The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic

This edition is published by Muriwai Books – www.pp-publishing.com

To join our mailing list for new titles or for issues with our books – muriwaibooks@gmail.com

Or on Facebook

Text originally published in 1935 under the same title.

© Muriwai Books 2017, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

THE SCIENCE OF CORRECT THINKING

LOGIC

BY

CELESTINE N. BITTLE, O.M.CAP.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENT 3

AUTHOR’S PREFACE 4

INTRODUCTION 6

PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC 6

PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE 6

PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC 12

SUMMARY OF INTRODUCTION 15

PART I—IDEA AND TERM 16

CHAPTER I—NATURE OF THE IDEA 16

FORMATION OF IDEAS 16

IDEA AND PHANTASM 18

COMPREHENSION AND EXTENSION 20

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER I 23

CHAPTER II—KINDS OF IDEAS 24

IDEAS ACCORDING TO ORIGIN 24

IDEAS ACCORDING TO REPRESENTATION 25

IDEAS ACCORDING TO THEIR RELATIONS 25

IDEAS ACCORDING TO COMPREHENSION 27

IDEAS ACCORDING TO EXTENSION 28

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER II 30

CHAPTER III—UNIVERSALS 31

NATURE OF THE UNIVERSALS 31

DIRECT UNIVERSALS: CATEGORIES 33

LOGICAL UNIVERSALS: PREDICABLES 38

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER III 43

CHAPTER IV—TERMS 44

NATURE OF TERMS 44

CLASSIFICATION OF TERMS 45

SUPPOSITION OF TERMS 46

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER IV 48

CHAPTER V—DEFINITION AND DIVISION 49

DEFINITION 49

RULES OF DEFINITION 52

DIVISION 53

RULES OF DIVISION 56

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER V 57

PART II—JUDGMENT AND PROPOSITION 59

CHAPTER VI—NATURE OF JUDGMENT AND PROPOSITION 59

NATURE OF JUDGMENT 59

PROPOSITIONS 62

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER VI 63

CHAPTER VII—GENERAL TYPES OF PROPOSITIONS 64

QUALITY OF PROPOSITIONS 64

QUANTITY OF PROPOSITIONS 66

RELATION OF PROPOSITIONS 68

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER VII 71

CHAPTER VIII—SPECIAL TYPES OF PROPOSITIONS 73

SINGLE CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS 74

MULTIPLE CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS 75

HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITIONS 77

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER VIII 79

CHAPTER IX—OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS 80

NATURE OF LOGICAL OPPOSITION 80

LAWS OF LOGICAL OPPOSITION 82

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER IX 86

CHAPTER X—EDUCTIONS 88

OBVERSION 88

CONVERSION 90

CONTRAPOSITION AND INVERSION 93

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER X 95

PART III—INFERENCE AND ARGUMENTATION: DEDUCTION 96

CHAPTER XI—NATURE OF REASONING 96

MEDIATE INFERENCE 96

ARGUMENTATION 102

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XI 103

CHAPTER XII—CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM 105

NATURE OF SYLLOGISM 105

EIGHT GENERAL SYLLOGISTIC RULES 107

PROOF OF EIGHT GENERAL RULES 109

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XII 118

CHAPTER XIII—SYLLOGISTIC FIGURES AND MOODS 120

SYLLOGISTIC FIGURES AND MOODS 120

RULES OF THE SYLLOGISTIC FIGURES 123

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XIII 132

CHAPTER XIV—VARIETIES OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS 133

