A John Dewey source page

Originally published as:

John Dewey. "The St. Louis Congress of the Arts and Science" Science, New Series, Vol. 18 (1903): 665.

Editors' notes

The first academic conference to feature Social Psychology on its schedule was staged as part of the St. Louis World's Fair in 1904. The format of the conference was designed by Hugo Münsterberg, and created a small controversy, documented here.

Site Navigation

The St. Louis Congress of the Arts and Science

To THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE : In the number of SCIENCE for August 28, I occupied considerable space in raising certain questions suggested by Dr. Munsterberg's article on the St. Louis Congress in the May number of the Atlantic Monthly. I objected

1. To Dr. Munsterberg's basing the working classification and grouping of the schedule or program of that Congress upon a scheme of philosophical methodology (of which he himself happened to be the author), and

2. To the representation made in the article that the Committee on the Congress had given his methodology an official sanction and endorsement by arranging a program upon its basis.

In what purports to be a reply in SCIENCE for October 30, Dr. Munsterberg elaborately ignores the objection I raised and as elaborately attributes and refutes a position which I neither took nor even suggested. The objection which he attributes to me is upon its face either a matter of minor importance or else is absurd. This is an objection to the actual working classification and grouping adopted for the conduct of the Congress. It does not require two pages of SCIENCE to point out that such an objection is trivial if taken to mean an objection to just this or that number and set of divisions, departments and sections; and absurd if taken to mean objection to any classification and grouping whatsoever. Nor does it require a careful reading of my SCIENCE article to discover that I never entertained such objections.

While I regret that Dr. Munsterberg has raised an irrelevant issue, instead of discussing the matter on its merits, I yet take one consolation from his article. His ignoring the real point of my objection suggests that as a matter of fact the philosophical methodology set forth in such a prominent way in the May Atlantic has ceased to have (if it ever had) any bearing upon the actual conduct of the Congress; and that what now exists is just a certain working classification, whose exact merits, as I have just indicated, area matter of detail and not of principle. In that case, while some explanation would seem to be due the editor and readers of the Atlantic Monthly, the scientific men of the country may rest reasonably content.

JOHN DEWEY.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.

Notes

No notes

The original published version of this document is in the public domain. The Mead Project exercises no copyrights over the original text.

This page and related Mead Project pages constitute the personal web-site of Dr. Lloyd Gordon Ward (retired), who is responsible for its content. Although the Mead Project continues to be presented through the generosity of Brock University, the contents of this page do not reflect the opinion of Brock University. Brock University is not responsible for its content.

Fair Use Statement:

Scholars are permitted to reproduce this material for personal use. Instructors are permitted to reproduce this material for educational use by their students.

Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, for the purpose of profit or personal benefit, without written permission from the Mead Project. Permission is granted for inclusion of the electronic text of these pages, and their related images in any index that provides free access to its listed documents.