ancient an authority than Aristotle, that there is no such thing as innate knowledge—that knowledge of every kind has to be acquired, and that it is based upon perceptions reaching the mind through the senses. Harvey thus epitomizes what was said by Aristotle respecting the manner in which the knowledge appertaining to science is acquired: "The thing perceived by sense remains; from the permanence of the thing perceived results memory; from multiplied memory, experience; and from experience, universal reason, definitions, and maxims or common axioms." In its elementary form, knowledge consists of simple inferences drawn in a direct manner from impressions. A child once burned afterward shuns the fire. From the impression received an inference is framed which forms the foundation for future action. The same kind of operation determines the conduct of the lower animals. By mental action these simple inferences may be raised into or give rise to knowledge of a higher kind. This is what for science is required to be done. The exercise of the intellectual faculties must be brought into operation, in order that what we acquire through perception may be shaped into the knowledge that it is desired to obtain. The object in science is to discover the facts and laws of Nature; and, to apply the intellect advantageously for the purpose, there must be some systematic course, some method or art of reasoning, adopted. The system employed up to Harvey's time was the Aristotelian, or syllogistic—a system which, while being well adapted for affording proof upon any particular point, is ill adapted for promoting the advance of knowledge. When through the major and minor premises of a syllogism I draw a conclusion, a point is proved, but no real addition is made to our stock of knowledge. For instance when in accordance with the rules of the syllogistic art I say—"All men are mortal: Thomas is a man, therefore Thomas is mortal"—I start with the general proposition in the major premise that "all men are mortal," and arrive at the conclusion, through the minor premise, that a particular individual is mortal. A certain attribute—mortality—is asserted to be possessed by a class. A member of the class must also possess the attribute, and this is all the information that my syllogistic conclusion has given me—that the individual named Thomas possesses the attribute of mortality, which belongs as a general character to the group of individuals of which he is a member. The two premises of the syllogism already consist of established truths, and for a syllogism to be valid there must be nothing contained in the conclusion beyond what is asserted in the premises. The train of reasoning, therefore, is not adapted to lead us to the acquirement of new knowledge. The essence, indeed, of the system consists in proceeding from generals to particulars. The major premise with which we start is, in reality, a general proposition, containing knowledge which has been acquired—not, it is true, by the methodical application of induction, but nevertheless after the manner of