COMPLEX AND MODAL SYLLOGISMS 133

OVERTLY MULTIPLE SYLLOGISMS 135

COVERTLY MULTIPLE SYLLOGISMS 138

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XIV 143

CHAPTER XV—HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS 145

CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS 145

DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS 152

CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISMS 156

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XV 157

CHAPTER XVI—VARIATIONS OF THE SYLLOGISM 159

THE ENTHYMEME 159

THE EPICHIREME 162

THE POLYSYLLOGISM 163

THE SORITES 163

THE DILEMMA 167

EXTRA-SYLLOGISTIC INFERENCES 170

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XVI 174

PART IV—INFERENCE AND ARGUMENTATION: INDUCTION 175

CHAPTER XVII—NATURE OF INDUCTION 175

FORMAL AND MATERIAL TRUTH IN INFERENCE 175

SCIENTIFIC METHODS 177

INDUCTIVE METHOD 177

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XVII 181

CHAPTER XVIII—THE LOGICAL FOUNDATION OF INDUCTION 182

THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY 182

THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE 187

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XVIII 191

CHAPTER XIX—INDUCTIVE METHOD 193

OBSERVATION 193

EXPERIMENTATION 194

HYPOTHESIS 196

RULES FOR INDUCTIVE METHOD 199

AN EXAMPLE OF INDUCTIVE METHOD 203

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XIX 206

CHAPTER XX—FALLACIES 208

FALLACIES IN LANGUAGE 208

FALLACIES IN THE MATTER 211

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER XX 219

GLOSSARY OF DEFINITIONS 220

REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER 234

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

Our present day is rather disputatious. New ideas and theories in economics, science, statecraft, philosophy, and religion clamor for recognition. Some of these issues have been slow in coming to the fore; others have been violently thrust to the surface in the catastrophic upheaval of the World War. They will demand attention for decades to come, and they cannot be side-stepped. From soapbox and rostrum, through the medium of the press and the radio, these problems are filtering from the higher levels of the intellectuals down to the common people.

Many of these issues will have to be decided by the rising generation. They must reason their way through the new theories and the novel experiments. That a knowledge of sound principles is a prime requisite for this, goes without saying; and that a thorough understanding of the science of correct thinking should prove a valuable aid in this task, is equally certain. Far too many errors in the solution of problems are due to loose reasoning and to an ignorance of the laws which govern our mental operations. We must be able to think logically before we can act logically. Hence, the study of logic should be time well spent for the educated person and particularly for the student, for they will be the leaders of tomorrow. Books on philosophy, and therefore also on logic, are usually of two types: textbooks and monographs. Most textbooks are so brief and skeletonized that the ordinary reader fails to grasp the full significance and value of the material; monographs, on the other hand, are so complicated and technical, that they appeal only to the professor and the professional.

Yet it should not be impossible to combine the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of both types of books: relative completeness of material, with the absence of undue complication and technicality. The author has attempted to treat this most fundamental department of philosophy along these lines. For this purpose he has endeavored to use simple language and copious illustrations, so as to render the subject understandable. Philosophy cannot be made easy, but it certainly can be made less difficult. At the same time, the technical side of logic has not been omitted, but has been built up in gradual stages, so that the mind of the student can grow with the subject. The more controversial points have been left aside as being less in keeping with the positive purpose intended; after the reader has grasped the fundamentals, he should be able to wrestle with the monographs.

Since logic treats of the purely mental operations of ideas, judgments, and inferences, which always remain the same, no radical departure from traditional teaching need be expected. Nor can a large amount of explanations, definitions, divisions, and rules be avoided in a subject of this kind; they are a necessary burden which cannot be shirked without detriment to a proper understanding of the nature and function of these operations. In explaining the syllogistic figures and moods the author has used a set of symbols of his own devising; he has found them very effective in his work in the classroom, and he hopes they will be equally helpful in enabling the reader, to understand this difficult but important part of logic. To make the subject more readable, the ordinary textbook arrangement was dropped in favor of the chapter form. It was hoped that in this way the book would be made palatable not only to the student, but also to any person desirous of self-education. The book is intended, therefore, as a textbook, if so desired, or as supplementary reading in classwork, or as an introduction to philosophy for the general reader. In any case, a well-grounded knowledge in the science of correct thinking should be a valuable asset in these troublous times confronting the nation.

C. B.

February 22, 1935.

INTRODUCTION

PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC

We live in a mechanical age. During the last century and a half the natural sciences have received a tremendous impetus; their scope of investigation has been widened to a remarkable extent; their achievements have been of an extraordinary nature; and their material benefits to mankind have become really phenomenal. Thinkers and investigators have turned more and more to these positive sciences as the great field in which to apply their powers of research, with the result that they have come to look upon them as the only legitimate source of knowledge, since they present facts which alone can be proved by the exact demonstration of observation and experiment. The telescope, the microscope, the test tube—these have become the standard and measurement of truth. Nothing else has real value. They greet the mention of philosophy with a cynical smile or at best with the tolerance of a deprecating shrug of the shoulders. Philosophy, to them, is nothing but the vaporizations of speculative dreamers; it deserves no serious consideration as a science.

PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

This attitude is based upon an ignorance of the nature and function of philosophy. Philosophy and the exact sciences are not in opposition to each other; their origin and scope are fundamentally the same. Both originate from the unquenchable thirst of the human mind for a deeper knowledge of the world within and around us. This, in the individual as well as in the race, begins with birth and ends only with death. Knowledge starts in the senses and finishes in reason. The child obtains one sense impression after the other and gradually recognizes the relations between things. Soon its mind asks the eternal questions of How? and Why?; it insists on knowing the hidden causes. As the years roll on, the fund of accumulated facts grows incessantly, and the mind’s demand for an adequate explanation proceeds apace. A merely superficial knowledge of the phenomena of nature no longer suffices; the mind endeavors to break through the surface of things and appearances, in order to study the deeper causes of nature and its workings. This is the starting point of the natural sciences.

The mind accepts the world at large as a great fact and portions it out among the various sciences. Each science has its own particular field of research. Astronomy studies the outside universe; physics studies the forces of nature in its manifold operations; chemistry studies the elements and their compounds; botany studies the plants; zoology studies the animals; physiology studies man in his bodily construction and the functioning of his organs; biology studies life and its development; and so with every special science.

Science does not desire a mere enumeration of facts; it seeks to discover the underlying principles, the causes and the laws behind these facts, so as to explain them and arrange them into a comprehensive system of knowledge. For the phenomena of nature in a particular field are not isolated and independent, but interrelated and interdependent. It is the scope of science to discover these relations and to formulate them into laws of universal value which will apply at all times and in all places and under all conditions. A few examples will illustrate the point. Mankind has always known lightning and its effects; but it was only after the discovery of electricity and the famous kite experiment of Benjamin Franklin that the physical nature of lightning became clear. Water had always been merely water to people, until science revealed the fact that it consists of one part oxygen and two parts hydrogen. Nations have always experienced epidemics; the discovery of disease-bearing germs, however, explained the nature of contagious infection and gave rise to the new science of medical bacteriology. Everybody has observed the fall of bodies; but a scientific knowledge of this phenomenon was only attained when Newton attributed it to the attractive force of the earth, and scientists formulated the law of accelerated motion. These are only isolated instances, but they show how the mind of man is dissatisfied with commonplace explanations and tends to delve beneath the surface of phenomena to discover their hidden relations and causes.

Now, philosophy is based on this same innate thirst of the mind for deeper knowledge. There are many problems which lie beyond the reach even of science. Why should the mind of man not try to solve them? If science with its observation and experiment cannot reach an ultimate explanation, might not reason find a way? After all, science must also use reason to prove its conclusions, and philosophy simply goes a step farther. Science presupposes many things which philosophy would fain investigate. If science has the right to analyze nature and reduce its many phenomena to their simpler elements and laws, thereby increasing man’s knowledge, who would gainsay to philosophy the right to strive for a still greater unification and systematization of the laws and principles of nature? It were different if philosophy refused to accept the proved conclusions of science; but that is not the case. Philosophy accepts the legitimate findings of science and then pushes its investigation still farther into the regions of the unknown, thereby attempting to widen the boundary line of knowledge. Philosophy is thus an extension of science.

Chemistry, for instance, has discovered over ninety different elements, ranging from hydrogen to uranium, and these compose all the different kinds of bodies in the world; this is as far as science can go. Here the problem naturally arises: Since all these elements consist of matter, why their essential difference among themselves? Are they composed again of atoms, electrons, protons? What forms the ultimate constitution of bodies? Again, many sciences, like biology, botany, zoology, etc., treat of living things and accept life as a given reality. But what, precisely, is life? Whence does and can it originate? Is it fundamentally distinct from the chemical elements that constitute the body? Is it merely a force, or is it a substantial principle? Experimental psychology makes a special study of man’s mind in all its moods, states, and operations. However, what is the nature of the mind? Is it material or immaterial? Accidental or substantial? What is the nature of the soul? Mortal or immortal? Astronomy and astrophysics make the universe their special object of research. But whence the stars? What is the origin of the world? Is it eternal? Does chance account for the existence and orderliness of its arrangement? Must it have been created? Is there a God? If so, who and what is He? Anthropology treats of man. Now, is man a responsible agent, endowed with free will, or merely a sublimated ape? Is there a fundamental distinction between right and wrong? Is expediency or divine law the norm which must govern man’s actions?

