The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities by F. C. S. Northrop (review)

BOOK REVIEWS The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities. By F. C. S. NoRTHROP. New York: Macmillan, 1948. Pp. 416, with index. $6.00. The new book of the distinguished philosopher of Yale is not a presentation of the logical principles underlying the work of either science or the humanities; insofar, it cannot be compared to such treatises, for example, to the parts of the Handbuch der Philosophie by Weyl and Rothacker respectively. Professor Northrop prefers to unite several essays, some previously published and all dealing with his subject, yet not integrated into a consistent text. Repetitions and gaps result. Particularly, the name " humanities " does not refer here to the whole field it usually denotes ; the author is more concerned with normative disciplines than with elucidating the procedures of, say, linguistics or history. In meeting the world in which he finds himself, man encounters problems of many kinds. These he desires to solve and his endeavors result in inquiry. The most important and most difficult task is to initiate inquiry in the right manner. In a passage reminiscent of the opening lines. of the De Ente, the author declares that the consequences of a false start cannot be compensated for later by whatsoever rigor of procedure. Contrary to the opinion of many, it is not the method which determines the problem but is determined by it. The false view leads to the rejection of legitimate problems as " pseudo-problems," simply because they do not allow the use of some definite method. Particularly necessary of realization is that besides factual there are also normative problems. Normative social theories are indispensable; without them the idea of bettering the world becomes meaningless. Yet, problems of this kind cannot be handled by the methods of science. The treating of every problem, says Dr. Northrop, proceeds in three stages: analysis of the problem, collection of relevant facts (inductive stage), and designation of relevant theories. At this point the value of the book would have been enhanced by discussion of the varieties of problems; the reader would appreciate knowing especially whether the author considers the method of science as adequate to all factual problems and inadequate only to those of a normative nature, or whether he is willing to concede that facts are so differentiated among themselves that other than strictly scientific methods must be devised. The question of an eventual diversity of methods within the empirical disciplines is important, today perhaps more than before. Some branches of knowledge which have enjoyed respectability would definitely lose their fl41 242 BOOK REVIEWS standing should the scientific method solely validate factual observation as reliable knowledge. There are many who are desirous of achieving " scientific " standards for their special disciplines and who further believe that this can be done only by assimilating their methods as far as possible to that of science proper. There are others, however, who feel that the " humanities " and even psychology, all that have lately been named "human studies" (as a translation of Dilthey's Geisteswissenschaften by Professor Hodges of Reading University) demand a methodology of their own,, not fashioned on the pattern of physics. The question, although of great interest, is not brought within the scope of the present book. Facts, as studied in the second stage of inquiry, are first "immediately apprehended " and, by being brought under concepts, become " described facts." Professor Northrop calls this the stage of "natural history." The immediately given is ineffable; it can be apprehended and pointed to, but not stated. In commenting upon this feature, Dr. Northrop arrives at a rather startling conclusion. He claims ineffability to be " the defining property of the mystical "; he also declares that therefore " the purely factual . . . positivistic component " of knowledge is the mystical factor and that the " pure empiricists are the mystics of the world, the Orientals." It is regrettable that the precise meaning of" mystical" is not made clear. As it stands, the sentence is hardly acceptable. Ineffability may be one feature of the mystical; it does not follow therefrom that everything ineffable is to be labelled mystical. Ineffability is primarily linked with individuality while all predication is effected by means of universals. Insofar, the individual item is irrational; yet...