For Astell, if the nature of the thing is such as that it admits of no undoubted premises to argue from, or at least we don't at present know of any, or that the conclusion does not necessarily follow as to give a perfect satisfaction to the mind and free it from all hesitation, that which we think of it is then called "fallacy."

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

For Astell, the scenario described pertains to "opinion" rather than "fallacy." She distinguishes between knowledge, opinion, and faith based on the certainty of the premises and the conclusiveness of the reasoning, where opinion arises from less certain premises or less conclusive reasoning, not fallacy.

For Astell, If the Nature of the Thing Is Such