RATS AND MEN 355 



chology from its mysticism this bouquet has been lost, 

 one is perhaps tempted to cover up the deficiency by 

 pasting the old label on the outside of the bottle. 



But is awareness itself necessarily a mystic es- 

 sence ? Is it possible to remove the mysticism and still 

 have left a consciousness, introspectively experienced, 

 which articulates with the rest of natural science in 

 both the biological and the psychological realms? The 

 latter question seems to be answered in the negative 

 by most of the objective psychologists. This seems 

 incomprehensible to the biologist. It may possibly be 

 explained as a defense reaction. Having waged a bit- 

 ter (and successful) fight to secure recognition of ob- 

 jective methods in psychological laboratories, it is 

 not unnatural that they should break off all relations 

 with the introspectionists as soon as they are in a posi- 

 tion to do so. Though this may be good tactics at the 

 moment, it does not follow that it is good scientific 

 method. 



In my conversations with some of the behaviorists 

 I experience great difficulty in finding a common 

 ground for discussion, and this apparently rests on 

 some subtle differences in definition of terms which 

 have not been clearly expressed. These psychologists 

 have found the metaphysical postulates of some of the 

 older psychological schools so out of harmony with 

 any possible scientific approach that they seem in- 

 capable of appreciating that consciousness may be 

 and is a recognizable phenomenon, even though we 



