Such is the case also with the universal negative proposition.
But how does Aristotle prove the rule for the universal negative itself?
The universal negative is sufficiently represented by a single Fig.
The rule for the simple conversion of the universal negative rests upon the same evidence of Induction, never contradicted.
Suppose the thesis set up by the respondent to be an universal affirmative, or an universal negative.
I would not say that this never happened; because it is not wise to assert a universal negative.
Paul's universal negative challenges the contradiction of all the saints, martyrs, and heroes of Israel.
When the Agnostic speaks of the "possibility" of miracles, he only means that we cannot prove a universal negative.
A single instance to the contrary is enough to break down his universal negative.
The cries of myriad free men living, & of millions yet unborn, rend the air with a universal negative!