Many social scientists report that they find it difficult to frame adequate definitions of the important terms of the field. At present they are definition-shy. It is the purpose of this paper to show that this avoidance reaction is neither necessary nor desirable as a means for advancing social science. In order that this be made clear, an analysis of an important term will be presented. First, however, a few preparatory questions about the technique of defining must be asked and answered.

In a survey of information theory and some of its implications, Warren Weaver has proposed a distinction between engineering (or channel) noise and semantic noise (1: 94–117). Ordinary Spanish usage reflects this distinction quite neatly. If A speaks to B and B responds with no entiendo, it means ‘I have not heard your words, because of interfering sound or lack of attention; please transmit the same message again’; if he responds with no comprendo, it means ‘I heard you all right, but what I heard doesn't make sense; please paraphrase or explain.’ Channel noise, thus, is the responsible factor when that which leaves a transmitter is not that which reaches the receiver; semantic noise is a discrepancy between the codes used by transmitter and receiver.

Heisenberg's (3) principle of indeterminacy or uncertainty has led most theoretical physicists and philosophers to two important steps: 1) the denunciation of the law of physical causality; 2) the decision of biological and psychological problems in favor of indeterminism.

Science is one faith and has one great commandment. The faith is simply that man can control his future in his own interest. In the face of the appalling discrepancy between the powers of the natural and the social sciences, a discrepancy that leads to visions of man's liquidation by man, the assertion is nevertheless made that the remedy for the consequences of science is more science. The long record of scientific victories in the past gives some warrant, let us suppose, for faith in continued victory, but at bottom there is no compelling proof. There never has been, and, I make bold to say, there never will be. The role of scientist in the human drama always contains lines reminiscent of Prometheus; an utterly nonrational belief in ultimate triumph lends him strength to confront what to others may seem a hopeless future. (This entire paper is so condensed as to be almost elliptical at many points. Fortunately, the writer has dealt with several of the topics touched upon in his recent book, Through Values to Social Interpretation. (3) The frequency with which it will appear in the references is not because the writer regards it as of major importance, but because it dovetails more neatly with this paper than do many other more significant books. Moreover, it has fairly full footnote and chapter bibliographies. The statements in the non-parenthetical part of this paragraph are good examples of the near-elliptical character of much of what is said here. Expansion is badly needed, but the reader must be referred to (2) ch. vi of (3). The position represented is not new; many writers, among them William James, have held it in various ways.)

It is a commonplace in the analytic geometry of physical space-time that an extended straight line segment, having positive length, is treated as “consisting of” unextended points, each of which has zero length. Analogously, time intervals of positive duration are resolved into instants, each of which has zero duration.

We wish to give a precise formulation of the intuitive concept: The degree to which the known facts (the evidence) support a given hypothesis.

In this paper we propose to characterize Chauncey Wright's empirical psychology, or “psychozoology” as he called it, from a methodological standpoint. By a methodological characterization of any science we mean an analysis of its structure as distinguished from its actual findings. We mean, for example, a description of the kind or type of variable and law in any science as distinguished from the actual particular content of any defined variable or discovered law. This distinction between variables and the laws which obtain between them is, as a matter of fact, itself a methodological description of the findings of science. Wright, it is true, did not discuss the subject matter of psychology from a methodological point of view, perhaps because he was involved in developing the body of knowledge itself. On the other hand, his discussions of physics and chemistry, areas in which the subject matter was well developed, took a methodological turn (9, pp. 201, 43–96). Regardless of Wright's own practice, however, the methodological implications of his contribution in actual theory to “empirical” psychology remain, and drawing these implications is one means by which we will show the significance of his work relative to the development of psychological concepts and laws. We will consider what specific ways his position is similar to, and different from, the later American functionalists' views on these matters and on the problem of causal interaction between physical and phenomenal events. Any similarity will perhaps gain in significance if, as it is further claimed, there is an actual historical influence of Wright on Dewey, the most noted functionalist.