DAVID ANDERSON-BERRY, ON HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY 13 



the former kind — self-evident principles and facts. The Mixed 

 sciences are built on self-evident principles, principles known to 

 have universal and necessary validity, and on facts of internal 

 and external perception known with equal certainty to be real 

 but with contingent knowledge. That is the first point I would 

 gravely emphasize, because herein lies the germ of all the errors 

 that have been or can be made ; as we shall see hereafter. 



Now for a moment consider the way in which we systematize 

 knowledge. It is by Induction and Deduction. There is an 

 erroneous maxim that says. In Induction we argue from the 

 particular to the general, whilst in Deduction we argue from the 

 general to the particular. I say " erroneous," for in reasoning 

 from the particular to the general we make a false inference 

 wherein the conclusion is broader than the premise ; whilst 

 reasoning from the general to the particular, as Mr. Mill says, 

 involves the vicious error of petitio principii. 



What ought we to do, then ? Begin with a principle or axiom. 

 Under such a principle facts are induced and arranged. This is 

 Induction. From such principles and the facts induced and 

 arranged under them conclusions are deduced. Thisis Deduction. 



Permit me to illustrate this by a simple illustration. " Things 

 equal to the same thing are equal to one another," is the principle. 

 A and B are each equal to C, are the facts. This is Induction. 

 Therefore A and B are equal to one another. This is Deduction. 



So much for Science or Knowledge systematized. We come next 

 to the field to be explored. The Mind. Some would say, the 

 Soul ; but that term holds a theological bias. Others, the Mind ; 

 but that connotes the dualistic antagonism between Mind and 

 Matter. And in this conflict we are not yet ready to take sides. 

 Still others, the Consciousness ; but in that there is the taint of 

 begging the question. Perhaps the best term is Experience, 

 meaning thereby the process of becoming expert by experiment. 



This brings me to the limitation in my title " Experimentally 

 considered.'' 



I do not pose as an expert in this subject, although many are the 

 experiments I have made on myself and on others. This course 

 of procedure dates back many more years than I care to number 

 to my clinical studies in the great St. Anne asylum in Paris and 

 under the direction of the famous Charcot at the Salpetriere 

 who honoured me by calling me " friend " ! In spite of all these 

 years of experience garnered from the great field of personal and 

 other-personal experiment I confess to being but a neophyte 



