On the other hand, I do not know a psychological experiment which does not need a philosophical background to bring its results into sharp relief. Of course, you will say, the psychologist deals with facts, not with theories, and has to analyze and to describe and to explain those facts. Certainly he has to do all that; only he must not forget that the so-called "fact" in psychology is the product of complex transformations of reality. A will, an emotion, a memory-image, a feeling, an act of attention, of judgment, of decision--these are not found in the way in which stones and stars are noticed. Even if I choose perceptions or sensations as material for my psychological study, and still more when I call them _my_ perceptions and _my_ sensations, I mean something which I have found at the end of a long logical road, not at its starting-point, and that road certainly leads through philosophy. Emerson said wisely, "A philosopher must be more than a philosopher;" we can add: A psychologist must be more than a psychologist. First of all, he must be a philosopher. What would be the result if our laboratory had moved to the naturalistic headquarters? It would be the beginning of a complete separation from philosophy. Our graduate students would flock to psychological research work without even being aware that without philosophical training they are mere dilettantes. And soon enough a merely psychological doctorate would be demanded. I do not deny at all that such pure psychologists would find enough to do; I should doubt only whether they know what they are doing. There are too many psychologists already who go their way so undisturbed only because they walk like somnambulists on the edge of the roof; they do not even see the real problem; they do not see the depths to which they may fall. But does the laboratory itself gain from such divorce? Just the contrary. It is evident that everywhere in the world where the psychological laboratory turns to natural science, the experiments deal mostly with sensation, perception, and reaction; while those laboratories which keep their friendship with epistemology emphasize the higher mental functions, experimenting on attention, memory, association, feeling, emotion, thought, and so on. But is it not clear that only the latter work gives to the psychological laboratory a real right to existence, as the former is almost completely overlapped by the well-established interests of the physiologists? If psychology cannot do anything else than that which physiologists like Helmholtz, Hering, Kries, Mach, Bowditch, and the rest have always done so successfully, then experimental psychology had better give up the trade and leave the study of the mind to the students of the organism.