One of the interesting and encouraging signs of our times is the fact that the several sciences are learning to develop and carry their own philosophy. Here psychology seems to me to be a bit backward. In this paper I am presuming to suggest that the time has come when the psychologist should take over the subject of theory of knowledge, emancipate it from the leading-strings of Mother Philosophy, and make it a phase of his own science and of its (...) organizing and interpretative philosophy. In fact, I am suggesting that thinking and knowing of whatever sort, even psychologizing and philosophizing, being matters of “mental” activity, are properly object matters for the psychologist, when he really knows his stuff; and I am presuming to say that he is now well enough advanced towards this goal so that he should accept this implied challenge and proceed to take possession of this most significant portion of his proper field. This should greatly enlarge the field of psychological experimentation; it should open up new areas, that are even more significant for our science than are animal psychology and the psychology of learning, as we have hitherto envisioned these; and it should result in a development of principles for the better organization of our findings in these fields. (shrink)

The logician has not been conspicuous for his contributions to scientific knowledge, nor has the scientist been noted for his knowledge of logic. One might readily infer from these observations that there is no necessary connection between science and logic, but I think he would be in error. As one who makes no claim to being either a scientist or a logician, I am perhaps well qualified to say something significant about the logic of science!