§5Ἐπεὶ δὲ τῆς ἐμπειρίας οἱ δογματικοὶ κατηγοροῦσιν, οἱ μὲν ὡς ἀσυστάτου, οἱ δὲ ὡς ἀτελοῦς, οἱ δὲ ὡς ἀτέχνου, τοῦ λόγου δὲ πάλιν οἱ ἐμπειρικοὶ ὡς πιθανοῦ μὲν, οὐκ ἀληθοῦς δὲ, διὰ τοῦτο διπλοῦς ἑκατέροις ὁ λόγος καὶ μακρὸς πάνυ περαίνεται, κατηγοροῦσί τε καὶ ἀπολογουμένοις ἐν μέρει.
Since the Dogmatists accuse experience, some of being without foundation, some of being incomplete, and some of being artless, while the Empiricists in turn accuse reason of being plausible but not true, for this reason the argument for both sides becomes double and very long, as they accuse and defend themselves in turn.
τὰ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ Ἀσκληπιάδου κατὰ τῆς ἐμπειρίας εἰρημένα, δεικνύντος, ὡς οἶόν τε μηδὲν πλειστάκις ὡσαύτως ὀφθῆναι δύνασθαι, παντάπασιν αὐτὴν ἀσύστατον εἶναι βούλεται, μηδέ τι σμικρότατον εὑρεῖν οὖσαν ἱκανήν.
For the arguments advanced by Asclepiades against experience, as he shows that it is impossible for anything to be seen in the same way very many times, intend to make it altogether without foundation, as being unable to discover even the smallest thing.
τὰ δ’ ὑπὸ Ἐρασιστράτου, τὰ μὲν ἁπλᾶ, καὶ ἐφ’ ἁπλοῖς εὑρίσκεσθαι, διὰ τῆς ἐμπειρίας ὁμολογοῦντος, οἶον ὅτι καὶ ἡ ἀνδράχνη τῆς αἱμωδίας ἴαμά ἐστιν, οὐ μὴν τάγε σύνθετα καὶ ἐπὶ συνθέτοις ἔτι συγχωροῦντος, οὐκ ἀδύνατον μὲν αὐτὴν τὸ παράπαν εὑρίσκειν, οὐ μὴν εἰς ἅπαντά γε ἱκανὴν εἶναι βούλεται.
On the other hand, the arguments by Erasistratus, who admits that simple things and discoveries in simple cases are found through experience, as for instance that purslane is a cure for teeth set on edge, but no longer concedes this for composite things and in composite cases, do not make it entirely impossible for experience to discover things, but do not intend it to be sufficient for all things.
τὰ δὲ, τῶν μὲν τοιαῦτα συγχωρούντων εὑρίσκεσθαι διὰ τῆς ἐμπειρίας, αἰτιωμένων δὲ αὐτῆς τὸ ἀπεριόριστόν τε καὶ μακρὸν, καὶ, ὡς αὐτοί φασιν, ἀμέθοδον, εἶθ’ οὕτω τὸν λόγον εἰσαγόντων, οὐκ ἀσύστατον μέν, οὐδὲ ἀνύπαρκτον, οἷον δ’ ἄτεχνόν τι πρᾶγμα τὴν ἐμπειρίαν εἶναι βούλεται.
Furthermore, the arguments of those who concede that such things are discovered through experience, but blame its lack of limits, its length, and, as they say, its lack of method, and then introduce their reasoning in this way, do not intend experience to be without foundation or non-existent, but to be something like an artless matter.
πρὸς ταύτας οὖν τὰς ἐφόδους τῶν λόγων ἀπολογούμενοι καὶ συστατικὴν καὶ αὐτάρκη καὶ τεχνικὴν ἐπιδεικνύναι πειρῶνται τὴν ἐμπειρίαν, καὶ αὐτοὶ δὲ τοῦ ἀναλογισμοῦ καθάπτονται πολυειδῶς, ὥστε πάλιν ἀπολογεῖσθαι πρὸς ἕκαστον εἶδος τῆς κατηγορίας τοῖς δογματικοῖς, ἀναγκαῖον.
Therefore, defending themselves against these attacks of arguments, they try to demonstrate that experience is established, self-sufficient, and technical, and they themselves attack analogical reasoning in many ways, so that it becomes necessary in turn for the Dogmatists to defend themselves against each kind of accusation.