The very foundations of the natural sciences may be questioned. The Principle of Causality—has it objective value or is it merely a figment of our mind? The laws of nature—are they constant and immutable or are they in a continual state of change like nature itself? Can the mind really know truth? What is truth? Is it based on permanent realities or docs it shift with time and place? How can we know that our senses give us a true picture of the surrounding world and that the mind can reach the hidden cause behind the phenomena of the senses? If these questions cannot be satisfactorily answered, then the very foundations of the sciences are insecure and the entire systematic structure built upon them will collapse like a house of cards.

These are not idle questions. They are important, vital, all-embracing, and affect every part of the natural sciences, from their first principles down to their last conclusions. These problems are worthy of every attempt at solution, and the human mind has the right and the duty to find the answers with the aid of its reason. That is the purpose and function of philosophy. It is the super-science which seeks to bring all the special sciences and their scattered data into a higher system of unity—a veritable world-synthesis. Philosophy, therefore, begins where science ends. It is fundamental to all sciences, delving down into the deepest and ultimate reasons and causes of nature, thereby endeavoring, so far as human intelligence can reach, to solve the riddles of the universe. The right of the human mind to search for truth gives to philosophy its right to existence.

From the above it will be clear how we must define philosophy. Philosophy (from the Greek ɸιλετv to love, and σοɸία, wisdom; ‘love of wisdom’) is the science of beings in their ultimate reasons, causes, and principles, acquired by the aid of human reason alone. A brief explanation will clarify this definition.

Philosophy is a science. It is not based on mere opinions or theories or hypotheses, but is certain knowledge derived from reasoned demonstrations of causes and reduced to a system. Philosophy is a ‘science of beings’; that is, of all things which can be reached by the human mind. This includes man, the world, God; everything that is, or becomes, or is known. Other sciences have as their special field of research some particular province of natural phenomena but philosophy has as its object the whole universe and the Supreme Being. Philosophy is the ‘science of beings in their ultimate reasons, causes, and principles.’ A ‘reason’ is that by means of which a thing is known and can be understood; a ‘cause’ is that which contributes in some positive manner toward the production of a thing; a ‘principle’ is that from which something proceeds. The other sciences give the proximate causes of things, while philosophy searches for the ultimate reasons and causes and principles. Thus, physiology treats of the organs and functions of the human body, while philosophy explains the nature of man in his body and soul, in his vital principle and its connection with the body. In other words, philosophy endeavors to understand and explain the fundamental essences of things. Finally, philosophy is the ‘science of beings in their ultimate reasons, causes and principles, acquired by the aid of human reason alone.’ This means that philosophy docs not base its knowledge on authority, but solely on the reasoning power of the human mind. Divine revelation, therefore, is formally excluded as a source of information in philosophy, although it can and should assist the mind of man by pointing out the proper direction for the philosophic solution of a problem along purely natural lines.

To sum up: the material object of philosophy is all being in the widest sense of the term; its formal object is all being in its ultimate reasons, causes, and principles, studied in the light of human reason.

What are the benefits to be derived from a knowledge of philosophy?

From the standpoint of personal advantage, the searcher after truth will find in philosophy a treasure-trove of priceless information, ranging all the way from the atom and the cell to man and the stars and the universe and God. No province of truth is foreign to philosophy. While the various sciences are as so many facets that reflect a brilliant ray of light, philosophy is the jewel that unites all the facets into a harmonious burst of glorious truth. As the sciences in their unceasing research discover the single facts of nature and express them in unchanging laws, thereby simplifying their understanding, so philosophy in turn investigates the findings of the single sciences, discovers the principles and laws common to them all, and unites the various sciences and their conclusions into the highest synthesis possible to the human mind on the basis of reason alone. Philosophy is the unification and systematization of all important knowledge within the domain of reason. If the knowledge of the single sciences is an acquisition worth more than all material comfort and gain, then the knowledge of philosophy, the super-science summarizing and unifying them, is proportionately richer and higher in value: it is the supreme achievement of the human intellect in a purely natural way.

