A CLASS ROOM LOGIC

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE

WITH SPECIAL APPLICATION TO
THE SCIENCE AND ART OF TEACHING

BY

GEORGE HASTINGS McNAIR, PH. D.

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF LOGIC AND MATHEMATICS, CITY TRAINING SCHOOL FOR TEACHERS. JAMAICA. NEW YORK CITY

THE ETHLAS PRESS

FIVE NORTH BROADWAY. NYACK. NEW YORK

COPYRIGHT, 1914, BY

GEORGE HASTINGS MCNAIR

To

MY WIFE.

Transcriber’s Notes

The cover image was provided by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Punctuation has been standardized.

Most abbreviations have been expanded in tool-tips for screen-readers and may be seen by hovering the mouse over the abbreviation.

The under bracket in the original text has been replaced by a standard underline.

This book was written in a period when many words had not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated with a Transcriber’s Note.

Index references have not been checked for accuracy.

Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript number and have been accumulated in a table at the end of the text.

Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the text or to provide additional information for the modern reader. These notes have been accumulated in a table at the end of the book and are identified in the text by a dotted underline and may be seen in a tool-tip by hovering the mouse over the underline.

PREFACE.

This treatise is an outgrowth of our class room work in logic.

It has been published in the hope of removing some of the difficulties which handicap the average student.

We trust that the language is simple and definite and that the illustrative exercises and diagrams may be helpful in making clear some of the more abstruse topics.

If a speedy review for examination is necessary, it is recommended that the briefer course as outlined on [page 493] be followed and that the summaries closing each chapter be carefully read.

Only the fundamentals of deductive and inductive logic have received attention. Moreover emphasis has been given to those phases which appear to commend themselves because of their practical value.

Further than this we trust that the book may fulfill in some small way the larger mission of inspiring better thinking and, in consequence, of leading to a more serviceable citizenship.

Surely as civilization advances it is with the expectation of giving greater significance to the assumption “that man is a rational animal.”

I am indebted to a number of writers on logic, notably to Mill, Lotze, Keynes, Hibben, Fowler, Aikins, Hyslop, Creighton and Jevons. I am likewise under obligation tothat large body of students who, by frankly revealing their difficulties, have given me a different point of view.

For constructive criticism and definite encouragement I owe a personal debt of gratitude to Prof. Charles Gray Shaw of New York University, to Prof. Frank D. Blodgett of the Oneonta Normal School and to Prin. A. C. MacLachlan of the Jamaica Training School for Teachers.

