How to Think by Arthur D. Fearon, Ph.D. (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 109 die with this the contradictory statement: "There is no denying the fact that in Thomism there is a preponderance of the deductive method” (p. 106). It seems that the author of these statements wanders too far from the spirit of St. Thomas and of all the Scholastics in favoring an inductive metaphysics, which means the ruin of any certitude in metaphysics and the subordination of metaphysics to the sciences. There are some very vague statements on p. 104, which emphasize this inductive metaphysics still more. Scholastics must never forget that "demonstratio quia” (or a posteriori) and "inductio” and "inductive method” are decidedly different forms of scientific method. Finally, it should be mentioned that the last chapter on St. Thomas and the development of modern science is particularly blind to the historical development of the sciences, and Duhem’s research is completely overlooked. The remarks on Albert the Great are interesting, but he is certainly not a representative of Thomism; for in his psychology he is more of a Platonist than any of the so-called Augustinians. This critical comment is not intended, however, to deny that the book has real merits. Several times the authors point out the necessity of progress and the fault of the past for having rested solely on what was inherited. There can be no doubt that the broad outlines of a philosophia perennis are well established, but they need constant overhauling in contact with modern thought. St. Thomas certainly commands our admiration for having done precisely this in his own time. Ph il o t h e u s B o e h n e r , O. F. M. St. Bonaventure College, St. Bonaventure, N. Y. How to Think. By Arthur D. Fearon, Ph.D. (San Francisco, Cal.: College Publishing Company, 1943. Pp. 194. Paper, $1.50; cloth, $2.00.) The chief value of this book lies in the emphasis it places on Logic as an art, as opposed to Logic as a science. We agree with the author that "too much emphasis cannot be put on the necessity of cultivating the art of correct thinking which is applied logic.. . . Logic, as usually taught in college, is the science, but not the art of Logic. The student is usually left to himself to apply as best he may the rules of thinking learned in the science of logic” (p. 4 ). One cannot help recalling the old scholastic division of logic into Logica docens and Logica utens, which, for all practical pur­ poses, seems to be so largely forgotten in our modern neo-Sdiolastic text­ books. (Cf., for example, the first question of Scotus* Super Universalia Porphyrii, viz., Utrum logica sit scientia?, and the long commentary by Father Mauritius Hibernicus [Vives ed., tom. 1, pp. 50 et seq.}). Either con­ sciously or unconsciously, Dr. Fearon has been influenced by this traditional idea, and has done teachers of logic a real service in recalling this dis­ tinction to mind. Obviously, it would be an injustice to judge this little handbook on the assumption that it is meant to be a text-book of formal logic. For nothing is further from the author’s intention. He explicitly states that he "shall write a very incomplete book on logic.” His purpose is "to stress the im­ portant points” and to help his readers to "acquire ease in applying the rules 110 FRANCISCAN STUDIES of thinking” (p. 6). To achieve this end, Dr. Fearon has devoted about half the book to topics not usually associated with logic as such. There are sections on "How to Analyse,” "How to Associate,” "How to Memorize,” "How to Succeed." The section entitled "How to Reason” devotes 56 pages to logic properly so-called (Propositions and Syllogisms) and 48 pages to what is called "Skills for Good Reasoning” (How to test a syllogism to see whether it is good or bad reasoning; How to examine each word for its meaning, etc.). The practical angle, as is to be expected, is emphasized throughout and the importance of doing many exercises is consistently reiterated. Specimen examples of such exercises accompany each new topic dealt with, but unfortunately they are not of uniform value. There...