﻿MAR. 
  19, 
  1922 
  troland: 
  psychophysics 
  the 
  key 
  of 
  physics, 
  etc. 
  153 
  

  

  topsy 
  turvy. 
  Nevertheless, 
  if 
  it 
  is 
  accepted 
  and 
  its 
  implications 
  

   followed 
  it 
  will 
  be 
  found 
  to 
  clarify 
  and 
  to 
  simplify 
  our 
  entire 
  concep- 
  

   tion 
  of 
  the 
  universe. 
  It 
  can 
  solve, 
  firstly 
  certain 
  profound 
  mysteries 
  

   into 
  which 
  we 
  are 
  led 
  by 
  modern 
  physics, 
  the 
  mystery 
  of 
  electricity, 
  

   the 
  riddle 
  of 
  relativity, 
  and 
  — 
  I 
  am 
  inclined 
  to 
  believe 
  — 
  the 
  enigma 
  

   of 
  the 
  quantum 
  theory; 
  secondly, 
  it 
  will 
  obliterate 
  the 
  dualism 
  of 
  

   mind 
  and 
  matter 
  by 
  actually 
  explaining 
  the 
  relation 
  of 
  psychophysical 
  

   parallelism 
  upon 
  a 
  monistic 
  basis; 
  and 
  thirdly 
  it 
  will 
  provide 
  us 
  with 
  

   an 
  organon 
  for 
  the 
  systematic 
  and 
  rational 
  study 
  of 
  the 
  real 
  universe 
  

   which 
  lies 
  beyond 
  our 
  own 
  individual 
  experiences. 
  

  

  A 
  theory 
  possessing 
  powers 
  such 
  as 
  we 
  have 
  just 
  alleged 
  should 
  be 
  

   expected, 
  once 
  it 
  was 
  clearly 
  formulated, 
  to 
  take 
  the 
  philosophical 
  

   world 
  by 
  storm. 
  Sad 
  to 
  relate, 
  this 
  expectation 
  seems 
  doomed 
  to 
  

   disappointment. 
  The 
  father 
  of 
  psychophysics, 
  G. 
  T. 
  Fechner, 
  stated 
  

   the 
  doctrine 
  in 
  principle 
  in 
  1863. 
  W. 
  K. 
  Clifford 
  rediscovered 
  it 
  

   in 
  1878. 
  Alfred 
  Barrat 
  evolved 
  practically 
  the 
  same 
  doctrine 
  in 
  1883 
  

   but 
  his 
  book 
  seems 
  quite 
  unknown 
  to 
  any 
  other 
  writers 
  on 
  the 
  subject. 
  

   Independently 
  in 
  1885 
  it 
  was 
  evolved 
  by 
  Dr. 
  Morton 
  Prince. 
  But 
  in 
  

   1903 
  and 
  1905 
  it 
  was 
  elaborately 
  expounded 
  practically 
  without 
  reference 
  

   to 
  previous 
  expositions, 
  by 
  C. 
  A. 
  Strong 
  and 
  G. 
  Heymans, 
  respectively. 
  

   Only 
  two 
  English 
  speaking 
  psychologists, 
  Stout 
  and 
  McDougall, 
  

   have 
  taken 
  any 
  cognizance 
  of 
  the 
  doctrine, 
  although 
  it 
  eliminates 
  

   difficulties 
  concerning 
  the 
  discussion 
  of 
  which 
  psychologists 
  have 
  

   wasted 
  thousands 
  of 
  pages 
  of 
  manuscript. 
  I 
  worked 
  out 
  the 
  theory 
  

   myself 
  in 
  great 
  elaboration, 
  probably 
  from 
  suggestions 
  contained 
  in 
  

   Paulsen's 
  Introduction 
  to 
  Philosophy 
  in 
  my 
  undergraduate 
  days. 
  

   Heymans' 
  book, 
  which 
  appeals 
  to 
  me 
  as 
  being 
  the 
  keenest 
  discussion 
  

   of 
  metaphysical 
  problems 
  which 
  I 
  have 
  ever 
  read, 
  appears 
  to 
  be 
  en- 
  

   tirely 
  unknown 
  in 
  the 
  department 
  of 
  philosophy 
  at 
  Harvard 
  and 
  at 
  

   no 
  time 
  during 
  my 
  own 
  study 
  in 
  that 
  department 
  do 
  I 
  remember 
  

   having 
  heard 
  the 
  theory 
  of 
  psychical 
  monism 
  mentioned 
  even 
  cas- 
  

   ually. 
  

  

  The 
  failure 
  of 
  the 
  doctrine 
  to 
  take 
  root 
  in 
  the 
  minds 
  of 
  philosophers 
  

   and 
  psychologists 
  is 
  due 
  I 
  believe 
  to 
  their 
  habitually 
  fuzzy 
  methods 
  

   of 
  thinking. 
  It 
  is 
  a 
  doctrine 
  much 
  better 
  adapted 
  in 
  form 
  to 
  the 
  

   mathematical 
  mind 
  of 
  the 
  physical 
  scientist. 
  But 
  although 
  the 
  

   form 
  will 
  suit 
  the 
  physicist 
  the 
  substance 
  unfortunately 
  probably 
  

   will 
  not 
  do 
  this. 
  Here, 
  again, 
  it 
  may 
  fall 
  upon 
  barren 
  soil, 
  but 
  I 
  am 
  

   trying 
  the 
  experiment 
  of 
  sowing 
  it 
  there 
  now. 
  

  

  