FOREWORD The situation with respect to the teaching of logic has today become nothing short of chaotic. Everybody finds the subjects that used to be discussed under the name of logic desperately unsatisfactory, particularly for the purposes of the elementary course, but few are clear as to the direction in which we ought to advance and those who have come to a definite conclusion find themselves seriously frustrated when they seek appropriate textbook material to place in the hands of their students. The situation is the more challenging when we note that leaders in the field of college education are rallying with increasing unanimity to the doctrine that the supreme intellectual end of higher education is the training of students in the power of discriminating and constructive thinking. If this conception is sound the general course in logic ought to be fundamentally valuable as a focus around which a large part of the curriculum might be helpfully organized, but is safe to say that the traditional logic course is entirely unacceptable as a means of meeting this need. In many progressive universities evidences of complete despair of the possibility of reconstructing logic so as to connect it with living intellectual needs are at hand. Courses in "Reflective Thinking" have developed, or general "Orientation" courses organized, in which a serious attempt is made to help the student gain unified and dependable control over his thinking through a systematic study of the principles of right thinking, but in which the material that bulked large in the old-fashioned logic texts is conspicuous by its absence. So far as textbooks are concerned, they multiply annually, but none finds it easy to satisfy many besides its author. Most of the recent candidates for acceptance hold pretty cautiously to the traditional material, while the novelties introduced are but half-hearted and suggest that the author is not quite clear as to what ought to be done and why. Others have been so radical as to abandon the very substance of the ancient logic, implying that their authors are proceeding under the supposition that something which has been studied for two thousand years as a central condition of correct thinking is entirely mistaken. Whether the present book will prove able to meet this challenge with any better success remains to be seen; where so many have failed it would be temerity indeed to imagine that one has come very near to the goal. And none who reads the following pages will be more sensible of their serious defects than the author. But the need is great and justifies the risks of trial. The author makes but one plea of those who consider the book worth trying, and that is that if they find genuine possibilities in it they give him the benefit of constructive suggestions as to its betterment. If the volume lives through a second edition, every such suggestion will be most carefully considered. With regard to the ideas which have governed the selection and organization of material, a few brief statements may be made. The central effort has been to organize the content around the study of thinking as it actually reveals itself in typical human. situations. The syllogism has not at all been banished, but has been carefully placed in this living context, and in treating it full use has been made of recent expansions and corrections of the older deductive logic, so that those students who go on to a systematic study of symbolic logic will not have to unlearn as mistaken a part of what they were taught in the elementary course. On this subject I have tried to avoid really doubtful matters, and in the choice of terminology have tended toward conservatism. In dealing with scientific methods of generalization I have found it necessary to revamp Mill's Methods rather radically, and have not hesitated to make any changes or additions in discussing the procedures of science that the development of scientific research during the last century appears to justify. In the final section, that on problems of thinking in extra-scientific fields, a special effort has been made to render the discussion both frank and coöperative, in the hope that in this way even such a brief presentation of the problem will clarify the student's conception of the value and difficulty of careful thinking on such matters. This policy in the chapter on religion may render the book inacceptable in certain parts of the country, but assuredly dishonesty or camouflage could not be allowed to infect the book. By assigning about fifteen pages a lesson except in chapter seven, which must be covered at a considerably slower rate, the book can be completed in about forty-five lessons. It is hence intended to fit the time available in the ordinary semester or quarter course, though some teachers will not attempt to carry their students through the entire content. But it is often advantageous to have as much material available within a single pair of covers, so that the problem of collateral reading will be minimized. Where the course permits more time than this, it is hoped that the bibliographies will furnish the guidance needed for the supplementary reading that will then be possible. The books have been selected in the expectation that they will be read; for this reason the lists are brief and each title is annotated so that the student will know in a general way what he will find if he turns to it. The author's indebtednesses are so many that it would be impossible to acknowledge them all. In the general plan of the book the writings of Professor Dewey and the Columbia Associates' Introduction to Reflective Thinking have been leaned upon heavily. Suggestions or criticisms from the following have been embodied in the final text: Professor Harvey Carr of the University of Chicago, President E. W. Wilkins of Oberlin, Professor E. W. Puttkamer of the University of Chicago, Professor E. B. Hill of Harvard University, Professor C. I. Lewis of Harvard University, Professor H. B. Costello of Trinity College, Professor Walter Dorn, Professor G. S. Monk, and Professor H. F. Gosnell of the University of Chicago, and Professor C. M. Perry of the University of Texas. These aids are most gratefully acknowledged, though the friends mentioned are not to be held responsible for the way in which their help has been used. Special gratitude also is due to the following members of my logic class in the spring of 1927, who at my invitation formed a research group to aid in the selection and criticism of material for the volume: Mr. D. B. Dodd, Mr. E. E. Fink, Mr. H. Hoijer, Mr. R. R. McGregor, Mr. G. B. Meagher, Mr. G. B. Pidot, Mr. P. Rozendal, Mr. R. L. Stern, and Miss H. V. Walter. These became teachers as well as students, and the text is improved in many places because of their work. My colleagues at the University of Chicago and at Harvard University have been unstinting in friendly encouragement, and my wife's helpful coöperation has been constant. Auburndale, Mass. December, 1927. E. A. B. |