Bauhaus-Universität Weimar

Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Practice, Vol. II: Quantitative Experiments, part 2: Instructor's Manual
Titchener, Edward B.
4- Criticism 
faire aucune idée de ce que peut être la quantité de la sensation.’’1 
Delbœuf himself meets the objection as before.2 
Tannery had objected that the intensive S-series is not homogeneous. 
Delbœuf, in the heat of controversy, fails to grasp the situation. “ Qu’est- 
ce que cela prouve,” he replies, “ sinon que la sensation . . . n’est pas 
isolable?”3 Tbe objection is, however, very serious. It is taken up 
independently by J. Ward, Mind, i., 1876, 464 ff. "A host of other 
sensations—to say nothing of images reproduced—accompanies those, at 
the higher end [of the scale], sensations roughly recognised as the 
stimulating effect of strong light or the strain of heavy weights, and so 
forth. . . . Could all these be taken into account, a simple enough rela¬ 
tion might be found between their intensity and the intensity of the cen¬ 
tral movement [Fechner’s psychophysical process].” Fechner’s results 
are then explained in terms of J. Bernstein’s theory of central irradia¬ 
tion ;4 “ the mistake suspected is that the true intensity has been con¬ 
fused with a possible mode of estimating it, almost with our memory of 
the chief objects concerned in it—much as people might confound the 
intensity of a flood or a fire with the ground covered or the number of 
farms or houses destroyed." The intensive sensation, as Delbœuf ad¬ 
mitted, is not isolable, and so the results of measurement are not pure. 
The objection is put more strongly by R. H. Lotze, who declares that a 
strong sour does not taste the same as a weak, that a shadow does not 
look the same as its background : there are “ qualitative Veränderungen 
des Empfindungsinhalts, die von jenen [intensiven] Differenzen der Reize 
abhängen.”5 Nevertheless, "ich will,” remarks Lotze, “kein grosses 
Gewicht auf diese Bedenken legen ; ” only, they must be cleared away 
before we can admit the j. n. d. as the 5-unit.6 Cf. C. Sigwart, Logic, 
ii., 1895, 68. 
to the Étude, but to the Tannery letters. Cf. the summary of I. S., 1, in Rev. 
phil., 38 f. ; Examen, 78 f. 
1 Rev. phil., v., 1878, 61 ; Examen, 120. 
2 For details, see § 6, below. 
3 Éléments, 140. Cf. Examen, 33, 41 ; Rev. phil., iii., 1877, 243, 247. 
4 du Bois-Reymond’s Arch., 1868, 388 ff. ; Untersuchungen über den Erregungs¬ 
vorgang im Nerven- und Muskelsysteme, 1871, Absch. iv., 166 ff. Cf. I. S., 138 
ff.; G. E. Müller, G., 374 ff.; Funke, in Hermann’s Hdbch., iii., 2, 1880, 357. 
5 Metaphysik, 1879, § 258; 1884, 51t ff.; Outlines of Psych., (1881) 1886, 17. 
Cf. Medicinische Psychologie, 1852, 208. 
6 Wundt regards this “geänderte Fassung des Problems ” as “ kaum mehr als 
ein Wortunterschied,” “sobald man nur die quantitative Messbarkeit jener quali¬ 
tativen Unterschiede zugesteht”: P. S., ii., 12 f. ; P. P., i., 1902, 551 f. But 
whether we say outright that the ‘ intensive differences ’ of common speech are in 
truth qualitative differences, or simply posit a qualitative change along with the


Sehr geehrte Benutzer,

aufgrund der aktuellen Entwicklungen in der Webtechnologie, die im Goobi viewer verwendet wird, unterstützt die Software den von Ihnen verwendeten Browser nicht mehr.

Bitte benutzen Sie einen der folgenden Browser, um diese Seite korrekt darstellen zu können.

Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis.