ABSTRACT

FromthisitseemsclearthatitwouldnotdotocriticizeMeyerson's theoryonthebasisofinstancesofscientistsandotherinvestigators notthinkingasMeyersonsays.Onthecontrary,relevantevidence wouldbeevidenceshowingthatinsuchinstancestheinvestigator's thinkingwasspontaneousandaccordingtonaturalinclination.In

other words, in order to refute Meyerson, we should have to advance, not only empirical facts, but empirical facts having psychological significance, facts indicating that the natural tendencies of the mind so far as inquiry is concerned must be different from what Meyerson has said they are.