G. H. McN.

City Training School for Teachers,
Jamaica, N. Y. City.
October 3, 1914.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[CHAPTER 1.]—THESCOPEANDNATUREOFLOGIC.
[1.] The Mind.
[2.] Logic Related to Other Subjects.
[3.] Logic Defined.
[4.] The Value of Logic to the Student.
[5.] Outline.
[6.] Summary.
[7.] Review Questions.
[8.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation
[CHAPTER 2.]—THOUGHT ANDITSOPERATION.
[1.] The Knowing Mind Compared with the Thinking Mind.
[2.] Knowing by Intuition.
[3.] The Thinking Process.
[4.] Notions, Individual and General.
[5.] Knowledge and Idea as Related to the Notion.
[6.] The Logic of the Psychological Terms Involved in the Notion.
[7.] Thought in the Sensation and Percept.
[8.] Evolution and the Thinking Mind.
[9.] The Concept as a Thought Product.
[10.] The Judgment as a Thought Product.
[11.] Inference as a Thought Product.
[12.] Thinking and Apprehension.
[13.] Stages in Thinking.
[14.] Outline.
[15.] Summary.
[16.] Review Questions.
[17.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 3.]—THEPRIMARYLAWSOFTHOUGHT.
[1.] Two Fundamental Laws.
[2.] The Law of Identity.
[3.] The Law of Contradiction.
[4.] The Law of Excluded Middle.
[5.] The Law of Sufficient Reason.
[6.] Unity of Primary Laws of Thought.
[7.] Outline.
[8.] Summary.
[9.] Illustrative Exercises.
[10.] Review Questions.
[11.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 4.]—LOGICALTERMS.
[1.] Logical Thought and Language Inseparable.
[2.] Meaning of Term.
[3.] Categorematic and Syncategorematic Words.
[4.] Singular Terms.
[5.] General Terms.
[6.] Collective and Distributive Terms.
[7.] Concrete and Abstract Terms.
[8.] Connotative and Non-connotative Terms.
[9.] Positive and Negative Terms.
[10.] Contradictory and Opposite Terms.
[11.] Privative and Nego-positive Terms.
[12.] Absolute and Relative Terms.
[13.] Outline.
[14.] Summary.
[15.] Illustrative Exercises.
[16.] Review Questions.
[17.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 5.]—THEEXTENSIONANDINTENSIONOFTERMS.
[1.] Two-fold Function of Connotative Terms.
[2.] Extension and Intension Defined.
[3.] Extended Comparison of Extension and Intension.
[4.] A List of Connotative Terms Used in Extension and Intension.
[5.] Other Forms of Expression for Extension and Intension.
[6.] Law of Variation in Extension and Intension.
[6a.] Important Facts in Law of Variation.
[6b.] Law of Variation Diagrammatically Illustrated.
[7.] Outline.
[8.] Summary.
[9.] Illustrative Exercises.
[10.] Review Questions.
[11.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 6.]—DEFINITION.
[1.] Importance.
[2.] The Predicables.
[3.] The Nature of a Definition.
[4.] Definition and Division Compared.
[5.] The Kinds of Definitions.
[6.] When the Three Kinds of Definitions are Serviceable.
[7.] The Rules of Logical Definition.
[8.] Terms Which Cannot be Defined Logically.
[9.] Definitions of Common Educational Terms.
[10.] Outline.
[11.] Summary.
[12.] Illustrative Exercises.
[13.] Review Questions.
[14.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 7.]—LOGICALDIVISIONANDCLASSIFICATION.
[1.] Nature of Logical Division.
[2.] Logical Division Distinguished from Enumeration.
[3.] Logical Division as Partition.
[4.] Four Rules of Logical Division.
[5.] Dichotomy.
[6.] Classification Compared with Division.
[7.] Kinds of Classification.
[8.] Two Rules of Classification.
[9.] Use of Division and Classification.
[10.] Outline.
[11.] Summary.
[12.] Review Questions.
[13.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 8.]—LOGICALPROPOSITIONS.
[1.] The Nature of Logical Propositions.
[2.] Kinds of Logical Propositions.
[3.] The Four Elements of a Categorical Proposition.
[4.] Logical and Grammatical Subject and Predicate Distinguished.
[5.] The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions.
[6.] Propositions which do not Conform to Logical Type.
[7.] Propositions not Necessarily Illogical.
[8.] The Relation between Subject and Predicate.
[9.] Outline.
[10.] Summary.
[11.] Illustrative Exercises.
[12.] Review Questions.
[13.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 9.]—IMMEDIATEINFERENCE—OPPOSITION.
[1.] The Nature of Inference.
[2.] Immediate and Mediate Inference.
[3.] The Forms of Immediate Inference.
[(1)] Opposition.
[CHAPTER 10.]—IMMEDIATEINFERENCE (Continued).
[(2)] Immediate Inference by Obversion.
[(3)] Immediate Inference by Conversion.
[(4)] Immediate Inference by Contraversion.
[4.] Epitome of the Four Processes of Immediate Inference.
[◆] Inference by Inversion.
[5.] Outline.
[6.] Summary.
[7.] Illustrative Exercises.
[8.] Review Questions.
[9.] Problems for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 11.]—MEDIATEINFERENCE—THESYLLOGISM.
[1.] Inference and Reasoning.
[2.] The Syllogism.
[3.] The Rules of the Syllogism.
[4.] Rules of Syllogism Explained.
[5.] Aristotle’s Dictum.
[6.] Canons of the Syllogism.
[7.] Mathematical Axioms.
[8.] Outline.
[9.] Summary.
[10.] Illustrative Exercises.
[11.] Review Questions.
[12.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 12.]—FIGURES ANDMOODSOF THESYLLOGISM.
[1.] The Four Figures of the Syllogism.
[2.] The Moods of the Syllogism.
[3.] Testing the Validity of the Moods.
[4.] Special Canons of the Four Figures.
[5.] Special Canons Related.
[6.] Mnemonic Lines.
[7.] Relative Value of the Four Figures.
[8.] Outline.
[9.] Summary.
[10.] Illustrative Exercises.
[11.] Review Questions.
[12.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 13.]—INCOMPLETESYLLOGISMSANDIRREGULARARGUMENTS.
[1.] Enthymeme.
[2.] Epicheirema.
[3.] Polysyllogisms. Prosyllogism—Episyllogism.
[4.] Sorites.
[5.] Irregular Arguments.
[6.] Outline.
[7.] Summary.
[8.] Review Questions.
[9.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 14.]—CATEGORICALARGUMENTS TESTED ACCORDING TOFORM.
[1.] Arguments of Form and Matter.
[2.] Order of Procedure in a Formal Testing of Arguments.
[3.] Illustrative Exercise in Testing Arguments which are Complete and whose Premises are Logical.
[4.] Illustrative Exercise in Testing Completed Arguments, one or both of whose Premises are Illogical.
[5.] Incomplete and Irregular Arguments.
[6.] Common Mistakes of the Student.
[7.] Outline.
[8.] Summary.
[9.] Review Questions.
[10.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 15.]—HYPOTHETICALANDDISJUNCTIVEARGUMENTSINCLUDINGTHEDILEMMA.
[1.] Three Kinds of Arguments.
[2.] Hypothetical Arguments.
[3.] Antecedent and Consequent.
[4.] Two Kinds of Hypothetical Arguments.
[5.] Rule and Two Fallacies of Hypothetical Argument.
[6.] Hypothetical Arguments Reduced to Categorical Form.
[7.] Illustrative Exercises Testing Hypothetical Arguments of All Kinds.
[8.] Disjunctive Arguments.
[9.] Two Kinds of Disjunctive Arguments.
[10.] First Disjunctive Rule.
[11.] Second Disjunctive Rule.
[12.] Reduction of Disjunctive Argument.
[13.] The Dilemma.
[14.] Four Forms of Dilemmatic Arguments.
[15.] The Rule of Dilemma.
[16.] Illustrative Exercises Testing Disjunctive and Dilemmatic Argument.
[17.] Ordinary Experiences Related to Disjunctive Proposition and Hypothetical Argument.
[18.] Outline.
[19.] Summary.
[20.] Review Questions.
[21.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 16.]—THELOGICALFALLACIESOFDEDUCTIVEREASONING.
[1.] A Negative Aspect.
[2.] Paralogism and Sophism.
[3.] A Division of the Deductive Fallacies.
[4.] General Divisions Explained.
[5.] Fallacies of Immediate Inference.
[6.] Fallacies in Language (Equivocation).
[7.] Fallacies in Thought (Assumption).
[8.] Outline.
[9.] Summary.
[10.] Illustrative Exercises in Testing Arguments in Both Form and Meaning.
[11.] Review Questions.
[12.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 17.]—INDUCTIVEREASONING.
[1.] Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Distinguished.
[2.] The “Inductive Hazard.”
[3.] Complexity of the Problem of Induction.
[4.] Various Conceptions ofInduction.
[5.] Induction and Deduction Contiguous Processes
[6.] Induction an Assumption.
[7.] Universal Causation.
[8.] Uniformity of Nature.
[9.] Inductive Assumptions Justified.
[10.] Three Forms of Inductive Research.
[11.] Induction by Simple Enumeration.
[12.] Induction by Analogy.
[13.] Induction by Analysis.
[14.] Perfect Induction.
[15.] Traduction.
[16.] Outline.
[17.] Summary.
[18.] Review Questions.
[19.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 18.]—MILL’SFIVESPECIALMETHODSOFOBSERVATIONANDEXPERIMENT.
[1.] Aim of Five Methods.
[2.] Method of Agreement.
[3.] Method of Difference.
[4.] The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference.
[5.] The Method of Concomitant Variations.
[6.] The Method of Residues.
[7.] General Purpose and Unity of Five Methods.
[8.] Outline.
[9.] Summary.
[10.] Review Questions.
[11.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 19.]—AUXILIARYELEMENTSININDUCTION.OBSERVATION—EXPERIMENT—HYPOTHESIS.
[1.] Foundation of Inductive Generalizations.
[2.] Observation.
[3.] Experiment.
[4.] Rules for Logical Observation and Experiment.
[5.] Common Errors of Observation and Experiment.
[6.] The Hypothesis.
[7.] Induction and Hypothesis Distinguished.
[8.] Hypothesis and Theory Distinguished.
[9.] The Requirements of a Permissible Hypothesis.
[10.] Uses of Hypothesis.
[11.] Characteristics Needed by Scientific Investigators
[12.] Outline.
[13.] Summary.
[14.] Review Questions.
[15.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 20.]—LOGICIN THECLASSROOM.
[1.] Thought is King.
[2.] Special Functions of Induction and Deduction.
[3.] Two Types of Minds.
[4.] Conservatism in School.
[5.] The Method of the Discoverer.
[6.] Real Inductive Method not in Vogue in Class Room Work
[7.] As a Method of Instruction, Deduction Superior.
[8.] Conquest, not Knowledge, the Desideratum.
[9.] Motivation as Related to Spirit of Discovery.
[10.] Discoverer’s Method Adapted to Class Room Work.
[11.] Question and Answer Method not Necessarily One of Discovery.
[12.] Outline.
[13.] Summary.
[14.] Review Questions.
[15.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[CHAPTER 21.]—LOGICANDLIFE.
[1.] Logic Given a Place in a Secondary Course.
[2.] Man’s Supremacy Due to Power of Thought.
[3.] Importance of Progressive Thinking.
[4.] Necessity of Right Thinking.
[5.] Indifferent and Careless Thought.
[6.] The Rationalization of the World of Chance.
[7.] The Rationalization of Business and Political Sophistries.
[8.] The Rationalization of the Spirit of Progress.
[9.] A Rationalization of the Attitude Toward Work.
[10.] The Logic of Success.
[11.] Outline.
[12.] Summary.
[13.] Review Questions.
[14.] Questions for Original Thought and Investigation.
[GENERAL EXERCISES]INTESTINGCATEGORICALARGUMENTS.
[GENERAL EXERCISES]INTESTINGHYPOTHETICAL,DISJUNCTIVEANDDILEMMATICARGUMENTS.
[EXAMINATION QUESTIONS]FORTRAININGSCHOOLSANDCOLLEGES.
[BIBLIOGRAPHY.]
[OUTLINE]OFBRIEFERCOURSE.
[INDEX.]

