¹ Aquinas, , Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. iv, ch. LVI (7).Google Scholar

² The point is effectively stated (though in connexion with a quite different field) by Clarke, D. L. (Analytical Archaeology, London, 1968), p. 17:Google Scholar ‘The degree of confidence that we are logically justified in placing in many archaeological generalisations is often undermined by failure to specify the proportion of observed cases, the variety of circumstances or the existence of conflicting examples.’

³ For a discussion of these cases, see my ‘Some Archdeacons’ Court Books and the Commons’ Supplication against the Ordinaries of 1532’, The Study of Medieval Records, Bullough, D. A. and Storey, R. L. (ed.) (Oxford, 1971), pp. 283–316.Google Scholar

⁴ The Archdeacon's Court, Liber Actorum 1584–5, 2 vols., ed. Brinkworth, E. R. (Oxford Record Society, vol. xxiii, 1941–1942).Google Scholar

⁵ Whiston, W., A New Theory of the Earth (Cambridge, 1708).Google Scholar

⁶ Yates, F., ‘The Hermetic tradition in Renaissance Science’ in Art, Science and History in the Renaissance, Singleton, C. S. (ed.) (Baltimore, 1967), pp. 271ff.Google Scholar

⁷ Koyré, A. and Cohen, I. Bernard, ‘Newton and the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence’, Archives Internationales d' Histoire des Sciences, xv (1962), 63–126.Google Scholar See also McGuire, J. E. and Rattansi, P. M., ‘Newton and the “Pipes of Pan”’ in Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, xxi, no. 2 (1966), 108–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ McMullin, Ernan, ‘Empiricism and the Scientific Revolution’ in Art, Science and History, Singleton, (ed.), p. 368.Google Scholar

⁹ Jahoda, G., The Psychology of Superstition (London, 1969), see especially pp. 26ff, 147).Google Scholar