A plea for the conjoined study of mental science and practice : being the introductory lecture to a course of medical psychology / by Thomas Laycock.

  • Thomas Laycock
Date:
1866
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A plea for the conjoined study of mental science and practice : being the introductory lecture to a course of medical psychology / by Thomas Laycock. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    4/16 (page 4)
    The first questions to determine are—in what respects does medi- cal psjmhology differ from psychology proper ?—and why may not mental diseases be best studied apart from either ? In answering these questions comparisons are unavoidable and may appear odious; I trust, however, a statement of the facts will not be considered as an unfair or ungenerous disparagement of either the one or the other method of study. And I would add that, as to medical psy- chology, I s])eak of it exclusively as taught from this chair. We may define medical psychology as the science of the relations of the body and mind of man; it may therefore be considered the highest division of that great group of sciences which deal with life and its phenomena. As a science, it can only comprehend that which can be observed “ re vet menteF Consequently the future state of man is beyond its sphere; so also all researches as to the soul considered apart from the body, and all the speculative sys- tems which deal with phenomena beyond the reach of observation and witliin the domain of thought exclusively. With none of these can medical psychology have relations further than this—that it offers in its facts and conclusions, as a science, a solid ground for speculation and thought. Herein is a first ground of difierence be- tween medical and speculative psychology. This as to its sphere; but as a distinct science it has its own method and principles. It seeks to know all that can be known as to the relations of the mind and body of man by means appropriate thereto; to arrange its knowledge in the order best fitted for thought, observation, and practice; and to point out its applications. This is a second ground of difference from tlie current systems. They do not profess to be founded on observation, but on thought; they have, therefore, no methods of observation and no knowledge of the relations of body and mind to arrange and apply. I fully admit that in the study of mental diseases apart from medical psychology these relations are examined, and I think few, if any, of the current systems of psychology and mental philosophy wholly ignore them. But in no instance within my knowledge are those relations investi- gated according to a truly scientific method. In the ordinary study of mental diseases we learn generally that they are caused by bodily changes occurring either in the brain itself, or in the nervous system in general, or in the blood, or in various organs which sympathise with the brain, or in several or all of these conjointly; and we understand how necessary it is to remedy these bodily changes if we would effectually relieve or cure the mental disease and defect. The whole of this knowledge is, however, derived from experience, which is often fallacious when not guided by scientific principles even in the simplest business of life, but is peculiarly so in dealing with the highly complex phenomena of mind. Hence the practitioner in mental diseases has too often to grope his way along a dimly lighted road, beset with pitfalls, without the guidance of those principles