After I had studied science and particularly biological science for some years, I became a teacher in a school for boys. I found it necessary to supplement my untutored conception of teaching method by a more systematic2 knowledge of its principles and methods, and I took the courses for the diplomas of Licentiate and Fellow of the London College of Preceptors which happened to be convenient for me. These courses included some of the more elementary aspects of psychology3 and logic1 and set me thinking and reading further. From the first, Logic as it was presented to me impressed me as a system of ideas and methods remote and secluded4 from the world of fact in which I lived and with which I had to deal. As it came to me in the ordinary textbooks, it presented itself as the science of inference using the syllogism5 as its principal instrument. Now I was first struck by the fact that while my teachers in Logic seemed to be assuring me I always thought in this form:—
“M is P,
S is M,
S is P,”
the method of my reasoning was almost always in this form:—
“S1 is more or less P,
S2 is very similar to S1,
S2 is very probably but not certainly more or less P.
Let us go on that assumption and see how it works.”
That is to say, I was constantly reasoning by analogy and applying verification. So far from using the syllogistic6 form confidently, I habitually7 distrusted it as anything more than a test of consistency8 in statement. But I found the textbooks of logic disposed to ignore my customary method of reasoning altogether or to recognise it only where S1 and S2 could be lumped together under a common name. Then they put it something after this form as Induction:—
“S1, S2, S3, and S4 are P
S1 + S2 + S3 + S4 + . . . are all S
All S is P.”
I looked into the laws of thought and into the postulates9 upon which the syllogistic logic is based, and it slowly became clear to me that from my point of view, the point of view of one who seeks truth and reality, logic assumed a belief in the objective reality of classification of which my studies in biology and mineralogy had largely disabused10 me. Logic, it seemed to me, had taken a common innate11 error of the mind and had emphasised it in order to develop a system of reasoning that should be exact in its processes. I turned my attention to the examination of that. For in common with the general run of men I had supposed that logic professed12 to supply a trustworthy science and method for the investigation13 and expression of reality.
A mind nourished on anatomical study is of course permeated14 with the suggestion of the vagueness and instability of biological species. A biological species is quite obviously a great number of unique individuals which is separable from other biological species only by the fact that an enormous number of other linking individuals are inaccessible15 in time — are in other words dead and gone — and each new individual in that species does, in the distinction of its own individuality, break away in however infinitesimal degree from the previous average properties of the species. There is no property of any species, even the properties that constitute the specific definition, that is not a matter of more or less.
If, for example, as species be distinguished16 by a single large red spot on the back, you will find if you go over a great number of specimens18 that red spot shrinking here to nothing, expanding there to a more general redness, weakening to pink, deepening to russet and brown, shading into crimson19, and so on and so on. And this is true not only of biological species. It is true of the mineral specimens constituting a mineral species, and I remember as a constant refrain in the lectures of Professor Judd upon rock classification, the words, “they pass into one another by insensible gradations.” It is true, I hold, of all things.
You will think perhaps of atoms of the elements as instances of identically similar things, but these are things not of experience but of theory, and there is not a phenomenon in chemistry that is not equally well explained on the supposition that it is merely the immense quantities of atoms necessarily taken in any experiment that masks by the operation of the law of averages the fact that each atom also has its unique quality, its special individual difference.
This ideal of uniqueness in all individuals is not only true of the classifications of material science; it is true and still more evidently true of the species of common thought; it is true of common terms. Take the word “Chair.” When one says chair, one thinks vaguely20 of an average chair. But collect individual instances; think of armchairs and reading-chairs and dining-room chairs, and kitchen chairs, chairs that pass into benches, chairs that cross the boundary and become settees, dentist’s chairs, thrones, opera stalls, seats of all sorts, those miraculous21 fungoid growths that cumber22 the floor of the Arts and Crafts exhibition, and you will perceive what a lax bundle in fact is this simple straightforward23 term. In co-operation with an intelligent joiner I would undertake to defeat any definition of chair or chairishness that you gave me. Chairs just as much as individual organisms, just as much as mineral and rock specimens, are unique things — if you know them well enough you will find an individual difference even in a set of machine-made chairs — and it is only because we do not possess minds of unlimited24 capacity, because our brain has only a limited number of pigeon-holes for our correspondence with an unlimited universe of objective uniques, that we have to delude25 ourselves into the belief that there is a chairishness in this species common to and distinctive26 of all chairs.
Classification and number, which in truth ignore the fine differences of objective realities, have in the past of human thought been imposed upon things . . .
Greek thought impresses me as being over much obsessed27 by an objective treatment of certain necessary preliminary conditions of human thought — number and definition and class and abstract form! But these things,— number, definition, class and abstract form,— I hold, are merely unavoidable conditions of mental activity — regrettable conditions rather than essential facts. THE FORCEPS OF OUR MINDS ARE CLUMSY FORCEPS AND CRUSH THE TRUTH A LITTLE IN TAKING HOLD OF IT . . .
