November 25, 1887.] 



SCIENCE. 



257 



Professor Farlovv of Cambridge gave utterance, in the Popular 

 Science Monthly about a year ago, to these sentiments in the fol- 

 lowing language : " I have said enough to show that unless my 

 experience is an exceptional one, in spite of all the talk on the sub- 

 ject, boys at school are not taught to observe as they should be, 

 and that even those teachers who use good text-books, frequently 

 use them as means of imparting facts easily and quickly by the 

 old method, rather than as an aid in the scientific training of the 

 faculties which must form the basis of any serious study of biology." 

 And again he says, " It seems a great pity that students should 

 come to college so ill fitted, as are the majority, to undertake bio- 

 logical work. But we must accept things as they are ; and there is 

 no use in attempting to take the second step before the first has 

 been taken. If the school can not or will not teach observation, 

 then it must be taught in college, no matter if it does seem to be 

 child's work. In colleges, however, it is absolutely impossible to 

 find the time or the means for training every one to become an ob- 

 server, and we are obliged to distinguish between two different 

 classes of persons in arranging courses in biology." 



These are the words of a professor in one of our best universi- 

 ties, as to the condition of the students sent there from the best 

 schools in our land. In his sphere as an educator he has discov- 

 ered this logical deficiency in the students who are anxious for a 

 higher education. In a different sphere of life, no part of which 

 has been spent in teaching, I have observed this great deficiency 

 among the people who have received their education in our public 

 schools, as well as in some of our colleges. There must be a cause 

 for such a general condition as that referred to, and the one to 

 which I attribute it may not be the only one, or a correct one. Be 

 that as it may, it will perhaps occasion no surprise when the posi- 

 tion is taken that the most important factor tending to perpetuate 

 this imperfect development of our perceptive faculties is that logi- 

 cal methods have not been taught in our schools. 



I believe nothing of greater importance can be taught children 

 in the earlier periods of their education than this ; but it should not 

 be attempted by simply placing text-books in their hands. The 

 teachers should first be familiar with the elementary principles of 

 logic themselves, and spend a portion of each day, or several days 

 each week, in an endeavor to teach the pupils the art of observa- 

 tion, together with the proper use of words, and how to draw cor- 

 rect conclusions from an observation. It is of vast importance that 

 words should be correctly used in the formation of terms and prop- 

 ositions ; and the study of reading and grammar alone is not likely 

 to secure this. 



If you do not teach children these principles of logic in early life, 

 when they grow up, they are too prone to accept all that has been 

 taught them as true, because the source from whence they received 

 it was so eminently respectable. Thus they will lose or suppress 

 their critical impulses, which are so necessary to mental growth : 

 they will, in fact, be smothered by authority, and the result will be 

 just what Professor Farlow has described as the deficiencies of his 

 students. 



Logic will continually incite the pupil to question things ; and to 

 do that, they must be observed and their characters noted, whether 

 they be objects in the animal world about them, or some arrange- 

 ment of words by which an endeavor is made to express a definite 

 idea. The assertion made by some, that we are naturally logical, 

 only tends to confirm the importance of these principles in any sys- 

 tem of education. We can hardly have too many persons in this 

 world who understand logical methods of reasoning, no matter how 

 many there may be to whom reasoning according to these princi- 

 ples comes without education. 



We know too well that most persons use exclusively Xht post hoc, 

 ergo propter hoc method of reasoning ; and they make up the im- 

 pressionable portion of humanity. The views generally entertained 

 about the nature of evidence are also exceedingly varied and fanci- 

 ful. One has only to listen to a group of men of ordinary educa- 

 tion and a fair endowment of common sense, discussing any sub- 

 ject of interest, to become convinced that this defect of early edu- 

 cation is a glaring fact. 



Even among laborers and mechanics, we can see the disastrous 

 effect of this deficiency in early training. Could they have had 

 these principles drilled into them by teachers who really under- 



stood and practised them, they would be more inquisitive in their 

 work, m order to see whether it was the best that could be effected 

 for the end in view. 



