532 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



continued efforts, requiring the closest and most constant retrospection and 

 forethought, the retrospection of doubt, and the precognition of the future ; but 

 it is the philosophical vesture which may be most safely worn by all of us 

 ordinary men and women. With it, at least, we do what we have to do. Some 

 must do more than they have to do. For them, the suffering of that great 

 ambition. But to the world at large our own is enough. 



The Application of Logic. By Alfred Sidgwick. [Pp. ix + 321.] (London : 

 Macmillan & Co., 1910. Price 5.9. net.) 



Elementary Logic. By Alfred Sidgwick. [Pp. x + 250.] (Cambridge : 

 University Press, 1914. Price $s. bd. net.) 



Mr. Alfred Sidgwick is a philosophical writer whose position in relation to the 

 thought ot nis time is somewhat difficult to evaluate. On matters connected with 

 logic he expresses general agreement with Dr. Schiller. Such a statement, at 

 first sight, seems sufficiently definite. And yet, as we examine more closely the 

 trend and substance of his work, the impression we receive is different. It is not 

 merely different in manner. Mr. Sidgwick's work is a suave, calm, dispassioned 

 appeal to the reason. Dr. Schiller is an impassioned controversialist. The 

 substance seems to be different. In the light of Dr. Schiller's bitter attack on 

 formal logic, nothing would appear more absurd than to write one more elementary 

 text-book elucidating the well-worn theme. Yet the first part of Mr. Sidgwick's 

 Elementary Logic is a text-book pure and simple. It is a very good one, perhaps 

 the best extant. 



Mr. Sidgwick approaches the subject in a manner reminiscent of an unusually 

 good teacher. " Gentlemen," he says to his readers in effect, " I am afraid you 

 are going to be bored with this subject. I can assure you I am much more bored 

 than you are. Moreover there is a considerable amount of sham and pretence 

 about it. It is a game and very little else. It is true in a way, but not in the way 

 you may be inclined to think. Though it professes to be the science of accurate 

 thinking, it really has very little bearing on the reasoning of everyday life. But 

 we must pass this examination, so here goes." And a very good compendium of 

 elementary logic follows. 



There does seem to be an inconsistency. Such an attitude a tutor can well 

 adopt not only in logic but in most of the subjects of a university course of educa- 

 tion. But why should Mr. Sidgwick write another text-book ? If the subject is 

 both useless and harmful, the natural inference is that it should be abandoned as 

 far as is possible and practicable. And, moreover, the number of those who are 

 obliged to study logic for examination purposes is very small. There must be 

 some explanation of its fascination for those who think with Mr. Sidgwick. To 

 philosophers and logicians, logic is dull and trite. It is the opponents of logic 

 who find it interesting. 



We will now try to express as briefly as possible Mr. Sidgwick's attitude 

 towards formal logic. He is in agreement with the most formal of the formalists 

 in stating that every deduction naturally resolves itself into a varying number of 

 syllogisms. But then, we are informed, no syllogism, and inferentially no deduc- 

 tion, is applicable to real life unless we subject it to further examination. Every 

 syllogism is necessarily liable to the fallacy of ambiguous middle. The reason is 

 that the very constitution of a syllogism, the statement that A is B, implies the 

 placing of individuals in a class. No individuals are exactly alike, and, in any un- 

 examined case, the difference between the particular member of a class and those 



