276 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVII. No. 947 



essential features, is widely dominant in 

 scientific circles at the present time. I 

 propose, therefore, to make it the point of 

 starting for the consideration of two prob- 

 lems : First, What have modern psychology 

 and anthropology to say about this theory 

 of sense-perception and its resulting or 

 allied theory of knowledge? and, second, 

 "What results from the answer to the first 

 question as bearing upon a correct view of 

 the relations in which the work of psychol- 

 ogy and philosophy — the study of man — 

 stands to the work of the other positive 

 sciences ? 



But before we even propose in more 

 definite form these two problems, let us 

 consider in a word our right to group psy- 

 chology and anthropology together under 

 the common term, "the study of man." 

 That the two sciences have indeed some 

 special relations as affiliated and mutually 

 dependent and helpful branches of study, 

 the very fact of this sectional meeting 

 should seem to affirm. Indeed, so intimate 

 are the relations between the two that there 

 are points — and more than one of such 

 points — where it is difficult to draw a line 

 between them. If, for example, we speak 

 of anthropology as inclusive of a wide 

 range of sciences — physiology, ethnology, 

 archeology, ethics, religion, "the rise of 

 arts and science, and the history of civil- 

 ization" — of which psychology is only one, 

 we are met by the fact that psychology, too, 

 has spread itself over the same territory, as 

 affording feeding-ground for its insatiable 

 appetite. Thus we have come to speak of 

 physiological psychology, race psychology, 

 the psychology of ethics, art and religion 

 and of a so-called applied psychology, 

 which undertakes to instruct teachers how 

 to teach, doctors how to cure, lawyers how 

 to examine witnesses, and even over- 

 wrought and neuropathic women how to 



control their eccentric and pathological 

 tendencies. 



Nor can we claim that psychology, as at 

 present studied, confines itself to the men- 

 tal or subjective side of man, while anthro- 

 pology deals rather with the objective and 

 with man's place in nature. For anthro- 

 pology falls short of its highest mission 

 and most valuable opportunity, if it does 

 not itself make a study of the spiritual 

 evolution of the race. (I do not, of course, 

 employ the words "spiritual evolution" 

 with any cant or even definitely religious 

 significance.) Both psychology and an- 

 thropology fail of using the only method 

 of rendering themselves scientific, if they 

 do not proceed according to the lines 

 marked out by the conception of develop- 

 ment. But without further remark upon 

 this subject, we may perhaps agree upon 

 the conclusion that the one, psychology, is, 

 for scientific purposes, best defined as the 

 natural history of the individual mind, or 

 soul; and the other, anthropology, as the 

 natural history of the race. 



Even this attempt to distinguish the two, 

 when refiected upon from the modern sci- 

 entific point of view, shows all the more 

 clearly how intimate is the relation be- 

 tween them. The dependence of anthro- 

 pology upon psychology, as one of the sci- 

 ences which it must take into the account, 

 is pretty generally conceded. But what 

 is not so universally acknowledged is 

 equally true. This is the dependence of 

 psychology upon anthropology. No indi- 

 vidual man can fulfil the obligation of the 

 ancient motto, "Know thyself," without 

 something approaching a scientific knowl- 

 edge of the human species of which he is 

 a member; of the acquired or inherent in- 

 stincts, tendencies, inhibitions, naive as- 

 sumptions, emotional yearnings and stri- 

 vings, which make up the greater portion 

 of the influences controlling the so-called 



