Book, Paragraph

 1      I, 1 |      carries it out demonstrative science. We must next define a premiss,
 2      I, 1 |          are subjects of the same science", or "pleasure is not good".
 3      I, 1 |           first principles of its science; while a dialectical premiss
 4      I, 4 |           extremes take the terms science, line, medicine: of a negative
 5      I, 4 |            of a negative relation science, line, unit.~If then the
 6      I, 5 |      relation, animal, substance, science.~If then the universal statement
 7      I, 6 |        negative relation, animal, science, wild-the middle in both
 8      I, 6 |            take the terms animal, science, wild; animal, man, wild.
 9      I, 13|       this way no more than that. Science and demonstrative syllogism
10      I, 15|  necessary. Let A be "moving", B "science", C "man". A then will belong
11      I, 27|       animal follows man or every science music, but only that it
12      I, 30|         or knowledge. But in each science the principles which are
13      I, 30|        principles of astronomical science: for once the phenomena
14      I, 30|   Similarly with any other art or science. Consequently, if the attributes
15      I, 36|  statement that there is a single science of contraries. Let A stand
16      I, 36|         for "there being a single science", and B for things which
17      I, 36|           of there being a single science of them, but in the sense
18      I, 36| contraries that there is a single science of them.~It happens sometimes
19      I, 36|        middle, e.g. if there is a science of everything that has a
20      I, 36|     conclusion is that there is a science of the good, but the good
21      I, 36|         good, but the good is not science, nor is that which has a
22      I, 36|          that of which there is a science, and if there is a science
23      I, 36|        science, and if there is a science of the good, we conclude
24      I, 36|          that of which there is a science is a genus, and if there
25      I, 36|          genus, and if there is a science of the good, we conclude
26      I, 38|           ex hypothesi there is a science of that which is something,
27      I, 44|   contraries, there cannot be one science, and should then argue that
28      I, 44|        proved that there is not a science. And yet one must agree.
29      I, 44|    contraries fall under the same science; whereas in the latter,
30     II, 3 |            e.g. animal follows no science but every man, though science
31     II, 3 |     science but every man, though science does not follow every man.
32     II, 15|   universal negative, e.g. "every science is good", "no science is
33     II, 15|       every science is good", "no science is good"; the others I call
34     II, 15|       good, let B and C stand for science. If then one assumes that
35     II, 15|       then one assumes that every science is good, and no science
36     II, 15|           science is good, and no science is good, A belongs to all
37     II, 15|        that B belongs to no C: no science then is a science. Similarly
38     II, 15|           C: no science then is a science. Similarly if after taking "
39     II, 15|  Similarly if after taking "every science is good" one took "the science
40     II, 15|    science is good" one took "the science of medicine is not good";
41     II, 15|           C, so that a particular science will not be a science. Again,
42     II, 15|  particular science will not be a science. Again, a particular science
43     II, 15|      science. Again, a particular science will not be a science if
44     II, 15|  particular science will not be a science if A belongs to all C but
45     II, 15|           C but to no B, and B is science, C medicine, and A supposition:
46     II, 15| supposition: for after taking "no science is supposition", one has
47     II, 15|         assumed that a particular science is supposition. This syllogism
48     II, 15|        not. Let B and C stand for science, A for medicine. If then
49     II, 15|       assume that all medicine is science and that no medicine is
50     II, 15|           and that no medicine is science, he has assumed that B belongs
51     II, 15|           A, so that a particular science will not be a science. Similarly
52     II, 15|  particular science will not be a science. Similarly if the premiss
53     II, 15|           For if some medicine is science and again no medicine is
54     II, 15|          and again no medicine is science, it results that some science
55     II, 15|     science, it results that some science is not science, The premisses
56     II, 15|          that some science is not science, The premisses are contrary
57     II, 15|        the way we said, viz. "all science is good" and "no science
58     II, 15|          science is good" and "no science is good" or "some science
59     II, 15|         science is good" or "some science is not good". This does
60     II, 15|        assuming, e.g., that every science is supposition, and then
61     II, 15|           assuming "Medicine is a science, but none of it is supposition" (
62     II, 26|          for there being a single science, B for contraries. If a
63     II, 26|          are subjects of a single science, the objection may be either
64     II, 26|        never subjects of a single science, and contraries are opposites,
65     II, 26|          not subjects of a single science: this proof is in the third
66     II, 26|          the subjects of a single science.~Similarly if the premiss
67     II, 26|          not subjects of a single science, we reply either that all
68     II, 26|          are subjects of the same science: the former argument issues
69     II, 26|          not subjects of the same science, his opponent must reply
70     II, 26|      reply that there is a single science of all opposites. Thus we
71     II, 26|          not subjects of the same science: "contraries" is universal