An outline of psychology / [William McDougall].

  • McDougall, William, 1871-1938.
Date:
[1923]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: An outline of psychology / [William McDougall]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    26/490 (page 2)
    sciences is really advantageous; for it brings the workers in the several sciences into touch and co-operation one with another. The psychologist may and should study animal behavior; in doing so, he enters the field of the zoologist, needs his help and may hope to render some help in return. But he studies animals for the sake of the light which such study may throw upon his own problems, the problems of human nature. The relation of psychology to zoology is not unlike that of zoology to geology. The zoologist or biologist needs some knowledge of geology, and is able to make returns to the geologist for the help he gets from him; and there is a large field of overlap, the science of fossil remains or palaeontology, which is dependent upon and supple¬ mentary to both these more fundamental sciences. In a very similar way, the science of animal behavior stands between zoology and psychology, as a field of overlap which is dependent upon both and in which they may come into helpful relations. The other weakness of our definition of psychology, namely, that it may seem to claim too much and so encroach upon the field of anthropology, is no more serious. Anthropology, broadly conceived, concerns itself with man as an animal species. Within this wide science are several more special anthropological sci¬ ences, none of which can be sharply marked off from the more inclusive science or from one another; such are ethnology and human morphology and physiology. Psychology is a member of this group of anthropological sciences; it may be distinguished from the wider science of anthropology by saying that it is concerned, not with man as one animal species among others, but with man in his distinctively human aspect. Now every one knows that man is chiefly distinguished from the animals by his mental powers. Why not then be content (as some of the earlier writers were) to define psychology as the science of mind, or of the human mind, or of mind as manifested in the human species? There are several objections to such a definition. First, “mind” is a vague word, itself in need of definition. The meaning of the word can not be defined by pointing to one mind after another and saying: “This and this and this is what I mean by ‘a mind.’” Although the words “mind” and “mental” are in common usage, we can only gradually by prolonged study