CHAPTER 1.
THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF LOGIC.

1. THE MIND.

As to the true conception of matter the world is ignorant. Yet when asked, “What does matter do?” the reply is, “Matter moves, matter vibrates.” Moreover, relative to the exact nature of mind, the world is likewise ignorant. But to the question, “What does mind do?” the response comes, “The Mind knows, the mind feels, the mind wills.” The mind has ever manifested itself in these three ways. Because of this three-fold function it is easy to think of the mind as being separated into distinct compartments, each constituting an independent activity. This is erroneous. The mind is a living unit having three sides but never acting one side at a time. When the mind knows it also feels in some way and wills to some extent. To illustrate: Music is heard and one knows it to be Rubinstein’s Melody in F. The execution being good one feels pleasure. That the pleasurable state may be augmented one wills a listening attitude. For analytical purposes the psychologists have a way of naming the state of mind from the predominating manifestation.

2. LOGIC RELATED TO OTHER SUBJECTS.

What the mind is may in time be answered satisfactorily by philosophy; what the mind does is described by psychology; what the mind knows is treated by logic. Again: the mind as a whole furnishes the subjectmatter for psychology, whereas logic is concerned with the mind knowing, aesthetics with the mind feeling, and ethics with the mind willing. Ethics attempts to answer the question, “What is right?” aesthetics, “What is beautiful?” and logic, “What is true?”

Though both psychology and logic treat of the knowing aspect of the mind, yet the fields are not identical. The former deals with the process of the knowing mind as a whole, while the latter is concerned mainly with the product of the knowing mind when it thinks. To be specific: The mind knows when it becomes aware of anything, moreover, this condition of awareness appears in two ways: first, immediately or by intuition; second, after deliberation or by thinking. For example, one may know immediately or by intuition that the object in the hand is a lead pencil, but when requested to state the length of the pencil there is deliberation involving a comparison of the unknown length with a definite measure. It may now finally be asserted that the pencil is six inches long. When we know without hesitation the process involved is intuition, whereas when the knowledge comes after some sort of comparison the mental act is called thinking. It, therefore, becomes the business of psychology to deal with both intuition and thinking while logic devotes its attention to thinking only, and even in this field the work of logic is more or less indirect.The specific scope of logic is the product of thinking or thought.[1] What are theforms of thought? What are the laws of thought? Are the several thoughts true? These are the questions which logic is supposed to answer.

For the logician thought has two sources, his own mind and the mind of others. In the latter case thought becomes accessible through the medium of language. There is in consequence a close connection between logic, the science of thought, and grammar, the science of language. Because of this near relation logic is sometimes called the “grammar of thought.”

To study any science properly one must have thoughts and since logic is the science of all thought the subject may be regarded as the science of sciences.

3. LOGIC DEFINED.

“Logic is the science of thought.” This definition commonly given is too brief to be helpful. Should not a definition of any subject represent a working basis upon which one may build with some knowledge of what the structure is to be? The following, a little out of the ordinary, seems to supply this condition: Logic as a science makes known the laws and forms of thought and as an art suggests conditions which must be fulfilled to think rightly.

In justification of the latter definition it may be argued that it covers the topics usually treated by logicians. It is said that a science teaches us to know while an art teaches us to do. As a science logic teaches us to know certain laws which underlie right thinking. For example, the law of identity which makes possible all affirmative judgments, such as “Some men are wise,” “All metals areelements,” etc. Likewise as a science logic acquaints us with certain universal forms to which thought shapes itself, such as definitions, classifications, inductions, deductions. Further, logic lays down definite rules which lead to right thinking. To wit: Because it is true of a part of a class it should not be assumed that it is true of the whole of that class: or, in short, do not distribute an undistributed term.

