastern world, successive despots, not for two hundred years, but for twice two thousand, have claimed the right of life and death over millions, and with no law but their own will, have beheaded, bowstrung, starved, tortured unhappy men without number who have incurred their wrath; and does the lapse of so many centuries sanctify murder and ferocious power?'

Again:-But the great argument remains. It is said that this property must not be questioned, because it is established by law. "That is property which the law declares to be property." Thus human law is made supreme, decisive, in a question of morals. Thus the idea of an eternal, immutable justice is set at naught. Thus the great rule of human life is made to be the ordinance of interested men. But there is a higher tribunal, a throne of equal justice, immovable by the conspiracy of all human legislatures. "That is property which the law declares to be property." Then the laws have only to declare you, or me, or Mr. Clay, to be property, and we become chattels and are bound to bear the yoke! Does not even man's moral nature repel this doctrine too intuitively to leave time or need for argument?""

III. The dilemma.

The dilemma is one of the most conclusive forms of refutation. It consists in forcing upon an opponent a choice between two possible solutions to the question under discussion, and then showing that both conclusions are unsound. These two conclusions are called the "horns of the dilemma." It

matters not which of the "horns" an opponent selects; the result is disastrous. For example, Lincoln used the dilemma against those who charged that the Republicans stirred up insurrection among the slaves and pointed to John Brown and his men as a specific example showing the truth of that charge. Lincoln said, “John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.” In effect Lincoln said, "You know it or you do not know it. If you know it you are inexcusable. If you do not know it you are inexcusable. Whichever horn of the dilemma you accept, your conduct is inexcusable."

In order to be conclusive a dilemma must meet two requirements. First, there must be only two possibilities in the case; the alternative must include these exactly. Second, both members of the alternative, or "horns" of the dilemma must be untenable. To ignore or fail to comply with either of these requirements is fatal to this method of refutation. Lincoln, in the following quotation, shows that Douglas has violated the first of these requirements. He refuses to accept either of the horns of the dilemma which Douglas has sought to force upon him, by pointing out a third possibility. On this third possibility, overlooked by Douglas, he can stand with safety. He says:

"Judge Douglas finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes all men, black as well as white, and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes

negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they went to vote, to eat and sleep, and marry with negroes. He will have it that they cannot be consistent else. Now I protest against this counterfeit logic which concludes that because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either. I can just leave her alone."

IV. Residues.

The method of residues consists in stating all the possible conclusions regarding the controverted subject and then destroying all of these except one which is then regarded as the true conclusion. For example, there are three possibilities, A, B, and C. A and B are false. Therefore the presumption is that C is true. It will be seen that this process is destructive and hence belongs with refutation. This method of refutation must be used with great care. It is absolutely essential that every possibility be included in the process. If one possibility is overlooked the refutation is worthless. This is true because no one can tell whether the known possibility is the true one or whether the possibility which has been omitted is the true one. In such a case no conclusion is reached. Even when it is apparent that the entire field has been covered, and that every possibility has been stated the residuary part should be supported by direct positive proof. This will offset the suspicion, which is otherwise ever present in the minds of those who are listening to or reading the argument, that perhaps one possibility has been overlooked.

Foster in his Argumentation and Debate quotes two excellent examples of this method of refutation. The first of these is taken from Burke's Speech on Conciliation. After showing that a fierce spirit of liberty has developed in the American

colonies Burke asks what is to be done with that spirit. Answering his own question he says:

"As far as I am capable of discerning there are but three ways of proceeding relative to this stubborn spirit which prevails in your colonies, and disturbs your government. These are to change that spirit, as inconvenient, by removing the cause; to prosecute it as criminal; or to cope with it as necessary. I would not be guilty of an imperfect enumeration; I can think of but these three. Another has indeed been started, that of giving up the colonies; but it met so slight a reception that I do not think myself obliged to dwell a great while upon it. It is nothing but a little sally of anger, like the frowardness of peevish children, who when they cannot get all they would have, are resolved to take nothing.'

"Burke then proceeds to show that the first and second of these plans are impracticable, and concludes with the following characteristic, logical summary:

"If, then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty be for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable; if the ideas of criminal process be inapplicable— or if applicable, are in the highest degree inexpedient—what way yet remains? No way is open but the third and lastto comply with the American spirit as necessary; or, if you please, to submit to it as a necessary evil.'

"Huxley, in his first lecture on Evolution, presented three hypotheses regarding the origin of the universe:

"So far as I know, there are only three hypotheses which ever have been entertained, or which well can be entertained, respecting the past history of Nature. I will, in the first place, state the hypotheses, and then I will consider what evidence bearing upon them is in our possession, and by what light of criticism that evidence is to be interpreted.

"Upon the first hypothesis, the assumption is that phenomena of Nature similar to those exhibited by the present world

REFUTATION

Baker - Pringoles

Burke

267

BK 9160

have always existed; in other words, that the universe has existed from all eternity in what may be broadly termed its present condition.

"The second hypothesis is, that the present state of things has had only a limited duration; and that at some period in the past, a condition of the world, essentially similar to that which we now know, came into existence, without any precedent condition from which it could have naturally proceeded. The assumption that successive states of Nature have arisen, each without any relation of natural causation to an antecedent state, is a mere modification of this second hypothesis.

666

"The third hypothesis also assumes that the present state of things has had but a limited duration; but it supposes that this state has been evolved by a natural process from an antecedent state, and that from another, and so on; and on this hypothesis, the attempt to assign any limit to the series of past changes is usually given up.'

"Huxley thus destroyed the first two hypotheses and left the third-since called the Theory of Evolution-standing alone. Following this indirect, destructive method of proof, Huxley offered direct, constructive proof of the probable soundness of the Theory of Evolution. Such positive proof should always be offered in corroboration of negative proof, for the method of residues is, at best, only an indirect argument. The chances of overlooking a possibility, or of failing completely to destroy those dealt with, are so great that the result of the indirect method should be reinforced by direct argument."

V. Inconsistencies.

When a witness testifies in a court of law he injures his own credibility as soon as one part of his story contradicts another part. His entire account of the events about which he has