WUNDT AND ' PUEE SELF-OBSERVATION '. 395 fundt, therefore, says that " the subjective method has no success to boast of," a statement scarcely borne out by facts, he in only refer to the speculative method which naturally is as litless in psychology as it used to be, in its time, barren in the physical sciences. To justify his condemnation of systematic in- rospection, Wundt would have to show that the subjective method le speaks of was applied, unsuccessfully, in the sober way of close, ireful and repeated examination under a variety of conditions ; rat this he does not attempt to do, and this he could not do since believers in the " subjective " method are emphatic in dissoci- iting themselves from systematic introspection and on the same rounds as Wundt. Still, if it could be demonstrated that the experimental, or rather psycho-physical method, is successful, it would be of small iportance whether we do or do not neglect the method of sys- jmatic introspection. Wundt says that " the subjective method no success to boast of ; for there is hardly a single question fact upon which its representatives do not hold radically diver- jnt opinions " (p. 7). What has been the success, then, of the 'experimental" method? "Whether and how far," Wundt splies, " the experimental method is in better case, the reader be able to decide for himself at the conclusion of this work, [e must, however, in all justice remember that the application experiment to mental problems is still only a few decades old " . 7). The statement that the application of experiment to mental problems is still only a few decades old, is very true ; but youth done is no proof of success, though it may contain the promise of Plainly, believers in the subjective method, speculative or sientific, may retort in Wundt's own words, that the result of work of innumerable experimenters in almost innumerable iboratories is that " there is hardly a single question of fact upon rhich its representatives do not hold radically divergent opinions ". Tundt himself only refers to his book, not to commonly accepted lets, and hence it is possible, if not probable, that the " experi- lental " method may keep us in the wilderness, as the " sub- jective " method is said to be doing. Who knows where the flaw lay be in the psycho-physical method ? Perhaps the simple facts jxperimented upon are not simple at all. Perhaps the facts dealt rith can, and must, be border-facts which tell us nothing of the iterior. Perhaps the mathematical method may only be in place it the close of psychological inquiries and not at the beginning, finally, perhaps the "experimental" method must go hand in land with that of systematic introspection on a large scale, and is iseless if such introspection is not cultivated or is grossly self- leceptive. Who knows ? That we are in a dark wood is certain ; Dut that the experimental method will bring us out into the open id into the blessed sunlight, no one can hold except he walk by lith. Under these circumstances it is legitimate to plead, without in
