objects are notions designated by words, the thought itself often fails to go beyond them. But scientific thinking must needs penetrate within the general notions and names to the realities signified. Boole says: "By some it is maintained that words represent the conceptions of the mind alone; by others that they represent things. In the processes of reasoning signs stand in the place and fulfil the office of the conceptions and operations of the mind; but as those conceptions and operations represent things and the connections and relations of things, so signs represent things with their connections and relations; and lastly, as signs stand in the place of conceptions and operations of the mind, they are subject to the laws of those conceptions and operations.”* But though the word is the sign of the concept yet it is only a sign or symbol of it; and though the concept is a concept of things yet it can be designated only by a symbol and can be imaged as reality only in some one of the particular things included in it. Hence the danger that the thought stop in the words, and the necessity to complete intelligence that the thought pass through the words to the things.

"Battles are bloody": the mind assents without emotion. The sight of a battle, a visit to a battle-field directly after the fight, a narrative of the experience of a single wounded soldier, fills up the words with a terrific meaning. "London is in England": but it takes the experience of a lifetime in that city to learn what it is in England which is denoted by the word London. Through thus stopping in the words and not going through the words to the things comes so often the unreality of knowledge gained out of a book through words. Thought about things is necessary to give freshness and significance to thought about words and concepts. As Carlyle says, to think it is to thing it. Ludwig Noiré says: "The only correct method of investigation is to verify things by things"; and he exemplifies the difficulty of reaching reality through words by relating that a number of eminent philologists had a feast prepared according to some ancient Greek recipes, with the result that it thoroughly disordered the stomachs of all who partook of it and caused the death of one of them. An extreme example of sticking in the letter he gives in the story that when the Florentines began eagerly to look through Galileo's telescope, the priests rebuked them from the Scriptures with the words, "Viri Galilaei, quid statis spectantes in coelum"? And he quotes a warning against this danger of empty thinking from Thomas Aquinas: "Names do not follow the mode of being which is in things, but the mode of being which is according to our cognition."† Spinoza gives a similar cau

*Boole's Laws of Thought, p. 26.

† Ludwig Noiré; Die Welt als Entwickelung des Geistes, ?? 10, 11, 12, 13.

tion: "Whence it is easy to see how carefully we should avoid, in the investigation of things, the confounding of the entities of reality with the entities of thought. It is one thing to inquire into the nature of things, another to inquire into the modes in which they are perceived by us. If these two are confounded we shall neither be able to understand the modes of our receiving nor the nature of the things itself."* Examples of confounding psychological processes with logical, and of substituting logical concepts and forms for reality are frequent in the writings of Hamilton, Kant, and notwithstanding the warning just. quoted, of Spinoza himself; and the exposure of this confusion is often a sufficient exposure and refutation of their fallacies. The pantheism of Kant's successors in Germany was little else than a resolving of the world-process into a process of logic. Beings, their qualities, differences and relations are not known from the logical concepts of thought; the logical concepts are formed from the knowledge of beings.

2. Formal or abstract thought, being limited to the analysis and distribution of concepts already formed and named, is insufficient for the synthetic processes by which we enlarge our knowledge of reality, and for the synthetic or ampliative judgments which enunciate the new knowledge acquired by our investigations. It is incompetent also for the scientific analysis of real things, to which the most intractable compounds reveal the secret of their elements. Modern science, empirical, philosophical and theological, has not been built up by the analysis of concepts and words.

3. Accordingly the three primary axioms of formal logic, the principles of identity, of non-contradiction and excluded middle, are not a sufficient basis for the logic of realistic thought engaged in the investigation of reality and the discovery and systemization of facts. These axioms of pure or formal thought are founded on the categories of unity, plurality and totality, which pertain to number without necessarily including any content of reality. But the principles of real thinking must carry reality through the whole process. Reality in its individuality, diversity, complexity, is much more than the mere forms of unity, plurality, totality. In realistic thinking, the judgment of identity expressed in the formula, A is A, is not the identical proposition, "Whatever is, is," which some logicians † have propounded as the first principle of all thinking. Rather it is the judgment that the A of thought is the intellectual equivalent of the A of reality; and this reality is not a general notion expressed by a name, but a concrete reality apprehended in the concrete qualities and activities which mani

Cogitata Metaphysica; Appendix Renati Descartes Principiorum Philosophiae. Pars prima, Cap. i. 29. Bridges' Ed. Vol. i. p. 102.

†Prof. Jevons, Principles of Science, p. 5. See Ueberweg Logik, 77.

fest what it is. It is the judgment which declares the result of simple apprehension; that is, it declares in respect to any portion of presented reality which has become the object of attention, what the reality is which the intuition has brought before the mind.

The realistic judgment of difference, A is not B, must not be confounded with the judgment of non-contradiction, A is not not-A. Two contradictories cannot co-exist; one excludes the other; but two objects that differ are both known to exist and to exist as different; the other is as real as the one.