A possible profit to the student may result from a study of certain authentic definitions herewith subjoined:

(1) “Logic is the science of the laws of thought.” Jevons.

(2) “Logic is the science which investigates the process of thinking.” Creighton.

(3) “Logic as a science aims to ascertain what are the laws of thought; as an art it aims to apply these laws to the detection of fallacies or for the determination of correct reasoning.” Hyslop.

(4) “Logic is the art of thinking.” Watts.

(5) “Logic is the science and also the art of thinking.” Whateley.

(6) “Logic is the science of the formal and necessary laws of thought.” Hamilton.

(7) “Logic is the science of the regulative laws of the human understanding.” Ueberweg.

(8) “Logic treats of the nature and of the laws of thought.” Hibben.

(9) “Logic may be defined as the science of the conditions on which correct thoughts depend, and the art of attaining to correct and avoiding incorrect thoughts.” Fowler.

(10) “Logic is the science of the operations of the understanding which are subservient to the estimation of evidence.” Mill.

(11) “Logic may be briefly described as a body of doctrines and rules having reference to truth.” Bain.

It would seem as if there were as many different definitions as there are books on the subject. This is due partly to the disposition of the older logicians to ignore the art of logic and partly to the difficulty of giving in a few words a satisfactory description of a broad subject. In the fundamentals of logical doctrine present-day authorities virtually agree.

4. THE VALUE OF LOGIC TO THE STUDENT.

Logic is rapidly coming into favor as a major subject in institutions devoted to educational theory. Some of the reasons for this change of attitude are herewith subjoined:

(1) Logic should stimulate the thought powers. This is the age of the survival of the thinker. The fact that the man who thinks best is the man who thinks much and carefully will be accepted by those who believe that practice makes perfect. “One needs only to observe the average commuter to conclude that a large percent. of our business men read too much and think too little.” “Much readee and no thinkee” was the reply of a Chinaman when asked his opinion of the doings of the average American. “We as a people are newspaper mad, reading for entertainment, seldom for mental improvement.”

(2) Logic aims to secure correct thought. Are notmany of the sins and most of the failures in this world due to incorrect thinking?

(3) Logic should train to clear thinking. It would be difficult to estimate the loss of energy to the brain worker because he has not the power to think clearly. Maximum efficiency is impossible with a befogged brain. How discouraging it is to the student to attempt to get from the paragraph the thought of the author, who in trying to be profound succeeds in being profoundly abstruse. There is a probable need for broad, deep thoughts, but these when placed in a text book should be sharpened to a point.

(4) Logic should aid one to estimate aright the statements and arguments of others. This is of especial value to the teacher who is constrained to teach largely from text books. Because it is found in a book is not proof positive that it is true. Why should we assume that the book is infallible when we know that the man behind the book is fallible?

(5) Logic insists on definite, systematic procedure. To be logical is to be businesslike. A study of logic would, no doubt, benefit our churches and parliamentary orders as well as our schools.

(6) Logic demands lucid, pointed, accurate expression. How we would increase our working efficiency could we but express our thoughts in an attractive and interesting manner. To listen to the speeches of some of our great and good men who are concerned in directing the “ship of state” is sufficient argument that the American schools need more logic.

(7) Logic is especially adapted to a general mental training. Despite the swing of the pendulum of public opinion toward the bread-and-butter side of life, there are many of high repute who claim that for the sake of that mental acumen which distinguished the Greek from his contemporaries we cannot afford to sacrifice everything on the altar of commercialism.

(8) Logic worships at the shrine of truth and adds to our store of knowledge. What has aided the world more in its march onward than this deep-seated passion for truth and what has impeded it more than that vain and wanton indifference to truth which brought to the world its darkest age?

5. OUTLINE—

THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF LOGIC.

(1) The Mind.

Three aspects.

Unity of.

(2) Logic Related to Other Subjects.

Mental philosophy, psychology, logic.

Psychology, logic, aesthetics, ethics.

Two ways of knowing.

Special province of logic.

Logic and language.

A science of sciences.

(3) Logic Defined.

A general definition.

A more satisfactory definition.

A list of authentic definitions.

(4) The Value of Logic to the Student.

Eight reasons for its study.

6. SUMMARY.

(1) The aspects of the mind are knowing, feeling and willing.

The mind is a living unit and never knows without feeling in some way and willing to some extent.

(2) What the mind is must be answered by philosophy; what the mind does by psychology and what the mind knows by logic.

Psychology treats of the mind as a whole, logic of the mind knowing, aesthetics of the mind feeling and ethics of the mind willing. Ethics answers the question, What is right? Aesthetics, What is beautiful? Logic, What is true?

The standpoint of logic is not identical with any particular portion of psychology.

The mind knows in two ways: (a) by intuition, (b) by thinking. Thinking is a process—thought a product. Logic deals indirectly with the former and directly with the latter.

Generally speaking, logic is a systematic study of thought. For the logician thought has two sources: (a) his own mind and (b) spoken or written language.

Because of the ambiguity of language logic has much to do with it as a faulty vehicle of thought.

(3) Logic as a science makes known the laws and forms of thought and as an art suggests conditions which must be fulfilled to think rightly. Author.

“Logic may be defined as the science of the conditions on which correct thoughts depend, and the art of attaining to correct and avoiding incorrect thoughts.” Fowler.

In the fundamentals of logical doctrine present day logicians virtually agree.

(4) Logic should stimulate the thought powers; secure correct and clear thinking; aid in the estimation of arguments; inspire definite, systematic procedure; demand lucid, pointed, accurate expression and be especially adapted to general mental discipline.

Logic adds to our store of knowledge and develops a passion for the truth.

7. REVIEW QUESTIONS.

(1) Explain and illustrate the three ways in which the mind may manifest itself.

(2) Illustrate the fact that the mind acts in unity.

(3) Show briefly how logic is related to mental philosophy, psychology, aesthetics, ethics and grammar.

(4) Illustrate the two ways of knowing.

(5) Distinguish between thinking and thought.

(6) Give a general definition of logic. Why is this definition unsatisfactory?

(7) What are the two sources of thought?

(8) Why are logic and language so closely related?

(9) Give that definition of logic which best satisfies you.

(10) Summarize the benefits which you hope to derive from your study of logic.

(11) Why should teachers be clear thinkers?

