THE TEACHING OF LOGIC. 147 



It is more evident in the ordinary treatment of inductive logic 

 than in the case of deductive, that the subject is descriptive in char- 

 acter, with its data taken from the work of scientific investigators and 

 discoverers, and its purpose to set forth the approved ways of thinking. 

 Nevertheless, more might be done to anticipate a first impression, not 

 at all uncommon with students, that the subject matter of inductive 

 logic is abstract and quite removed from daily human interests. 

 There is no danger of over-emphasizing the relation of what is taught 

 in the class room to the realities of life, by way of showing that the 

 content of logic is not the invention of text-book writers, and is not 

 esoteric in its nature and use ; that the methods described and analyzed 

 in treatises on logic may be said to have their primitive forms in the 

 uncultivated state of the human mind whether in savage or in civilized 

 society. What is scientifically known as the uniformity of nature and 

 the method of difference are but the tendencies of the human mind 

 to expect similar coexistences and sequences under similar conditions, 

 and to regard the new antecedent as the cause of the new phenomenon, 

 tendencies as strong in the savage as in the civilized mind. In brief, 

 we should show the student that the difference between the principles 

 and methods of common life, and those studied in logic, is the difference 

 between spontaneous and attentive observation; between rash and 

 rationally guided theorizing; between verification that is heedless and 

 insufficient, and that which is exact and exhaustive. 



Induction should be understood in its proper connotation. To 

 conceive it as simply the reverse process of deduction, to regard it as 

 identical with case-counting, or mere generalization based upon facts, 

 is to remain ignorant of the complex and varied nature of scientific 

 method, in which generalization plays but one part. A logical analysis 

 of inductive method should be so complete as to make it unmistakably 

 evident that to be a scientific investigator is to be more than a collector 

 of facts and a propounder of theories. Darwin once remarked that 

 any fool could generalize and speculate. The verification of theories 

 by appeal to facts and known laws is the step in inductive procedure 

 quite frequently overlooked or hastily taken. And yet the importance 

 of it is emphasized by what has been said of eminent scientific investi- 

 gators, namely, that the process of deduction has played a more im- 

 portant part in their work than induction; that their days were spent 

 in verifying their theories and establishing the further consequences 

 of them. 



The failure to understand the complex nature of inductive method 

 appears now and then in another form. It finds expression in the 

 opinions of those who profess to speak authoritatively upon the study 

 of science from the pedagogical point of view. According to this 

 view, the distinction between the observational and the experimental 