ἐπαγγελλομένοις γὰρ αὐτοῖς τοῦ τε σώματος τὴν φύσιν ἐπίστασθαι, καὶ τῶν νοσημάτων ἁπάντων τὰς γενέσεις, καὶ τῶν ἰαμάτων τὰς δυνάμεις, ὁμόσε χωροῦντες οἱ ἐμπειρικοὶ πάντα διαβάλλουσιν, ὡς ἄχρι μὲν τοῦ πιθανοῦ καὶ εἰκότος προιόντα, βεβαίαν δὲ γνῶσιν οὐδεμίαν ἔχοντα.
For when the Dogmatists profess to understand the nature of the body, the origins of all diseases, and the powers of remedies, the Empiricists, coming to close quarters with them, attack all these claims, on the ground that they advance only as far as what is plausible and likely, but possess no secure knowledge.
ἔστι δ’ ὅτε καὶ τὴν γνῶσιν αὐτῶν συγχωρήσαντες, τὸ ἄχρηστον αὐτῶν ἐπιδεικνύναι πειρῶνται· καὶ τοῦτό ποτε δόντες, αὖθις τὸ περιττὸν ἐξελέγχουσιν.
And sometimes, even granting them this knowledge, they try to demonstrate its uselessness; and having once conceded this, they further refute it as superfluous.
τοιαῦτα μὲν δὴ καθόλου πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀμφισβητοῦσιν ἐμπειρικοί τε καὶ δογματικοί.
Such, then, are the general disputes that the Empiricists and Dogmatists have with one another.
ἐν μέρει δὲ πολλὰ καθ’ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, οἷον ἐν ταῖς περὶ τῆς εὑρέσεως τῶν ἀφανῶν ζητήσεσιν, τῶν μὲν τὴν ἀνατομὴν, καὶ τὴν ἔνδειξιν, καὶ τὴν διαλεκτικὴν θεωρίαν ἐπαινούντων· ὄργανα γὰρ αὐτοῖς ταῦτα τῶν ἀδήλων θηρευτικά·
But in detail there are many disputes on each point, as for instance in the inquiries concerning the discovery of non-evident things, when the one side praises anatomy, indication, and dialectical theory; for these are to them instruments for hunting out non-manifest things.
τῶν δ’ ἐμπειρικῶν μήθ’ εὑρίσκειν τι τὴν ἀνατομὴν συγχωρούντων, μήτ’, εἰ καὶ εὑρίσκοιτο, ἀναγκαῖον εἰς τὴν τέχνην. εἶναι τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ μήτε ἔνδειξιν ὑπάρχειν τοπαράπαν, μήθ’ ἕτερον ἐξ ἑτέρου δύνασθαι γνωσθῆναι.
On the other hand, the Empiricists neither concede that anatomy discovers anything, nor that, even if something were discovered, this is necessary for the art; but they claim that indication does not exist at all, and that one thing cannot be known from another.
πάντα γὰρ δεῖσθαι τῆς ἐξ αὐτῶν γνώσεως, μηδ’ εἶναί τι σημεῖον ἀδήλου φύσει πράγματος οὐδενός· ἀλλὰ μηδὲ διαλεκτικῆς δεῖσθαι μηδεμίαν τέχνην.
For they say that all things require knowledge derived from themselves, and that there is no sign of any naturally non-manifest thing; moreover, that no art requires dialectic.
εἶτα καὶ πρὸς τὰς ὑποθέσεις τῆς διαλεκτικῆς λέγουσί τι, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ὅρους, καὶ οὐδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι ἀπόδειξίν φασιν ἀδήλου φύσει πράγματος οὐδενός.
Then they also say something against the hypotheses of dialectic, and against its definitions, and they deny that from the very beginning there is any demonstration of a naturally non-manifest thing.
ἤδη δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν μοχθηρῶν τρόπων τῆς ἀποδείξεως, οἷς εἰώθασιν οἱ δογματικοὶ χρῆσθαι, λέγουσί τι, καὶ περὶ παντὸς ἀναλογισμοῦ· καὶ ὡς τοῦτο μὲν ἀδύνατος εὑρίσκειν, ὃ ἐπαγγέλλεται· καὶ οὔτ’ ἄλλη τις τέχνη συνίσταται κατ’ αὐτὸν, οὐδὲ ὁ βίος τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρόεισιν.