(12) Why should teachers be especially on guard against incorrect statements of all kinds?

(13) Show how logic might be of assistance to the business man.

8. QUESTIONS FOR ORIGINAL THOUGHT AND INVESTIGATION.

(1) Prove that there is nothing real in the world save the mind itself.

(2) “Logic is concerned primarily with how we ought to think and only in a secondary way with how we actually think.” Explain this quotation.

(3) Prove that there is no such thing as intuitive knowing.

(4) Is there any difference between knowledge and thoughts? Illustrate.

(5) Show by illustrations that the English language is ambiguous.

(6) Prove by concrete illustration that this is the age of the survival of the thinker.

(7) Which is the more harmful: falsehood mixed with truth or unadulterated falsehood? Give reasons.

(8) Give a concrete example of incorrect thinking.

(9) Show that wrong thinking leads to wrong doing.

(10) To be worth while must every subject have a practical value?

(11) “The 20th century virtue is a passion for truth.” Prove the truth of this.

CHAPTER 2.
THOUGHT AND ITS OPERATION.

1. THE KNOWING MIND COMPARED WITH THE THINKING MIND.

In the preceding chapter we were told that the mind may know in two ways (1) by intuition and (2) by thinking. It is thus implied that the knowing mind includes the thinking mind plus intuition. Thinking always involves knowing, but knowing need not involve thinking, and when some logicians maintain that to know a thing one must think it, there is danger of being misled. They mean by this that in order to know anything in a permanent and highly serviceable way one must think it. All animals know, even such a stupid one as the oyster, and yet one would hardly give an oyster credit for thinking. Only the higher orders of animal life think. Some argue that the power is confined exclusively to the human family. This opinion is debatable. If the claimant means by thinking, reasoning then his ground is well taken. But if he is willing to give to thinking a broader content, then he has little defense for his stand. However, attach as broad a meaning to thinking as the derivation of the word will permit and even then it is a narrower term than knowing. Thinking plus intuition equals knowing, and in intuition there is probably no thinking.

2. KNOWING BY INTUITION.

It has been affirmed that intuition is the process involved when the mind knows instantly.[2]

ILLUSTRATIONS:

(1) As I raise my eyes a figure comes to view. My mind knows instantly that it is the figure three. (2) The ear catches immediately a tune which is being sung in the room below. Without deliberation the mind recognizes the tune as America. The mind may thus know by intuition through any one of the five senses. These are the wires of connection between the outer world and the mind within and transmission over these wires may be instantaneous or intuitive. This is not all. (3) My mind may center its attention on itself and may recognize there a mental picture or image of a pet dog. Since this activity is without any apparent deliberation the process must be intuitive. To define intuitive knowledge as that which comes to the mind through the senses only is incorrect, as it leaves out altogether the knowledge the mind may obtain of its own activity as in illustration “(3).”

Knowledge is anything known. Intuitive knowledge is knowledge which comes to the mind immediately by direct observation. The field for intuitive knowledge may be the external world or the internal world though, of course, the former is the more common ground. It is here that the mind by intuition secures the most of its raw material which, through the process of thinking, is worked over into a connected, unified system of lasting value.

The intuitions are the beginning and the basis of all knowledge, and knowledge gained by intuition is the basis of all thinking.

3. THE THINKING PROCESS.

It is claimed that think comes from the same root as thick. From this one would conclude that the process of thinking is virtually a process of thickening. Surely as one thinks he enriches or thickens his knowledge. As one thinks percepts into concepts and concepts into judgments he makes richer in meaning the various notions concerned. Thinking is largely a matter of pressing many into one: of linking together the disconnected fragments of the conscious field.

DEFINITION:

Thinking is the deliberative process of affirming or denying connections.

The same idea may be expressed in a variety of ways as the following indicate.

(1) “Thinking is the conscious adjustment of a means to an end in problematic situations.” Miller.

(2) “To think is to designate an object through a mark or attribute or what is the same thing, to determine a subject through a predicate.” Bowen.

(3) “Thought is the comprehension of a thing under a general notion or attribute.” Wm. Hamilton.

(4) “To think is to make clear through concepts the perceived objects.” Dressler.

In the foregoing definitions it is implied that thinking is a connecting or thickening process. In all forms ofthinking from the simplest to the most complex the knowing mind hunts for some basis of connection and having found it thinks the relationship into a unified whole.

The thinking process is the digestive process of the mind. Much as the digestive organs assimilate the food stuff of the physical world, so the thinking organ assimilates the food stuff of the mental world.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE THINKING PROCESS:

(1) The child is unable to explain the meaning of “hocus-pocus” as it occurs in the question, “What hocus-pocus is this?” The child mind is unable to establish any connection between the word and its real meaning. In short, is unable to think into it a meaning; it therefore becomes necessary for the teacher to establish some basis of connection and this he does by suggesting nonsense as a synonym.

(2) The teacher holds before the class an Egyptian house god and asks, “What is it?” After a moment of hesitation some child who has seen pictures of “his satanic majesty” avers that the object is a “little devil.” Thus has a connection been established between the idol and pictures of satan.

(3) John is unable to solve the following problem as he can discern no connection between the data given and the data required. Problem. 3⁄4 of my salary is $900, what is my salary?

Data. Given: 3⁄4 of salary = $900.

Required: 4⁄4 of salary = ?

In order that John may think a solution the teacher must lead him to see some connection between 3⁄4 and 4⁄4. With this in mind the form of the data is changed to

Given: 3-fourths = $900

Required: 4-fourths = ?

or

Given: 3 parts = $900

Required: 4 parts = ?

John now notes that 4 parts is 4⁄3 times 3 parts and consequently writes 4⁄3 of $900, which is $1,200 as the answer. Or he may find the value of 1 part and then of 4 parts.

4. NOTIONS, INDIVIDUAL AND GENERAL.

A notion is any product of the knowing mind—anything which the mind notes or becomes aware of.

But the mind knows in two ways, by intuition and by thinking. In consequence the mind has two kinds of notions, those which are intuitive or individual notions and those which originally result from thinking or general notions.

An individual notion is a notion of one thing. A general notion is a notion of a class of things.