Let me give you a rough figure of what I am trying to convey in this first attack upon the philosophical28 validity of general terms. You have seen the result of those various methods of black and white reproduction that involve the use of a rectangular net. You know the sort of process picture I mean — it used to be employed very frequently in reproducing photographs. At a little distance you really seem to have a faithful reproduction of the original picture, but when you peer closely you find not the unique form and masses of the original, but a multitude of little rectangles, uniform in shape and size. The more earnestly you go into the thing, the closelier you look, the more the picture is lost in reticulations. I submit, the world of reasoned inquiry30 has a very similar relation to the world of fact. For the rough purposes of every day the network picture will do, but the finer your purpose the less it will serve, and for an ideally fine purpose, for absolute and general knowledge that will be as true for a man at a distance with a telescope as for a man with a microscope, it will not serve at all.
It is true you can make your net of logical interpretation31 finer and finer, you can fine your classification more and more — up to a certain limit. But essentially32 you are working in limits, and as you come closer, as you look at finer and subtler things, as you leave the practical purpose for which the method exists, the element of error increases. Every species is vague, every term goes cloudy at its edges; and so in my way of thinking, relentless33 logic is only another name for a stupidity — for a sort of intellectual pigheadedness. If you push a philosophical or metaphysical inquiry through a series of valid29 syllogisms — never committing any generally recognised fallacy — you nevertheless leave behind you at each step a certain rubbing and marginal loss of objective truth, and you get deflections that are difficult to trace at each phase in the process. Every species waggles about in its definition, every tool is a little loose in its handle, every scale has its individual error. So long as you are reasoning for practical purposes about finite things of experience you can every now and then check your process and correct your adjustments. But not when you make what are called philosophical and theological inquiries34, when you turn your implement35 towards the final absolute truth of things.
This real vagueness of class terms is equally true whether we consider those terms used extensively or intensively, that is to say whether in relation to all the members of the species or in relation to an imaginary typical specimen17. The logician36 begins by declaring that S is either P or not P. In the world of fact it is the rarest thing to encounter this absolute alternative; S1 is pink, but S2 is pinker, S3 is scarcely pink at all, and one is in doubt whether S4 is not properly to be called scarlet37. The finest type specimen you can find simply has the characteristic quality a little more rather than a little less. The neat little circles the logician uses to convey his idea of P or not P to the student are just pictures of boundaries in his mind, exaggerations of a natural mental tendency. They are required for the purposes of his science, but they are departures from the nature of fact.
1 logic | |
n.逻辑(学);逻辑性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 systematic | |
adj.有系统的,有计划的,有方法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 psychology | |
n.心理,心理学,心理状态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 secluded | |
adj.与世隔绝的;隐退的;偏僻的v.使隔开,使隐退( seclude的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 syllogism | |
n.演绎法,三段论法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 syllogistic | |
adj.三段论法的,演绎的,演绎性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 habitually | |
ad.习惯地,通常地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 consistency | |
n.一贯性,前后一致,稳定性;(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 postulates | |
v.假定,假设( postulate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 disabused | |
v.去除…的错误想法( disabuse的过去式和过去分词 );使醒悟 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 innate | |
adj.天生的,固有的,天赋的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 professed | |
公开声称的,伪称的,已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 permeated | |
弥漫( permeate的过去式和过去分词 ); 遍布; 渗入; 渗透 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 inaccessible | |
adj.达不到的,难接近的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 specimen | |
n.样本,标本 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 specimens | |
n.样品( specimen的名词复数 );范例;(化验的)抽样;某种类型的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 crimson | |
n./adj.深(绯)红色(的);vi.脸变绯红色 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 vaguely | |
adv.含糊地,暖昧地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 miraculous | |
adj.像奇迹一样的,不可思议的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 cumber | |
v.拖累,妨碍;n.妨害;拖累 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 straightforward | |
adj.正直的,坦率的;易懂的,简单的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 unlimited | |
adj.无限的,不受控制的,无条件的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 delude | |
vt.欺骗;哄骗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 distinctive | |
adj.特别的,有特色的,与众不同的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 obsessed | |
adj.心神不宁的,鬼迷心窍的,沉迷的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 philosophical | |
adj.哲学家的,哲学上的,达观的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 valid | |
adj.有确实根据的;有效的;正当的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 relentless | |
adj.残酷的,不留情的,无怜悯心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 inquiries | |
n.调查( inquiry的名词复数 );疑问;探究;打听 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 implement | |
n.(pl.)工具,器具;vt.实行,实施,执行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 logician | |
n.逻辑学家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 scarlet | |
n.深红色,绯红色,红衣;adj.绯红色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |