I appeal to the shades of Aristotle and Bacon against scientific logic in the hands of Herr Parish. Here is his syllogism: A. is occasionally dreamy when _not_ crystal-gazing. A. is human. Therefore every human being, when crystal-gazing, is more or less asleep. He infers a general affirmative from a single affirmative which happens not to be to the point. It is exactly as if Herr Parish argued: Mrs. B. spends hours in shopping. Mrs. B. is human. Therefore every human being is always late for dinner. Miss X., I think, uplifted her voice in some review, and maintained that, when crystal-gazing, she was quite in her normal state, _dans son assiette_. Yet Herr Parish would probably say to any crystal-gazer who argued thus, 'Oh, no; pardon me, you were _not_ wholly awake--you were a-dream. I know better than you.' But, as he has not seen crystal-gazers, while I have, many scores of times, I prefer my own opinion. And so, as this assertion about the percipient's being 'dissociated,' or asleep, or not awake, is certainly untrue of all crystal-gazers in my considerable experience, I cannot accept it on the authority of Herr Parish, who makes no claim to any personal experience at all. As to crystal-gazing, when the gazer is talking, laughing, chatting, making experiments in turning the ball, changing the light, using prisms and magnifying-glasses, dropping matches into the water-jug, and so on, how can we possibly say that 'it is impossible to distinguish between waking hallucinations and those of sleep' (p. 300)? If so, it is impossible to distinguish between sleeping and waking altogether. We are all like the dormouse! Herr Parish is reasoning here _a priori_, without any personal knowledge of the facts; and, above all, he is under the 'dominant idea' of his own theory--that of _dissociation_.