It is useless to cite examples, for they are familiar to all. Much 

 has very justly been said, in derision of the differences of opinion 

 among professional men, upon topics which should not, from their 

 nature, give rise to such varied conclusions ; and especially has 

 this been enlarged upon in its application to the medical profession. 

 " Is there any sufficient reason for such a state of things?" has 

 often been asked. This is probably not to be attributed to one 

 cause alone, where so many different individuals have to be taken 

 into account, although I believe it is to be explained in large part 

 by their deficiencies in the science of logic ; otherwise the uniform- 

 ity of their conclusions based upon the same facts would be 

 greater. 



The records of medical literature are filled with rubbish, that no 

 man, with any knowledge of the elementary principles of logic, 

 would think for a moment worthy of preservation. A medical man 

 has, for example, a peculiar and protracted case of disease : he 

 employs a number of different remedies, and after weeks, or per- 

 haps months, the patient recovers. The delighted physician at 

 once rushes into print with an account of the wonderful virtues of 

 the remedy last administered to his patient, and no suggestion as to 

 the insufficiency of the evidence adduced in order to establish a 

 new truth seems to intrude itself upon his consciousness. And it 

 is in this way, and for this reason more than any other, it seems to 

 me, that medicine continues to deserve the designation of an art 

 rather than that of a science. 



But it may be asked, is there no danger that the uniformity that 

 might result from such a general study of logic would become so 

 great as to hinder the development of new ideas and methods ? I 

 think not. For although the methods of logic to which we owe 

 our greatest triumphs — and consisting of the four following steps : 

 d) preliminary observation, (2) construction of hypotheses, (3) 

 deductive reasoning, (4) the process of verification — are the 

 nearest possible approach to perfection in reasoning, and may not 

 be at present susceptible of improvement, it would not prevent 

 some genius from unfolding a new and better system, should such 

 be within the bounds of possibility. I think we need have no fear, 

 even though we were all accomplished logicians, that there would 

 be too much uniformity in our conclusions. 



Thinking is no doubt the most important function or attribute of 

 man ; and, as the brain will continue to think, let us do what we 

 can to encourage its very best performance. 



In an examination of such reports as I could obtain from the 

 Bureau of Education at Washington, with the view of ascertaining 

 whether any of our schools were teaching logic, I was unable to 

 find it in the curriculum of any State, though it is true that only a 

 few were given. The sole reference to it in connection with the 

 schools of the United States was in a list of books considered suit- 

 able for teachers' libraries, and prepared by the librarian of the 

 Bureau of Education, which recommended Professor Jevons's ' Ele- 

 mentary Lessons in Logic,' and a work by John Stuart Mill. 



In a programme of the studies in a mixed school in a certain de- 

 partment in France, I found the upper class, from eleven to thir- 

 teen years of age, devoting thirty-five minutes in the afternoon to a 

 recitation of which logical analysis was a part ; and this is the only 

 reference to it as an object of study I have been able to find. 



Professor Agassiz, in speaking of the study of natural history 

 being of great value to all scholars in urging its importance, goes 

 on to say, " The difficult art of thinking can be acquired by this 

 method in a more rapid way than any other. When we study logic 

 or mental philosophy in text-books which we commit to memory, 

 it is not the mind we cultivate, it is the memory alone. The mind 

 may come in, but if it does in that method, it is only in an acces- 

 sory way. But if we learn to think by unfolding thoughts ourselves 

 from the examination of objects brought before us, then we acquire 

 them for ourselves, and we acquire the ability of applying our 

 thoughts in life. // is only by the ability of observing for our- 

 selves that we can free ourselves from the burden of authority^ 

 So long as we have not learned how to settle a question for our- 

 selves, we go for authority, or we take the opinion of our neighbor ; 

 that is, we remain tools in his hands, if he choose to use us in that 