The judgment of excluded middle, "everything is either A or it is not-A," in which formal thought is completed, recognizes the sum total of thought merely as a total of number. But a complex whole of reality is much more than a total of arithmetic, because the parts are individual realities differing from each other, and the relations which unite them are real and diverse. Of this no notice is taken in the formal thought which forms its totals by counting and rests on the maxim that the whole is equal to the sum of all its parts. This is a maxim of arithmetic which deals only with number, but not of science which deals with concrete realities. A family, a nation, a steam-engine is more and other than the sum of all its parts. The substitution of the empty forms of number, unity, plurality and totality for reality, with its individualities, differences and relations, and the errors consequent, are conspicuous in the writings of Hamilton; in consequence of which his "absolute" fluctuates between an arithmetical total, and a logical concept comprising all things and distinguished from nothing; his grand law of thought includes all that is conceivable in thought between two extremes contradictory of each other, and yet both necessarily believed; and his only resource to save reason from being entirely discredited by its own antinomies, is to recognize its impotence; so that the necessary beliefs of reason are resolved into the mind's consciousness of its own self-contradiction and incompetence.

Instead, therefore, of the law of excluded middle, which recognizes the universe merely as a numerical total composed of A and not-A, we have, in concrete thinking, the judgment, A is related to B, C, D, &c., in the unity of a complete whole. Or, all things exist in relation to each other in the unity of a complex whole or system.

4. To supplement the inadequacy of the formal logic Leibnitz suggested the additional principle of the Sufficient Reason; of which he says: "This principle is that of the need of a sufficient reason why a thing exists, why an event happens, and why a truth is held."* This principle may be accepted; not merely in the sense that thought must

* Fifth Letter to Samuel Clarke, 125; also Theod. I. 44.

account for every beginning or change by finding its cause, but in the broader meaning that thought must account for and explain all reality by its accordance with the truths, laws and ends of reason in the unity of a rational system. It is impossible for a rational being to rest in any thought as completed until this accord with reason is discovered.

Prof. Bowen proposes to reduce all these principles to two: "All thought must be consistent with itself;" "All thought must be conscquent; that is it should never affirm or deny a union of two concepts without any ground for such affirmation or denial."* But this still keeps us within the limits of formal or abstract thought. The fact that thought is consistent with and consequent on itself does not prove it to be knowledge of reality.

5. The principles, which underlie realistic or concrete thought, and are the basis of a logical science of its laws, seem to be these:

(a) Thought must be consistent with reality as given in intuition. (b) Thought must be consistent with itself. This is the positive form of the law of non-contradiction. While consistency of thought with itself does not prove it true, its inconsistency with itself or its selfcontradictoriness proves it false.

(c) Thought must be consistent with the regulative principles of

reason.

To these may be added three others, which may be called laws of things as well as laws of thought.

(d) Knowledge is correlative to reality. This, as has been shown, is of the essence of knowledge. Thought then must not only be consistent with intuition, carefully including all and excluding nothing which intuition gives, it must carry with it also the certainty that intuition rightly connoted is knowledge of reality.

(e) What is contradictory in thought is impossible in reality; or, stated positively, all particular realities are consistent with one another in reciprocal relations in the unity of a complex whole. Contradiction is no more possible in objective reality than in subjective thought. Co-existing realities are always compatible.

(f) What is contradictory to the necessary truths of reason is impossible in reality. The absurd cannot be real. Or, stated positively, all particular realities must be accounted for and explained to the reason as existing in a rational system consistent with the truths, laws, ideals and ends of reason.

6. These principles are at the basis of all scientific investigation. Science assumes them at the start. It starts with the assumption that things are concatenated, that there is unity in all diversity, and that

. Logic, pp. 48, 53.

every object in the universe exists in scientific or rational relations, whether it can or cannot be scientifically known by us. When a new animal, plant or mineral is discovered it is taken for granted that it can be scientifically classified; when a new fact is observed it is taken for granted that it can be co-ordinated under natural law. All science starts with the assumption that the universe is a rational system and that every reality in it must be in relation to other reality in that system; and, if accessible to our knowledge, may be found in its place in a system of scientific thought.

7. That advancement in science is made chiefly by the processes of concrete thought is true of philosophical and theological science, not less really than of empirical. Philosophy and theology are not the knowledge of propositions, notions and words, but of beings, their qualities, powers, conditions and relations; they are the knowledge of these in their accordance with the truths, laws, ideals and ends of reason, and in the unity of a rational system expressing the archetypal thoughts of the absolute and supreme reason. The object of religious faith is not doctrine, but the living God.

14. Induction and the Newtonian Method.

A special consideration of induction is necessary not only on account of its intrinsic importance, but also because the students of the physical sciences are designating them as distinctively Inductive Sciences, thus appropriating the word and insinuating that induction is used in no other sphere of thought; it is necessary, also, because the word induction is now used ambiguously and confusedly to denote two distinct methods of reasoning. These two methods I shall consider in succession. The first I shall call Simple Induction; or, because Lord Bacon used the word induction to denote it, Baconian Induction; or, because until recently the word induction has commonly been used to denote this method, Induction, without any qualifying word. The second I shall call the Newtonian Method, because it was used by Sir Isaac Newton; or, the hypothetical method, because it begins with an hypothesis.

I. Simple induction is the inference that because all observed agents of a particular kind under certain conditions manifest a particular property or produce a particular effect, therefore all agents of the same kind, not hitherto observed, will, under the same conditions, everywhere and always produce the same effect.

1. By induction we extend our knowledge from that which has been observed to that which has not been observed.

What is observed is a uniform or unvaried sequence; that is, every agent of a particular kind, under particular conditions, so far as