This page has been validated.
Contents.
xxv
| §5. | Other attempts at explaining the difficulty. | |
| 6—8. | What is really meant by the distinction. | |
| 9. | Origin of the common mistake. | |
| 10—12. | Examples in illustration of this view, | |
| 13. | Is Probability relative? | |
| 14. | What is really meant by this expression. | |
| 15. | Objections to terming Probability relative. | |
| 16, 17. | In suitable examples the difficulty scarcely presents itself. | |
| CHAPTER XIII. | ||
| ON MODALITY. | ||
| § 1. | Various senses of Modality; | |
| 2. | Having mostly some relation to Probability. | |
| 3. | Modality must be recognized. | |
| 4. | Sometimes relegated to the predicate, | |
| 5, 6. | Sometimes incorrectly rejected altogether. | |
| 7, 8. | Common practical recognition of it. | |
| 9—11. | Modal propositions in Logic and in Probability. | |
| 12. | Aristotelian view of the Modals; | |
| 13, 14. | Founded on extinct philosophical views; | |
| 15. | But long and widely maintained. | |
| 16. | Kant's general view. | |
| 17—19. | The number of modal divisions admitted by various logicians. | |
| 20. | Influence of the theory of Probability. | |
| 21, 22. | Modal syllogisms. | |
| 23. | Popular modal phraseology. | |
| 24—26. | Probable and Dialectic syllogisms. | |
| 27, 28. | Modal difficulties occur in Jurisprudence. | |
| 29, 30. | Proposed standards of legal certainty. | |
| 31. | Rejected formally in English Law, but possibly recognized practically. | |
| 32. | How, if so, it might be determined. | |