The student, and the savant, whose mind has a full and deep grasp of philosophic knowledge will find little difficulty in sifting truth from error in the glittering mass of conflicting and confusing opinions that flood the world in speech, newspaper, magazine, and book; for the fundamental principles of philosophy, like the thread of Ariadne, will direct his footsteps unerringly through the labyrinthine maze of darkness back to the sunlight of truth. The road is indeed arduous and difficult, demanding much labor and not a little pain, but compensations there are also, satisfying beyond measure and lifting the mind above the drudgery of a workaday world. The intellect must soar at times in the rarefied regions of a stratosphere of clear reason where, it is true, breathing becomes increasingly difficult; but the outlook upon the world as a whole is so far reaching and magnificent that the shallowness of ordinary life and the pettiness of human foibles disappear almost from view in the larger vision of a God-given destiny. No one, imbued with the great principles of true philosophy, can but be a better character and a greater man.

Philosophy, as we have seen, treats of the world at large in all its forms and manifestations, under the aspect of its ultimate reasons, causes, and principles. In order to avoid confusion, however, it must treat of the different forms of being under different headings. This leads to the division of philosophy into a number of departments. Philosophy has undergone a process of development in the course of the centuries. Problems arise and receive extensive treatment for a time; then, having been solved, they subside into a minor position. Formerly, for instance, the problem of the validity of human knowledge was treated in logic; but now it is a major problem, so that it has become a special department, epistemology. And so with others. There is a variety of methods which can be employed in order to arrive at the division and designation of these departments. The following scheme, taken from the subject matter of philosophy, is convenient.

So far as the arrangement and sequence of these various departments of philosophy are concerned, each has its advantages and disadvantages. Some philosophers contend that philosophy should follow the natural course of human thought and investigation. We should begin with the world around us (cosmology); then consider man himself (psychology); then study the inner workings of the mind (logic, epistemology) and will (ethics); then investigate being in itself (ontology); and finally contemplate God (theodicy). Others object to this arrangement on the score that the philosophy of being in general (ontology) must precede the philosophy of particular beings, and a person must first learn to think correctly (logic) and be assured of the validity of his knowledge (epistemology) before he begins to philosophize. The fact is simply that the entire division of philosophy into departments, though based on good grounds, is inadequate, because no department is altogether exclusive of the other; this makes a certain amount of repetition of ideas and principles inevitable, the field of investigation being so extensive that it cannot possibly be covered without passing and repassing the same lines. This will always remain a practical difficulty which can only be solved by the method of treatment.

One of the best arrangements is to begin with logic, the science of correct thinking, because correct thinking is necessary for every department of philosophy. The next step would be epistemology, the science of the validity of human knowledge, because only if we are sure that we can attain truth will philosophy rest upon a solid basis. And since everything that philosophy investigates is being in some form or other, ontology, the science of being in general, should be of great help in understanding the special kinds of being. Now the mind is ready to study the problems of the world in inorganic nature, and that leads to cosmology. The study of living beings will be next in order; and since man has vegetation (plant life), sensation (animal life), and reasoning (rational life), psychology, the science of life, follows as a matter of course. From the study of inorganic and organic nature to the investigation of the existence and nature of God is but a natural step; hence theodicy, the science of God. Ethics should actually follow psychology, since man’s will is a part of his rational nature, but morality and responsibility are meaningless without a knowledge of God, the Supreme Lawgiver, and therefore ethics takes the last, but not the least, position in philosophy. This arrangement is not perfect, because the rather abstract departments of logic, epistemology, and ontology are in the lead; but here, as in many other instances, it may be best to acquire a thorough understanding of the technique and the fundamentals of the science before attempting to put them into play. The first step, then, in the study of philosophy will be an investigation into the laws of correct thinking and into the foundations of knowledge. That is the beginning of wisdom and of truth.

PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC

Truth is the object of our thinking; it also marks the extent and the limitation of our thinking powers. We attain truth when our thinking (judgment) corresponds with the reality of things; and, since every being contains something that can be known as true, truth is as wide as being, and that comprises everything that is actual or possible.

