Literary Notices. XXX 
the procedure is now subject to different rules and limitations” (p. 5) 
it is true, but this is essential to any science of psychology; this is not 
another kind of psychology over and above so-called ‘‘individual psy- 
chology.” Individual psychology is not scientific psychology apart 
from this. There is no sczence of psychology which deals with the 
strictly psychic. 
Moreover, this view gets the author into difficulties when he 
comes to apply it to his doctrine of psychophysical evolution. ‘‘But 
now, and this is the essential point to remark in our present connec- 
tion, so soon as we ask the psychophysical question of genesis,—that 
of the development and evolution of mind and body taken together,— 
pursuing the biogenetic method, this limitation no longer rises. to 
trouble us. We include all psychophysical facts as such in the defini- 
tion of our science. Changes in mind and body go on together, and 
together they constitute the phenomena. Both organic and mental 
states and functions may be appealed to in our endeavor to trace the 
psychophysical series of events of such, since both are objective to the 
spectator, the scientific observer’ (p. 8). Accordingly, ‘‘with the gen- 
eral understanding now arrived at, we may take a preliminary survey 
of the field in the light of certain current hypotheses. Among these 
is what is known as ‘psychophysical parallelism’ ” (p.1o). ‘‘The prin- 
ciple of parallelism assumed, we claim once for all the right fo neglect 
the relation of the two terms, mental’ and physical, in all circumstances 
whatsoever” (p. 15). 
But how can we interchange the psychical and the physical if, 
by definition, the psychic facts are facts only ‘‘to the consciousness in 
which they occur?” The law that ‘‘for science all facts are equal’ 
does not mean that the physical and the psychical can be interchanged 
without changing the ‘‘point of view.’’ And if the author here does 
not mean the psychical by his term ‘‘mental,” then how does the dis- 
cussion become relevant to the doctrine of psychophysical parallelism ? 
What Professor BALDWIN seems to mean is that the same process 
of psychophysical evolution may be stated either as psychological or 
as biological, i. e., it may be interpreted from either of these egually 
objective points of view. But this has nothing in common with the doc- 
{rine of psychophysical parallelism. The latter, as he says elsewhere, 
is a question of ultimate philosophical interpretation, while the former 
is a question of division of labor in scientific method. Not that the 
' Note that the ambiguous term ‘‘mental,” so important at this juncture, is 
not defined. Does the author here mean “‘psychic’’ or ‘‘psychological ?”’ 