Note. Here it is necessary to distinguish between a thing and an object. An object is a thing which occupies space such as a pencil or a book. “Thing” is, therefore, a broader term than “object.” “A thing is that which has individual existence.” From the viewpoint of logic “thing” includes objects, qualities, relations, spiritualentities. Gravitation is a thing but not an object. A tree is both an object and a thing.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF NOTIONS.

My notion of the pencil with which I am writing is an individual notion, but my notion of pencil as a class name is general. My yellow dog, the honesty of Lincoln, Albert White, New York City, are individual notions, while dog, honesty, man, city, are general notions.

A sure way to determine whether the notion is individual or general is to attempt to divide it into its kinds. Only general notions may be subdivided.

5. KNOWLEDGE AND IDEA AS RELATED TO THE NOTION.

Knowledge is anything known, while anything of which the mind becomes aware is a notion. Notions are always bits of knowledge, but knowledge is not always a notion. Notions are mental products belonging to the mind which thinks them, while knowledge, though it must first be a mental product of someone’s mind, may not necessarily be a product of yours or mine. Notions are always found in the mind, while knowledge may be found in books, but not necessarily in some individual mind. Knowledge stands for everything known, the notion, for everything noted. The Egyptians may have possessed much knowledge of which we may never become aware. Much of their knowledge may never become notions of the American people. A notion is an existing state of consciousness. Said notion may be committed to paper, and then it may give way to another notion. It now ceases to be your notion,but remains on the printed page, as a bit of knowledge.

“Idea,” because of its ambiguity, really has no place in logic. The term is frequently restricted to a reproduced percept. To illustrate: When the pencil is before me the mental product is a percept, but when the pencil is withdrawn and I try to think of it, then have I an idea of “pencil.” Probably idea is most commonly associated with meaning and belief. To illustrate: What is your idea as to the meaning of homogeny? or What are your ideas on the tariff?

6. THE LOGIC OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TERMS INVOLVED IN THE NOTION.

Concerning the knowing mind the psychologist classifies its activities and their products as follows:

ActivityProduct
(1)Presentative
(1)SensationSensation
(2)PerceptionPercept
(2)Representative
(1)ImaginationImage
(2)Memory
(3)Thinking
(1)ConceptionConcept
(2)JudgingJudgment
(3)ReasoningInference

The notion as any product of the knowing mind includes the six products as indicated by the psychologist.

The individual notion which is intuitive includes the sensation, percept and image; the general notion which isa thought product stands for the concept, judgment and inference. To put it mathematically—

Individual notion= sensation
percept
image		=intuitive productsnotion
General notion= concept
judgment
inference		=thought products

As we shall have occasion frequently to refer to these psychological terms it may be well to define them.

Psychological Definition. Logical Definition.
A sensation is the first and simplest mental result of the stimulation of an incarrying nerve. A sensation is a vague, unlocalized mental product of the knowing mind.
A percept is a mental product which results from a consciousness of particular material things present to the sense. A percept is a consciously localized group of sensations.
An image is a mental product which results from particular material things not present to the sense. An image is a reproduced percept.
A concept is a representation in our minds answering to a general name. A concept is a mental product arising from thinking many notions into one class.
A judgment is the result of asserting an agreement or disagreement between two ideas. A judgment is the mental product arising from conjoining or disjoining notions.
An inference is a judgment derived from perceiving relations between other judgments. An inference is a judgment derived from antecedent judgments.

It is seen that the sensations furnish the raw material. Ignoring the few exceptions we may then say that a percept is a made-over group of sensations; a concept a thought-made group of percepts; a judgment a thought-made group of concepts; an inference a judgment derived from other judgments.

Developed thinking is first found in the concept, and as we study the thought products, “concept,” “judgment” and “inference,” the truth is forced upon us that thinking as a process aims to group the many into one.From many percepts is built the one concept, from two concepts is built the one judgment and from two judgments is built the one inference.[3]

Speaking figuratively, thinking is a matter of picking up the fragments along the shore of consciousness and tying them into bundles.

7. THOUGHT IN THE SENSATION AND PERCEPT.

So far in this discussion it has been assumed that there is no thinking involved in the sensation or the percept. There are good authorities, however, who insist on dignifying the sensation, even with a crude form of thinking. To illustrate: One may be reading an interesting novel. The mind is being entertained and ignores the activities of the objective world, yet we cannot say that the mind is dead to the world outside. There is a dim consciousness of certain noises without. These unlocalized sounds are sensations; but how is the mind able to recognize them as sounds or noises? To interpret the noises isit not necessary for the mind to affirm a connection between them and some past mental experience? Is it possible for the mind to know anything without establishing some kind of connection between the outside occurrence and an inner situation? If this is granted then in sensation there must be implicit thinking.

As the percept is a localized group of sensations then there must be involved in perception a more complex form of thinking, since in grouping sensations there is a recognition of connections.

If there is thinking in the sensation which is the simplest and lowest form of the knowing-mind then thinking conditions all knowledge and really is the basic elemental cell of all knowing.

On the other hand there are those who maintain that the sensation and percept are mere reflections of consciousness; the sensation being a reflected quality and the percept a reflected object. These mental situations come into being instantly—there is no time for thought and we all know that thought requires time. (“As quick as thought” is misleading, since light travels more rapidly by many times than the agencies of thought.)

It will probably never be settled to the satisfaction of all just when thinking commences. The question is as difficult as some others which have never been solved. For example: Where does life commence? When does the plant merge into the animal? Which was first the egg or the hen? Does the objective world really exist or is it only a mental interpretation of vibrations? etc.

Logically considered the question is immaterial. All will agree that developed thought is involved in the concept, judgment and inference, while, if it appears at all in the percept and sensation, it is more or less undeveloped and consequently lies quite without the province of the logical field.

8. EVOLUTION AND THE THINKING MIND.

Speaking in general terms evolution is a development from a lower to a higher state. Thus have come the various species of the vegetable and animal world. Thelower orders of life are simple in structure and function. In the one-celled animate form a single organ performs all of the work needed to maintain life and perpetuate the species. If these simple life-forms are cut in two, life continues in the two parts as if nothing had happened. Aside from their simplicity there is little of interdependence of function and little of co-ordination of organs in the lowest life-forms. In short there is no division of labor; “each cell is a world unto itself.”

