Mat 1, 1908] 



SCIENCE 



709 



In a recent paper Loeb' has intimated that 

 even if the behavior of the organisms under 

 consideration were as complex as that of man, 

 tha same objective and experimental methods 

 must be used in analyzing it. To this I fully 

 agree, and the behavior of man is of course 

 no more to be excepted from this treatment 

 than is that of any other organism. In some 

 recent writings one finds indications of a 

 curious dualism, as if the behavior of lower 

 organisms were to be analyzed in the objective, 

 experimental way, but the behavior of higher 

 animals and man were not. This takes most 

 often the form of objection to any comparison 

 between the objective features of the behavior 

 of higher and lower animals, or to the use of 

 the same terms in speaking of them, with a 

 tendency toward accusations of vitalism or 

 " psychologizing," against those making such 

 comparisons. Such accusations evidently de- 

 pend on the premise that the behavior of 

 higher animals is to be explained only by 

 vitalism or by " psychologizing." When one 

 is tempted to accuse an opponent in such 

 ways, it is worth while to first examine whether 

 the tendency to read psychic or vital factors 

 into the phenomena does not lie in the mind 

 of the accuser, rather than in that of the 

 accused. When one has consciously and con- 

 sistently taken the ground that the behavior 

 of all organisms, including man, is to be an- 

 alyzed in the objective, experimental way, and 

 that there is no ground for expecting a failure 

 of this method at any point, there is less occa- 

 sion for anxiety at the use of similar terms 

 for similar objective phenomena throughout 

 the series. 



For example, the "method of trial and 

 error " is as much an objective phenome- 

 non, to be explained by experimentally de- 

 terminable factors, in the dog or man, as in 

 the infusorian. The undoubted great differ- 

 ences between the exemplifications of the 

 " method " at the two extremes are mat- 

 ters for experimental analysis and demon- 

 stration, if the experimental method is not 

 to fail. They do not necessarily show that 

 the fundamental principle involved is dif- 



'PflUger's ArcUv, 19C6, 115, p. 581. 



ferent, and it is this common fundamental 

 principle to which the common name calls 

 attention. How far we should avoid word3 

 that have ever had any psychic connotation 

 whatever is a matter on which there may be 

 divergence of opinion; but it is most impor- 

 tant to realize that this is totally distinct from 

 the question whether the psychic connotation 

 is of any use in objective experimental an- 

 alysis. If this distinction is lost sight of, 

 a divergence in practical details is taken for 

 a conflict in fundamental principles, to the 

 detriment of experimental science. That it 

 is impossible to avoid such words completely 

 is seen when we find in the writings of such 

 men as Loeb the frequent use of such terms 

 as " associative memory." Of course it is to 

 only the objective phenomena that Loeb re- 

 fers; but this is precisely the case also with 

 other experimentalists accused of similar prac- 

 tises I 



To sum up the discussion with the defenders 

 of the tropism theory: We all stand on the 

 same foundation, and the differences of opin- 

 ion are in matters of detail. In attempting 

 to demonstrate the complexity of the problems 

 of behavior, I have focused attention on a 

 certain precise and narrow form of the tropism 

 theory which seemed to me to have gained 

 undue prominence — in order to show that such 

 narrow schemata are inadequate. In so doing 

 other forms of the theory, more flexible in 

 * character, and setting forth the tropism as 

 but one factor out of many, have been thrown 

 into the background; of this the supporters 

 of the theory have justly complained. With 

 my main contention that behavior in the 

 lower organisms is complex, involving many 

 factors, so that no one schema gives an ade- 

 quate account of it, there seems to be little 

 disagreement. As to the value of the "local 

 action " theory there is still divergence of 

 opinion. 



And now a word as to my own positive con- 

 tributions to the analysis of the matter. It 

 is obvious that conclusions of the " statistical " 

 character that I have attributed to my own, 

 are, from their relative inapplicability to spe- 

 cific cases, of much less value than precisa 