And indeed, they also say something about the faulty modes of demonstration which the Dogmatists are accustomed to use, and about all analogical reasoning; and how this is unable to discover what it professes, and neither is any other art established according to it, nor does human life go forward by it.
ὁ δὲ ἐπιλογισμὸς, ὃν δὴ φαινόμενον εἶναί φασι, χρήσιμος μὲν εἰς εὕρεσιν τῶν προσκαίρων ἀδήλων, οὕτω γὰρ αὐτοὶ καλοῦσιν, ὅσα τοῦ γένους μέν ἐστι τῶν αἰσθητῶν, οὐ μὴν ἤδη γέ πω πέφηνε.
But empirical reasoning, which they say indeed is based on appearances, is useful for the discovery of temporarily non-manifest things — for so they call those things which belong to the genus of sensible things, yet have not yet appeared.
χρήσιμος δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἔλεγχον τῶν κατὰ τοῦ φαινομένου τι λέγειν τολμώντων.
It is also useful for the refutation of those who dare to say something contrary to what appears.
χρήσιμος δὲ καὶ τὸ παρορώμενον τοῖς φαινομένοις δεῖξαι, καὶ σοφίσμασιν ἀπαντῆσαι, μηδαμοῦ τῶν ἐναργῶν ἀφιστάμενος, ἀλλ’ ἐν τούτοις ἀεὶ διατρίβων, οὐ μὴν ὅγε ἀναλογισμὸς, φασὶν, ἀλλὰ ἄρχεται μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν φαινομένων, λήγει δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ διαπαντὸς ἄδηλα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πολυειδής ἐστιν. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν φαινομένων ἄλλο ἐπ’ ἄλλῳ τῶν ἀδήλων παραγίνεται.
And it is also useful for showing what is overlooked in appearances, and for meeting sophisms, never departing from clear facts but always dwelling in them; but analogical reasoning, they say, is not so, but starts from appearances and ends in things that are non-manifest for ever, and for this reason it is manifold. For from the same appearances, one non-manifest thing after another is derived.
καὶ τὴν διαφωνίαν ἐνταῦθα προχειρίζονται τὴν ἀνεπίκριτον, ἣν δὴ σημεῖον εἶναι τῆς ἀκαταληψίας φασίν.
And here they bring forward the undecidable disagreement, which they indeed say is a sign of incomprehensibility.
οὕτω γὰρ αὐτοὶ καλοῦσιν τὴν μὲν ἀληθῆ καὶ βεβαίαν γνῶσιν κατάληψιν, ἀκαταληψίαν δὲ τὸ ἐναντίον ταύτῃ, καὶ τὴν μὲν ἀκαταληψίαν αἰτίαν εἶναί φασι τῆς διαφωνίας τῆς ἀνεπικρίτου, τὴν διαφωνίαν δ’ αὖ πάλιν τῆς ἀκαταληψίας σημεῖον.
For they themselves call true and secure knowledge "comprehension", and the opposite of this "incomprehensibility", and they say that incomprehensibility is the cause of the undecidable disagreement, and the disagreement in turn is the sign of incomprehensibility.
ἀνεπίκριτον δὲ τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδήλων ἀγωνολογίαν εἶναί φασιν, οὐ τὴν περὶ τῶν φαινομένων.
And they say that the undecidable dispute is that which concerns non-manifest things, and not that which concerns appearances.
ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ἕκαστόν φαμεν οἷόν ἐστι, μαρτυρεῖ μὲν τοῖς ἀληθεύουσιν; ἐξελέγχει δὲ τοὺς ψευδομένους.
For in this latter case, as we say what each thing is like, the appearance bears witness to those who tell the truth, and refutes those who lie.
τοιαῦτα μυρία πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐρίζουσιν ἐμπειρικοί τε καὶ δογματικοὶ τὴν θεραπείαν ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν παθῶν τὴν αὐτὴν ποιούμενοι, ὅσοι γε νόμῳ καθ’ ἑκατέραν τὴν αἵρεσιν ἤσκηνται.
In such ways, the Empiricists and Dogmatists dispute myriad things with one another, though they apply the same treatment for the same diseases, at least as many of them as have been trained according to the rules of each school.