Logic, then, is a reflective science, and it is not surprising that it has held its place as one of the philosophical sciences.

CHAPTER XVII

PSYCHOLOGY

69.  PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY.—­I think I have said enough in Chapter II (section 10) about what we mean when we speak of psychology as a natural science and as an independent discipline.  Certainly there are many psychologists who would not care to be confused with the philosophers, and there are some that regard philosophy with suspicion.

Nevertheless, psychology is commonly regarded as belonging to the philosophical group.  That this is the case can scarcely be thought surprising when we see how the psychologist himself speaks of the relation of his science to philosophy.

“I have kept,” writes Professor James[1] in that delightful book which has become the common property of us all, “close to the point of view of natural science throughout the book.  Every natural science assumes certain data uncritically, and declines to challenge the elements between which its own ‘laws’ obtain, and from which its own deductions are carried on.  Psychology, the science of finite individual minds, assumes as its data (1) thoughts and feelings, and (2) a physical world in time and space with which they coexist, and which (3) they know.  Of course, these data themselves are discussable; but the discussion of them (as of other elements) is called metaphysics and falls outside the province of this book.”

This is an admirable statement of the scope of psychology as a natural science, and also of the relations of metaphysics to the sciences.  But it would not be fair to Professor James to take this sentence alone, and to assume that, in his opinion, it is easy to separate psychology altogether from philosophy.  “The reader,” he tells us in the next paragraph, “will in vain seek for any closed system in the book.  It is mainly a mass of descriptive details, running out into queries which only a metaphysics alive to the weight of her task can hope successfully to deal with.”  And in the opening sentence of the preface he informs us that some of his chapters are more “metaphysical” than is suitable for students going over the subject for the first time.

That the author is right in maintaining that it is not easy to draw a clear line between philosophy and psychology, and to declare the latter wholly independent, I think we must concede.  An independent science should be sure of the things with which it is dealing.  Where these are vague and indefinite, and are the subject of constant dispute, it cannot march forward with assurance.  One is rather forced to go back and examine the data themselves.  The beaten track of the special science has not been satisfactorily constructed.

We are forced to admit that the science of psychology has not yet emerged from the state in which a critical examination of its foundations is necessary, and that the construction of the beaten path is still in progress.  This I shall try to make clear by illustrations.