An analogous development is seen in the thinking mind. The little child thinks in lumps, and these lumps are only faultily linked together, but the adult thinks in terms of the grains of the lump, each grain having its place, which it must occupy for the sake of all the other grains as well as the entire lump. The child’s thinking is vague, general and inaccurate, while the adult’s thinking should be definite, specialized and accurate. Thinking in the lump means little discrimination and very faulty integration or unity, while thinking in terms of the grains means detailed discrimination and perfect integration. To illustrate: The child sees a dog trotting along the side walk which, according to the suggestion of his mother, he learns to call “bow-wow.” Later he observes a cat and at once says “bow-wow,” because all that the child notes is that something with legs, ears and a tail is trotting along the side walk. Anything which fits these general marks is a “bow-wow.” Similarly when a child first observes a robin perched on a gate post he fails to distinguish between the two—it is all bird from the top of the robin’s head to the bottom of the gate post.

Progress in thinking is measured by progress in discrimination. The skilled thinker divides the large unit into very small units, compares these with each other and then reunites them into a more perfect and unified whole. First there is an analysis and then a synthesis. Like a shuttle the power of thought works in and out; it goes in to separate, it comes out to unify.

There is another aspect in the analogy between the life of the physical and mental worlds. Somewhere in the order of progress there is a connecting link between the mineral and vegetable kingdoms, likewise between the vegetable and animal kingdoms. The sensation is as much a state of feeling as an act of knowing and consequently is the connecting link between the feeling mind and the knowing mind.If the percept is the result of thinking as well as intuition then it may stand for the dividing line between the knowing[4] mind and the thinking mind.

9. THE CONCEPT AS A THOUGHT PRODUCT.

Conception is the process of thinking many notions into one class. The product of such a process is called a concept. (1) The concept may stand for a group of concrete general notions—as the concept man, which stands for the five general notions: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, Malay and American Indian. (2) The concept may stand for a group of concrete individual notions. For example, the same concept man represents all of the individual men of the world. (3) The concept may stand for a group of abstract general notions. To wit: Virtue represents such general notions as honesty, justice, industry, purity, etc. (These are general notions because they admit of a subdivision into kinds. Industry, for instance, may be dividedinto two kinds: mental industry and physical industry.) (4) The concept may stand for a group of abstract individual notions. To illustrate: Blueness stands for the various shades of blue, as sky blue, bird’s egg blue, navy blue, etc.

Thus does the concept stand for a group of all kinds of notions, individual and general, abstract and concrete.

THE PROCESS OF CONCEPTION ILLUSTRATED.

I see for the first time in my life a pencil. In other words I become conscious of a localized group of sensations—this is a percept. I am told that the name of that which I see is pencil. I note that this particular pencil has a thread of black lead encased in a cylindrical strip of wood which is brown in color. A second object is presented which I recognize as a pencil though the shape is prismatic rather than cylindrical and the color green rather than brown. But I call it a pencil because it has a thread of black lead encased in a strip of wood. The notion which I now have in mind stands for two pencils and is therefore represented by a class name. As I observe other pencils of various shapes, made of wood and paper with threads of different colored lead, my notion of pencil broadens till finally it stands for all pencils. This is the process of conception according to the definition, namely: “The process of thinking many notions into one class.” In this case the notions are individual.

An examination of conception makes evident two distinct characteristics.First, I may be able to recognize each individual pencil because of the two common qualities, a thread of lead and an encasement of some kind. This process of the knowing mind whereby it recognizes and affirms connections is called thinking as we have already learned. Here is the thinking aspect of conception. Second, as the instances of the observed objects are multiplied, my notion of pencil is broadened. It is a building process where many are cemented into one; like the blocks of a cement wall. Here we find the characteristic which enables us to call the process conception. This is the mark which distinguishes conception from all the other thought processes.

10. THE JUDGMENT AS A THOUGHT PRODUCT.

Judging is the process of conjoining and disjoining notions.The product of judging is the judgment and all judgments are expressed by means of propositions. A proposition consists of one subject and one predicate connected by some form of the verb be or its equivalent.

(1) A judgment may conjoin or disjoin two individual notions.

To wit: Conjoined—This pencil belongs to Albert White.

Disjoined—This pencil does not belong to Mary Smith.

(2) A judgment may conjoin or disjoin two general notions.

Conjoined—Some men are virtuous.

Disjoined—Some men are not virtuous.

(3) A judgment may conjoin or disjoin a general and an individual notion.

Conjoined—Abraham Lincoln was virtuous.

Disjoined—Edgar Allen Poe was not temperate.

In order that the knowing mind may conjoin notions it must recognize some mark of similarity or connection. This is the thinking aspect of the judgment. It is likewise to a certain degree the judging aspect as the latter is simply a matter of affirming or denying connections between notions. But thinking is a broader term than judging. There may be connections established between a name and a notion. For example in the case of the dog which the child sees trotting along the sidewalk and which the mother refers to as a “bow-wow”; the term “bow-wow” is not a percept and has no meaning independent of its association with the dog, hence it is not a notion, yet some connection has been made in the child’s mind between “bow-wow” and his notion of dog. This is a simple form of thinking, but not of judging, as the latter affirms or denies connections between notions only.

The fact that judging and thinking so closely resemble each other has given just cause for some logicians to designate judging as the most fundamental element in all thinking. “The simplest form of thinking,” says Creighton, “is judging.” In order to think many notions into one class it is necessary to conjoin notions. To illustrate: The child who has a general notion of man sees for the first time a negro. If he recognizes the negro as a colored man he must conjoin his general notion of man with this individual notion. In short, a concept is built by means of a series of judgments. It may be said furtherthat an inference is simply a made-over judgment. It is thus evident that judging appears in both the thought processes of conception and inference and, therefore, as a final conclusion it may be affirmed that judging, though perhaps not the simplest form of thinking, is the basic element of developed thought.

11. INFERENCE AS A THOUGHT PRODUCT.

Reasoning is the process of deriving a new judgment from a consideration of other judgments. The product of any reasoning process may be called an inference, although, as will appear in a later chapter, inference is commonly used as indicating the process as well as the product.

Often reasoning may assume a syllogistic form with the inference as its conclusion. A syllogism is an arrangement of three propositions using three different terms. The following are syllogisms:

(1) All children should play.