Many truths are quite apparent. I gaze out of my window and see the sun in the sky; I know that it is day. I see a collie frisking over the neighboring lawn; I know that he is alive. I notice a patch of snow on the embankment; I know that winter is near. Experience makes these truths obvious, and I need no complicated reasoning process to establish them. But the attainment of truth is not always so simple. Does the sun move around the earth, or the earth around the sun? Is a monarchy or republic the better form of government? Has man a soul distinct from his body and, if so, is it immortal? Is there a Supreme Being above and beyond the physical world? Is crime the result of a disease or of a perverted free will? Is evolution a fact or a fancy? Merely to state such questions is enough to illustrate the fact that the attainment of some truths presents many difficulties which can only be resolved by a long, careful, and painstaking research.

Now, to be reasonably sure of success in such an undertaking, we must be sure of every step in the process of thinking from beginning to end; a mistake, or even a serious doubt, anywhere along the line would vitiate the end result and make the assurance of truth impossible. Correct thinking is a necessity in any problem that confronts our mind. It makes no difference whether we discuss a problem of politics or economics or science or law or art or history or philosophy or religion; nor does it matter whether we argue the respective merits of automobiles or sports or persons or buildings or card games or hats or shoes or other commonplaces of everyday life: reasoning enters into every such argumentation; thinking is the basis of reasoning, and to know the laws of correct thinking will, therefore, be a great help in avoiding errors and in finding the truth. The widespread differences of opinion among men concerning the most vital problems prove the importance of clear thinking. Most arguments and discussions would not be so fruitless if the principles of correct thinking were better understood and applied. It is the function of logic to supply this knowledge and its application. The science of logic is not intended as a sort of parade ground for mental gymnastics, where the mind can disport itself in quibbles and subtle distinctions in order to squirm out of some disagreeable conclusion of fact or theory; its purpose is to assist the mind honestly in discovering and attaining truth wherever it can be found. For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth.

Every normal person possesses native logical powers; this is no more than to say that all of us can think and reason and distinguish truth from error without special training in logic. The child’s eternal question Why? shows this; it demands an explanation and a reason. The ordinary man of the street and the unlettered savage will often enter into lengthy discussions and argumentations, and they frequently display a remarkable sharpness of wit. But they are restricted to problems of an easier and simpler nature; deeper and more complicated problems are beyond their reach. It is a pitiful spectacle indeed to see even cultured men, high in science and business and statecraft, flounder through a discussion in a most deplorable fashion, once they leave their own specialized field, simply because they are practically ignorant of the principles, laws, and methods of correct thinking and lack a training in logic.

In order to proceed safely and efficiently in the solution of an intricate problem, we must have a thorough knowledge of the mind in its various operations, the elements that enter into the making of correct judgments and arguments, the rules that govern our reasoning, and the force of the different methods used in proving truth. Furthermore, our mind must be trained in the proper use of its own powers. The difference between a person with merely native logical talents and a person with trained logical talents, is the difference between an amateur and a professional; in some cases the amateur may by sheer brilliance of mind achieve great results, but as a rule it is the trained professional who forges his way to the top. Occasionally, the ordinary driver of an automobile may acquire a wide knowledge of his car and its functionings, but usually only the trained mechanic knows all the details of construction and operation necessary to detect and repair the damaged parts and to keep the car in smooth running order. The same is true in every line of human endeavor, and this is also the case with the mind in its search for truth. The scientist and the philosopher must know how to use the tools of his craft and train himself in their proper manipulation. Genius, perhaps, is born. Scientific training, however, often makes the mediocre mind great. Dullards, of course, are failures everywhere.

From the above it will be plain that there are two kinds of logic, natural and scientific. Natural logic is what is called, in popular parlance, common sense. Scientific logic, on the other hand, is natural logic trained and developed to expertness by means of a well-grounded knowledge of the principles, laws, and methods which underlie the various operations of the mind in the attainment of truth. The study of logic is neither as easy nor as entertaining as the reading of a novel; it demands earnest attention, deep concentration, and persistent practice: but its value is inestimable in searching for the true solution of the manifold problems that confront the human mind. As such, therefore, it deserves our serious consideration. Difficulties, of course, there are; but practice, here also, makes perfect.

The question has been asked: Is logic a science or an art? It is both. In as much as it consists of a comprehensive body of established principles and laws with their legitimate conclusions, woven together into a unified system, it is a science; in as much as the mastery of its technique enables the mind to pursue truth in an easy, orderly, and safe manner its purpose is practical and it is,