Phæd. Yes, and to substitute another.
X. True; which other, I go on thirdly to say, is actually employed in this table. On which account it is fair to say that Mr. Malthus is a third time refuted. For, if two inconsistent principles of valuation be employed, then the table will be vicious, because heteronymous.
Phil. Negatur minor.
X. I prove the minor (namely, that two inconsistent principles are employed) by column the ninth; and thence, also, I deduct a fourth and a fifth refutation of the table.
Phæd. Euge! Now, this is a pleasant skirmishing.
X. For, in column the last, I say that the principle of valuation employed is different from that employed in columns five and six. Upon which I offer you this dilemma: it is—or it is not; choose.
Phil. Suppose I say, it is?
X. In that case, the result of this table is a case of idem per idem; a pure childish tautology.
Phil. Suppose I say, it is not?
X. In that case, the result of this table is false.