Mary is a child.

Hence, Mary should play.

(2) No teacher should judge hastily.

You are a teacher.

Hence, you should not judge hastily.

In the second syllogism the inference, “you should not judge hastily,” is derived from the other two judgments by merely eliminating the common term teacher and disjoining the remaining two terms. The inference is consequently a new judgment. Therefore, reasoning is only a matter of judging carried to a more complex stage.

To summarize—conception is largely a matter of conjoining a general notion with an individual notion, judging of conjoining and disjoining all kinds of notions and inference of conjoining and disjoining judgments. All three processes go to form the larger process of thinking. The concept, the judgment and the inference are products arising from conjoining and disjoining notions.

12. THINKING AND APPREHENSION.

Says Jevons: “Simple apprehension is the act of the mind by which we merely become aware of something,or have an idea or impression of it brought into the mind;” while Hyslop states that “The process of knowledge which gives us percepts is apprehension.” It is obvious that the idea of the latter is that apprehension yields individual notions only, while Jevons, in citing the term iron as an illustration of his definition, would infer that the general notion is the product of apprehension. The term is strikingly ambiguous and will not be referred to often in this treatise. If the student desires a definition this will cover the concensus of opinion on the meaning of apprehension. Apprehension is that process of the knowing mind which yields the percept and concept. Some logicians give to the thinking mind the three aspects of apprehension, judging and reasoning.

13. STAGES IN THINKING.

In all thinking there are three steps or stages which may be termed discrimination, comparison, integration.

In the case of the two pencils held in the hand, it is noted that one is longer than the other. Let us analyze the process which made possible this conclusion. Step one—Attention is given first to one pencil and then to the other. In each case the pencils are distinguished from the hand and the other surrounding objects. This is discrimination. Step two—The pencils are compared in length. Step three—The two notions are united in the judgment, “Pencil number one is longer than pencil number two.” This is integration.

Another illustration. The child is requested to solvethis problem: If 8 tons of hay cost $165, what will 16 tons cost?

Statement: Given: 8 tons cost $165.

Required: 16 tons cost?

Discrimination. The child notes that 8 tons cost $165 and at this rate he is required to find the cost of 16 tons.

Comparison. The child perceives that 16 tons is twice 8 tons.

Integration. The child concludes that the cost of 16 tons will be twice the cost of 8 tons or $330.

When we think, we first tear to pieces that we may become acquainted with every part. This may be called analysis. Then we put the related pieces together again. This may be called synthesis. Before, however, the parts are re-united a certain amount of comparison is necessary. The three stages of thought might thus be denominated: (1) analysis, (2) comparison, (3) synthesis.

After the synthesis or integration it is necessary to name the result, consequently a fourth step is sometimes given, namely denomination.

14. OUTLINE.

THOUGHT AND ITS OPERATION.

(1) The Knowing Mind Compared with the Thinking Mind.

(2) Knowing by Intuition.

(3) The Thinking Process.

Defined.

Other definitions.

(4) Notions.

Individual.

General.

Thing and object distinguished.

(5) Knowledge and Idea as Related to the Notion.

(6) The Logic of Psychological Terms Involved in the Notion.

The sensation
The percept
The image

Individual
notions.

The concept
The judgment
The inference

General
notions.

Terms defined.

(7) Thought and the Sensation and Percept.

(8) Evolution and the Thinking Mind.

(9) The Concept as a Thought Product.

(10) The Judgment as a Thought Product.

The simplest form of thinking.

(11) Inference as a Thought Product.

(12) Thinking and Apprehension.

(13) Stages in Thinking.

Discrimination.

Comparison.

Integration.

(Denomination.)

15. SUMMARY.

(1) Knowing is a broader term than thinking as the former equals the latter plus intuition.

(2) Intuitive knowledge is that which comes to the mind immediately by direct observation.

Although intuitive knowledge comes to the mind without thought, yet such knowledge is essential to all thinking. Intuitive knowledge is the foundation upon which the thinking mind builds.

(3) Thinking is the deliberative process of affirming and denying connections. Thinking is a “thickening process,” the smaller units being pressed together to make a larger. Thinking is chiefly a matter of reducing plurality to unity.

(4) A notion is any product of the knowing mind.

An individual notion is the notion of one thing.

A general notion is a notion of a class of things.

A thing includes objects, qualities, relations or any existing entity. A thing is that which has individual existence.

(5) A bit of knowledge must have been a notion of some one’s mind, but may not necessarily be a notion of your mind. Knowledge may be found in books, but a notion is a mental product found only in the mind. Idea is ambiguous, though its meaning is usually restricted to an image, a meaning or a belief.

(6) The products of the knowing mind are the sensation, the image, percept, concept, judgment, inference.

The sensation, image and percept are individual notions, while the concept, judgment and inference are general notions.

A sensation is a vague, unlocalized product of the knowing mind.

A percept is a consciously localized group of sensations.

An image is a reproduced percept.

A concept is a mental product arising from thinking many notions into one class.

A judgment is a mental product arising from conjoining and disjoining notions.

An inference is a judgment derived from antecedent judgments.

The developed thought processes are the concept, the judgment and the inference.

(7) Just where the simplest form of thinking appears in the various activities of the knowing mind is still an undecided question. It is agreed that thinking in its developed and more complex form is found in conception, judging and reasoning.

(8) Thinking evolves from the simple to the more complex, just as life has evolved.

The child thinks in vague, indefinite wholes, while the adult thinks in clear, definite parts. The child discriminates very imperfectly while the adult discriminates accurately.

The sensation seems to be the connecting link between the feeling mind and the knowing mind, while the percept links together the knowing mind and the thinking mind.

(9) Conception is the process of thinking many notions into one class. The product of such a process is a concept. The concept stands for groups of all kinds of objects.

Conception has the two aspects of affirming connections and of building many into one. The first is the thinking side of theprocess and the second is the mark which distinguishes conception from the other thought processes.

(10) Judging is the process of conjoining or disjoining notions. Judgment is the product of judging.

Judgments conjoin and disjoin all kinds of notions.

Judging and thinking, though they closely resemble each other, are not synonomous terms. Thinking is a broader term in that connections may be established between a notion and a name for that notion.