it is known by consensus that it is invalid and it was mentioned in logic that a general rule is made based on a partial or many partial reasons so they used it as an example if a person said that every animal moves its lower jaw when chewing because we have studied all animals and we saw them like that so that would be due to his neglect of the crocodile because it moves its upper jaw. these people studied only the five senses and they found them in a known way so they ruled on the whole based on it. perhaps the mind is another sense that flows from all the senses in the same way as the crocodile flows from all the animals. so the senses despite being physical are divided into what perceives its location and what is not perceived just as they were divided into what perceives its perceiver without contact such as sight and what is not perceived except by contact such as taste and touch. so what they mentioned also if it produces a suspicion does not produce a reliable certainty.
ومما عرف بالاتفاق بطلانه وذكر في المنطق أن يحكم بسبب جزئي أو جزئيات كثيرة على كلي حتى مثلوه بما إذا قال الإنسان إن كل حيوان فإنه يحرك عند المضغ فكه الأسفل لأنا استقرأنا الحيوانات كلها فرأيناها كذلك، فيكون ذلك لغفلته عن التمساح فإنه يحرك فكه الأعلى وهؤلاء لم يستقرئوا إلا الحواس الخمس، فوجدوها على وجه معلوم فحكموا على الكل به. فلعل العقل حاسة أخرى تجري من سائر الحواس مجرى التمساح من سائر الحيوانات، فتكون إذن الحواس مع كونها جسمانية منقسمة إلى ما يدرك محلها وإلى ما لا يدرك كما انقسمت إلى ما يدرك مدركه من غير مماسة كالبصر وإلى ما لا يدرك إلا باتصال كالذوق واللمس. فما ذكروه أيضا إن أورث ظنا فلا يورث يقينا موثوقا به.