logical discipline and the terminology of its practitioners.

Likewise, in the sound portions of the general natural sciences and medicine, one finds that their accomplished practitioners have not drawn upon any part of the discipline of logic. Indeed, Hippocrates, the foremost authority in medicine, made statements that physicians have accepted and found confirmed by experience. He also formulated universal propositions that rank among the most significant matters in the estimation of reasonable people. Yet he drew upon none of this logical discipline; indeed, he lived before its founder.

Although they regard natural science as a discipline of greater learning and higher standing than medicine, it is undoubtedly connected with it. Knowledge of the natures of particular, perceptible bodies enables one to know the natures of other bodies and the principle of motion and rest within a body. The whole is inferred from the part. Thus, practitioners of these two disciplines frequently debate and disagree over particular questions, just as jurists and speculative theologians debate many questions common to their respective disciplines. The latter claim a broader scope of inquiry. Yet error and mistaken judgment are more prevalent among speculative theologians and philosophers than among jurists and physicians. The discourse and knowledge of jurists and physicians are more beneficial, whereas the others are further astray and less beneficial. This is because they sought through syllogistic reasoning what cannot be known through it, and challenged the innate disposition and prophethood in a way that led them into such opposition to both that they became devils among humankind and jinn, inspiring one another with embellished speech to deceive. Pure medicine, by contrast, is a beneficial science, as is pure jurisprudence.

As for metaphysics—although they exalt it and say that it is first philosophy, the universal science that studies being and its concomitants, and their later thinkers call it the science of